From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Larry Stone) Organization: InterServe Communications, Inc. Date: 18 Jul 96 01:59:29 References: 1 2 Followups: 1 2 3
View raw article or MIME structure
In article <airliners.1996.1305@ohare.Chicago.COM>, kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz) responded to somebody: >>It's amazing they can do this. If the winds aren't right, >>they said they will have to touch down in San Francisco or >>Toyko. > >Both would be *way* off course for this flight. Edmonton (or either >Anchorage or Fairbanks) would be closer on the North American side, >while Bejing would probably be the most plausible refueling spot in >Asia. The first eastbound went well south of Tokyo and made North American landfall over the Olympic Peninsula (near Seattle). Fuel will probably not be an issue eastbound due to winds. Westbound went much farther north and into Russian airspace but not, I believe, into Chinese airspace. West of Tokyo - Seoul or Taipei are more likely fuel stops or Anchorage if known early enough. Apparently, one fuel saving technique being used is the plane is towed to the runway and engines started in the runup area. >>Anyone have more details on the flight? > >Only one more bit of trivia -- with stiff headwinds, the flight may >take longer than 999 minutes (16:39), which required modifications to >some of UA's operations software! I think this is a for block-to-block time, not just flight time. -- -- Larry Stone --- email@example.com http://www.interserve.com/~lstone/ Belmont, CA, USA My opinions, not United's.