4 ms·

They have info on the aircraft for some 8 hours. MH370 was a 777-200ER. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

They have info on the aircraft for some 8 hours. MH370 was a 777-200ER. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370 That gives it a range of 7725 nautical miles. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200product.page http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/777family/pf/pf_200p... Cruise speed is 0.84 mach at 35000 feet which is around 500mph. That's only 4000 miles of the 7000 mile range. If this is the full log including some time on the ground it would seem like they didn't necessarily run out of fuel. Kuala Lumpar to Beijing is about 2700 miles so I suppose they would probably carry enough fuel for the flight plus some reserve. So the fly-til-empty theory is still plausible.

mikeash 12y ago
You note this at the end, but just to reinforce: looking at the maximum range of the aircraft is pointless here, because airliners don't fly with full fuel unless they need to. Surplus fuel means surplus weight means you burn more fuel than you need to. They fly with what they need to get to the destination plus a margin, so a pad on top of the KL->Beijing distance is the right number to look at.
- Zancarius 12y ago
  And even then it assumes that the aircraft was at or near FL350 for the duration of the flight. If its altitude didn't remain constant (or its speed), fuel consumption is going to be affected by denser air at lower altitudes. So going off the figures of KL -> Beijing, plus reserves, is the best bet for the absolute maximum range of the aircraft in question with actual travel distance potentially being less. Examining the rules for fuel reserves might be a good place to start, as illustrated in this conversation [1]. As you pointed out in one of your other comment, the way MH370 was so badly mishandled will probably dramatically affect the outcome of our ability to ever find the aircraft. Although this data is interesting, I'm not optimistic there's anything much we can do with it that hasn't already been done. I suppose it serves as public evidence that the aircraft was indeed flying for the claimed duration earlier news reports suggested. But I don't recall anyone who was in disagreement with that figure. Conspiracists are undoubtedly quite happy to see this data, and although it's fun to consider outlandish possibilities, I wouldn't dare try my hand at speculating what the "ufologists" must believe happened. [1] http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/134720/ http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/...

mikeash 12y ago

You note this at the end, but just to reinforce: looking at the maximum range of the aircraft is pointless here, because airliners don't fly with full fuel unless they need to. Surplus fuel means surplus weight means you burn more fuel than you need to. They fly with what they need to get to the destination plus a margin, so a pad on top of the KL->Beijing distance is the right number to look at.

Zancarius 12y ago
And even then it assumes that the aircraft was at or near FL350 for the duration of the flight. If its altitude didn't remain constant (or its speed), fuel consumption is going to be affected by denser air at lower altitudes. So going off the figures of KL -> Beijing, plus reserves, is the best bet for the absolute maximum range of the aircraft in question with actual travel distance potentially being less. Examining the rules for fuel reserves might be a good place to start, as illustrated in this conversation [1]. As you pointed out in one of your other comment, the way MH370 was so badly mishandled will probably dramatically affect the outcome of our ability to ever find the aircraft. Although this data is interesting, I'm not optimistic there's anything much we can do with it that hasn't already been done. I suppose it serves as public evidence that the aircraft was indeed flying for the claimed duration earlier news reports suggested. But I don't recall anyone who was in disagreement with that figure. Conspiracists are undoubtedly quite happy to see this data, and although it's fun to consider outlandish possibilities, I wouldn't dare try my hand at speculating what the "ufologists" must believe happened. [1] http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/134720/ http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/...