Sorry Ethel - that's not right. For an aircraft to stay in the air it needs forward momentum to create lift. You can do that with engine power or in extremis by maintaining a slight nose down attitude to maintain speed. In the former, the aircraft would continue (if the crew were incapacitated) at the flight level set in the autopilot until such times as the fuel ran out. At this point speed would drop below 137 kts and the aircraft wings would stall...............................big crash in the sea.
In the latter - you'd need a lucky pilot and good sea states and weather, but as I said you're still hitting the sea at 156 mph. Even in the unlikely event of nothing breaking off the wings etc........................once it sank into the depths of the Indian Ocean it would break up due to the pressure. In any case that latter doesn't fit in with your scenario of both pilots being "out of it". Without pilots, there is no gliding down to a nice feathery sea landing - just a steep drop from whatever altitude the ap is set at, once the fuel runs out.
Indeed. I think Vfe (that's the slowest speed it can fly before stalling, with fully extended flaps) on a 777 is about 120kts - about 138mph. At that speed, the coefficient of friction in water is about 1,000 times that of air, meaning that whatever touch water first effectively becomes an anchor on something going twice the speed you do on a motorway. That could be a wingtip or an engine.
Which means that when a plane touches water, unless it can very accurately drag its fuselage belly along the surface without letting the wings/engines touch, it will simply flip over and slam into the water at high speed.
And that would involve lots of wreckage on the surface.
Sorry Ethel - that's not right. For an aircraft to stay in the air it needs forward momentum to create lift. You can do that with engine power or in extremis by maintaining a slight nose down attitude to maintain speed. In the former, the aircraft would continue (if the crew were incapacitated) at the flight level set in the autopilot until such times as the fuel ran out. At this point speed would drop below 137 kts and the aircraft wings would stall...............................big crash in the sea.
In the latter - you'd need a lucky pilot and good sea states and weather, but as I said you're still hitting the sea at 156 mph. Even in the unlikely event of nothing breaking off the wings etc........................once it sank into the depths of the Indian Ocean it would break up due to the pressure. In any case that latter doesn't fit in with your scenario of both pilots being "out of it". Without pilots, there is no gliding down to a nice feathery sea landing - just a steep drop from whatever altitude the ap is set at, once the fuel runs out.
L-D of a 777 is around 1 in 20 (which would be a good glide angles for a wooden glider from the 1950s), so there's no "steep drop from whatever altitude the ap is set at, once the fuel runs out.". - from 5 miles up the plane could go 100 miles (more if flying with the wind, less if it's flying into wind) before reaching the "ground" and at low level ground effect would slow the rate of descent until below flying speed. Yes, the odds are it would break up, but it could also just lose the engines and be relatively intact, it may not even crush if there is a leakage of water into the aircraft as it sinks.
Everything about this case is left field and until some real evidence of the location of the aircraft is found virtually everything is conjecture
- Plane Hijacked
- Pilot was political
- Plane went up to 45,000 ft to possibilty knock passengers out and then went down to 5,000 ft to avoid radar.
- Possibly landed at secret location on Iranian border
And yet none of that is "what we know" or confirmed.
I was thinking the same....not read much press today but I wonder if there has been any media comment about this....To be honest the Malysian Government should serioulsy think about letting one of the investigating teams host a press conference...in essence let an expert explain in detail what they do know...I don`t believe there has been a cover up or a conspiracy...but the Malayians seem to be confusing the issue somewhat with their press releases
They should just let the US NTSB do them. They have a policy of releasing every last bit of information as they find it (as is required by US law concerning government information). It might seem a bit geeky, but at least you know everything is 100% transparent. There is no need to withhold *any* information in a scenario like this.
And yet none of that is "what we know" or confirmed.
Again miss information and speculation as facts.
To be fair it has been made quite clear that the pilot was politically active for the opposition leader in Malaysia. Doesn't prove anything but has been made quite clear.
To be fair it has been made quite clear that the pilot was politically active for the opposition leader in Malaysia. Doesn't prove anything but has been made quite clear.
He was, but he was a progressive. Pushing more democracy and fairness. Not a regressive.
It says nothing whatsoever.
