You got me? Probably better answered by our military brothers. Although, with 4 engines under the wing i am sure it has a large heat signature. I sure some people will have some explaining to do.

Is that the turbo body cab? Those are pretty rare.

According to a Korean news source, KAL is planning on getting rid of 15 744s by the end of 2017. These jets ordered today are to replace some of those 15 744s.

They definitely seek heat but, depending on how advanced they are, it's not inconceivable that one would hit the wing near or between the engines on a 74.

Post script: I was at the White House the night this incident occurred and there were A LOT of discussions about the possibility of a missile strike. It was deemed not politically prudent to open that can if worms during a reelection campaign. I, for one, never bought the NTSB results because I heard and saw a lot of the back and forth with Clinton.

There's a great book written by Jack Cashill that documents all of the behind the scenes stuff.

Heat seeking missiles would hit on or very near an engine, but not all surface to air missiles are heat seekers. Most navy ship-borne sams are radar guided, so they don't need a heat source to hit a target, and would tend to hit center of mass. As a general rule, short range, within visual range missiles are heat seekers, and long range, beyond visual range missiles use radar guidance. There are, of course, exceptions to these rules.

Wasn't there a P-3 in the area with racked Harpoons?

Racked Harpoons? Sounds like a porno movie. Or is that Harpooned Racks?

Produced by Michael Moore? :rolleyes:

My father is the highest time 747 guy I know. Nearly a decade before the TWA 747 accident he came home from a trip talking about how hot the packs got running all day out in the sun. On the cargo versions he could feel the heat through his shoes as you walked over the center fuel tank. The flash point for the fuel could be down around 129F,29C.

A bomb (whether propelled by a rocket or placed there) is usually the first explanation folks go to because that is certainly what a fuel - air explosion looks like. I've seen the NTSB reverse their own preliminary opinions when objective evidence tells them their first assumptions were incorrect. A good example was the Beechcraft T-34 / Baron / Bonanza wing spar fatigue issues raised by the ACM T34 accident in Rome, GA. The NTSB's intent, based on working with them for 20 years now, is pure.

Having been both enlisted and an officer in the Navy, I can assure you there is no way you could keep 250 sailors quiet about shooting down an airliner!