SeanD
Well-Known Member
I was just curious because I can see CNN doing that. "Hey my brother in law has a 777 sim in his garage"
Malaysia Airlines 777 missing
- Thread starter ComplexHiAv8r
- Start date
I was just curious because I can see CNN doing that. "Hey my brother in law has a 777 sim in his garage"
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
A 777 couldnt possibly fall 40,000 feet in one minute.
In complete free fall with no lifting component at all, it would be 11,000 feet/min
Why is the New York times even talking about this?
<---- This idiot Canadian can figure it out that's its next to impossible (granted i dont know how it would factor with a 90 degree dive with engines a max rate) assuming such a thing was even possible
In complete free fall with no lifting component at all, it would be 11,000 feet/min
Why is the New York times even talking about this?
<---- This idiot Canadian can figure it out that's its next to impossible (granted i dont know how it would factor with a 90 degree dive with engines a max rate) assuming such a thing was even possible
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
After the "experts" they've had on there, I was surprised to see a real sim.
tonyw
Well-Known Member
Because nobody knows what the hell is going on and that doesn't bring in the eyeballs. So they have to have people speculating based on seeing only a small part of the total picture, and people will watch.
It's like having a blind man touch one part of an elephant and telling you what kind of animal it is. Sure, it's going to be wrong, but it's fun to watch.
To me, all the pundits are like the smelly stuff that comes out of a certain part of the elephant, except it's smarter than they are.
Pichettet1
Well-Known Member
Well if it was flying straight down it's possible. If you figure (40,000/5,280)*60=454mph. But I'd imagine the aircraft would be losing pieces in that dive.
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
I wonder if India has pulled their PSR radar tapes... the lack of information is stunning.
They should be able at this point to say "Yes we've pulled all our Domestic PSR radar tapes, no evidence of anything resembling MAS370"
I also don't buy the 45,000 foot story. Anomaly of prime radar altitude estimating.
They should be able at this point to say "Yes we've pulled all our Domestic PSR radar tapes, no evidence of anything resembling MAS370"
I also don't buy the 45,000 foot story. Anomaly of prime radar altitude estimating.
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
Maybe I've missed it, but have any of these questions been answered, to date.
(Edited)
1) After the initial loss of SSR, are any theories backed up by any archives of primary radar data?
2) What was the evidence that it reversed course back to the south? Was it anecdotal or is there archived radar data?
3) What was the evidence that it crossed back over Malaysia? Was it anecdotal or is there archived radar data?
4) What has been the most credible source that claims that continued ACARS data-logging (indicating stand-by mode) suggests that the aircraft was transmitting anything?
5) Has anybody discussed whether any cell phone signals were picked up as it crossed back over Malaysia? I would expect this to be the case.
(Edited)
1) After the initial loss of SSR, are any theories backed up by any archives of primary radar data?
2) What was the evidence that it reversed course back to the south? Was it anecdotal or is there archived radar data?
3) What was the evidence that it crossed back over Malaysia? Was it anecdotal or is there archived radar data?
4) What has been the most credible source that claims that continued ACARS data-logging (indicating stand-by mode) suggests that the aircraft was transmitting anything?
5) Has anybody discussed whether any cell phone signals were picked up as it crossed back over Malaysia? I would expect this to be the case.
Last edited:
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
I think it was a Flightdeck Solutions sim judging by the FB posts on their page. They're a solid operation out of Toronto but I don't know how well this system could replicate true flight dynamics
Vector4Food
This job would be easier without all the airplanes
"Pilot Fighter, post: 2254810, member: 27847"]Maybe I've missed it, but have any of these questions been answered, to date.
1) After the initial loss of SSR, does this aircraft make a confirmed appearance on any archives of primary radar data?
2) What was the evidence that it reversed course back to the south? Was it anecdotal or is there archived radar data, primary or SSR?
3) What was the evidence that it crossed back over Malaysia? Was it anecdotal or is there archived radar data, primary or SSR?
4) What has been the most credible source that claims that continued ACARS data-logging (indicating stand-by mode) suggests that the aircraft was transmitting anything?
5) Has anybody discussed whether any cell phone signals were picked up as it crossed back over Malaysia? I would expect this to be the case.
1) You can't have a "Confirmed" PSR target, only a PSR target may have appeared at a speed/altitude close to profile (Should be nothing else close to that on Prime)
2)See Above
3)See Above
4)WSJ AFAIK (US Officials are not denying this)
5)Not that I've seen, but it is very difficult for a cellphone to get connection in an airliner at the best of times, I'm guessing cell reception in Malaysia may not be as good on the route it was flying.
1) After the initial loss of SSR, does this aircraft make a confirmed appearance on any archives of primary radar data?
2) What was the evidence that it reversed course back to the south? Was it anecdotal or is there archived radar data, primary or SSR?
3) What was the evidence that it crossed back over Malaysia? Was it anecdotal or is there archived radar data, primary or SSR?
4) What has been the most credible source that claims that continued ACARS data-logging (indicating stand-by mode) suggests that the aircraft was transmitting anything?
5) Has anybody discussed whether any cell phone signals were picked up as it crossed back over Malaysia? I would expect this to be the case.
1) You can't have a "Confirmed" PSR target, only a PSR target may have appeared at a speed/altitude close to profile (Should be nothing else close to that on Prime)
2)See Above
3)See Above
4)WSJ AFAIK (US Officials are not denying this)
5)Not that I've seen, but it is very difficult for a cellphone to get connection in an airliner at the best of times, I'm guessing cell reception in Malaysia may not be as good on the route it was flying.
NiallG
Well-Known Member
"Going vertical!"
"All right, Roger that."
"Tally Ho!"
"eeer I meant vertical up not down!"
But on a technical issue.. why would an aircraft break up diving at 454mph? I was under the impression that aircraft only in danger of breaking up if their Vne was exceeded - and I think it would as it would accelerate in a vertical dive - reaching or exceeding Mach 1 - but technically I can see no reason for it to break up at 454mph in a vertical dive (one would need very very very good air brakes to perform a stunt like that but JU87 springs to mind)
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
(I edited my previous post to exclude my references to SSR. What I am getting at is ANYTHING on "tape". )
1) I meant to emphasize the archived aspect, I know a blip is a blip. Did somebody RECALL a primary target from the previous night or is there an archive that shows a return that could not be excluded as the missing aircraft?
2) Once again, should have excluded SSR from that question.
3) Probably should have left out SSR, but target might have had transponder on with some ambiguous transponder code.
4) WSJ only source so far, my concern.
5) I didn't say connection. A couple of hundred cell phones are said to have passed back over Malaysia at what I recall was described at a low altitude, whatever that means.
I haven't heard enough to convince me that this plane couldn't have gone down on the South China Sea.
Last edited:
BobDDuck
Island Bus Driver
Pichettet1
Well-Known Member
That's what I was thinking initially, but I recalled (and sourced Wikipedia) SilkAir flight 185.
jynxyjoe
Queso King
I just wanted to mention real quick to @MikeOH58 that if you were at 454KIAS at FL400 or whatever you'd be very well through Mach. I think you are getting at 454 KTAS.
@BobDDuck God man you couldn't ask me an environmental cert question? Anyhow, I believe those speeds are used to calculate stress on the airframe from a G loading aspect, so at .8 or .84 you need to survive a 3g load or something (which would be simulated with stress on wings and engineering, no one is yanking and banking a 777 at .84 I can't imagine). It would make no sense for them to certify for anything at Mach (1.05), since the plane would be quickly falling debris, so I think your logic or reasoning is correct.
It is not uncommon to ignore perimeters of a test when it makes sense to do so. For instance, a part 25 certified aircraft needs to be tested while at it's most vulnerable condition. In the case of a lightning strike to the [biz jet anonymous], that meant GPU plugged in with all gens on (while in flight we are towing behind a GPU apparently, and APU blasting). The plane couldn't pass the test, and all of us agreed it was a stupid test, so we unplugged the GPU and ran a simulated flight condition, passed marvelously, and told the FAA our findings. FAA pencil whipped the test plan that day, because they agreed we had to have some leeway for a stupid test. The FAR's wasn't changed, we are allowed to pass cert with a modified test plan, but everyone has to sign off and agree, "This makes sense and we've got a warm and fuzzy feeling about our logic." Other airplanes have no problem passing said environmental test with GPU plugged in because of design choices.
Long story for nothing? No, I'm just trying to give an example where FARs for cert aren't followed sometimes when the condition for the test is impossible or... stupid.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
No, you can certainly over-stress at well below Vne and that could result in structural failures. For jets at Vne, control issues and control surface dynamics are an issue before you would expect structural failures.
As a subsonic aircraft approaches its critical mach number, you experience a mach tuck. Your aircraft is not falling apart but you are pitching down, which is a bad thing. You might not have the control authority to stop it or you might over-stress something trying. Shedding parts is not the initial problem, continuing controlled flight is.
Last edited: