F430murci Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Wake turbulance You guys are talking about wing vortices which I believe would tend to go down and outward, but I was thinking also about turbulance coming off those big engines on a 777. Seems like those could create some problems or at least hit tail of plane flying very close. Would planes refueling not be a head of wake turbulance and don't they have to ploy through wake turbulence to get to cleaner air? At 600 feet back as suggested, I think it would be one rincredibly ough ride. Don't lead please in formation fly at lower altitude to avoid wake turbulance? Doesn't formation flying take skill that commercial pilot may not have, particularly at night? Edited April 4, 2014 by F430murci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Nevertheless, whether it was towed to the Indian Ocean by a Goodyear blimp or not, the points in my above post are fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Wake turbulance You guys are talking about wing vortices which I believe would tend to go down and outward, but I was thinking also about turbulance coming off those big engines on a 777. Seems like those could create some problems or at least hit tail of plane flying very close. I promise you in the photos above the engines were still running. You come from behind and below, find your sweet spot and keep it there. If you sit in the wrong position you hit 'dirty air' and fight like Mike Tyson to keep the aircraft in position (but wont), so you back off and come in for another go. The aircraft in front of you will have no clue you are there unless you want him to or he has a window or hatch in the back like the refueller's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywais Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 A good article on the theory of aircraft separation by radar - http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Range%20Resolution.en.html Another thing to keep in mind is the further away from the radar transmitter the lower the resolution will be to detect this separation due to the arc angle of the radar pulses (final width at target). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Wake turbulance You guys are talking about wing vortices which I believe would tend to go down and outward, but I was thinking also about turbulance coming off those big engines on a 777. Seems like those could create some problems or at least hit tail of plane flying very close. I promise you in the photos above the engines were still running. You come from behind and below, find your sweet spot and keep it there. If you sit in the wrong position you hit 'dirty air' and fight like Mike Tyson to keep the aircraft in position (but wont), so you back off and come in for another go. The aircraft in front of you will have no clue you are there unless you want him to or he has a window or hatch in the back like the refueller's. Would planes refueling not be ahead of wake turbulance and don't they have to plow through wake turbulence to get to cleaner air at refueling point? At 600 feet back as you suggested, I think it would be one incredibly rough ride and perhaps too rough to maintain for any length of time. Not sure wiki and some pictures off net tell the full story here. Are saying wake turbulence from 777 engines at say at cruising speed would be same as that from inboards of KC135 at refueling speed. Don't think so. Seems like aerial refueling would be designed to minimize wake turbulance. Don't lead planes in formation fly at lower altitude to avoid wake turbulance? Doesn't formation flying take skill that commercial pilot may not have, particularly at night? Again, what planes, especially heavies, do you have experience in? Edited April 4, 2014 by F430murci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canman Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Those silly Bhumi's at it again: Malaysian defence minister agrees MH370’s disappearance is a ‘blessing in disguise’http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2596004/Malaysian-defence-minister-centre-PR-blunder-agreeing-MH370s-disappearance-blessing-disguise.html#ixzz2xtp5hFyv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Wake turbulance You guys are talking about wing vortices which I believe would tend to go down and outward, but I was thinking also about turbulance coming off those big engines on a 777. Seems like those could create some problems or at least hit tail of plane flying very close. I promise you in the photos above the engines were still running. You come from behind and below, find your sweet spot and keep it there. If you sit in the wrong position you hit 'dirty air' and fight like Mike Tyson to keep the aircraft in position (but wont), so you back off and come in for another go. The aircraft in front of you will have no clue you are there unless you want him to or he has a window or hatch in the back like the refueller's. And Malaysian Airline pilots are routinely trained to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Nevertheless, whether it was towed to the Indian Ocean by a Goodyear blimp or not, the points in my above post are fact. You raise a valid point. It was a critical 'time' of communication. I do not believe the message or words were critical. But we need to know what happened between saying goodnight to Malaysia and switching frequency. I don't think it was suicide. What about the Boeing anti-hijack over-ride system. It would cut off all access to every single system to the crew. It could have been used purposely / maliciously or it could have been triggered inadvertently by accident/fault (no system has ever been designed on aircraft that is totally fail safe), leaving the crew with zero control or access to influence any system and contrary to popular belief you are not going to get a mobile phone signal. The whole thing is perplexing so maybe it needs consideration of a perplexing cause. I just don't think suicide is the cause factor here. It makes no sense, and that makes as much sense as any other scenario I guess. So take your pick. Personally I am not sat on the suicide fence, I don't even know which fence I am sat on but it all stinks that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) I have a hunch. Motive first, method later. Call me Sherlock if you wish. I don't think it was suicide either. Edited April 4, 2014 by P45Mustang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Wake turbulance You guys are talking about wing vortices which I believe would tend to go down and outward, but I was thinking also about turbulance coming off those big engines on a 777. Seems like those could create some problems or at least hit tail of plane flying very close. I promise you in the photos above the engines were still running. You come from behind and below, find your sweet spot and keep it there. If you sit in the wrong position you hit 'dirty air' and fight like Mike Tyson to keep the aircraft in position (but wont), so you back off and come in for another go. The aircraft in front of you will have no clue you are there unless you want him to or he has a window or hatch in the back like the refueller's. And Malaysian Airline pilots are routinely trained to do this. I doubt it very much. Only Military pilots will do anything this stupid with aircraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Another issue on the shadow theory, wouldn't a 777 have a fairly significant bow wave that would be felt by the lead plane if the 777 trail plane got close enough to blend radar signals? Seems like that could cause the tail to pitch up or make plane a but nose heavy at least enough to cause a trim change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Another issue on the shadow theory, wouldn't a 777 have a fairly significant bow wave that would be felt by the lead plane if the 777 trail plane got close enough to blend radar signals? Seems like that could cause the tail to pitch up or make plane a but nose heavy at least enough to cause a trim change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Just ran across this picture of wake turbulance behind a 777 which apparently is one if the absolute worst. Anyone wanna fly close behind that? http://avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12962 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Yep. You don't get wake turbulence like that behind a Goodyear blimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Another issue on the shadow theory, wouldn't a 777 have a fairly significant bow wave that would be felt by the lead plane if the 777 trail plane got close enough to blend radar signals? Seems like that could cause the tail to pitch up or make plane a but nose heavy at least enough to cause a trim change. Actually, it is directly contrary to the statement a few post above that says lead air craft would never notice a large plane like a 777 behind it. Here is a comment from a KC 135 pilot. ----------- The larger receivers have a larger bow wave that pushes the tanker's horizontal stabilizer up (nose down). This requires a large nose up trim input from the autopilot, if engaged, or the pilot flying. http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/aerial-refueling.123002/page-3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Wake turbulance You guys are talking about wing vortices which I believe would tend to go down and outward, but I was thinking also about turbulance coming off those big engines on a 777. Seems like those could create some problems or at least hit tail of plane flying very close. I promise you in the photos above the engines were still running. You come from behind and below, find your sweet spot and keep it there. If you sit in the wrong position you hit 'dirty air' and fight like Mike Tyson to keep the aircraft in position (but wont), so you back off and come in for another go. The aircraft in front of you will have no clue you are there unless you want him to or he has a window or hatch in the back like the refueller's. Would planes refueling not be ahead of wake turbulance and don't they have to plow through wake turbulence to get to cleaner air at refueling point? At 600 feet back as you suggested, I think it would be one incredibly rough ride and perhaps too rough to maintain for any length of time. Not sure wiki and some pictures off net tell the full story here. Are saying wake turbulence from 777 engines at say at cruising speed would be same as that from inboards of KC135 at refueling speed. Don't think so. Seems like aerial refueling would be designed to minimize wake turbulance. Don't lead planes in formation fly at lower altitude to avoid wake turbulance? Doesn't formation flying take skill that commercial pilot may not have, particularly at night? Again, what planes, especially heavies, do you have experience in? Well you are replying at last rather than just ignoring. Look, i really don't want to go on with this. You made various claims earlier which other members took exception to. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and not only supported you but advocated what you were saying. You keep asking the same questions and when you get a reply you completely ignore it..until now. I never said 600 feet back did I? I said a 600ft bubble. Would that not imply front of front aircraft to back of back aircraft? As a lawyer you should know the devil is in the detail. You are not reading the detail of what has been said. It would be tight, but with people with the right skill-set it is doable. You want to know if it can be done, the answer is yes. If you ask me if it was likely it was done the answer is no. The answer you want is clearly depending on the question you phrase, but as a lawyer you know that is an art form that can completely transform the implied meaning of the truth of a situation. You don't have to plow through anything. You slot in as I described, you find the sweet spot as I described. It is difficult but with constant practice it can be made to look very easy. If you now no longer accept pictures of large hull aircraft in close formation off the net then there is nothing I can do further to help you. Yes formation flying takes a skill that many commercial pilots have never practiced. I say again, they would need military experience or whoever flew such a mission would need to be military/ex military. Doing it at night can be done, especially with a pair of goggles. Some of you are getting hung up here on things you know nothing about and boy is a little knowledge a dangerous thing. If you do not want to know answers, stop asking questions and go play with the internet for an hour. The truth is out there scully. You have ignored or dissed every reply i have tried to give you, in answer to YOUR questions. I have given my time and energy to try and help you understand as I wrongly assessed that you were genuinely interested. I am wasting my time,and now you demand a list of aircraft I have experience on. Why should I compile that, so that you will come out with the undoubted derogatory remarks of "oh anyone can say that on the internet'. I took you at face value and believed and supported your claims that your family were involved in aviation and your brother was an F 15 pilot. Pick up the phone and call your brother, and if he says close formation cannot be done he lied to you and was not an F 15 pilot. So, either re-read all my words written in answer to your questions and give them the consideration the time and effort deserves or stop, because nobody is going to answer your questions to your satisfaction, regardless of the quality of their answers, and you are just wasting everybodys time by asking those questions and everyone elses time in having to read all the answers. And that is the last 5 mins I waste replying to you. Edited April 4, 2014 by GentlemanJim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Probable facts: Malaysian Airline pilot unlikely to have the necessary skills. Shadow theory does not contribute much to the distinct possibility that the final resting place is the bottom of the Indian Ocean...and