Is flight MH370 in Diego Garcia?

First topic message reminder :

Malaysia Flight 370 has now been missing for 27 days, the March 8th date of disappearance drifting further and further away. This is particularly torturous and frustrating for those with family and loved ones aboard the missing Malaysia jet and has also led to wild speculation about what happened to Flight 370.

One of the passengers, Philip Wood, has been the focus of one of the more prominent alternative theories about the fate of Flight 370. While some see this as just another Flight 370 Conspiracy Theory, a text and picture reportedly from Philip Wood, have gained a lot of traction among bloggers, on Facebook, and around the web.

The story goes that Wood, a high level IBM executive who really was on Malaysia Flight 370, sent a text from his iPhone more than a week after Flight 370 disappeared. The text reportedly read:

“I have been held hostage by unknown military personnel after my flight was hijacked…I work for IBM and I have managed to hide my cellphone… I have been separated from the rest of the passengers and I am in a cell. My name is Philip Wood. I think I have been drugged as well and cannot think clearly.”

Along with the text came a photo which, even though just a blacked out image, had lots of information attached that iPhone photos automatically include when taken. GPS coordinates of the phone’s location were most interesting and placed it, and presumably Woods, at a U.S. Naval Base on an island called Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean.


Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1199399/malaysia-airlines-flight-370-search-new-leads-technology-and-theories-abound/#EPxlWFQZcXhXqpSz.99

Stephenmarra wrote:

Nems wrote:

What did VOD do to you on ADO?

You mean apart from her and her other half accusing me of being Stardesk and TTS among others and not taking my posts seriously. Also the vile comments about Sexymama not good Nems, not good at all !

Yeah that's serious shit that , i can understand why you hate me , best burn me at the stake eh ! if that's all you have to get upset about you must be very dull .sm wished death on my entire family but i guess that's okay 

 

Let's try to keep this thread about the missing plane guys, there was a programme on Sky Discovery 521 about this earlier ...

VOD(original) wrote:

Stephenmarra wrote:

You mean apart from her and her other half accusing me of being Stardesk and TTS among others and not taking my posts seriously. Also the vile comments about Sexymama not good Nems, not good at all !

Yeah that's serious shit that , i can understand why you hate me , best burn me at the stake eh ! if that's all you have to get upset about you must be very dull .sm wished death on my entire family but i guess that's okay 

 

Not at all VOD, I don't hate you I just think you're  insignificant, an irritation  nowt more nowt less, but an irritation worth mentioning.  Fame at last ehh!

Stephenmarra wrote:

Nems wrote:

What did VOD do to you on ADO?

You mean apart from her and her other half accusing me of being Stardesk and TTS among others and not taking my posts seriously. Also the vile comments about Sexymama not good Nems, not good at all !

So she accused you of being a multi ID?

Joy Division wrote:Let's try to keep this thread about the missing plane guys, there was a programme on Sky Discovery 521 about this earlier ...

Piss off Joy, who made you a mod !  

Stephenmarra wrote:

Joy Division wrote:Let's try to keep this thread about the missing plane guys, there was a programme on Sky Discovery 521 about this earlier ...

Piss off Joy, who made you a mod !  

Amen to that !

Nems wrote:

Stephenmarra wrote:

Piss off Joy, who made you a mod !  

Amen to that !

Thirded. And it's my thread so ner ner   

Stephenmarra wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:
Yeah that's serious shit that , i can understand why you hate me , best burn me at the stake eh ! if that's all you have to get upset about you must be very dull .sm wished death on my entire family but i guess that's okay 

 

Not at all VOD, I don't hate you I just think you're  insignificant, an irritation  nowt more nowt less, but an irritation worth mentioning.  Fame at last ehh!

Not sure i even remember you but you obviously remember me and accusing you of being stardesk should be a compliment he is a gentleman who i respect . But its obvious that being accused of a multi id poster has hurt you deeply  

VOD(original) wrote:

Stephenmarra wrote:

Not at all VOD, I don't hate you I just think you're  insignificant, an irritation  nowt more nowt less, but an irritation worth mentioning.  Fame at last ehh!

Not sure i even remember you but you obviously remember me and accusing you of being stardesk should be a compliment he is a gentleman who i respect . But its obvious that being accused of a multi id poster has hurt you deeply  

I don't think Stephen is a multi Vod.

Joy is absolutely right, I'm sick of seeing you people scream at each other like schoolchildren. It's fucking boring!

Ben_Reilly wrote:Joy is absolutely right, I'm sick of seeing you people scream at each other like schoolchildren. It's fucking boring!

Ive done it at times too Ben, but I just think this thread is about the plane and so should it remain.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Joy is absolutely right, I'm sick of seeing you people scream at each other like schoolchildren. It's fucking boring!

Yes. Much better to start threads that ask if someone is our favourite poster because they don't start rows   

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Joy is absolutely right, I'm sick of seeing you people scream at each other like schoolchildren. It's fucking boring!

Yes. Much better to start threads that ask if someone is our favourite poster because they don't start rows    

Ah, so anybody who's made an ill-advised thread deserves to have shit thrown at them in perpetuity, I guess.

I should have put a goddamn mental-age restriction on this board.

Joy Division wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Joy is absolutely right, I'm sick of seeing you people scream at each other like schoolchildren. It's fucking boring!

Ive done it at times too Ben, but I just think this thread is about the plane and so should it remain.

Yes JD. I think you should start a thread about why we like somebody because they are so so so non-argumentative.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes. Much better to start threads that ask if someone is our favourite poster because they don't start rows    

Ah, so anybody who's made an ill-advised thread deserves to have shit thrown at them in perpetuity, I guess.

I should have put a goddamn mental-age restriction on this board.

Oh Ben, work it out for yourself.

eddie wrote:

Joy Division wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Joy is absolutely right, I'm sick of seeing you people scream at each other like schoolchildren. It's fucking boring!

Ive done it at times too Ben, but I just think this thread is about the plane and so should it remain.

Yes JD. I think you should start a thread about why we like somebody because they are so so so non-argumentative.

Actually Gerber's thread about why we like other posters was for the most part really nice.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes JD. I think you should start a thread about why we like somebody because they are so so so non-argumentative.

Actually Gerber's thread about why we like other posters was for the most part really nice.

Yes it was.
But like I said. It's a debate forum, people have history so you do the math.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:

Yes JD. I think you should start a thread about why we like somebody because they are so so so non-argumentative.

Actually Gerber's thread about why we like other posters was for the most part really nice.

If you can't see the different between gerbers thread and JD's your not the man I thought you was ! Sorry

At the risk of pissing you off Ben, can I point out that the 'row' I had with Quill was actually about the content and reason for the thread, because he was claiming information about the plane he couldn't possible of had, it had nothing to do with previous threads, forums etc. I'm afraid other people turned it into that to try and cover up Quill's mistake.

Oh God do I not care ...

Sassy wrote:At the risk of pissing you off Ben, can I point out that the 'row' I had with Quill was actually about the content and reason for the thread, because he was claiming information about the plane he couldn't possible of had, it had nothing to do with previous threads, forums etc.   I'm afraid other people turned it into that to try and cover up Quill's mistake.

Sassy I'm sure you shouldn't worry about what pisses Ben off.
It take two to row and he's got to accept these things will happen and then it's forgotten and the thread moves on.

It's all a flash in the pan IMO.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh God do I not care ...

Cheer up, learn to speed read, and surely as a journalist you are a fast typist lol

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh God do I not care ...

Don't moan then or get a mod to sort it out foR you?   

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Oh God do I not care ...

Don't moan then or get a mod to sort it out foR you?   

Irn and Veya are regular mods.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Quill, I'm interested to know how you come to that conclusion on a flameout on a Boeing 777 that is set on auto-pilot when that happens.
Using the fuel imbalance process to correct an engin flameout on just one engine requires pilot intervention and as both engines never run at the same fuel consumption levels one is going to flamout before the other. If one engine flames out then the auto pilot would correct the trim to compensate for the loss of power and when the second one flames out then the TAC system would disengage and the auto pilot would kick out leaving the trim set at the compensating levels resulting in the aircraft being  aerodynamically unstable meaning a probably spiral descent into the ocean.

A landing similar to the one that happened on the Hudson river is almost impossible without the controls being handled by a pilot.

I tell you why I say that.  The MD-80, though bought out by Boeing, is actually a McDonnell-Douglas design.  (MD=McDonnell Douglas)   It  is atypical of the Boeing designs.  The MD-80, former DC-9, is a delicately designed aircraft, depending more on wing stability.  It has a beautiful wing that anchors the aircraft, and the tail stabilizers are simply for guidance, up down, left right.  But if anything goes wrong with those tail stabilizers, the airframe is erratic.  You can't control an aircraft with a single axis.

 The first job I had out of high school was as a computer programmer for North American Aiviation in Los Angeles, so I learned the basics if not the sophisticated details.  The Boeing aircraft is a much more stable airframe.  Beginning with the B-29, Boeing built heavy airframes relying mostly on stability and steady flight under minimal control.

Their jet series began with the 707.  It has gone through the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and now the 787, with the same basic stability.  They have gotten a lot bigger, and their power plants have gotten a lot more powerful.  But the basic aircraft remains the same: built for steady flight, natural passive glide ratio, and even balance.

The Boeing aircraft is like the German Mark IV tank: heavy, steady and reliable.  It has been the same throughout the whole 7-series.  The 777 is the new fly-by-wire technology, same as the F-117, but it is built upon the same old reliable airframe.  Its electronics would compensate for flight corrections due to a flame-out, but the air frame would remain steady and even.

That plane doesn't go into the drink head first.  No matter what you do with it, if it's left on autopilot it has a natural easy glide ratio...and goes down belly first.

A descent that brings down a Boeing airliner like a glide needs to managed by a pilot at the controls and there probably wouldn't have been one when MH370 went down.

With both engines flamed out the autopilot would no longer be working and the TAC system to control the thrust would have failed as well when the first engine failed. The only power the aircraft would have had would have come from the Ram Air Turbine but with no-one at the controls to use it the descent was uncontrolled.
Engines do not flame out at the same time due to fuel depletion - it just doesn't happen.

Jason Middleton is an Australian professor on aviation and he offers his scenario on how MH370 may have ended. It's here...

A STEEP DIVE

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/08/missing-malaysia-plane-could-have-speared-into-sea-leaving-few-clues-to-follow/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603075/Co-pilot-missing-flight-MH370-desperate-call-mobile-phone-AFTER-aircraft-lost-normal-communication-ground.html

Now they are saying the co pilot made a call from his mobile after the plane went missing, but got cut off. Stranger and stranger..... and why has it taken 5 weeks to get this information!!

harvesmom wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603075/Co-pilot-missing-flight-MH370-desperate-call-mobile-phone-AFTER-aircraft-lost-normal-communication-ground.html

Now they are saying the co pilot made a call from his mobile after the plane went missing, but got cut off.  Stranger and stranger..... and why has it taken 5 weeks to get this information!!  

It reminds me of the McCann case Harves. It's like the papers are drip-feeding info and also giving out different signals and stories.
Almost like they want to confuse the public

harvesmom wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603075/Co-pilot-missing-flight-MH370-desperate-call-mobile-phone-AFTER-aircraft-lost-normal-communication-ground.html

Now they are saying the co pilot made a call from his mobile after the plane went missing, but got cut off.  Stranger and stranger..... and why has it taken 5 weeks to get this information!!  

And why was no one else trying to call anyone?

eddie wrote:

harvesmom wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603075/Co-pilot-missing-flight-MH370-desperate-call-mobile-phone-AFTER-aircraft-lost-normal-communication-ground.html

Now they are saying the co pilot made a call from his mobile after the plane went missing, but got cut off.  Stranger and stranger..... and why has it taken 5 weeks to get this information!!  

It reminds me of the McCann case Harves. It's like the papers are drip-feeding info and also giving out different signals and stories.
Almost like they want to confuse the public

Exactly, and one thing we did learn from all that was to never believe the story as it is written in main stream media. Usually, what ISN'T printed is far more important, the stuff you have to go googling for   

harvesmom wrote:

eddie wrote:

It reminds me of the McCann case Harves. It's like the papers are drip-feeding info and also giving out different signals and stories.
Almost like they want to confuse the public

Exactly, and one thing we did learn from all that was to never believe the story as it is written in main stream media. Usually, what ISN'T printed is far more important, the stuff you have to go googling for   

I agree
Yet when you quote something that isn't in the media people call it a 'conspiracy story'

harvesmom wrote:

eddie wrote:

It reminds me of the McCann case Harves. It's like the papers are drip-feeding info and also giving out different signals and stories.
Almost like they want to confuse the public

Exactly, and one thing we did learn from all that was to never believe the story as it is written in main stream media. Usually, what ISN'T printed is far more important, the stuff you have to go googling for   

Please dont mention googling people round here, its a sensitive issue   

Nems wrote:

harvesmom wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603075/Co-pilot-missing-flight-MH370-desperate-call-mobile-phone-AFTER-aircraft-lost-normal-communication-ground.html

Now they are saying the co pilot made a call from his mobile after the plane went missing, but got cut off.  Stranger and stranger..... and why has it taken 5 weeks to get this information!!  

And why was no one else trying to call anyone?

We keep coming up with more questions than answers on this    The passengers must have known they had changed direction. I wouldn't have a clue if a plane turned round unless someone told me but I am guessing there are people on a flight who would know.

harvesmom wrote:

Nems wrote:

And why was no one else trying to call anyone?

We keep coming up with more questions than answers on this    The passengers must have known they had changed direction. I wouldn't have a clue if a plane turned round unless someone told me but I am guessing there are people on a flight who would know.

I thought that too especially those who make that journey reguarly

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I tell you why I say that.  The MD-80, though bought out by Boeing, is actually a McDonnell-Douglas design.  (MD=McDonnell Douglas)   It  is atypical of the Boeing designs.  The MD-80, former DC-9, is a delicately designed aircraft, depending more on wing stability.  It has a beautiful wing that anchors the aircraft, and the tail stabilizers are simply for guidance, up down, left right.  But if anything goes wrong with those tail stabilizers, the airframe is erratic.  You can't control an aircraft with a single axis.

 The first job I had out of high school was as a computer programmer for North American Aiviation in Los Angeles, so I learned the basics if not the sophisticated details.  The Boeing aircraft is a much more stable airframe.  Beginning with the B-29, Boeing built heavy airframes relying mostly on stability and steady flight under minimal control.

Their jet series began with the 707.  It has gone through the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and now the 787, with the same basic stability.  They have gotten a lot bigger, and their power plants have gotten a lot more powerful.  But the basic aircraft remains the same: built for steady flight, natural passive glide ratio, and even balance.

The Boeing aircraft is like the German Mark IV tank: heavy, steady and reliable.  It has been the same throughout the whole 7-series.  The 777 is the new fly-by-wire technology, same as the F-117, but it is built upon the same old reliable airframe.  Its electronics would compensate for flight corrections due to a flame-out, but the air frame would remain steady and even.

That plane doesn't go into the drink head first.  No matter what you do with it, if it's left on autopilot it has a natural easy glide ratio...and goes down belly first.

A descent that brings down a Boeing airliner like a glide needs to managed by a pilot at the controls and there probably wouldn't have been one when MH370 went down.

With both engines flamed out the autopilot would no longer be working and the TAC system to control the thrust would have failed as well when the first engine failed. The only power the aircraft would have had would have come from the Ram Air Turbine but with no-one at the controls to use it the descent was uncontrolled.
Engines do not flame out at the same time due to fuel depletion - it just doesn't happen.

Jason Middleton is an Australian professor on aviation and he offers his scenario on how MH370 may have ended. It's here...

A STEEP DIVE

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/08/missing-malaysia-plane-could-have-speared-into-sea-leaving-few-clues-to-follow/

Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic, and not someone who wants fabricate arguments out of grudges back in Speak Free.

Well, Irn your knowledge of the Boeing is perhaps more technical than mine.  I only know the facts that I have a basis for, and my basis is shop talk around North American about developments in competitive companies back in the 1960s.

But if you look back and notice, this discussion was really a comparison of the Boeing 777 with the MD-80, or DC-9.  And the main focus was on the MD-80, since sassy had brought up the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261, suggesting it compared to a Boeing 777.

The MD-80 is a potentially unstable aircraft, if and when the tail assembly is disabled, according to my brother.  I know about the MD-80 from discussions I have had with him.  Now my brother is admittedly only a nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Lab, and a professor of physics at Berkeley, not specifically an aerospace scientist.  But he did his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth University in Engineering.  (I know it's not aeronautical engineering, but I do hope we are beyond stupid sassy arguments like that; parse any issue enough, and no one is an expert.)

We usually discuss theoretical physics, but this time he was discussing the wing of the MD-80.  He described the beauty of the wing of the MD-80, but brought attention to the fact that that axis is merely side-to-side.  The wings are relatively small, but designed perfectly to give the aircraft maximum lift, with minimal drag.  But with a side-to-side axis, all of the control of the aircraft depends on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer.  This is a diagram of the tail assembly of the MS-80:



The horizontal piece swivels as a function of a large jackscrew that runs up from the fuselage and is housed inside of the tail itself.  Turn it one way, the tail wing goes up; turn it the other, down.  It gets stuck, the pilot loses control.    To make matters worse, the MD-80 has only a single jackscrew, whereas other planes use a double (A-320, L-1011) or a ball-jackscrew.  Boeing uses a ballscrew design--that is on series 727,737,757,767 and maybe others.

The problem with the Alaska airlines aircraft was that the jackscrew assembly failed and due to either inadequate or non existent limit stops, the horizontal tail went well past limits, and well past what the elevators could overcome. I suspect the horizontal tail would've been stalled if it had full elevator one way and full trim the other.

The Boeing doesn't have this problem.  It's horizontal stabilizer uses flaps and lends stability to the whole aircraft.

PS: The Foxnews cite you offered does not load.  Perhaps retracted?  IDK...but faux news???

