MH370 "Clone" being held by Israel?

It had to be going significantly faster for a majority of the flight, or range could not have been reduced so dramatically. I understand airline pilots are on this thread: I invite them to estimate average speed increase over the entire flight's duration required to knock 800 knots of range off of what was originally estimated to be a 3,500 knot flight (23% reduction in range).

Minor point for clarity: "knot" is a unit of speed (nautical miles per hour), not distance. A nautical mile is abbreviated "nmi".

Fuel consumption rate at full thrust is more than double fuel consumption at cruise. It's not like you can just give 10% more thrust and go 10% faster.

Basically they calculated the maximum range of the plane based on the observed speed for the known segments, the wind speeds, and everything else they knew about the plane, and then found the intersection of that range and the last ping. But it's all just probabilistic - they have identified a likely crash site, but have not proven it to be the crash site - they have to make some reasonable guesses.

Your analysis is very simplistic. Your "assumed speed" is a specious assumption.
 
It had to be going significantly faster for a majority of the flight, or range could not have been reduced so dramatically. I understand airline pilots are on this thread: I invite them to estimate average speed increase over the entire flight's duration required to knock 800 knots of range off of what was originally estimated to be a 3,500 knot flight (23% reduction in range).


I am trying to understand, here.

There is something else to consider when understanding the published 'range' of a jet. This "range" is based upon many assumptions, the foremost of which is that the jet will cruise at its most efficient altitude and airspeed.

"IF" Malaysian 370 was commandeered, and then flown to a lower altitude, even to avoid radar....THEN the fuel consumption rates increase dramatically. Therefore, the "charted" ranges are no longer valid, in that scenario.

Have I made myself clear? Please ask if you need clarifications.
 
Very clear. But mostly besides the point: the "new analysis" that knocked more than 800nmi off of the "most probable" flight path's range could not possibly have included factoring in the altitude chages over Malaysia/Malacca Strait - these were known prior to NTSB issuing its INITIAL best estimate, and thus were already factored into BOTH paths.

This is confirmed by the news release (link upthread) the ATSB issued: the revision cited new best-estimate speed - not new (changes in) altitude.

We can keep this very, very simple: what is YOUR best estimate of MH370's average speed and bearing between 5:11 and 8:11, under each of the two "most probable" paths (original NTSB, and current)? If you give me those values, I will show you on a map where the plane was at 5:11, assuming only a) that they're currently searching in the right place, and b) Inmarsat data was reasonably accurate. I expect you will be surprised by how close the search site is to the point at which it flew off radar - and the resulting positioning of the plane at 5:11.
 
Very clear. But mostly besides the point: the "new analysis" that knocked more than 800nmi off of the "most probable" flight path's range could not possibly have included factoring in the altitude chages over Malaysia/Malacca Strait - these were known prior to NTSB issuing its INITIAL best estimate, and thus were already factored into BOTH paths.

This is confirmed by the news release (link upthread) the ATSB issued: the revision cited new best-estimate speed - not new (changes in) altitude.

No. The revised search area came from a new best estimate range.

The newly estimated range came for more detailed analysis, including analysis of early radar data that showed the plane was travelling faster at that time, and hence burned more fuel in the initial portion of the flight.
 
Minor point for clarity: "knot" is a unit of speed (nautical miles per hour), not distance. A nautical mile is abbreviated "nmi".

Fuel consumption rate at full thrust is more than double fuel consumption at cruise. It's not like you can just give 10% more thrust and go 10% faster.

Basically they calculated the maximum range of the plane based on the observed speed for the known segments, the wind speeds, and everything else they knew about the plane, and then found the intersection of that range and the last ping. But it's all just probabilistic - they have identified a likely crash site, but have not proven it to be the crash site - they have to make some reasonable guesses.

Your analysis is very simplistic. Your "assumed speed" is a specious assumption.

...which is why I have sensitivity-tested at different speeds, so you can quickly and easily substitute your own assumptions:

- at [original/revised] of [600,680]mph, MH370 takes from 2:15 to 5:11 to make a 20-minute flight
- at [500,600]mph, MH370 takes from 2:15 to 5:11 to make a 40-minute flight

What is YOUR best estimate of MH370's average speed during the southward leg, under both original and revised best-estimate final location? I'd be happy to plug it in for you. "Original" must be at least fast enough to get back to Malaysia by 2:15.

