Detailed debris field analysis from the Wall Street Journal

Map of a Tragedy: How MH17 Came Apart Over Ukraine - WSJ.com

I think what KatSLF meant was that the missile exploded to the port side of the flight deck at a distance not yet known. This means the No.1 engine would stand a good chance of ingesting debris from the missile.


My two pence on the "skid marks" on the wing: There are images of bare metal sporting a green "skid mark" on it. Metal that is not primered (leading edge of the wing, for example), so I doubt the marks are actually the primer.

I warrant that after the missile went bang, what was left of the none explosive parts hit the wing as they began the fall back to earth. With the forward motion of the aircraft, the wing probably travelled into their path. Either that, or it is damage from the explosive shrapnel.

engine pod/cowling piece on WSJ
 

WSJ says this is from the engine because of the RR logo, so I double checked them. Hard to tell at the magnficiations, but certainly something there. To me it seems likely, as there was heavy shrapnel activity in front of that engine.

imgur: the simple image sharer
original
http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-m...l/IMG_0688.jpg

That's definitely an RR logo and that does look like part of the inner workings of the cowl.

Wing leading edges on most modern passenger jets are not painted. (Same for the stabiliser and engine cowl leading edges) Hence no primer. It's to do with them being heated to prevent ice build up. Bare metal conducts heat better. Or so a 767 wrench-monkey told me.

Rolls Royce Logo
 

This side has photos of 9M-MRD.

9M-MRD Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-2H6(ER) - cn 28411 / ln 84 - Planespotters.net Just Aviation

Chronologically ordered, most recent above.

It's definitely the Engine Logo! Port or starboard?

How that part separated and remained close to the front fuselage - while the engine remained attached to the wing - is hard to imagine.

Shrapnel could easily have hit the cowling, damaged a latch or two allowing the cowling to open and thus depart the premises.

mh17
 

ole-ole
Engine disintegrated (blew apart)

Engines have let go on the 777 before, sometimes in spectacular fashion, and have never caused the cowl to separate from the engine. Though admittedly, none had been attached to a plane shot out of the sky at the time.

The only frame on the nacelle is at the inlet side, forward of the fan housing (and attached to it by multiple bolts, which I can not see in the picture). The thrust reverser has two half-circular frames, but I would expect more systems parts installed to it, which are not present. Looking at the RR logo, I would assume this is a piece of the forward inlet frame. It is highly unlikely that engine debris would hit it, so I would assume shrapnel damage from the front side as most probable. On page 6 of this brochure you can see the according frame in the lower left picture.
Fits the other damage, if this is the port side engine nacelle frame.

Check out the photos on Page 8 of this report on the fan blade failure of an RR engine. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/33974/tr200100445_001.pdf

Looks quite similar to the part in the photos above.

article
 

Article published today by former airline pilot Peter Haisenko
http://www.anderweltonline.com/wisse...alaysian-mh17/

parts of engine cowling?

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3912/...e40fee2f_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3874/...942342df_b.jpg

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3837/...c8b8a9e9_b.jpg

Ditto, the skidmark doesn't appear to me the making of a high speed ballistic impact.

Machine gunfire?
 

Interview OCSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ze9BNGDyk4

The back of the roof/cargo bit

imgur: the simple image sharer

a full back image shows STA numbers, which is the spars or ribs that go all around the "tube". So the same number can be roof or cargo bay or either wall. STA number was used for identifying the location and WSJ themselves wavered about it in different editions. The colour being white, I vote for roof.

imgur: the simple image sharer
centre image is the rest of the roof over business class, folded over on the port wall. The open section is the door in front of the wing; the section broke clean at rivet line behind the first porthole.


bottom is Missile fin???
most images of BUKs show them very green, including fins, maybe a white tip. But I found some that have shorter side fins and larger tail fins, in BARE METAL, so those strange bits of metal are possibles.

First picture? possible, the air inlet/outlet should be easily identifyable. Might be cabin interior as well.
Second picture? no. Should be composites, not metal. This is fuselage debris.
Third picture? probably a Railroad crossing...(or the wrong link)

On further thought, the diagram presented by OleOle shows a port quarter missile path.

If that is the case, could that diagram show the missile came from Government held terrain? As it purports to show a passing shot it suggests that the aircraft was the missile engagement zone for about 4-5 minutes.

Such a long time in the MEZ would thus suggest sufficient time to determine that the target was a fast high flyer and probably not a legitimate target. OTOH it could have been considered a high altitude reconnaissance flight returning to the east.

Now I am not saying that this proves anything one way or the other and that the diagram could conceivably be disinformation.

For Buk, the missile diameter would be 0.4m. Gut feeling is that this ring looks a little small, but very difficult to tell as there is not much in the picture to give scale (grass comes in lots of sizes...).

This photographer has taken a huge number of excellent pictures of the crash site, but I can't help thinking I really want to buy him a ruler...

Looks about right. The rod in the picture is a galley or toilet or wardrobe upper attachment, diameter of the rod end housing would be around 25 mm. So 0.4m might even be a little small.
Of course a ruler would be a little more precise...