Nems wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

We keep coming up with more questions than answers on this    The passengers must have known they had changed direction. I wouldn't have a clue if a plane turned round unless someone told me but I am guessing there are people on a flight who would know.

I thought that too especially those who make that journey reguarly

Not if they were asleep or reading or chatting.....
How would you really know if a plane changed course? It's not like they do a sudden sharp turn.

Original Quill wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I tell you why I say that.  The MD-80, though bought out by Boeing, is actually a McDonnell-Douglas design.  (MD=McDonnell Douglas)   It  is atypical of the Boeing designs.  The MD-80, former DC-9, is a delicately designed aircraft, depending more on wing stability.  It has a beautiful wing that anchors the aircraft, and the tail stabilizers are simply for guidance, up down, left right.  But if anything goes wrong with those tail stabilizers, the airframe is erratic.  You can't control an aircraft with a single axis.

 The first job I had out of high school was as a computer programmer for North American Aiviation in Los Angeles, so I learned the basics if not the sophisticated details.  The Boeing aircraft is a much more stable airframe.  Beginning with the B-29, Boeing built heavy airframes relying mostly on stability and steady flight under minimal control.

Their jet series began with the 707.  It has gone through the 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777, and now the 787, with the same basic stability.  They have gotten a lot bigger, and their power plants have gotten a lot more powerful.  But the basic aircraft remains the same: built for steady flight, natural passive glide ratio, and even balance.

The Boeing aircraft is like the German Mark IV tank: heavy, steady and reliable.  It has been the same throughout the whole 7-series.  The 777 is the new fly-by-wire technology, same as the F-117, but it is built upon the same old reliable airframe.  Its electronics would compensate for flight corrections due to a flame-out, but the air frame would remain steady and even.

That plane doesn't go into the drink head first.  No matter what you do with it, if it's left on autopilot it has a natural easy glide ratio...and goes down belly first.

A descent that brings down a Boeing airliner like a glide needs to managed by a pilot at the controls and there probably wouldn't have been one when MH370 went down.

With both engines flamed out the autopilot would no longer be working and the TAC system to control the thrust would have failed as well when the first engine failed. The only power the aircraft would have had would have come from the Ram Air Turbine but with no-one at the controls to use it the descent was uncontrolled.
Engines do not flame out at the same time due to fuel depletion - it just doesn't happen.

Jason Middleton is an Australian professor on aviation and he offers his scenario on how MH370 may have ended. It's here...

A STEEP DIVE

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/04/08/missing-malaysia-plane-could-have-speared-into-sea-leaving-few-clues-to-follow/

Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic, and not someone who wants fabricate arguments out of grudges back in Speak Free.

Well, Irn your knowledge of the Boeing is perhaps more technical than mine.  I only know the facts that I have a basis for, and my basis is shop talk around North American about developments in competitive companies back in the 1960s.

But if you look back and notice, this discussion was really a comparison of the Boeing 777 with the MD-80, or DC-9.  And the main focus was on the MD-80, since sassy had brought up the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261, suggesting it compared to a Boeing 777.

The MD-80 is a potentially unstable aircraft, if and when the tail assembly is disabled, according to my brother.  I know about the MD-80 from discussions I have had with him.  Now my brother is admittedly only a nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Lab, and a professor of physics at Berkeley, not specifically an aerospace scientist.  But he did his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth University in Engineering.  (I know it's not aeronautical engineering, but I do hope we are beyond stupid sassy arguments like that; parse any issue enough, and no one is an expert.)

We usually discuss theoretical physics, but this time he was discussing the wing of the MD-80.  He described the beauty of the wing of the MD-80, but brought attention to the fact that that axis is merely side-to-side.  The wings are relatively small, but designed perfectly to give the aircraft maximum lift, with minimal drag.  But with a side-to-side axis, all of the control of the aircraft depends on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer.  This is a diagram of the tail assembly of the MS-80:



The horizontal piece swivels as a function of a large jackscrew that runs up from the fuselage and is housed inside of the tail itself.  Turn it one way, the tail wing goes up; turn it the other, down.  It gets stuck, the pilot loses control.    To make matters worse, the MD-80 has only a single jackscrew, whereas other planes use a double (A-320, L-1011) or a ball-jackscrew.  Boeing uses a ballscrew design--that is on series 727,737,757,767 and maybe others.

The problem with the Alaska airlines aircraft was that the jackscrew assembly failed and due to either inadequate or non existent limit stops, the horizontal tail went well past limits, and well past what the elevators could overcome. I suspect the horizontal tail would've been stalled if it had full elevator one way and full trim the other.

The Boeing doesn't have this problem.  It's horizontal stabilizer uses flaps and lends stability to the whole aircraft.

PS: The Foxnews cite you offered does not load.  Perhaps retracted?  IDK...but faux news???

Quill, I'd read what had been said earlier on this thread and although I could have commented on some what I'd read I decided that it would would be best not to pour oil on troubled waters and I really thought that you would do similar and reciprocate with any reply that you came back with but alas, I was wrong and you have chosen to make further remarks that are more likely just to fire it all up again.

I certainly haven't seen anything from Sassy comparing the Boeing with the MD-80 or DC-9 but if you have then I must be blind.

Thanks for all the data on that aircraft but it really doesn't take us any further in relation to what has happened to MH370. Hopefully that will be resolved at some time because I really would hate to leave this life without knowing what happened to it.

Other than that, let's see what happens in the days ahead.

eddie wrote:

Nems wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

We keep coming up with more questions than answers on this    The passengers must have known they had changed direction. I wouldn't have a clue if a plane turned round unless someone told me but I am guessing there are people on a flight who would know.

I thought that too especially those who make that journey reguarly

Not if they were asleep or reading or chatting.....
How would you really know if a plane changed course? It's not like they do a sudden sharp turn.

Quite right eddie. Sometimes the only way that a passenger can tell if the aircraft is banking is when the tea or coffee in your cup starts to appear as if it's going to run out of your cup by magic

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic, and not someone who wants fabricate arguments out of grudges back in Speak Free.

Well, Irn your knowledge of the Boeing is perhaps more technical than mine.  I only know the facts that I have a basis for, and my basis is shop talk around North American about developments in competitive companies back in the 1960s.

But if you look back and notice, this discussion was really a comparison of the Boeing 777 with the MD-80, or DC-9.  And the main focus was on the MD-80, since sassy had brought up the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261, suggesting it compared to a Boeing 777.

The MD-80 is a potentially unstable aircraft, if and when the tail assembly is disabled, according to my brother.  I know about the MD-80 from discussions I have had with him.  Now my brother is admittedly only a nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Lab, and a professor of physics at Berkeley, not specifically an aerospace scientist.  But he did his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth University in Engineering.  (I know it's not aeronautical engineering, but I do hope we are beyond stupid sassy arguments like that; parse any issue enough, and no one is an expert.)

We usually discuss theoretical physics, but this time he was discussing the wing of the MD-80.  He described the beauty of the wing of the MD-80, but brought attention to the fact that that axis is merely side-to-side.  The wings are relatively small, but designed perfectly to give the aircraft maximum lift, with minimal drag.  But with a side-to-side axis, all of the control of the aircraft depends on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer.  This is a diagram of the tail assembly of the MS-80:



The horizontal piece swivels as a function of a large jackscrew that runs up from the fuselage and is housed inside of the tail itself.  Turn it one way, the tail wing goes up; turn it the other, down.  It gets stuck, the pilot loses control.    To make matters worse, the MD-80 has only a single jackscrew, whereas other planes use a double (A-320, L-1011) or a ball-jackscrew.  Boeing uses a ballscrew design--that is on series 727,737,757,767 and maybe others.

The problem with the Alaska airlines aircraft was that the jackscrew assembly failed and due to either inadequate or non existent limit stops, the horizontal tail went well past limits, and well past what the elevators could overcome. I suspect the horizontal tail would've been stalled if it had full elevator one way and full trim the other.

The Boeing doesn't have this problem.  It's horizontal stabilizer uses flaps and lends stability to the whole aircraft.

PS: The Foxnews cite you offered does not load.  Perhaps retracted?  IDK...but faux news???

Quill, I'd read what had been said earlier on this thread and although I could have commented on some what I'd read I decided that it would would be best not to pour oil on troubled waters and I really thought that you would do similar and reciprocate with any reply that you came back with but alas, I was wrong and you have chosen to make further remarks that are more likely just to fire it all up again.

I certainly haven't seen anything from Sassy comparing the Boeing with the MD-80 or DC-9 but if you have then I must be blind.

Thanks for all the data on that aircraft  but it really doesn't take us any further in relation to what has happened to MH370. Hopefully that will be resolved at some time because I really would hate to leave this life without knowing what happened to it.

Other than that, let's see what happens in the days ahead.

Quite right, what I actually said was a plane that did a nose dive into the sea would break up as the MD-80 did.

Quill, forgot to give you an alternative to the Fox News link.

