NASA Software Promotes Airline Fuel Efficiency

Is this really new? As a professional pilot for 40 years (1958-1998)
I was flying wind-favourable tracks across the Atlantic as long ago as
the early 1970s. Alcock and Brown (1919) took advantage of favourable
winds to make the first non-stop crossing.

Jack

"Jack )" wrote:
Is this really new? As a professional pilot for 40 years
(1958-1998) I was flying wind-favourable tracks across the Atlantic
as long ago as the early 1970s. Alcock and Brown (1919) took
advantage of favourable winds to make the first non-stop crossing.

Perhaps the difference is in frequency of update and accuracy? No clue
really, just taking a wild guess.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of
"when", sometimes "where"; always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 10/29/2010 11:28 AM, Jack ) wrote:
Is this really new? As a professional pilot for 40 years (1958-1998)
I was flying wind-favourable tracks across the Atlantic as long ago as
the early 1970s. Alcock and Brown (1919) took advantage of favourable
winds to make the first non-stop crossing.

The winds certainly help; when I flew from JFK to Moscow on a Il-62 back
in 1978, we were able to make the flight non-stop (they originally
thought we were going to land at Shannon, Ireland, to refuel - but they
caught a very favorable jet stream wind instead... more's the pity; that
would have probably been the only chance I'll ever get to set foot in
the home country) On the way back, we refueled at Gander, Newfoundland.

Pat

On 10/29/2010 1:15 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
"Jack wrote:
Is this really new? As a professional pilot for 40 years
(1958-1998) I was flying wind-favourable tracks across the Atlantic
as long ago as the early 1970s. Alcock and Brown (1919) took
advantage of favourable winds to make the first non-stop crossing.

Perhaps the difference is in frequency of update and accuracy? No clue
really, just taking a wild guess.

My wild guess is that this is the NASA PAO trying to justify their
existence again, by hyping something as new that really isn't...like
their forward-swept wing...and their scissors wing...and their ion
engined spacecraft.

On Oct 31, 10:48*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

The winds certainly help; when I flew from JFK to Moscow on a Il-62 back
in 1978, we were able to make the flight non-stop ...

Yeah. Back in the early 90s I was on a nonstop from Seattle to Dulles
on a 757 (which I generally loathe) and the pilot was chattering the
whole way about the major winds aloft. IIRC, we made the trip, wheels
up to wheels down, in about four hours or maybe a little more, so I
guess he was right.

Allen Thomson wrote:
Yeah. Back in the early 90s I was on a nonstop from Seattle to
Dulles on a 757 (which I generally loathe) and the pilot was
chattering the whole way about the major winds aloft. IIRC, we made
the trip, wheels up to wheels down, in about four hours or maybe a
little more, so I guess he was right.

Four hours would have been a ground speed of something like 2298/4 or
574 MPH.

Elsewhere I've heard it said that the 757 is "overpowered" - I guess
something of a hot-rod of airliners. IIRC it was the 727 replacement,
which if I recall correctly was not exactly pokey. Wikipedia says the
cruise speed for the 757 is 530 MPH, and probably for for some time on
either side of that ATC probably has them lower than cruise, so yeah,
they probably got a good shove from winds. Just be glad you weren't
travelling in the other direction

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...