They can't dramatically change the RANGE due to fuel consumption without dramatically accelerating the CRASH TIME. Inmarsat won't let them change the crash time - yet they went right on ahead and dramatically reduced the range, anyway. Simply does not add up. Either they found out the plane landed & took off again (if so, why are we not allowed to know this?), or the Inmarsat data is way wrong.
 
Good grief - yes, of COURSE the new location came from the new RANGE - what I was commenting on was the REASON they gave for the new (23% reduced) range.

Read the release. They attribute the reduced range to increased SPEED - not to changes in ALTITUDE.
 
The newly estimated range came for more detailed analysis, including analysis of early radar data that showed the plane was travelling faster at that time, and hence burned more fuel in the initial portion of the flight.
...and why on earth would any analysis of fuel consumption that forces a 25% reduction in range not by the same token also force a MORE THAN 25% reduction in the time-to-crash?

Just think about it, for pity's sake.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who remains unconvinced should verify for themselves the percentage of news releases and/or maps since April 5 that have included actual coordinates. They would prefer we not check it out for ourselves.

I'm sure it was a coincidence that the map in your #31 reply to me happened - just barely - to crop out the coordinates...
 
...and why on earth would any analysis of fuel consumption that forces a 25% reduction in range not by the same token also force a MORE THAN 25% reduction in the time-to-crash?

Just think about it, for pity's sake.

The time to crash is fixed by the last ping. Hence you can't reduce it.

Less fuel, less range, same time.
 
I hope that the discussion (above) will help those not familiar with the nuances of large commercial jets' "range" data.

For the record: Whenever you 'Google' such range information, those figures are designed BY the manufacturer in order to sell the product at its BEST. The "BEST" meaning, the airplane operating in the most efficient 'envelope' for its weight, and to exhibit best "range" for a given "mission" parameter.

WHEN a large airliner is operated outside those "perfect" parameters, as set forth by the engineering and marketing teams, then the effective "range" is reduced significantly.
 
To lose over 25% of its post-tracking-period distance - yet land at the exact same time - the plane had to have been going 25% SLOWER than originally estimated during its untracked phase.

The difference between us is that you seem to think this is PLAUSIBLE, whereas I do NOT.

Perhaps the pilots reading this can help us all understand how much slower a 777 can go (than typical cruising speed, per NTSB original "most probable"), and still maintain altitude - and still stay in the air for the full 6+ hours?
 
I hope that the discussion (above) will help those not familiar with the nuances of large commercial jets' "range" data.

For the record: Whenever you 'Google' such range information, those figures are designed BY the manufacturer in order to sell the product at its BEST. The "BEST" meaning, the airplane operating in the most efficient 'envelope' for its weight, and to exhibit best "range" for a given "mission" parameter.

WHEN a large airliner is operated outside those "perfect" parameters, as set forth by the engineering and marketing teams, then the effective "range" is reduced significantly.

...and it must then crash significantly SOONER.

Do you see my point now?
 
To lose over 25% of its post-tracking-period distance - yet land at the exact same time - the plane had to have been going 25% SLOWER than originally estimated during its untracked phase.

The difference between us is that you seem to think this is PLAUSIBLE, whereas I do NOT.

Perhaps the pilots reading this can help us all understand how much slower a 777 can go (than typical cruising speed, per NTSB original "most probable"), and still maintain altitude - and still stay in the air for the full 6+ hours?


"How much slower a 777 can go"?

Simple. ANY pilot knows the relationship between altitude, indicated airspeed and true airspeed. And, also, the relationship to actual airspeed, and groundspeed.

But, setting that aside. I seem to be unclear on your point. Can you be specific, please?

...and it must then crash significantly SOONER.

IF you mean after descending from its normal cruise altitude, then yes I agree...the "range" at lower altitudes, based on its existing fuel load and engine burn rate. AT lower altitudes, the burn rate (or 'fuel flow') is much higher.
 
Relative to NTSB original "most probable" path, MH370 is NOW thought to have...

1) used a LOT more fuel,
2) thus reducing its post-Malaysian-radar range by more than 25%,
3) yet crashed at the exact same time.

The only way 2) and 3) can both be true is if it is now thought to have been travelling more than 25% slower than the speed implied by the original "most probable" path.

NTSB original speed: I was argued down to 500mph = 434kts upthread by a pilot; let's go with that.

Required revised speed: 500mph minus 25% = 375mph = 325kts

The question is: can a 777-200ER - now having burned more than 25% of its originally assumed fuel - fly that slow, and still stay aloft for another 6+ hours (2:15-8:19)?

(If you come back with "yes, because....", my next question would ask whether the "because" was a logical way to achieve whatever the pilot may have been trying to do out there. Saves us a back & forth.)
 
Relative to NTSB original "most probable" path, MH370 is NOW thought to have...

1) used a LOT more fuel,
2) thus reducing its post-Malaysian-radar range by more than 25%,
3) yet crashed at the exact same time.

The only way 2) and 3) can both be true is if it is now thought to have been travelling more than 25% slower than the speed implied by the original "most probable" path.

NTSB original speed: I was argued down to 500mph = 434kts upthread by a pilot; let's go with that.

Required revised speed: 500mph minus 25% = 375mph = 325kts

The question is: can a 777-200ER - now having burned more than 25% of its originally assumed fuel - fly that slow, and still stay aloft for another 6+ hours (2:15-8:19)?

(If you come back with "yes, because....", my next question would ask whether the "because" was a logical way to achieve whatever the pilot may have been trying to do out there. Saves us a back & forth.)

Sorry, I am not following your logic, here.

There are many "unknowns", still. ONCE the transponder, and altitude reporting from that device was no longer available to be recorded, then many questions ensue.
 
Oh, goodie, another map with coordinates missing.

Even if these "ping rings" were confirmed accurate by Inmarsat (link, please...), the 300kt arc simply proves my point - that the only way you can get the new search location to fit the 8:11 arc is by some combination of a [very slow]/[very circuitous] flight path.

Neither [very slow] nor [very circuitous] belongs anywhere near an explanation of the actions of a pilot who has taken his plane - and its 239 passengers - off the grid. Not in the least.

And I still expect a pilot to confirm that, if speed drops down anywhere near 300kts, fuel efficiency deteriorates (you fall much lower, into thicker atmosphere), to the point at which range is FURTHER compromised. You are left with a theory under which the pilot spends the first hour giving up range by flying too FAST, and the rest of the trip giving up considerably MORE range by flying way too SLOW.

When your flight path is contorted that badly just to fit the 8:11 ping, it's time to revisit your theory.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I am not following your logic, here.

There are many "unknowns", still. ONCE the transponder, and altitude reporting from that device was no longer available to be recorded, then many questions ensue.

The theory being pushed by our fearless leaders is that the pilot - who had just taken a 777 and its 239 passengers off the grid, and who had the pedal to the metal through the TRACKED portion of the flight - decided to take the UNTRACKED portion of his flight (with from the combined military might of the world on his heels) at a snail's pace.

WHY is this reduced speed a necessary part of the theory? Because [math]: the distance between [end of TRACKING] and [location of sonar pings] is now only 2,000 miles, and they are claiming he took over 6 hours (2:15 to 8:19) to get there.

To a 777-200ER, that is a snail's pace. Does not add up.

The other possibility being floated is that the pilot flew to his ultimate destination via some corkscrew or zigzag pattern. Makes even LESS sense than a slow speed.

There is something very big about which we are not being told. It's that simple.[/math]
 
Yeah - we are not being told where the a/c remains are and why it is there.

Of course many people are able to accept that this is because no-one knows those things.

Others cannot accept that and seem the have a need to invent stories to fill in the gap.
 
The theory being pushed by our fearless leaders
Saying this sort of thing sort of overshadows any objective analysis you might make - what leaders, and how are they 'pushing' it? Is Obama issuing statements on every new search detail or something?
I think the only ones who are 'pushing' anything are the Malaysian officials, and they're not really making definite assertions anyway, just saying what angles they are looking into.
(unless you're Malaysian, and they are your 'fearless leaders'?)
There are unanswered questions and maybe some arse-covering for sure on their end, but let's not go overboard. I'm sure there are things that are being kept from us, but to assume everyone is deliberately searching the wrong area seems a bit much.
 