It's the Daily Mail no less...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2599456/Ocean-debris-left-jet-depends-angle-speed.html

" The call ended abruptly possibly "because the aircraft was fast moving away from the [telecommunications] tower," the New Straits Times quoted a source as saying.

However, the Malaysian daily also quoted another source saying that while Fariq Abdul Hamid's "line was reattached", there was no certainty that a call was made from the Boeing 777 which vanished on 8 March. "

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/12/mh370-co-pilot-phonecall-malaysia



OK it is late on a Saturday evening UK time...... Din dins eaten, fermented grape juice imbibed.

I am reading once again the Malaysian interpretation / official news...... with credulity, I admit the lateness and so my thoughts, are they once again saying as they have done in the last two weeks...... the plane might never have left KL ?

eddie wrote:

Nems wrote:

I thought that too especially those who make that journey reguarly

Not if they were asleep or reading or chatting.....
How would you really know if a plane changed course? It's not like they do a sudden sharp turn.

As I said I wouldn't have a clue, but I would have thought maybe crew/business people who as Nems say do the flight regularly would have noticed maybe the lack of land appearing? Or the sun coming up on the left instead of the right? Moon not being where it should be? Stars? The overhead monitors that tell you where you are? compasses/gps built into watches? Out of a whole plane load of people someone would have realised I'm sure one way or another.

harvesmom wrote:

eddie wrote:

Not if they were asleep or reading or chatting.....
How would you really know if a plane changed course? It's not like they do a sudden sharp turn.

As I said I wouldn't have a clue, but I would have thought maybe crew/business people who as Nems say do the flight regularly would have noticed maybe the lack of land appearing? Or the sun coming up on the left instead of the right? Moon not being where it should be? Stars? The overhead monitors that tell you where you are? compasses/gps built into watches? Out of a whole plane load of people someone would have realised I'm sure one way or another.

Yeah I guess you're right. Perhaps their drinks were spiked or they were drugged in some way?

eddie wrote:

harvesmom wrote:

As I said I wouldn't have a clue, but I would have thought maybe crew/business people who as Nems say do the flight regularly would have noticed maybe the lack of land appearing? Or the sun coming up on the left instead of the right? Moon not being where it should be? Stars? The overhead monitors that tell you where you are? compasses/gps built into watches? Out of a whole plane load of people someone would have realised I'm sure one way or another.

Yeah I guess you're right. Perhaps their drinks were spiked or they were drugged in some way?

Maybe so because as Nems and Harves are saying some people who were regulars would have realised the plane was changing direction.

Original Quill wrote:
Hear the quiver in her voice?  She's at her limits, now.

I'd like to know who exactly bet against her, because that person was betting on me.  That means there's yet another person who has seen through sassy.

  

I DON'T care What, Where or with Whom, Frau Arses's latest lies are about...

SASSY still remains the consummate liar on the this forum ~ she lies about FTL, Nems, Quill and moi week-in and week-out..

THE proof of her true bigoted and racist nature is shown up yet again in her attack thread on Aussies and Aboriginals ~ see for yourselves where vega' and I soundly defeated the senile old cow (yet again !).

AS well as posting at least a dozen of her outright lies across these Malaysian Airlines threads over the last fortnight, Sassy is also guilty of 'flooding' these threads with her un-edited c&p pieces, that she uses just to cram out other commentators and deter more people from joining in..

PUTTING Sassy and Stepto's names on my 'Foe's list' last week has made a big difference to navigating a clearer passage through these threads !  

  Poor thing, it's such a shame.

have they found it then or what ?

eddie wrote:

VOD(original) wrote:
Not sure i even remember you but you obviously remember me and accusing you of being stardesk should be a compliment he is a gentleman who i respect . But its obvious that being accused of a multi id poster has hurt you deeply  

I don't think Stephen is a multi Vod.

neither do i edds maybe i did on ado but that's years back i can't even remember its pathetic i don't think he is on here so i don't know why it is so painful for him.

If the plane hgv the water it would have broken up and debris would have been found by now.

Irn Bru wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Finally, a non-whiner who wants to discuss the topic, and not someone who wants fabricate arguments out of grudges back in Speak Free.

Well, Irn your knowledge of the Boeing is perhaps more technical than mine.  I only know the facts that I have a basis for, and my basis is shop talk around North American about developments in competitive companies back in the 1960s.

But if you look back and notice, this discussion was really a comparison of the Boeing 777 with the MD-80, or DC-9.  And the main focus was on the MD-80, since sassy had brought up the crash of Alaska Air Flight 261, suggesting it compared to a Boeing 777.

