Using p.5 of the ATSB's June 26 report, it is easy to replicate their working endurance model, March 17-27 (in, say, Google Earth):
Start at NW tip of Indonesia
Assume nil wind
Pick an arbitrary speed, s (say, 490 KGS)
Draw straight lines between Inmarsat arcs of length (time between arcs)/s
After 7th Inmarsat arc, keep going until you hit S1-S3 SE border
Repeat for several other speeds (say, 20kt intervals, down to 330KGS)
You have now precisely replicated the ATSB's working endurance model, March 17-27. (SE border of S1/S2/S3 has been publicly confirmed to be the ATSB's March 17-27 working endurance limit.)
The feasible range (S1/S2/S3) is the set of points bounded by the 6th Inmarsat arc, and the endurance line you've just reproduced.
Here's where it gets good:
Perform the update to this model the ATSB claims to have performed on March 27 - take away starting fuel. How do you do this? Easy: just shorten each flight path by the exact same PROPORTION. For example, make every flight path 5% shorter. Or 3%, or 7% - we don't know exactly how MUCH fuel they took away, so maybe try several different reductions. The key point is that each path is still going the same speed, and thus must still hit each arc at the exact same spot - the lack of fuel simply shortens the length. By the SAME X% FOR EACH PATH. Because that's precisely how a set reduction in available fuel would AFFECT each path's range.
You will find that, as you take fuel away, the S3 search zone becomes infeasible much faster than does S2. In fact, there is absolutely NO amount of fuel that could be taken away that could rule S2 out, yet S3 in.
So here's my question: why, then, did the ATSB move the search from S2 1,100km NE into S3, after taking AWAY fuel?
Illustrations (overview & close-up):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r...it?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-r...it?usp=sharing
Something doesn't add up. At all.