If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370: Ground-to-air missle fired by military, starts fire onplane
Ok, here's my latest theory.
Either there was a fire on the plane that knocked out the radio and ATC beacon, or the pilots turned off the ATC beacon because of some ulterior motive. Someone behind the trigger of a ground-to-air missle defense battery (in Malaysia, Cambodia, or Vietnam? Or Thailand?) deems that the plane is a threat, fires missle at plane. Missle damages plane (in one case leading to more fire damage, in the other case causing the fire damage). Controlled flying to high altitude (if indeed this really happened, if various radar reports are accurate) is likely if a trained pilot is controlling the plane. If the plane was not under the control of malicious pilots at the time of some in-flight mishap that happened along it's normal flight path midway between Malaysia and Vietnam, then I dare anyone to explain why it wouldn't have attempted to land at either Phenom Penh or Ho Chi Minh (assuming either had a mile-long runway) or Singapore. I could understand why they might not attempt a return to Kuala Lumpur if it meant having to cross a mountain range and a 180-degree turn. Yet another theory - we have another shoe or underware bomber, who successfully detonates their bomb, causing fire in the cabin, that somehow interferes with radio communication. What happens next is anyone's guess - but must answer how plane apparently stays flying for a further 7 hours (if we believe radio data from engine telemetry). But the bottom line is - can we rule out a ground-based missle strike based on what the various militaries in the area have (or haven't) disclosed? As to whether this plane could reach, let alone maintain controlled flight at 45k feet, I give you this: =========== Excessive weight reduces the flight performance of an airplane in almost every resp deficiencies of the overloaded airplane a •Higher takeoff speed. •Longer takeoff run. •Reduced rate and angle of climb. •Lower maximum altitude. •Shorter range (more weight lifted = more work done = more fuel required). •Reduced cruising speed. •Reduced maneuverability. •Higher stalling speed. •Higher landing speed. •Longer landing roll. •Excessive weight on the nosewheel. http://www.aerotraining.com/referenc...r_4_Canada.pdf ============= It should be obvious to anyone that a heavy plane can't fly as high as an empty plane of the exact same type. It's also the case that Boeing's maximum service altitude of 43k feet might not be a for a fully loaded and fueled plane. The comments that Boeing gives a spec of 43k feet and builds in a comfortable safety factor is ludicrous. Because unlike other specs that are really hard to get an absolute handle on (that would involve, say, destructive testing on fully-built and operational samples) it's dead easy to fly a test planes at various altitudes and measure this parameter safely. And because air qualities (pressure, temperature, humidity, etc) are probably constant at 40 - 50k feet all over the world, this max-altitude number would also hold true regardless where in the world the plane is operating. It is usually very beneficial to fly at high altitudes, as there is less turbulance, less air resistance, and the possibility to fly faster and thus be more fuel efficient. But there must be enough air density to allow for lift at a given speed and wing shape, and extending the flaps to provide enough lift at high altitudes works against your desire to be fuel efficient. Hence why most planes fly long-distance routes at cruise altitudes of 33k to 37k feet. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370: Ground-to-air missle fired by military, startsfire on plane
On 3/19/2014 8:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:
Ok, here's my latest theory. Okay, here's mine: They were en route to China when Amelia Earheart flagged them down to ask for directions. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Flight MH370: Ground-to-air missle fired by military, startsfire on plane
On 3/19/2014 8:46 AM, H0m3^Gy wrote:
Ok, here's my latest theory. Either there was a fire on the plane that knocked out the radio and ATC beacon, or the pilots turned off the ATC beacon because of some ulterior motive. Dude, you don't have a clue so why don't you quite posting about the situation? Don |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MH370 - have they checked all passengers for flying experience,military service? | Home Guy | Air travel | 12 | March 16th, 2014 04:40 AM |
Careless smoker starts fire | [email protected] | Cruises | 57 | April 18th, 2006 12:20 AM |
Careless smoker starts fire | Thomas Smith | Cruises | 3 | April 7th, 2006 11:47 AM |
Careless smoker starts fire | Jeff Gersten | Cruises | 0 | March 25th, 2006 11:17 AM |