The MD-80 is a potentially unstable aircraft, if and when the tail assembly is disabled, according to my brother.  I know about the MD-80 from discussions I have had with him.  Now my brother is admittedly only a nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Lab, and a professor of physics at Berkeley, not specifically an aerospace scientist.  But he did his undergraduate degree from Dartmouth University in Engineering.  (I know it's not aeronautical engineering, but I do hope we are beyond stupid sassy arguments like that; parse any issue enough, and no one is an expert.)

We usually discuss theoretical physics, but this time he was discussing the wing of the MD-80.  He described the beauty of the wing of the MD-80, but brought attention to the fact that that axis is merely side-to-side.  The wings are relatively small, but designed perfectly to give the aircraft maximum lift, with minimal drag.  But with a side-to-side axis, all of the control of the aircraft depends on the vertical and horizontal stabilizer.  This is a diagram of the tail assembly of the MS-80:



The horizontal piece swivels as a function of a large jackscrew that runs up from the fuselage and is housed inside of the tail itself.  Turn it one way, the tail wing goes up; turn it the other, down.  It gets stuck, the pilot loses control.    To make matters worse, the MD-80 has only a single jackscrew, whereas other planes use a double (A-320, L-1011) or a ball-jackscrew.  Boeing uses a ballscrew design--that is on series 727,737,757,767 and maybe others.

The problem with the Alaska airlines aircraft was that the jackscrew assembly failed and due to either inadequate or non existent limit stops, the horizontal tail went well past limits, and well past what the elevators could overcome. I suspect the horizontal tail would've been stalled if it had full elevator one way and full trim the other.

The Boeing doesn't have this problem.  It's horizontal stabilizer uses flaps and lends stability to the whole aircraft.

PS: The Foxnews cite you offered does not load.  Perhaps retracted?  IDK...but faux news???

Quill, I'd read what had been said earlier on this thread and although I could have commented on some what I'd read I decided that it would would be best not to pour oil on troubled waters and I really thought that you would do similar and reciprocate with any reply that you came back with but alas, I was wrong and you have chosen to make further remarks that are more likely just to fire it all up again.

You apparently don't read carefully enough, Irn...which is a bad skill-habit for a mod.  I responded to sassy's technical post "comparing the Boeing with the MD-80" by mentioning that the MD-80 had a design issue (which is outlined above).  Sassy responded, not by addressing the technical issue, but by attacking me claiming I could never have worked for North American aviation, and thus did not know about airplanes.  She then attacked my whole professional background.  I simply defended myself, and eventually left the thread altogether when things heated up.

Now don't you feel ashamed for your mischaracterization of what happened?  Either you are biased or you are ill-prepared to follow the flow of discussions.  Have you considered resigning as a mod?

Irn Bru wrote:I certainly haven't seen anything from Sassy comparing the Boeing with the MD-80 or DC-9 but if you have then I must be blind.

Bingo!!  As I've just suggested, you are blind.  Here is what sassy said:

”Sassy” wrote:Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081230090602AA1gLMj

See: http://www.newsfixboard.com/t3784p150-is-flight-mh370-in-diego-garcia

The Alaska Airlines crash she raised, unprovoked and on her own, was the Flight 261 which we have been discussing.  It was an MD-80 aircraft, which led me to comment on the design of that aircraft and how it is not the same as a Boeing 777.

Now that you have been led like a child through the debate, aren't you ashamed for your lack of concentration and inability to follow?  Don't you think you should apologize to me at this point?  If not to me, at least to Ben for having taken the mod position what with your bias and your ill-considered judgment.  I repeat, I think you should consider resigning.

Irn Bru wrote:Thanks for all the data on that aircraft  but it really doesn't take us any further in relation to what has happened to MH370.

On the contrary, it eliminates needless discussion about other crashes that are dissimilar and nonproductive.  It helps us to focus in of the precise facts of Flight 777.

What I believe is most valuable, and the take-home from this discussion, is the fact that you posted the above only to further the shit-stirring begun by sassy.  I think it's quite sweet that you have a unique passive-aggressive style, but it is just as malicious.  It may fool some on here, but I doesn't affect me.  As B'rer Rabbit said, I'se born and raised in the briar patch.

Parting thought: consider resigning as mod.

Well if the plane was at cruising altitude, no one would survive as the ocean is hard as concrete when you hit it at over 500 mph from 30,000 feet. Look up Alaska Airlines that crashed in the Pacific a few years ago outside of LA. They literally plummted from cruising altitude nose first into the ocean. The only thing left of the plane were tiny shards.

Which is saying what happens to ANY plane when it nose dives.

Now, did you read what Ben wrote the other night? Some of us have taken it on board and are trying to make his life easier, I guess you don't want to.