New Theory on Missing Flight

[GregGleason]

Interesting theory.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-31...ering-water-90-degrees-kept-plane-intact.html

Greg

 

[les]

I would be very surprised that the forces would not have broken the engines off, possibly the tail. I would think even the nose cone would have crushed in

A jet plane in a power dive would hit the water pretty hard...........

 

[GregGleason]

If the aircraft were supersonic I suppose that the shock cone could have created an entry cone into the water. But I have no idea. There's a whole lot of interrelated physics going on. Aerodynamics, structural dynamics, hydrodynamics, etc. all happening in the blink of an eye.

I'm thinking that you would have to build a scale model to see if it's feasible.

Regardless, an aircraft that size with a lot of people on board can still get lost in the big ol' earth and not leave a lot of clues behind.

Greg

 

[cvanc]

What else would a jetliner do if it ran out of fuel? Hard to imagine a scenario where it gently glided in...

And I agree with you Les, water doesn't compress and at high speeds might as well be concrete.

It'll be really something if this is ever found and the recorders still have data.

 

[EXPjawa]

It is interesting, but to claim that it is the only way it could have crashed such that they couldn't find debris is a bit, um, pompous. The most likely explanation is that the ocean is huge* and an airliner (even 777) is tiny. Throw in weather and a lot debris already floating around, and its really amazing to assume that anything would be found at all...

*See HHGG's entry on space...

 

[AcidPaintball]

I find this one a better fit...

 

[bobkrech]

Far more likely is a low speed power out crash landing in the ocean 1000 nm from the nearest populated land mass in one of the most isolated regions of the globe in the Roaring 40s where seas frequently run over 20' and winds over 40 knots. That's more likely to keep the wings on and not shred everything into small pieces which would float for a long time. The airframe would eventually fill with water and sink without leaving a trace....

Bob

 

[Rex R]

from what I've seen on air crash shows the only way to leave virtually no debris is a successful ditching ala miracle on the Hudson. the 'no fuel' slick is easy to explain, empty tanks.
Rex

 

[dr wogz]

That's what I believe.. A slow gentle shallow glide to a watery touchdown..

 

[K'Tesh]

I doubt that a plane entering the water vertically, or anywhere near it would remain intact. The only way I can think of to truly hide a plane would be to have it impact a mountain, and then be buried in a rock slide, mudslide, or an avalanche (such as the BSAA Avro Lancastrian Star Dust accident). I don't think any of those would be found anywhere near the area it is thought to be lost.

At the speeds likely involved, the plane would have broken into several pieces, why some of them weren't found floating is the big mystery.

 

[Airobert]

They glide just fine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

 

[hornet driver]

I'm not buying into this new theory. If it were a big hunk of metal--yea--but it's a fairly delicate aluminum tube. Water is a non compressible so for all intents and purposes they hit concrete. While it is surprising that nothing has been found, you must remember that the original search area was about the size of the United States. Only later was it downsized and that was done with the aid of a probability program so that's a crap shoot.

 

[Zeus-cat]

They glide just fine.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

The Gimli Glider is a great story. I remember reading about it in Reader's Digest many years ago.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

The Gimli Glider is a great story. I remember reading about it in Reader's Digest many years ago.

That's funny. I'm pretty sure that's where I read about this story too in the 80's. How would you like to have been riding your Go Kart on that track when this big silent bird came down?

 

[boomtube-mk2]

If a jet liner went into a nose down dive; would the wings even stay on during the dive?

Much less when it struck the water at near Mach speeds.

It would be kind of like that joke as to what the last thing to go through a bugs mind was when it hits a car’s windshield at 70mph?

What with the way sound travels through water it surprises me that the impact wasn’t recorded by someone’s sub’s sonar.

 

[Peartree]

If a jet liner went into a nose down dive; would the wings even stay on during the dive?

Much less when it struck the water at near Mach speeds.

It would be kind of like that joke as to what the last thing to go through a bugs mind was when it hits a car’s windshield at 70mph?

What with the way sound travels through water it surprises me that the impact wasn’t recorded by someone’s sub’s sonar.

This theory, and others like it have been around from early on. The only "new" part, apparently, is the mathematical way in which this guy arrived at his conclusion.

Originally, the thought was much like your question, wouldn't that big a "thump" have been "heard" on sonar? The answer, as far as I can tell, is "Maybe" and "It depends." The Indian Ocean is much larger than most people expect and has barely been studied or mapped. There is a whole lot of "not much" out there. Even a big splash might not have been heard if it was in the wrong place.

The thinking about a hard or steep crash is that enough damage would be done that the big pieces would sink. Often wings that come off in a lesser crash have enough air pockets that they float but a more damaging crash ruptures those pockets.

The argument against a repeat of the Gimli Glider or Miracle on the Hudson scenario is that both of those required some truly amazing piloting to pull it off. If the pilot in question turned off of the designated flight plan with the intention of killing himself and everyone aboard, why the heck would he try for a soft landing? Either he crashed on purpose at some point, or he kills himself before the fuel runs out and the plane just falls out of the sky.

 

[shreadvector]

[video=youtube;0GuX0NEfxiw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GuX0NEfxiw[/video]

Incredible,
ain't it?

 

[TopRamen]

Whatever actually happened, we will apparently never know, so conjecture about it is only meant to get hits on the internet.
What a shame.
My home security cameras upload live from the DVR to the Lorex Stratus Network, it's a shame they can't incorporate that $600.00 Technology into multi-million dollar Aircraft.

 

[FastCargo]

Folks, there are already several examples of what happens when a large jet powered aircraft impacts the ground in almost a perpendicular angle at near sonic speed.

UAL Flight 93 which impacted at a 40 degree angle at nearly 600 mph.