He was, but he was a progressive. Pushing more democracy and fairness. Not a regressive.
It says nothing whatsoever.
He was said to be very upset after the opposition leader was jailed for 5 years on the day of the flight. Of course it could mean nothing but it is something that has been considered and rightly so.
The authorities have to look at all angles in this situation and that is why they have searched both the pilots and co pilots homes and taken the flight simulator from the pilots home to look at.
Any reason why the newsreaders seem to have taken to pronouncing "Malaysian" as "Malay-zee-an"? That seems (to me) a bit like a C4 continuity announcer telling us to stay tuned for a repeat of "Fray-zee-er" of a morning.
oh well, I thought they might have something new or different theory rather than the news channels, but it was more like a summary of what we already know...which really isnt much
L-D of a 777 is around 1 in 20 (which would be a good glide angles for a wooden glider from the 1950s), so there's no "steep drop from whatever altitude the ap is set at, once the fuel runs out.". - from 5 miles up the plane could go 100 miles (more if flying with the wind, less if it's flying into wind) before reaching the "ground" and at low level ground effect would slow the rate of descent until below flying speed. Yes, the odds are it would break up, but it could also just lose the engines and be relatively intact, it may not even crush if there is a leakage of water into the aircraft as it sinks.
Everything about this case is left field and until some real evidence of the location of the aircraft is found virtually everything is conjecture
Absolute nonsense Ethel.
You have the autopilot set to cruise at Mach .77 and at 35,000 feet and onwards the aircraft goes. It will maintain that height and speed until the fuel runs out, at which point the speed will fall off. As the speed falls off, the autothrottle pushes forward, but has no effect, because there's no fuel. The speed falls off further and the autopilot tries to maintain the altitude by raising the nose, thus knocking more speed off. Eventually, the air running over the top of the wing, which provides the majority of the lift, becomes turbulent resulting in loss of lift....................that's called a stall.
Now unless there's a pilot on hand (which in your scenario there isn't) the wings stall and the Boeing 777 develops the gliding properties of a London Brick.....................and consequently drops like one.
If you want to see how difficult a sea landing is watch this;
You have the autopilot set to cruise at Mach .77 and at 35,000 feet and onwards the aircraft goes. It will maintain that height and speed until the fuel runs out, at which point the speed will fall off. As the speed falls off, the autothrottle pushes forward, but has no effect, because there's no fuel. The speed falls off further and the autopilot tries to maintain the altitude by raising the nose, thus knocking more speed off. Eventually, the air running over the top of the wing, which provides the majority of the lift, becomes turbulent resulting in loss of lift....................that's called a stall.
Now unless there's a pilot on hand (which in your scenario there isn't) the wings stall and the Boeing 777 develops the gliding properties of a London Brick.....................and consequently drops like one.
If you want to see how difficult a sea landing is watch this;
The Hudson crash was a good example of how it can be done. That had no engines!
Also a good example of how a plane can float even with open doors.
The example in that video he unfortunately caught the sea too early on the left wing. Perhaps flying on one engine didn't help that.
Yes - but if you read Ethel's posts - she is suggesting that the aircraft would land gently having glided down from whatever altitude............................whilst the crew is unconscious/incapacitated..............................................totally impossible.
Here's a link to one incident, where the aircraft flew on with an unconscious crew.
Yes - but if you read Ethel's posts - she is suggesting that the aircraft would land gently having glided down from whatever altitude............................whilst the crew is unconscious/incapacitated..............................................totally impossible.
Here's a link to one incident, where the aircraft flew on with an unconscious crew.
You have the autopilot set to cruise at Mach .77 and at 35,000 feet and onwards the aircraft goes. It will maintain that height and speed until the fuel runs out, at which point the speed will fall off. As the speed falls off, the autothrottle pushes forward, but has no effect, because there's no fuel. The speed falls off further and the autopilot tries to maintain the altitude by raising the nose, thus knocking more speed off. Eventually, the air running over the top of the wing, which provides the majority of the lift, becomes turbulent resulting in loss of lift....................that's called a stall.
Now unless there's a pilot on hand (which in your scenario there isn't) the wings stall and the Boeing 777 develops the gliding properties of a London Brick.....................and consequently drops like one.
