Where the heck is that Malaysian 777?

z31maniac wrote: Yeah a quick search indicated even still in use/major airstrips (at least American) only 50% would have been long enough by 1955. I think a 777 needs something like 7000ft for take-off if fully loaded.

To take off, yes. To land? Not so much.

Bobzilla wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Yeah a quick search indicated even still in use/major airstrips (at least American) only 50% would have been long enough by 1955. I think a 777 needs something like 7000ft for take-off if fully loaded.

To take off, yes. To land? Not so much.

What would be the point of stealing it, to use again, if it can't take off?

Bobzilla wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Yeah a quick search indicated even still in use/major airstrips (at least American) only 50% would have been long enough by 1955. I think a 777 needs something like 7000ft for take-off if fully loaded.

To take off, yes. To land? Not so much.

Back when I was flying on flight test airplanes at Boeing, was on a (light) 777 landing to the north at Paine Field-- Made the A5 taxiway turnoff, which is less than 1/2 of a 9000 ft (good condition, paved) runway.

Of course, everything loose in the airplane was up against the front bulkhead. Ground crew should have run out to the airplane with hotdogs and marshmallows on sticks to do over the brakes.

z31maniac wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

z31maniac wrote: Yeah a quick search indicated even still in use/major airstrips (at least American) only 50% would have been long enough by 1955. I think a 777 needs something like 7000ft for take-off if fully loaded.

To take off, yes. To land? Not so much.

What would be the point of stealing it, to use again, if it can't take off?

I didn't steal it, I'm merely making factual statements. I'm not guessing what happened to it at all. For all I know it will appear in one of two places: The Bermuda Triangle or in Loch Ness.

z31maniac wrote: Yeah a quick search indicated even still in use/major airstrips (at least American) only 50% would have been long enough by 1955. I think a 777 needs something like 7000ft for take-off if fully loaded.

The other night they showed a graphic of all the airfields that would handle a 777. There were a lot. But, it would take someone complicit with what was going down. So it would be a country that hates everybody. maybe like Korea or Iran.

In reply to Bobzilla:

Nah, it was Elliot Carver in the Sea Shadow........

I still think that Kim Jong Un is stripping this plane down getting ready to..

wait for it...

throw a kit on it

In reply to Quasi Mofo:

I E36 M3 you not, I was thinking you were going to say:

Throw some Ds on that bitch!

In reply to N Sperlo:

So, Kim wants his own "Soul Plane" to fly around with Rodman in?

I think this is more Rodman's taste. Ya know...

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Quasi Mofo: I E36 M3 you not, I was thinking you were going to say: Throw some Ds on that bitch!

I was on the fence. I really really was. I figured we had enough of the VW crowd for the first and enough Atlanta for the other ;)

Maybe the Air America boys need more planes.

Wooh...JB is back to Quasi Mofo?

Grtechguy wrote: Wooh...JB is back to Quasi Mofo?

I figured, what the heckyl.

Quasi Mofo wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Quasi Mofo: I E36 M3 you not, I was thinking you were going to say: Throw some Ds on that bitch!

I was on the fence. I really really was. I figured we had enough of the VW crowd for the first and enough Atlanta for the other ;)

Ugh, and there is enough of the VW crowd in Atlanta.

aircooled wrote: A B-17 or B-24 is pretty big, but still way smaller and way slower a landing speed then a 777, and much better in a rough field. This will give you an idea: And I am pretty sure the B52 looks pretty small next to a 777 (162 ft long vs 209 ft).

Not much larger than you think: EDITED Nevermind, The pick I had was a KC767 refueling a B52. The 777 is a whale!

Wow.

So, the payload of a 777 appears to be 50% more than a C-130.

That is kinda scary to think about....

SVreX wrote: Wow. So, the payload of a 777 appears to be 50% more than a C-130. That is kinda scary to think about....

Wow...

And they still have the nerve to charge for an extra suitcase.

Looks like it went down in the southern indian ocean by this press conference going on now http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26711298

In reply to johndej:

I'm confused with why they are "matter of factly" stating that as they still haven't recovered anything yet.

I would guess that we've pretty much determined it's not hidden away to be a threat later, and there are no survivors to rescue so we are done looking.

Just a guess, and not a conspiracy theorist, but:

I think they've been more sure about the debris and the location than they have previously let on. Notice they concentrated in that area even after saying that the possibilities were a huge radius going much further north.

There are a lot of satellites up there and their owners aren't particularly anxious to reveal their capabilities. The fuzzy images we've been seeing on the news are probably at deliberately reduced resolutions. I've heard it said that we've got satellites that could read a license plate-- if so, then identifying a 24 meter piece of debris should be cake.

They are now saying the analysis of the data from the pinging on the plane has been more closely analyzed, which has revealed the position. Again, there is probably at least one nation out there that doesn't want everyone to know their capabilities of tracking a plane across the globe, maybe the US, maybe someone else. So this is the explanation that gets out there.

In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the announcement that debris has been found isn't far behind.

In reply to Basil Exposition:

I hear the Hair Club for Men is developing a new satellite based sales and marketing campaign for identifying potential buyers of hair pieces.