Saying this sort of thing sort of overshadows any objective analysis you might make - what leaders, and how are they 'pushing' it? Is Obama issuing statements on every new search detail or something?
I think the only ones who are 'pushing' anything are the Malaysian officials, and they're not really making definite assertions anyway, just saying what angles they are looking into.
(unless you're Malaysian, and they are your 'fearless leaders'?)
There are unanswered questions and maybe some arse-covering for sure on their end, but let's not go overboard. I'm sure there are things that are being kept from us, but to assume everyone is deliberately searching the wrong area seems a bit much.

Thank you for seeing the incongruity.

I meant the leaders of the investigation. Nothing more, nothing less.

About matters this grave, there is no room for disinformation; it is correct to fear the worst. The investigation's leadership needs to become forthright, or become suspects.

I didn't take my concerns to "the bowels of the internet" (see #1), or to PressTV, or RT - places I'd get an eager audience. I took them to a place where I hoped they'd be met with objective skepticism. I wanted my suspicions allayed, and am scientist enough to drop any theory evidence disproves. (So far, the counter-arguments have been 1. "official theory is not impossible, so embrace official theory", and 2. "certainty is not possible, so stop theorizing, and embrace official theory"...)

The only bias to which I'll cop is my a priori assumption that power corrupts, and that "our fearless leaders" (of any nation, or party, in private or public spheres - I play no favourites) will tell the truth only if by so doing they advance their own agenda (and what better way to advance your agenda, these days, than by paying people to spread opinion online? but I digress).

I promise to retreat to the facts I've already presented, if you promise not to dismiss them for this bias.

Cheers.
 
Yeah - we are not being told where the a/c remains are and why it is there.

Of course many people are able to accept that this is because no-one knows those things.

Others cannot accept that and seem the have a need to invent stories to fill in the gap.

If you want to see "invention", take a look at the latest official theory (tracked leg = razor-sharp, radar-skirting bearing at top speed, untracked leg = idle, pointless curl).
 
(So far, the counter-arguments have been 1. "official theory is not impossible, so embrace official theory", and 2. "certainty is not possible, so stop theorizing, and embrace official theory"...)
If the resources and information available to a counter-theory were equal to that of the official one, then maybe a serious competition could be had, but it's more that official theory has information we don't, so until it's proven otherwise it's prudent to accept it's the best guess according to available information.
I don't think you're being told not to theorize, you just haven't made a solid counter-case yet that would lead to immediate discounting of official theory. A lot of information is still not necessarily confirmed (radar contacts, elevation changes), so using them as solid data is going to possibly lead to wrong conclusions.

But there is a lead suggesting possible wreckage in the Bay of Bengal instead of where they're looking.
They could not believe what they found in the Bay of Bengal.

“Our team was very excited when we found what we believe to be the wreckage of a commercial airliner,” Mr Pope said.

Pavel Kursa from GeoResonance told 7News: “We identified chemical elements and materials that make up a Boeing 777… these are aluminium, titanium, copper, steel alloys and other materials.”
...
The team then verified its findings by analysing images from the same area on March 5, three days before the plane disappeared.

“The wreckage wasn’t there prior to the disappearance of MH370,” Mr Pope said.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/sa/a/23036893/exploration-company-believes-it-may-have-found-mh370/
Content from External Source
Hopefully it's looked into thoroughly.
 
Simple request for pilots:

Please estimate fuel consumption (in gallons) for a 777-200ER, carrying 239 passengers/crew, standard cargo, fuel for roughly 7 more hours, already at altitude, flying a constant speed of...

300kts
350kts
400kts
450kts
500kts
550kts


...for 6 hours and 4 minutes each time. (I'm looking for six estimates; one for each speed, but use the same flying time in each case. I'm not asking about range - just the gallons.)

I assume the speed largely determines the altitude - please advise if I need to specify that, or anything else.

Just roughly is fine.

(I am expecting fuel consumption goes down as speed (and altitude) increase, but only to a point. Just wanted to confirm where.)
 
Last edited:
OK, I'll do the research. Per p.8, Figure 6, top two graphs:
http://www.garsonline.de/Downloads/090910/Papers/Paper_Delgado & Prats.pdf

The study tracked two planes through a controlled variation in cruising speed, and measured impact on fuel consumption.

Do these charts not indicate that, as a jetliner slows down, its fuel consumption rises (must now plow through denser air)?

The effect is small for the first couple of % points, but by around 20% below optimum cruise, the benefits of flying slower begin to be outweighed by the cost of flying through denser air - to the point where fuel consumption per unit time is actually GREATER than at optimum.

Basic math suggests the official theory requires MH370 - even if flying a curved path to its new destination - would now be flying at 325kts. This is corroborated by (somehow (hard, without the coordinates)) plotting the current search location on the Duncan Steele map (#56), and interpolating.

325kts is 32% below a 777's optimal cruising speed of around 480kts. If I am interpreting the figure correctly (again: peer review is begged for), then the new path would use up more fuel than would the original path.

Which would put the final nail in the official story's coffin.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'll do the research. Per p.8, Figure 6, top two graphs:
http://www.garsonline.de/Downloads/090910/Papers/Paper_Delgado & Prats.pdf

The study tracked two planes through a controlled variation in cruising speed, and measured impact on fuel consumption.

Do these charts not indicate that, as a jetliner slows down, its fuel consumption rises (must now plow through denser air)?

The effect is small for the first couple of % points, but by around 20% below optimum cruise, the benefits of flying slower begin to be outweighed by the cost of flying through denser air - to the point where fuel consumption per unit time is actually GREATER than at optimum.

Basic math suggests the official theory requires MH370 - even if flying a curved path to its new destination - would now be flying at 325kts. This is corroborated by (somehow (hard, without the coordinates)) plotting the current search location on the Duncan Steele map, and interpolating.

325kts is 32% below a 777's optimal cruising speed of around 480kts. If I am interpreting the figure correctly (again: peer review is begged for), then the new path would use up more fuel than would the original path.

Which would put the final nail in the official story's coffin.


I'm a bit confused as to the relevance. Allow me say, though, that I comprehend the intent (I.E., the various fuel consumption rates at various speeds and altitudes for a B-777), because I tried to find such charts specific to the airplane type, myself. (In order to explain the severe degradation in published "Range" figures when a TurboJet is operated at near Sea Level altitudes).

However, any modern passenger jet (such as the B777) has a WIDE set of parameters and variables, when trying to ascertain fuel consupmtion ('burn') rates, over a wide variety of circumstances (Actual GWT, actual altitude MSL, power settings, etc).

Such fuel consumption charts generally will not be found via a simple Internet search. They are published by the manufacturer, and also incorporated into the FMC software.
 
I'm a bit confused as to the relevance. Allow me say, though, that I comprehend the intent (I.E., the various fuel consumption rates at various speeds and altitudes for a B-777), because I tried to find such charts specific to the airplane type, myself. (In order to explain the severe degradation in published "Range" figures when a TurboJet is operated at near Sea Level altitudes).

However, any modern passenger jet (such as the B777) has a WIDE set of parameters and variables, when trying to ascertain fuel consupmtion ('burn') rates, over a wide variety of circumstances (Actual GWT, actual altitude MSL, power settings, etc).

Such fuel consumption charts generally will not be found via a simple Internet search. They are published by the manufacturer, and also incorporated into the FMS software.

Agreed - anything you can ferret out that is more tailored to MH370's specific condition is much appreciated - thank you.
 
OK, I'll do the research. Per p.8, Figure 6, top two graphs:
http://www.garsonline.de/Downloads/090910/Papers/Paper_Delgado & Prats.pdf

The study tracked two planes through a controlled variation in cruising speed, and measured impact on fuel consumption.

Do these charts not indicate that, as a jetliner slows down, its fuel consumption rises (must now plow through denser air)?

The effect is small for the first couple of % points, but by around 20% below optimum cruise, the benefits of flying slower begin to be outweighed by the cost of flying through denser air - to the point where fuel consumption per unit time is actually GREATER than at optimum.

Basic math suggests the official theory requires MH370 - even if flying a curved path to its new destination - would now be flying at 325kts. This is corroborated by (somehow (hard, without the coordinates)) plotting the current search location on the Duncan Steele map (#56), and interpolating.

325kts is 32% below a 777's optimal cruising speed of around 480kts. If I am interpreting the figure correctly (again: peer review is begged for), then the new path would use up more fuel than would the original path.

Which would put the final nail in the official story's coffin.

