An interesting response

[dsummersminet at comcast.net]

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Charlie Bell charlie at culturelist.org
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 15:17:39 +1000
To: brin-l at mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: An interesting response 



On 03/05/2008, at 1:48 PM, dsummersminet at comcast.net wrote:

>> and their fuel loads per passenger.  One would have to stop for
>> fueling several times to make that distance. I realize that most  
>> planes have to stop once, including the 747, but the 777 can make 
>>it in one.

>London to Sydney? In one hop? No current commercial aircraft can do  
>it. London to Sydney is almost 13.500 miles and the 777 has a range of  
>a bit over 9000. I'll come back to the rest of the post later.

It's true that some of the plans are for 787 flights, not 777 flights, but
if the links given below are trustworthy both the 777 and the 787 have the
capacity to do it as nonstop.

http://www.get-packing.com/news/flights/archives/april-2007/virgin-plans-dir
ect-london-to-sydney-flights.html?fid=1094933108


http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/travel/business/article59
0535.ece

http://www.get-packing.com/news/flights/archives/february-2007/qantas-consid
ers-non-stop-london-sydney-flights.html?fid=1638842198

It's not commercial yet, but according to the first quote, planes are now
on order for that flight.

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. 

Dan M.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE