Missing Flight MH370 777-200

[DER E30]

How close would the plane have to be to the singapore flight 68 to appear as a single blip?


I would think it would have to be WELL within sight, but with the lights off, they would probably disappear into the night sky...

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://jon-browning.photoshelter.com/gallery/Tarim-Desert-Highway-China/G0000EYkx77qiKYA/

Looks to be two lanes in the stuff I can find...

[DER E30]

You must not have taken the time to look to the post I was referencing, where I shared info on a 445+km deserted transport highway in China.

I did, and I read the thing by Keith Ledgerwood, which I thought was interesting.

I looked up the 777 on wikipedia and landing something 300,000pounds empty seems difficult. This pic makes the wheels something like 50 feet apart. I suppose they could have found a wide spot, and landing the weight of 3 or 4 loaded semi trucks on the road seems doable

It just seems like A LOT of trouble to me. The flight sim could have helped though...

[einhander]

What was the weather at the hypothetical time of landing too?

[Farbin Kaiber]

The desert it's in ranges from 800m to 1500m above sea level.

I'm looking for data on the highway...

[einhander]

Burma. And the Chinese.

Are you just saying countries?

[mulletman]

What's the elevation of that stretch of highway? If your density altitude is high, it's going to cause more problems getting something off the ground. That is, if you could get it on the ground without ruining it or getting it stuck in the first place. How wide is this highway? Most highways I know of that are in remote places are two lanes. Most runways are 150 or 200 feet wide.


Splash.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Burma. And the Chinese.

[einhander]

You must not have taken the time to look to the post I was referencing, where I shared info on a 445+km deserted transport highway in China.

The Chinese would have to be in on it then. And the Bangladeshis. And the Nepalis. And the Indians.

Which is impossible.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Sounds too hard to do. AND find a runway. AND figure out how to avoid radar/sneak in.


The thing made a big splash somewhere.



Or aliens.

You must not have taken the time to look to the post I was referencing, where I shared info on a 445+km deserted transport highway in China.

[DER E30]

Also, on this land&takeoff theory, a 777 holds what, ~45,000gal of fuel? So, an 18 wheeler tanker holds about 6,000gal, so, they could pull a complete refuel, IF they had six tanker rigs on the desert highway, and, to likely not be seen, needed a rig to pump into that pumps all six trucks into the tanks at once, otherwise, they would be sitting on some ground for 6+ hours I'd guess. So, IF they had six tankers, a pump truck, and four tourist busses, the passengers could still be alive.

Sounds too hard to do. AND find a runway. AND figure out how to avoid radar/sneak in.


The thing made a big splash somewhere.



Or aliens.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^I was gonna say, that flight still had a great deal of fuel load from Van to Win, if it was a direct to Lon. Would have been much easier for a far lighter plane to get up without passengers and cargo. Maybe they didn't even have to refuel anywhere to pull it all off. (If this is the case...)

[mulletman]

Back when the 777 first came out, I was on a direct flight to London from Vancouver and we had a medical emergency up near the top of Hudson's Bay. We had to turn around and land at Winnipeg international airport. The landing was fine, but to take off again, we needed to use what felt like full throttle on the side road leading to our runway, go around the corner under heavy throttle onto the runway to take off. The pilot said the runway was not designed for our aircraft and was not long enough:!:

Coles notes. 777 needs a long ass runway.

Hah... that sounds like a violation waiting to happen.

In any case, Winnipeg's longest runway is 9,556 feet. Paine field, where the 777 is produced, is 9,010 feet. I'm calling bullshit on the pilot's story, lol.

Like I said, to get it off quickly, you'd need to be super light. Otherwise you'd be eating up closer to 7000 feet no matter how much power you were using.

[Todd Black 88]

For takeoff, I can't imagine it being any shorter than 4000 feet. Maybe just below 5000. Boeing built the 757 at Renton, and that's only about 5000 feet. However, the '57 is quite a bit smaller, and also probably the most over-powered airliner ever. You'd have to be pretty light to pull something like that off.

Back when the 777 first came out, I was on a direct flight to London from Vancouver and we had a medical emergency up near the top of Hudson's Bay. We had to turn around and land at Winnipeg international airport. The landing was fine, but to take off again, we needed to use what felt like full throttle on the side road leading to our runway, go around the corner under heavy throttle onto the runway to take off. The pilot said the runway was not designed for our aircraft and was not long enough:!:

Coles notes. 777 needs a long ass runway.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Nope. Not me. I was on the terrorism angle from the beginning. Just go back and look at the Boston Marathon Bombing, said the same from the beginning, and I was right.



And, a conspiracy linky, so you can try to wonder if I came up with my ideas on my own or regurgitated them.

http://370conspiracygenerator.com/#

My first one.

After the plane was diverted with a pair of Crocs made out of c-4 funded by the Illuminati, they managed to land in the freezing cold wasteland of Saskatchewan where the passengers were given new identities and put in witness protection. This was all done to silence five people aboard who knew the truth about the lockerbie bombing.