Date: 27 Aug 99 14:03:34 From: "Peter Kuykendall" <Peter_Kuykendall@bigfoot.NOSPAMcom> Organization: What? Me, organized? You must be joking!
View raw article or MIME structure
I'm wondering what the tradeoffs are that have established the modern airliners cruise altitude at ~40K ft. Why not 20K or 80K instead? At first glance it would appear that doubling altitude for long haul flights would substantially reduce drag but perhaps there are mitigating factors such as increased wing area, engine size, etc. that may offset the savings? Or is it limited by time to descend after a sudden depressurization? Or maybe something else entirely? I can see that long climbs may not make sense for short flights but I would imagine that a transpacific run (for example) would be so long that the extra climb would be trivial on a 13 hour flight. Any input is appreciated. Thanks! -- Pete in Laguna Niguel, California USA Remove NOSPAM from my EMAIL address.