Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The APU attemped autostart. Possible explanation for the "partial handshake" ?
I've no idea how much it burns, or how it's hooked into the fuel system.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oxford, UK
Age: 45
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
Re debris, only a ship retrieval can confirm anything seen by sat or other is related, considering there's still a shed load of junk working its way towards the US from the Japanese tsunami.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: debris found
There is not just one of those rectangular objects, there are 11.
"A cluster of 11 white rectangular objects is sitting just below the surface about 1600 kilometres west of Perth"
from: Coloured objects spotted in MH370 search area - Yahoo!7
Anyone know what they could be? Are there white plastic panels in a B777 that would match this description or what? Article doesn't state size at all.
"A cluster of 11 white rectangular objects is sitting just below the surface about 1600 kilometres west of Perth"
from: Coloured objects spotted in MH370 search area - Yahoo!7
Anyone know what they could be? Are there white plastic panels in a B777 that would match this description or what? Article doesn't state size at all.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Dharan
Age: 66
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel consumption
Call me stupid but:
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!
Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?
Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!
Do they mean flew with a higher Fuel flow????
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!
Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?
Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!
Do they mean flew with a higher Fuel flow????
Last edited by buttrick; 28th Mar 2014 at 23:25.
Call me stupid but:
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!
Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!
Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...ml#post8406162
and come back if you still don't understand.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Call me stupid but:
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!
Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?
Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!
They think it flew faster for the same amount of time, but didn't travel as far!!
Does that sound right, or have they got something the wrong way round?
Previous answers to this question do not make sense either!
speed and distance are linear, speed and energy are non linear square law type of relationship.
another words if you increase your speed the distance travelled per unit of time will increase proportionally. But to get more speed you need a sh!t more go go juice, hence it runs out quicker, a lot quicker, hence you don't go as far.
Now theres heaps more in it than that from a aircraft viewpoint, but its morning and I'm still getting coffee
Inother words if you increase your speed the distance travelled per unit of time will increase proportionally. But to get more speed you need a sh!t more go go juice, hence it runs out quicker, a lot quicker, hence you don't go as far.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I remember correctly, the aircraft would not have run out of fuel at the point where it crossed the final ping arc on the earlier estimates; didn't they say it had 30 minutes to an hour of fuel left?
It may be that the new estimate now has it running out of fuel on the final arc, which seems likely to be the case.
It may be that the new estimate now has it running out of fuel on the final arc, which seems likely to be the case.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be that the new estimate now has it running out of fuel on the final arc, which seems likely to be the case.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: California
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They flew faster than expected during the first 2 hours. Which means that they had less fuel left than expected. Which means that they had to fly slower than expected for the remaining 6-ish hours if they were to stay airborne for the duration.
Also, since the last known position (just under 2 hours into the flight, 18:22 UTC) is fixed by the radar, the fact that they flew faster before that point does not put them any further out.
Also, since the last known position (just under 2 hours into the flight, 18:22 UTC) is fixed by the radar, the fact that they flew faster before that point does not put them any further out.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The media wording about the increased speed and fuel usage is particularly bad.
The original explanation of the latest new crash position calculation, that I believe, explains the reduced distance travelled - is that the aircraft initially used more fuel than originally estimated, because revised calculations of the flight path, speed and height, in the sector between where the aircraft initially diverted from its flight plan, to the point where it was last sighted on radar, showed an increased fuel burn over initial calculations.
This then left less fuel to burn between last radar sighting point, and fuel starvation point. The new calculations obviously pick up increased flight phugoid movements or perhaps even throttle position changes.
Spare a thought for those doing the calculations, with so little real information from the flight deck.
The original explanation of the latest new crash position calculation, that I believe, explains the reduced distance travelled - is that the aircraft initially used more fuel than originally estimated, because revised calculations of the flight path, speed and height, in the sector between where the aircraft initially diverted from its flight plan, to the point where it was last sighted on radar, showed an increased fuel burn over initial calculations.
This then left less fuel to burn between last radar sighting point, and fuel starvation point. The new calculations obviously pick up increased flight phugoid movements or perhaps even throttle position changes.
Spare a thought for those doing the calculations, with so little real information from the flight deck.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a confusing post (the arc's bit is irrelevant to the equation, its only relevant to the distance traveled or the final location).
If the aircraft traveled faster, then it would have run out of fuel earlier, so the "time" part of the equation IS shorter (lower).
If the aircraft traveled faster, then it would have run out of fuel earlier, so the "time" part of the equation IS shorter (lower).
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it very hard to understand why almost a whole week's time and effort was spent searching an area 2500 miles from Perth, when a better analysis of the satellite communications data on Friday now suddenly puts the most likely site of the crash to be 700 miles closer to the coast.
There are only eight hourly points in a time series giving distance and speed away from the satellite. Given that the radar data in the early stages of the flight is - at best - of very modest use, why did it take a week to make the fix?
There are only so many possible speeds; follow a swarm of consistent Monte Carlo-ed paths to the best place to search, and don't be distracted by various random pictures of whitecaps taken by random satellites from random countries.
It would seem to be long past time to release the full set of distance and speed values from the Inmarsat system and allow the world's spring-breaking students to mail in a guess. They couldn't do much worse.
There's also the issue of the lack of information about the time of flight after 0811, other than to say that it didn't extend as far as 0911. It could be anywhere from ~100km to ~900km. None of the search box plots include this degree of uncertainty along the track. Is this reported partial call after 0811 being assumed to be a clear sign of the first engine running dry, or is it wanting to present an unduly optimistic picture to the press?
There is a pressing need to try to find the wreckage before the sonar pingers run out of power, but that goal is surely not served by doing lots of MPA flying in the wrong place.
There are only eight hourly points in a time series giving distance and speed away from the satellite. Given that the radar data in the early stages of the flight is - at best - of very modest use, why did it take a week to make the fix?
There are only so many possible speeds; follow a swarm of consistent Monte Carlo-ed paths to the best place to search, and don't be distracted by various random pictures of whitecaps taken by random satellites from random countries.
It would seem to be long past time to release the full set of distance and speed values from the Inmarsat system and allow the world's spring-breaking students to mail in a guess. They couldn't do much worse.
There's also the issue of the lack of information about the time of flight after 0811, other than to say that it didn't extend as far as 0911. It could be anywhere from ~100km to ~900km. None of the search box plots include this degree of uncertainty along the track. Is this reported partial call after 0811 being assumed to be a clear sign of the first engine running dry, or is it wanting to present an unduly optimistic picture to the press?
There is a pressing need to try to find the wreckage before the sonar pingers run out of power, but that goal is surely not served by doing lots of MPA flying in the wrong place.
Also, since the last known position (just under 2 hours into the flight, 18:22 UTC) is fixed by the radar, the fact that they flew faster before that point does not put them any further out.
I'm sure it's more complicated than that but is that roughly the idea ?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.in the same amount of time.
He was out of fuel sooner. The last ping really doesn't define when exactly flight ended, we don't have this data, not yet.
