--
J.F.
If guys had periods. They would compare the size of their tampons!

"J.F." > wrote in message
b.com...


--
J.F.







Sure, as long as you start from 100,000 ft.




--




Cheers

Dave Kearton

"J.F." > wrote in message b.com...


--
J.F.
If guys had periods. They would compare the size of their tampons!


I suggest having a search for Gimli Glider to read about some of the problems encountered when gliding an airliner.
There are plenty of references including :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

I read that the pilots managed to achieve roughly ten miles for each five thousand feet loss of altitude in their Boeing 767-200. I have absolutely no idea how the A380 would compare to this but would think it would be able to do something fairly similar. Therefore from 35,000 feet I would not expect more than 65 miles at most.

--
Andrew B (Cheshire, England)

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president Royal Society, 1895.)

In article >,
"Andrew B" > wrote:

> "J.F." > wrote in message
> b.com...
>
>
> --
> J.F.
> If guys had periods. They would compare the size of their tampons!
>
>
> I suggest having a search for Gimli Glider to read about some of the problems
> encountered when gliding an airliner.
> There are plenty of references including :-
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
>
> I read that the pilots managed to achieve roughly ten miles for each five
> thousand feet loss of altitude in their Boeing 767-200. I have absolutely no
> idea how the A380 would compare to this but would think it would be able to
> do something fairly similar. Therefore from 35,000 feet I would not expect
> more than 65 miles at most.

Clean L/D for a jet airliner is more on the order of 20:1-25:1, NOT
10:1!

Why would they run out of fuel so far from their destination, other than
due to a gross error (see: Gimli Glider) in calculation fuel load?

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Andrew B" > wrote:
>
>> "J.F." > wrote in message
>> b.com...
>>
>>
>> --
>> J.F.
>> If guys had periods. They would compare the size of their tampons!
>>
>>
>> I suggest having a search for Gimli Glider to read about some of the
>> problems
>> encountered when gliding an airliner.
>> There are plenty of references including :-
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
>>
>> I read that the pilots managed to achieve roughly ten miles for each five
>> thousand feet loss of altitude in their Boeing 767-200. I have absolutely
>> no
>> idea how the A380 would compare to this but would think it would be able
>> to
>> do something fairly similar. Therefore from 35,000 feet I would not
>> expect
>> more than 65 miles at most.
>
> Clean L/D for a jet airliner is more on the order of 20:1-25:1, NOT
> 10:1!
>
> Why would they run out of fuel so far from their destination, other than
> due to a gross error (see: Gimli Glider) in calculation fuel load?

Thank you for the correction Orville.

I had a niggling little doubt in the back of my mind but unfortunately took
the bit of Wiki that I read to be about right and guestimated for being less
clean and manouvering on a final approach.

According to the Wiki page in my link :-

"He used the altitude from one of the mechanical backup instruments, while
the distance traveled was supplied by the air traffic controllers in
Winnipeg, measuring the distance the aircraft's echo moved on their radar
screens. The aircraft had lost 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in 10 nautical miles (19
km; 12 mi), giving a glide ratio of approximately 12:1. "

--
Andrew B (Cheshire, England)

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
(Lord Kelvin, president Royal Society, 1895.)

"J.F." > wrote in message b.com...


--
J.F.
If guys had periods. They would compare the size of their tampons!


Oh please. No airline in their right mind would flight plan to run out of fuel and glide the rest of the way. What they do do very occasionally is flight plan to a point close to their destination and then, if they have sufficient fuel, replan in flight for the real destination. Many years ago TWA used to do that on their London/Los Angeles route when they first started using 747-100s; occasionally winds aloft would be unhelpful and they would have to plan to go to Las Vegas. Mind you that whole operation was a bit of a crap shoot - there were occasions when the winds were forecast to be fine and they would flight plan Los Angeles and then winds or even hold times at Los Angeles would go wrong and they'd end up in Las Vegas anyway!

This has the look of some posts I see in alt.binaries.humor.skewed,
pictures with a description that might seem plausible to someone with no
knowledge of the subject pictured.

No sane pilot would take an aircraft full of passengers up knowing he
didn't have enough fuel to arrive at the destination.


Jon

Not to mention, having looked up the flight path for NY to Hong Kong,
one would have to pass Hong Kong before one could pass the Philippines...

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/2967/hkgjfkby6.jpg


Jon