I think it's considerably more complex than you suggest. The weight of the aircraft, the initial climb to cruise altitude, and the actual cruise altitude come into play. Like, from your link:


At FL310, Mach 0.7 is much more effective than Mach 0.8, but for FL370 it's nearly reversed.

And it's more complex with weight involved, and weight changes during the flight.
 
I blew past the first of your two figures because it only varied speed by a fraction of the amount we needed data on (pausing only to note that all four exhibited similar proportional sensitivity relative to their respective optimal cruise speeds), and the second because I couldn't read a single data point off of it.

Absolutely, no question, it's more complicated than one simple chart - which is why I asked the aviation experts to weigh in. As always, I await - beg for, in fact - proper scrubbing of the data.

Come on, Mick - this has legs.
 
Last edited:
I blew past the first of your two figures because it only varied speed by a fraction of the amount we needed data on (pausing only to note that all four exhibited similar proportional sensitivity), and the second because I couldn't read a single data point off of it.

Absolutely, no question, it's more complicated than one simple chart - which is why I asked the aviation experts to weigh in. As always, I await - beg for, in fact - proper scrubbing of the data.

Come on, Mick - this has legs.

Unfortunately we don't have all the data to scrub. We don't know what factors went into their calculation.
 
Agreed - anything you can ferret out that is more tailored to MH370's specific condition is much appreciated - thank you.

It's really quite simple....all you will need are the Charts that are provided by Boeing, for all of their products.

In my years as an airline pilot, I witnessed MANY such Charts and Graphs, but always incorporated into the AFM (Airplane Flight Manual).

Occurs to me that one can BUY an AFM online, such sites as eBay for instance.

ALSO occurs to me that there is a HUGE sub-set of hobbyists out there who build home simulator set-ups (some WAY more advanced than the Captain's, of MH370, at least based on the photos I've seen of his set-up).

You can buy FMCs (Flight Management Computers), along with the associated CDUs (Control Display Units), etc. Point is: A significant investment is involved, not a simple "Google" search for free, here.
 
I blew past the first of your two figures because it only varied speed by a fraction of the amount we needed data on (pausing only to note that all four exhibited similar proportional sensitivity), and the second because I couldn't read a single data point off of it.

Absolutely, no question, it's more complicated than one simple chart - which is why I asked the aviation experts to weigh in. As always, I await - beg for, in fact - proper scrubbing of the data.

Come on, Mick - this has legs.


This might seem OT, but just a thought that popped into my head: Back when the Space Shuttle Program was still active, there were occasions when a Shuttle needed to be transported....and a NASA B-747 was specifically modified for this purpose.



One may research extensively for oneself, but DURING the "piggy-back" flights, the speeds and altitudes were severely restricted. Resulting in WAY increased fuel consumption figures, for the "host" airplane (the B747, obviously). Also, added weight, and drag....so, consider accordingly.
 
This is worth pursuing. If I'm wrong about WHY the official story doesn't add up - and they are truly doing their best to find the plane - then, at the very least a serious analysis along these lines could assist the search (Figure 6 suggests the possibility of two solutions to their "burn x gallons in six hours" equation - one at the very slow speed they're at now, and one considerably further along the arc).

And what better way to prove you're not CIA ; )
 
This is worth pursuing. If I'm wrong about WHY the official story doesn't add up - and they are truly doing their best to find the plane - then, at the very least a serious analysis along these lines could assist the search (Figure 6 suggests the possibility of more than one solution to their "burn x gallons in in six hours" equation - one at the very slow speed they're at now, and one considerably further along the arc.)

And what better way to prove you're not CIA ; )


I think I comprehend your efforts, here. Again, this occurred to me as well.

But, I considered them futile when I realized that it was just more speculation, really. ONCE MH370's ground track was no longer recorded, and if or when it descended to some unknown altitude....then the ability to estimate its fuel consumption rates are simply impossible.

Keeping in mind that in a live ON-BOARD situation, an experienced pilot can enter into the FMC his desired altitude for "Cruise", and the computer will then calculate based on the known fuel quantity. ANY "destination" can be entered, and the FMC will calculate range for any entered parameter.

This is why I suggested buying an FMC for the B-777 from an online source. It's just a computer, and would provide the same results.
 
Back
Top