Murdoc Suspended 391 Posts user info edit post |
My flight info is showing 6hrs, but that seems kinda long. 10/17/2007 3:44:39 PM
|
Mr. Joshua Swimfanfan 43948 Posts user info edit post |
I AIN'T GETTIN ON NO PLANE FOOL! 10/17/2007 3:45:43 PM
|
H8R wear sumthin tight 60155 Posts user info edit post |
thats about right 10/17/2007 3:45:51 PM
|
bellrabbit All American 2605 Posts user info edit post |
I seem to recall flying from charlotte to seattle and it was like 5 hours if I remember correctly. 10/17/2007 3:46:00 PM
|
Wraith All American 27281 Posts user info edit post |
Are you taking into account the different time zones? 10/17/2007 3:46:14 PM
|
joe17669 All American 22728 Posts user info edit post |
it's a long ways to seattle from atlanta... 10/17/2007 3:46:22 PM
|
Murdoc Suspended 391 Posts user info edit post |
^^Yes. I leave at 9:35am and arrive at 11:25am
I flew to San Francisco a few years ago, and I thought I remembered it only taking like 3.5 hours.
[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .] 10/17/2007 3:58:49 PM
|
Mr. Joshua Swimfanfan 43948 Posts user info edit post |
Oh come on. My A-Team reference was golden. ![](images/frown.gif) 10/17/2007 4:00:14 PM
|
wlb420 All American 9053 Posts user info edit post |
3.5 clock time maybe. 10/17/2007 4:00:16 PM
|
SymeGuy69 All American 11036 Posts user info edit post |
6 hours sounds about right. 10/17/2007 4:01:19 PM
|
jackleg All American 170962 Posts user info edit post |
took about 6 from seattle to rdu
BUT i guess you could say it only takes 2 watch hours, if thats important 10/17/2007 4:11:41 PM
|
NyM410 J-E-T-S 50085 Posts user info edit post |
From Atlanta to SFO is 5 hrs 15 mins.
I'm guessing 6 is about right up to Seattle from Atlanta.
[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 4:14 PM. Reason : x] 10/17/2007 4:14:44 PM
|
roberta All American 1769 Posts user info edit post |
Quote : | "I leave at 9:35am and arrive at 11:25am" |
isn't this 5hrs? atlanta is east coast time, right? 10/17/2007 4:36:51 PM
|
Chance Suspended 4725 Posts user info edit post |
Come with the jet stream and 5 years ago it might have taken 3.5 hrs. But not now, not since they are flying slower to conserve fuel, plus you are going against the wind.
[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 4:51 PM. Reason : ^ Yea, this guy hasn't exactly shown genius tendencies...ever] 10/17/2007 4:50:26 PM
|
Murdoc Suspended 391 Posts user info edit post |
^^Yeah, you are correct.
Self math PWNT. ![](images/frown.gif) 10/17/2007 5:33:45 PM
|
theDuke866 All American 52895 Posts user info edit post |
Quote : | "But not now, not since they are flying slower to conserve fuel, plus you are going against the wind." |
flying slower doesn't always conserve fuel. usually, it's pretty much a wash...sometimes you'll save a little, sometimes you'll burn even more by flying slower.
and 6 hours seems about right, maybe a little on the long side. I'd probably figure about 5-5.5
[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 7:14 PM. Reason : asdfasd] 10/17/2007 7:13:48 PM
|
Chance Suspended 4725 Posts user info edit post |
Quote : | "flying slower doesn't always conserve fuel. usually, it's pretty much a wash...sometimes you'll save a little, sometimes you'll burn even more by flying slower." |
I'm pretty sure you just defied the laws of physics, can I invest in your company? 10/17/2007 7:39:21 PM
|
theDuke866 All American 52895 Posts user info edit post |
by flying faster, you burn more lbs per hour of fuel
but you are flying fewer hours since you are going faster.
it often comes out roughly as a wash in terms of total fuel burn for a given distance
there is a max range and max endurance airspeed--flying at max range airspeed will burn the least amount of fuel per mile. flying any slower (or faster) than this is less efficient (and max endurance profile neglects distance and burns the least amount of fuel per unit time, which can be used to calculate a maximum loiter time. flying any slower than this, again, is LESS efficient).
i'm pretty sure i deal with this kind of stuff for a living and know exactly what i'm talking about, so your investment would be a pretty safe bet.
[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 8:02 PM. Reason : asdfas] 10/17/2007 8:01:58 PM
|
Chance Suspended 4725 Posts user info edit post |
Look, I don't care if you are involved in this shit up to your nose (and you are). When the major airlines have been scrapping plans for faster planes to go with designs that are created specifically for slower more fuel efficient flight, and think I have a bit of an idea what I am talking about. 10/17/2007 10:18:33 PM
|
Aficionado Suspended 22518 Posts user info edit post |
lol
you take every oppurtunity to troll
do you have anything else productive you could be doing?
(oh and you have no idea what you are talking about)
[Edited on October 17, 2007 at 10:24 PM. Reason :
10/17/2007 10:23:39 PM
|
wwwebsurfer All American 10217 Posts user info edit post |
TO seattle always took longer for us. The rotation of the earth is with you, but the jetstream is against you.
FROM seattle you'll almost always arrive early, esp if the jetstream is high.
I think I remember that correctly... Either way both ways is a LOOOOOOONG freaking way. I highly recommend a 60-90 minute layover in Denver. Plus the Denver airport is AWESOME, one of the most beautiful I've seen. LOVE their ceiling and layout. Anyway. 10/18/2007 12:03:40 AM
|