not the South China Sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Probable facts: Malaysian Airline pilot unlikely to have the necessary skills. Shadow theory does not contribute much to the distinct possibility that the final resting place is the bottom of the Indian Ocean...and not the South China Sea. correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) GJim: Your long post above states aerial refueling receivers do not have to plow through wake turbulence to get close enough to refuel. "You don't have to plow through anything." The military guys that actually do this disagree with you. An F-15 pilot that moderates this millitary site states as follows: Q: How do you guys overcome wake turbulence issues? As far as I can tell you are behind and below the aircraft delivering fuel which would put you right in its wake turbulence? He answers: You're ahead of the wake turbulence. You plow through it to get into position and don't feel anything while in position. http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/aerial-refueling.123002/ You speak in absolutes. My only absolute statement was no way 370 made it all the way to Northwest Pakistan undetected. The 777 and those huge engine may present wake turbulence challenges not present with common refueling aircraft. Edited April 4, 2014 by F430murci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Jim: No way would I ask what you have flown and then diss it. That would sux. I am just curious if it is experience with heavies or small private. My experience is primarily flying my Duchess that I use to travel between my residence in Nashville and my residence in Florida so not like I can be critical of small plane experience either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Available evidence suggests that it did not go North to Pakistan. It went South into the South Indian Ocean. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26503141 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 There's 132 pages at the moment, would someone mind giving a quick synopsis of the current "theories" running around please . . . ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywais Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 There's 132 pages at the moment, would someone mind giving a quick synopsis of the current "theories" running around please . . . ? Here are 10 - http://nypost.com/2014/03/19/top-10-theories-about-what-happened-to-flight-mh370/ Some more - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/navjot-singh/post_7222_b_5056524.html And if a conspiracy advocate, 12 of them here - http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-10-weird-conspiracy-theories-on-flight-mh370/20140314.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Any theories do of course need to stand up to latest available facts, so a lot of theories that have been circulating can be blown out. Here's 10 questions being asked on March 26th. Malaysia plane: 10 questions that are still unresolved http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26671224 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retell Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Just ran across this picture of wake turbulance behind a 777 which apparently is one if the absolute worst. Anyone wanna fly close behind that? http://avcom.co.za/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12962 Nope , but have an idea how they thought up the thai airways logo thouSend with Commodore 64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatsujin Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 There's 132 pages at the moment, would someone mind giving a quick synopsis of the current "theories" running around please . . . ? Here are 10 - http://nypost.com/2014/03/19/top-10-theories-about-what-happened-to-flight-mh370/ Some more - http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/navjot-singh/post_7222_b_5056524.html And if a conspiracy advocate, 12 of them here - http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-10-weird-conspiracy-theories-on-flight-mh370/20140314.htm Thank you! Guess I should use Google more lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3NUMBAS Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 even the posters on prrune have run out of theories ,same old same old recycled over and over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Another issue on the shadow theory, wouldn't a 777 have a fairly significant bow wave that would be felt by the lead plane if the 777 trail plane got close enough to blend radar signals? Seems like that could cause the tail to pitch up or make plane a but nose heavy at least enough to cause a trim change. I agree. To continue talking about this turbulence BS is like: if there were a mysterious murder in your aunt's living room, and half the commentators could only discuss the tiffany lamp design. give the turbulence, phantom thing a break. It's like a diversion from more important issues in the mystery. From I've heard thus far, I think it was pilot suicide / mass murder. I could elaborate, but that's how I see it happened. There are several ways in which a pilot or crew member can indicate something awry on board. None, I repeat none were implemented. Basic monitoring functions were manually disabled, right before and right after the final sign-off. Whether the pilot was alive to the bitter end, is academic. Similarly, whether some or all of the passengers and crew were alive throughout, is also grist for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 <script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script> Another issue on the shadow theory, wouldn't a 777 have a fairly significant bow wave that would be felt by the lead plane if the 777 trail plane got close enough to blend radar signals? Seems like that could cause the tail to pitch up or make plane a but nose heavy at least enough to cause a trim change. I agree. To continue talking about this turbulence BS is like: if there were a mysterious murder in your aunt's living room, and half the commentators could only discuss the tiffany lamp design. give the turbulence, phantom thing a break. It's like a diversion from more important issues in the mystery. From I've heard thus far, I think it was pilot suicide / mass murder. I could elaborate, but that's how I see it happened. There are several ways in which a pilot or crew member can indicate something awry on board. None, I repeat none were implemented. Basic monitoring functions were manually disabled, right before and right after the final sign-off. Whether the pilot was alive to the bitter end, is academic. Similarly, whether some or all of the passengers and crew were alive throughout, is also grist for discussion. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45Mustang Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 From everything I have read up to the latest available evidence: Pilot suicide/mass murder by pilots or others on board/or a failed 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts