Lets assume the current data is correct, lets assume the aircraft was still sending out some form of data after 6/7 hours of flight, and based on the data, lets assume the northern and southern routes are the possible headings the aircraft could have taken. Of these two, I find it difficult to believe it could have been the northern route across southeast asia and into central asia, as any airliner flying with its transponders switched off would have been challenged at least once, if not more given the number of countries that route involves. So realistically that only leaves the southern route as the likely route it could have taken for flying so long without being detected, given that it’s mostly over water. If it were my decision, I would look in the southern indian ocean. As to the motive, that can only be answered if/when the aircraft is found, or any of its wreckage.

To be honest I would expect the investigators to soon figure out the following:

1. As the Boeing 777 sent out consecutive satellite pings, how many and which satellites did actually received the pings.
2. If multiple satellites had received the pings, can the location of the sender be more-or-less triangulated (based on signal strength or relative time delay if the clocks on the satellites were synchronised)
3. If the location of the pings can be more-or-less estimated, did the location change between pings, and if so by how much.

It was confirmed that the investigators had enough evidence to narrow the MH370 flight path to one of the two flight corridors. To do that, the investigators must have highly detailed data from the satellite which has not been released to the public.

So MH 370 might have been flown to as far as Kazakhstan…

This certainly sends a terrifying chill down my spine. One can hope, may I say, that the crew and passengers are kept alive to this date.

Part of the problem he described was that the Su-30MKI’s 3D thrust vectoring was set on a V-axis; it wasn’t true asymmetrical thrust vectoring. This was great for instantaneous turning, but created a lot of drag which slowed the aircraft down.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225413[/ATTACH]

How do the thrust vectoring engines create a lot of drag? I’ll probably accept certain level of loss of thrust through the vectoring nozzle, but drag? Really?

The primary factors for the sustained turning performance are wing-loading and thrust. Lower wing-loading means you need less alpha to execute the turn, less alpha means less drag squared, which means high thrust in excess. Almost all of the drag comes from the airframe where lift is generated, what little parasitic drag generated by the thrust vectoring nozzle is pretty negligible.

*warning…

2011:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224600[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]224601[/ATTACH]

The appearance of the air intake and the forward fuselage cross section shape have slightly modified.

why people always everyday think it is clone.
j15 has aesa, fbw, lcd all from china, and it will use ws10 engine also from china
j15 body is base on j11.
su33 do not have these.
of cos china look at su33 body from yukraine to study but it is not su33.
russia cannot make j15 really.

Russia has the intellectual property on the airframe that China was licensed to built to a certain number. The scope and nature of modifications that can be done to the original design were subject to terms and conditions outlined in the license contract. Regardless of what your definition of a clone is, the J-15 design is a breach of that IP and hence the contract.

[QUOTE=MSphere;2060916]You are very wrong. The differences between Su-27 and Su-35S are very extensive. I suggest you look it up by yourself. Anyway, I give you a small hint:

– new KSU-35 flight control system, shifting the center of gravity to the rear making the Flanker unstable in all axes, quadruplex FBW, elimination of canards (Su-27M)
– 140+kN class Izd.117S engines with TVC, service life 4,000 hours
– beefed up airframe with same empty weight but increased maximum TOW, 6,000h life expectancy, larger nose to accomodate 900mm radar antenna
– new materials – high-strength composites, carbon fibre, aluminium lithium alloy, titanium.
– 20% more internal fuel, wet pylons, inflight refueling probe
– supercruise at M1.2, RAM on intakes, treated canopy, RCS reduced roughly by half

The shaping on the Su-35 was also massively optimised to dramatically lower transonic drag. All in all, Su-35S is a complete new airframe from Su-27M.

The one and only C-47A
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218108[/ATTACH]

I maintain that the C-47 is always the sexiest airlifter, ever!