And you do know the weight was 210 t? Also you do know what the precise temperature was?
Could you just for fun do the math again with 220 t and ISA+15 ?
@Interflug
See, this is my point about uninformed comment & questions. These questions reflect a lack of understanding about the aircraft and the nature of its indicating systems.
No, I don't "
know" that the weight 210T, and I don't know what the "
precise" temperature was.
What I do know, however, is that the MTOW of this A330-200 was 233T, and that according to my handy-dandy FCOM 3 the initial fuel flow at FL350 at 230T and ISA+15 is 6730 K/hr. and at 210T is 6165 K/hr. (actually slightly different due to different engines, but only slightly). As the aircraft was, according to the records, airborne for at least 4:11 (22:03-02:14?) I can deduce that its weight at the time of the accident was no greater than 233T - (4.2*((6730+6165)/2) = ~205.9T. Probably it was less than this, but I don't know the actual TOW nor do I have the desire to try calculating a climb fuel burn, but in any event 210T is a conservative value, unless you want to revive the baseless overloaded aircraft theory again.
I also know that the speeds I quoted to you for the weight are KIAS (Knots Indicated Air Speed), so they themselves will not change with a change in temperature.
As per the above calculation the aircraft's weight could not be 220T after 4 hours of flight unless the aircraft was very grossly overloaded, and the speeds I quoted do not vary with temperature. So what I do
know is that there is no meaningful answer to your questions.
A question you didn't ask, but which might be relevant is the aircraft's altitude capabilities at its assumed weight at the time of the accident. For my aircraft with slightly different engine performance they are:
@ 210T and M.80
Optimum Altitude = FL360
Max. Alt. @ ISA+20 = FL370
Max. Alt. @ 1.4G Margin = FL378
Max. Alt. @ ISA+10 = FL385
Max. Alt. @ 1.3G Margin = FL394
So, again, given that the weight was if anything less than 210T, the choice of FL350 was an entirely reasonable one from a performance perspective and, in fact, probably below the optimum altitude (which as displayed to the pilots would also be modified by temperature, wind speed/direction and cost index) for the aircraft at that weight. This would go some ways towards explaining why I find suggestions that they were flying too high in a coffin corner so ludicrous.
ELAC