> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:48 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: An interesting response > > > On 04/05/2008, at 12:31 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > The second article shows a _demostrated_ range of 13500 for the > > 777 , and > > the nonstop route would be somewhat shorter than a one stop route. > > "When loaded with passengers and baggage, the airline will be able to > fly 10,900 miles non-stop" > > Yes, it did 13,500. Unloaded. It'll just be able to do London - Sydney > loaded if the shortest possible aircraft route is available, and in > the right conditions. Really want to rely on no headwinds to make it > across Oz...? > > The longest scheduled commercial service offered currently is the over > 18 hour non-stop from Newark to Singapore. > > Maybe someone will offer a London-Sydney non-stop in the future, and > maybe it'll be a 777 that does it, but currently no plane can do it > commercially, as I said.
First a pedantic point, than a real one. You actually said "No current commercial aircraft can do it." The sources I read indicated (I think I quoted one) said that Boeing was in negotiations for selling a number of 777s configured to make the London-Sydney run nonstop, on a regular basis. The return trip, due to prevailing head winds, would require a stop. The change to the plane would be a seating arrangement change, from 300 seats to 250. Clearly, this is not commercial now, or someone would be making money doing it. But, a commercial plane is capable of the trip, which is what I honestly thought we were discussing.... The more substantial point involves the maximum speed achieved by piloted planes over about the last 60 years. 1947 312 1968 925 1990 1000 2008 1000 There is physics behind this, not just a lack of will. _That's_ been my point all along. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