Pyote 70, a B-1B which impacted the side of a ridge line almost perpendicular at about 600 mph.

In both cases, the aircraft were basically shredded. If this happened in the ocean, most everything would have been crushed or broken apart into pieces not much bigger than a bed. Considering the majority of that was metal, it would have sank almost immediately. Lighter stuff like paper would have rapidly drifted apart in little pieces. There wouldn't be any air pockets left in anything of significant size to be seen in the VAST ocean.

FC

 

[Astro-Baby]

Fact is the ocean is huge and the plane very small. Consider the Titanic, very large and a fair idea of where it was when it sank. Still took a very long time to find it and a ton of technology over a period of years, plenty of false dawns too and thats looking for an ocean liner that was relatively intact.

If the plane went down and broke up looking for the bits of it woild be a arww

 

[Woody's Workshop]

I hope I live long enough to see something from that aircraft land on some shore somewhere...
If it indeed crashed into the ocean.
Even if it did a low slow glide ocean landing, something would have floated away...somewhere.
Unless everyone on board was already dead, and no doors were opened, and no windows broke out during the landing.
Or any of the skin was damaged; like the baggage compartment or other compartments.
The flight path, if correct, to me would indicate a high jacking with an unprepared hi-jacker.
They flew around until they ran out of fuel and ditched.
Or made it seam that way and landed on some remote island somewhere.
Most likely I think it sank fully in tact.
And no one will know anything until it decays and something floats to the surface and lands somewhere or is found at sea.

 

[tmacklin]

Well here's another theory, mine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Malaysian_Air_Force

Did you know that Kuala Lumpur currently has the two tallest twin towers in the world and that Malaysia has many people who are dissatisfied with their western leaning economy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuala_Lumpur

This opinion plus $1.00 will get you a hot cup of coffee in most roadside restaurants. :wink:

 

[georgegassaway]

Whatever actually happened, we will apparently never know, so conjecture about it is only meant to get hits on the internet.
What a shame.
My home security cameras upload live from the DVR to the Lorex Stratus Network, it's a shame they can't incorporate that $600.00 Technology into multi-million dollar Aircraft.

Oh, the technology absolutely exists. Perhaps not practical for the extra cost to do live video streaming (bandwidth) from the cockpit, but easy enough for a "virtual black box" that live streams flight data including position, altitude, and IIRC cockpit voice. Several news stories about that last year due to this missing flight.

The airlines simply do not want to spend the money. And no one airline is going to do that to incur the costs that their competitors do not also incur. So it'll take regulatory action to make it happen. Question is how many more mysterious crashes have to happen before inevitably it is required.

- George Gassaway

 

[boomtube-mk2]

Whatever happened with regards to the story wherein the engine manufacture were saying that they were receiving telemetry data from the plane’s engines showing that they were still running long after conventional wisdom said they plane had crashed?

 

[Scott Evil]

Still sticking with my theory that it landed in the boondocks of Asia somewhere for unknown nefarious reasons

 

[user 13]

Oh, the technology absolutely exists. Perhaps not practical for the extra cost to do live video streaming (bandwidth) from the cockpit, but easy enough for a "virtual black box" that live streams flight data including position, altitude, and IIRC cockpit voice. Several news stories about that last year due to this missing flight.

The airlines simply do not want to spend the money. And no one airline is going to do that to incur the costs that their competitors do not also incur. So it'll take regulatory action to make it happen. Question is how many more mysterious crashes have to happen before inevitably it is required.

- George Gassaway

Sorry George, I hate to disagree with you, but almost nothing is correct.

You cant just put a thing on an airliner, and if said thing transmits ANYTHING it's even harder. The FAA is VERY careful about anything to do with airliners,
and nothing happens fast. In the 1990's my airline installed HUDs on our 737s. The same HUDs that were operating on pur 727s for years. The paperwork
sat on a desk for 8 months before getting approval!

Another thing is the cost involved is enormous! In a meeting this week I learned that 1 coffee maker on our 737s costs $35000.
So how much would the $600 video system end up costing.

Don't believe most of what you hear on the news about aviation. They get it crazy wrong most of the time.

At this point it has NOTHING to do with cost. It has to do with governmental agencies all over the world trying to figure out/agree on what they are going to make the airlines
do.

There already exist a very workable solution. It has been used for years, it is on many western aircraft that fly long range routes now. It's about as foolproof as something can be.
It involves GPS position transmitted via SatCom at very frequent intervals. This is probably what is going to happen but some Asian carriers are fighting it.

The reason nothing has been done yet is there is no international consensus yet.

 

[bobkrech]

Still sticking with my theory that it landed in the boondocks of Asia somewhere for unknown nefarious reasons

My favorite one too.

Bob

 

[10fttall]

So they think a gentle landing in swells (did they even check the sea conditions at the time?) would break the plane apart? So they discounted that, but thought slamming into the water perpendicular would keep the plane intact? That's bass ackwards.

And unless there was a reason to kidnap someone onboard, there are much easier ways of obtaining an airliner. Buying one for instance, instead of hijacking, landing, concealing, disposing or housing passengers, keeping all the perpetrators in agreement and quiet.

 

[MClark]

To be looking for this plane for so long somewhere a lot of money is involved.
The airline may talk nice wanting closure for the victims families but that is just BS. Either someone is getting paid to fly around on a futile search or there was something valuable they need to recover-- or found so the wrong people don't recover it.

The plane is tore to pieces. Years ago there was a water landing right off a resort in the Indian Ocean, there is video of it. The landing was textbook, most survived, the plane was busted into big chunks.

M

 

[Woody's Workshop]

Another Theory to think about...
It was hi-jacked, flown around to confuse radar.
Landed somewhere, passengers and crew eliminated.
Plane is being prepped for a major terrorist action.