Author Topic: MH370 missing (Read 67508 times)

TimC · « **Reply #575 on:** 01 January, 2015, 03:20:13 pm »

Quote from: Mr Larrington on 01 January, 2015, 01:36:41 pm

Whither the A380? 22 wheels...

Yes, but it's fat and ugly. End of. And the AN225 needs the wheels because it's more of a ground transportation device for extreme loads than it is an aeroplane. All pictures of it flying are Photoshopped. Trufax.

Mr Larrington · « **Reply #576 on:** 02 January, 2015, 07:19:24 pm »

I thought the A380 had been 'shopped until I saw one in the metal, in much the same way that I thought the first photos I saw of a Porsche Cayenne were of a disguised prototype. Which they weren't.

Bledlow · « **Reply #577 on:** 02 January, 2015, 08:49:46 pm »

I'm not bothered about the pictures of the An-225 flying, but I am curious about how all those companies, airports, etc. were persuaded to co-operate, & pretend that their outsize loads had been delivered by An-225, or it had landed at their airport (Zurich, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Doha, Bahrain, Manchester, Toronto, East Midlands, Sheffield, Leipzig, Riga, Edmonton, Le Bourget, Houston, Shannon, & many, many more), or been chartered by them. I tell you - the Illuminati are behind this. Who else could orchestrate such a huge conspiracy?

Mr Larrington · « **Reply #578 on:** 04 January, 2015, 02:08:33 am »

The US government? After all, they've alreeady fooled us with the Moon Landings and 11/9 so mocking up a pretend outsize freighter aircraft should be a piece of piss

Torslanda · « **Reply #579 on:** 04 January, 2015, 09:58:34 am »

Quote from: TimC on 01 January, 2015, 03:20:13 pm

Quote from: Mr Larrington on 01 January, 2015, 01:36:41 pm
Whither the A380? 22 wheels...

Yes, but it's fat and ugly. End of. And the AN225 needs the wheels because it's more of a ground transportation device for extreme loads than it is an aeroplane. All pictures of it flying are Photoshopped. Trufax.

I hope to $deity I never see one bimbling down the M56 - might be a bit tall for some of the bridges - and those illuminated billboards would get in the way . . .

Torslanda · « **Reply #580 on:** 04 January, 2015, 10:01:56 am »

On a more serious note, those four missing wheel do quite a lot of work. The aeroplane had a distinct list to starboard after it got on the ground. Now, just where did we put the huge FO trolley jack?

Kim · « **Reply #581 on:** 04 January, 2015, 02:54:19 pm »

Quote from: torslanda on 04 January, 2015, 10:01:56 am

On a more serious note, those four missing wheel do quite a lot of work. The aeroplane had a distinct list to starboard after it got on the ground. Now, just where did we put the huge FO trolley jack?

Last seen under a 747 whose weight-on-wheels sensor needed fooling in order to correctly reboot the electrical system...

spesh · « **Reply #582 on:** 04 January, 2015, 04:29:53 pm »

Whilst looking to see if David Learmount had anything on the Air Asia crash in his blog at Flightglobal.com, I found an interesting post from just before Christmas relating to MH370:

Quote

Some time ago, talking in this blog about MH370, I remarked that we should get used to the idea that we might never find the missing aircraft.

My logic was based on the fact that it had disappeared into a very big ocean and we knew very little about which way it went after it was lost from radar.

I am now more optimistic about finding it, because a consensus is building about where the aircraft is likely to be. The Australian Transport Safety Board, leading the search, has refined the search area down to a workable size, and several independent sources working on the sparse available data are coming up with theories that at least harmonise with the ATSB calculations, but then refine them somewhat.

In Flightglobal’s case, a senior Boeing 777 captain who got in touch with us has good reason to believe he’s calculated the final route of the missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370. He has certainly submitted a convincing geometric explanation for his conclusions.

Link to B777 captain's analysis: http://www.flightglobal.com/features/mh370/

David Martin · « **Reply #583 on:** 04 January, 2015, 05:31:55 pm »

I saw an Antanov 124 at Farnborough when I was a $small and was very impressed. Couldn't believe it would get into the air (until it did) , and the open loading bay at the rear was made more dramatic by the loadmaster standing in the doorway.

sg37409 · « **Reply #584 on:** 04 January, 2015, 07:16:34 pm »

The virgin flight had lost one of its 4 hydraulic systems, so flaring would have been trickier. Gatwick isn't the longest of runway either, main priority would have been to get on the ground at the right point, esp knowing it was going to be a handful. Seems it was still pretty heavy too.

spesh · « **Reply #585 on:** 30 July, 2015, 11:02:11 am »

DISCLAIMER: The provenance of the part still needs to be established, but if what was washed up on Reunion yesterday is indeed a part from a Boeing 777, it could be a significant lead in the long-running hunt for the remains of MH370:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/30/uk-malaysia-airlines-crash-reunion-idUKKCN0Q32E920150730
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/30/uk-malaysia-airlines-crash-oceanography-idUKKCN0Q40BZ20150730
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/30/uk-malaysia-airlines-crash-number-idUKKCN0Q40NW20150730

TimC · « **Reply #586 on:** 30 July, 2015, 11:43:33 am »

Let's hope it is.

mrcharly-YHT · « **Reply #587 on:** 30 July, 2015, 12:00:12 pm »

I guess they can reverse-analyse currents to determine its possible path but that won't help all that much - unless there happens to be an intersection with the line of the current (sic) search area.

TimC · « **Reply #588 on:** 30 July, 2015, 04:22:09 pm »

Reverse analysis of currents failed in the Air France crash in the Atlantic - I think the models available are too simple to accurately reflect all the potential variables, and to try and do it over a year is probably impossible. All this will confirm from that point of view is that they're looking in the right ocean. More importantly, the families may soon be able to say definitively that the aircraft did actually crash and was destroyed and thus their loved ones really are dead, and the conspiracy theories about landing in Russia/abducted by aliens can be put to bed.

HTFB · « **Reply #589 on:** 30 July, 2015, 08:29:27 pm »

Even forward modelling of ocean currents exhibits chaotic behaviour: predicting El Niño is not an exact science. Running them backwards, with entropy working against you too, is Definitely Hard.

Jaded · « **Reply #590 on:** 05 August, 2015, 06:56:57 pm »

So it is a piece of the plane.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33794012

David Martin · « **Reply #591 on:** 05 August, 2015, 07:01:41 pm »

I thought it had been identified as a domestic ladder

mcshroom · « **Reply #592 on:** 05 August, 2015, 09:26:34 pm »

Quote from: David Martin on 05 August, 2015, 07:01:41 pm

I thought it had been identified as a domestic ladder

That was the second item that washed up a little later

Bledlow · « **Reply #593 on:** 03 September, 2015, 06:24:15 pm »

The wing part has been positively identified as from MH370. The serial number on it has been linked to that particular Boeing 777.

spesh · « **Reply #594 on:** 03 September, 2015, 06:46:07 pm »

Quote from: Bledlow on 03 September, 2015, 06:24:15 pm

The wing part has been positively identified as from MH370. The serial number on it has been linked to that particular Boeing 777.

Well that's good news of a sort, though I note that German oceanographers who have been modelling currents in the Indian Ocean reckon that MH370 came down further north than the area that has been searched by the Australians...

Part ID confirmed: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/03/uk-malaysia-airlines-crash-france-idUKKCN0R31SF20150903
Drift analysis: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh370-drift-model-places-flaperon-in-east-indian-oc-416263/

spesh · « **Reply #595 on:** 06 March, 2024, 10:56:00 pm »

<thread necromancy>

Anyone watch that program on BBC1 earlier this evening?

Much of it was covered up-thread, but right at the end, it brought up something new to me - someone had been looking at whether the flight of an aircraft can be tracked by perturbations in the WSPR transmissions, and based on his analysis, he reckons MH370 came down not that far to the east of the search box which ran along the arc of potential position based on the 7th and final successful handshake twixt plane and Inmarsat satellite.

Googling for MH370 and WSPR, I note that the Wiki page on MH370 and satcoms says Richard Godfrey had gone public with this in 2021, though there was varying mileage at the time because WSPR signals are quite low-strength:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370_satellite_communications#Other_analyses

Further research carried out since then may be promising...

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/mh370-update-new-report-proves-wsprnet-tracking-over-long-distance/
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2024/03/06/university-researchers-provide-statistical-expertise-to-help-locate-mh370/

TimC · « **Reply #596 on:** 07 March, 2024, 12:55:13 pm »

Yes, I saw it - and I knew about Richard Godfrey's calculations some years ago. The issue with his calculations is that he couldn't establish (nor did he have the time to calculate) what effect other aircraft or surface vehicles (ships) would have on the disturbances he recorded. Hopefully the recruiting of Simon Maskell and the resources he can bring to bear will refine the calculations and give credibility to Richard's contention.

Legs · « **Reply #597 on:** 07 March, 2024, 03:31:59 pm »

We were watching this and I said to Mrs Legs "wouldn't the solution to this be an ejectable, floating black box?" Apparently this is now A Thing.

Panoramix · « **Reply #598 on:** 08 March, 2024, 11:46:35 am »

As a Ham operator, I find the science behind it fascinating : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vzftcvfx01lhbt3xfgyu5/How-Does-WSPR-Detect-Aircraft-over-Long-Distances-15FEB2024.pdf?rlkey=p8dcu8q3ww741joa922bdikng&e=1&dl=0

I would never have thought that so weak signals could be exploited like this. I've only done WSPR to test antennas!