Media versions of Boeing 777 performance
Trying to make sense of press and TV comments on the RR Boeing 777 performance in relation to the missing aircraft out of KUL. Maybe a real 777 dispatcher/pilot/engineer or similar can answer what would be a reasonable fuel load and take of weight/mass and total range for the trip, assuming normal operation and reserves. Still air and ISA normal would do.
Can a 777 really climb to 45000ft and have 1.2 or 1.3 protection? What might be the realistic ceiling with that departure fuel, weight, assuming ISA + a bit?
Assuming fairly warm air at 5000ft, what kind of cruise speed and fuel flow, and therefor range could it achieve? One 'broadsheet' claiming eight hours....maybe not....Clearly many people assume that the whole planet is covered by radar, and the same report mentioned also assures us that 5000' is 'under radar'.
Talk of two transponders. Assume this is correct.....either #1, or #2....not two different types as has been mentioned. ( aware of engine parameters on ACARS statement. There was mention of 'engine transponders' as if they would show up on secondary radar )
Twice or more I've heard about the fire axe being carried in the passenger cabin. Have to assume nobody does that.
It's understandable that the news hounds and TV anchors are under pressure to keep stoking up the drama when the only hard news remains as 'Plane with a lot of people on board missing', but some of the information claimed to be from experts seems either wrongly interpreted, or from the wrong type of experts, such as travel trade people and politicians.
Wondering what Boeing 777 PPRuNers make of the technical statements being made. Some of the coverage can't be improving matters for those closely involved.