Malaysian Airlines MH370 contact lost
 

Fire bottle. I'm not sure even if it was in salt water for two weeks it would have corroded that quickly and if it was the real deal it could be traced by part and serial numbers if it actually was off MH 370.

If the 'reports' are true, i and i'd assume YOU too would find it hard to believe MH370 was allowed to carry on on its merry way.

All purely speculative, but just as possible as all the other 'wild' theories being thrown about, until evidence suggests otherwise.

Fire Bottle
 

Yes you have to go with the evidence that Immarsat provided which points to the south Indian Ocean. But these particular aircraft parts don't wash up on shore everyday. Also it looks to me to have been in the water about the right amount of time.

Have just enlarged and compared those 2 images of the object....I dont even think they are pics of the same object. in the first one, there is corrosion around the "screws" on the 2nd, there is none. Also, i cant find evidence of the wire attached at the top of the object in the 2nd image on the object in the first image. also, the level of surface corrosion seems to have changed between images!

Lonely fire bottle
 

If the Maldives object really is a fire bottle, the question must be asked: if a B777 is so completely smashed that a fire bottle floats free, how is it that not one other item has floated ashore nearby?

A photo of the part # and serial # needs to be posted for this to have any meaning.

It would be good to know where it came from regardless.

@DocRohan I think you're right, either different objects or they have given it a hell of a clean up!

Don't know if MH370 even had fire bottles such as the one pictured, because of the phasing out of Halon systems. The Maldives are quite far from the present search area. I'd be surprised if the Inmarsat calculations were that far off. I think the engineers have done a great job helping to narrow down a search area. Plus, wouldn't other things have washed up around the same area if this bottle was from a recent crash?
Replacing Halon in Fire Protection Systems: A Progress Report

I'm not a T7 driver, but logic says both engines out. Loss of hydraulics and electrical systems. It's unlikely the autopilot will stay connected in this scenario. Can a 777 pilot please confirm.

Yep those two bottles look different,one more rusted than the other..Also no evidence of damaged mounts or screws,surely an impact strong enough to expose such a part would also damage it.

If you assume for the moment that the suspect fire bottle is indeed from MH370, is there a possible scenario wherein the fire bottle was ejected by some some sort of explosion/fire on board yet the aircraft continued to fly on for some distance?

Given the current hypothetical flight path for MH370 it appears to have turned south almost due east from the point where the bottle was found. Perhaps such an "event" (if such an event is possible) caused M370 to unexpectedly alter course and turn south. Prior to the tun south, MH370 appeared to be following known way points, yet it suddenly turned south and flew in a straight line along no established route. This might explain both the presence of the bottle (again, only if it is from MH370) and account for the satellite pings. Just a thought . . .

that bottle pictured is definitely NOT from a b777.
unless they have been shopping at home depot for hardware, lol.


this is a b777 engine fire bottle, cargo and apu bottles are similar
http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/...psbb194df6.jpg

Areobat.

In such a scenario at least the mounts or screws would've been damaged,with severed heads or broken metal between intact screws from mounting provisions/frame (like a jagged washer)..

WRT the object, I'd think flat blade screws haven't been used in a while in an aviation application. (Could be wrong). If it is not a fire bottle, what is it?

It may well be off an aircraft just not a 777 by the looks of it.

Another possibility is that it was part of a rocket stage that reentered the atmosphere or never fully left. You see a lot of pressure vessels make their way back down. I suppose their shape helps them to avoid being burnt to a cinder. I would say it looks a bit too clean for that though.

Looking at the images of the washed up object and the schematic my guess would be yes it's a fire bottle but no it isn't from a 777

It looks like a miniature WW2 mine?

WRT Pressure vessels
 

Not an expert in this stuff, but I find it strange that the bottles would rip from their mounting structure without some of the mounting structure being attached to the mounting screws. Looks too clean to me.

I have removed and replaced many aircraft fire bottles in my career as an AME, and though the item in the photograph bears a superficial resemblance to one, I really don't think that is what it is.

Every fire bottle I have ever seen has a pressure gauge built into the side to indicate that the unit does indeed contain a full charge of extinguishing agent. No sign of such.

More importantly, an engine or APU bottle will have at least one, (and more often two), threaded female couplers for the large-diameter piping that conducts the agent to the appropriate location when the bottle is discharged - either to a dispersal nozzle within the engine cowl, or within the APU enclosure as the case may be. There is no sign of anything like that on the item in the photograph.

Also, the item in the photos appears to be made if a thicker gauge metal than is typical of aircraft fire bottles. The flush-mounted threaded plug in one side is also unusual.

The silver cylindrical device mounted to the side of the sphere bears a superficial resemblance to the electrical firing squib used on an aircraft extinguisher, but again, there is no sign of the threaded female coupling for the discharge line, which normally connects right below the squib.

And, as you point out, the use of slotted mounting screws is not often seen in aircraft. The fire bottles I am familiar with are all mounted to the aircraft structure with bolts.

Having said this, I have to point out that my experience with aircraft extinguishers is specifically on small to mid-size business jet aircraft. I have never seen or worked with the type of extinguishers that would typically be used on an airliner or cargo aircraft for cargo bay fire suppression. Perhaps that kind of extinguisher would look more like what is displayed in the photo.

Two things in the photos that DO suggest this item is from an aircraft, are the inked manufacturer's inspection stamps on the cylindrical device on the side, and the use of twisted lockwire to secure the end cap on the cylinder. There appear to be two wires protruding from the end of the cylinder, and firing squibs usually use a two-wire connection.

Of course water is not concrete, but this is just basic physics. A Boeing 777 ditching like this will be twice the weight and twice the speed of Flight 1549, giving 8 times the energy of impact, at least.
Then remember that Sully ditched on a flat calm river dissipating the energy considerably. MH370 must have ditched into ocean swell perhaps worse. Flight 1549 was not in one piece either. Both engines were ripped off instantly and the cabin was full of holes. There was debris.
In this case I would be very surprised if the wing and empennage did not break off. Furthermore, even if the main cabin is intact, it would sink quickly and the rupture due to water pressure. You say B777 is a tank but it is not a submarine. In reality it is just an aluminum and composite tube, filled with all kinds of floatable stuff. There will be a debris field, however hard it is to find.

No doubt debris will be found one day, but I grow ever more doubtful about the main wreckage.

Well no, obviously water doesn't get any 'harder' the faster you hit it, but the faster an object hits something, the more force is imparted back onto the object. Obviously will increase with object velocity and weight.