If you want to see how difficult a sea landing is watch this;
The Hudson crash was a good example of how it can be done. That had no engines!
Also a good example of how a plane can float even with open doors.
The example in that video he unfortunately caught the sea too early on the left wing. Perhaps flying on one engine didn't help that.
It is very difficult to land at sea, but in the Ethiopian Airlines case, I believe the pilot and hijacker were fighting in the cockpit as they ditched.
Comments
We cant discuss the MM case by you saying that
Anyways back onto this case and as the days pass by it gets more concerning if this plane will ever be found
Indeed. I think Vfe (that's the slowest speed it can fly before stalling, with fully extended flaps) on a 777 is about 120kts - about 138mph. At that speed, the coefficient of friction in water is about 1,000 times that of air, meaning that whatever touch water first effectively becomes an anchor on something going twice the speed you do on a motorway. That could be a wingtip or an engine.
Which means that when a plane touches water, unless it can very accurately drag its fuselage belly along the surface without letting the wings/engines touch, it will simply flip over and slam into the water at high speed.
And that would involve lots of wreckage on the surface.
Everything about this case is left field and until some real evidence of the location of the aircraft is found virtually everything is conjecture
And yet none of that is "what we know" or confirmed.
Again miss information and speculation as facts.
They should just let the US NTSB do them. They have a policy of releasing every last bit of information as they find it (as is required by US law concerning government information). It might seem a bit geeky, but at least you know everything is 100% transparent. There is no need to withhold *any* information in a scenario like this.
To be fair it has been made quite clear that the pilot was politically active for the opposition leader in Malaysia. Doesn't prove anything but has been made quite clear.
He was, but he was a progressive. Pushing more democracy and fairness. Not a regressive.
It says nothing whatsoever.
He was said to be very upset after the opposition leader was jailed for 5 years on the day of the flight. Of course it could mean nothing but it is something that has been considered and rightly so.
The authorities have to look at all angles in this situation and that is why they have searched both the pilots and co pilots homes and taken the flight simulator from the pilots home to look at.
It is very rare and extremely hard to land a plane on water, especially the sea.
Of course it is. And with no pilot input involved the odds on the airframe not breaking up are nigh on impossible.
Its also rare for a plane to disappear
oh well, I thought they might have something new or different theory rather than the news channels, but it was more like a summary of what we already know...which really isnt much
Absolute nonsense Ethel.
You have the autopilot set to cruise at Mach .77 and at 35,000 feet and onwards the aircraft goes. It will maintain that height and speed until the fuel runs out, at which point the speed will fall off. As the speed falls off, the autothrottle pushes forward, but has no effect, because there's no fuel. The speed falls off further and the autopilot tries to maintain the altitude by raising the nose, thus knocking more speed off. Eventually, the air running over the top of the wing, which provides the majority of the lift, becomes turbulent resulting in loss of lift....................that's called a stall.
Now unless there's a pilot on hand (which in your scenario there isn't) the wings stall and the Boeing 777 develops the gliding properties of a London Brick.....................and consequently drops like one.
If you want to see how difficult a sea landing is watch this;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA5FMFVbVZ0
and this was with a pilot in control!!!
BTW: Lift/drag ratios only work if you have a pilot actually controlling the aircraft. Without power - they cannot and do not fly themselves.
The Hudson crash was a good example of how it can be done. That had no engines!
Also a good example of how a plane can float even with open doors.
The example in that video he unfortunately caught the sea too early on the left wing. Perhaps flying on one engine didn't help that.
Yes - but if you read Ethel's posts - she is suggesting that the aircraft would land gently having glided down from whatever altitude............................whilst the crew is unconscious/incapacitated..............................................totally impossible.
Here's a link to one incident, where the aircraft flew on with an unconscious crew.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash
Correct.
Try not to fall out with Ethel dear. This dreadful incident looks to have killed over 200 people - it's not worth us all falling out over it as well.
It is very difficult to land at sea, but in the Ethiopian Airlines case, I believe the pilot and hijacker were fighting in the cockpit as they ditched.
I would never fall out with Ethel - she's one of the nicest posters on DS.