Re: Planespotting
 

I met a neighbour at school today. He works for Inmarsat, and has just got back from a week in KL, supposedly working this mystery. I don't know him very well at all, and the fact that he was dishing this info quite freely to a relative stranger while prefacing it all with " I really shouldn't be telling you this, but..." perhaps means whatever follows needs a healthy degree of skepticism, but what he had to say was....
- Rolls Royce were receiving pings every 15 mins ( not hourly )
- it was RR engineers that came up with the 45000 feet followed by rapid descent scenario.
- Inmarsat were receiving pings for 7 hours, also at 15 min intervals, and had maintained all along that the plane turned due south and they finally lost contact west of Australia. Their own data supported the RR data.
- the most likely scenario that was touted in meetings he was in ( though he didn't specify whether these were "official" meetings or were over a few beers in a karaoke bar ) was an electrical fire in a wheel bay. Apparently the established procedure is disablement of suspect electrical systems, localized fire extinguishing and rapid climb to reduce oxygen. The theory goes that in the midst of this, the transponder and other automatic comms were disabled, but not the engine pings which are totally isolated. The theory then goes that this lead to some breach of cabin pressure, causing blackout/death and then flows into a similar scenario as Pulaski mentioned above ie unintentional "autopilot". He was just starting to tell me about the initial heading being towards a 13000 foot runway which they thought was an emergency landing destination, when one of the kindergartners puked on the table and I got dragged back to more immediate problems:lol:

Before shooting me down in flames, re-read the bold bit above:lol:

Shooting down in flames....hold on, have we covered that one, I mean the South China Sea / east Vietnam Sea ( depending on your flavour) has some contested areas, and the Chinese have been flexing their muscles again on boundaries and airspace.......:sneaky: no, let's not go there.....

Re: Planespotting
 

There always seems to be initial confusion as to who did what. Initially reports indicated that Australia satellites took the pictures of the debris but it is now confirmed that the pictures were taken by DigitalGlobe satellites.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/colorados-d...ry?id=22988405

Re: Planespotting
 

I'm not all that familiar with planes, but the plane that flew over our house today might have been a B2 bomber. It made a heck of a racket, was black and boomerang shape. I could only see the underside and couldn't see any markings. There was another different plane flying beside and a little behind it. I don't know what that one was.

Re: Planespotting
 

I'm sure that there is enough random debris floating around in the Indian Ocean to keep everyone busy for the next few years ...

Re: Planespotting
 

Could equally have been a B1 Lancer in low speed configuration too.

Re: Planespotting
 

There was only 20 ever built and the B2 is supposed to be quieter than a commercial jet and much quieter than most military planes so was likely another airplane. Also if it was low, I doubt the military would allow it to fly low over a residential area.

Re: Planespotting
 

A B2 is one of the planes least likely to be misidentified if you got a clear view of it. It looks like this:

http://starburstfound.org/electrogra...011/04/b-2.jpg

Re: Planespotting
 

From the description, maybe, but I'll bet she can can tell is if it was a B2, above, or a B1 Lancer, shown below with its alternative wing positions. The B1 looks remarkably conventional by the standards of today, and IMO more than a little Soviet in its design. :o

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thographic.PNG

Re: Planespotting
 

There is, but not much of it is going "ping" for the next twenty days though. :lol:

Re: Planespotting
 

Having been at a football game when a B2 did a fly over I can assure you it was not quieter than a commercial jet.

Re: Planespotting
 

Only 19 left then, as one crashed on Guam, several years ago/

Re: Planespotting
 

The planes searching the area off of Perth are primarily the P-3 Orions which were first flown in 1962. The US has also dispatched a P-8 Poseidon which is supposed to replace the P-3s because of worries about P-3 frame fatigue and the P-3 has significantly increased in weight due to new equipment and ordinance for destroying boats needed for it's search missions. Originally the P-3 could stay aloft for up to 16 hours but flight time has been significantly reduced due to the increased weight.

The P-8 (only recently introduced) is based on the 737-800 and with it fully loaded with gear and crew to perform search operations, it may not have the range to search the area off of Perth.

Since the primary mission for both planes are for security searches (primarily search and destroy missions of submarines) off the coast of countries, it appears that the military assumed that a shorter range would be sufficient for it's search missions.

I wonder if the US military will now reconsider the P-8 and go with an airplane based on a plane with a significantly longer range such as the 777.

The C-130 will also be used for the search mission to drop buoys but has been a work horse from everything from a cargo plane, gunship, can drop unload machinery and tanks while flying low, and was even used in the space program to hook objects from the air.

The P3s used to fly out of Moffett Field Naval Air Station in Mountain View (Silicon Valley) on a daily basis to perform search operations off the west coast.

Re: Planespotting
 

Perhaps. Adding refueling capability to the P-8 might be a possibility to give greatly extended operational range, and at much reduced cost and implementation lead time over a completely new aircraft.

Re: Planespotting
 

Didn't think about that. It probably already has in air refueling capabilities so maybe the US or Australia will be providing a refueling plane to allow it to stay aloft for a long time. However with only one being dispatched, that won't be very practical until the US military has many and other nations have the plane.

Military jets don't have a very long range but will in air refueling, it doesn't hinder the mission.

Edit. Apparently not possible yet. Starting in 2015 P-8A aircrews will begin air-to-air refueling training, and all 12 squadrons will be capable by 2020. The first P-8A was delivered in November 2013 and unless a P8-A was dispatched with crew that have been trained to perform in flight refueling, there won't be any in flight refueling for the P-8 off of Perth. However the P3-C does have in flight refueling capabilities.

Re: Planespotting
 

According to Wikipedia, it does.

I can't help but think that for really long range/ time operations, provision of bunks and food prep/ storage might therefore be the missing piece of the puzzle, and surely wouldn't add much weight.

So refueling of P-8's will become available as the search for MH370 continues. :rofl: