3 ms·
Since it's mostly 747 and similarly large planes on intercontinental flights anyway, I doubt this is much of an issue. I wonder if there actually is anywhere in
by superuser2 12y ago
Since it's mostly 747 and similarly large planes on intercontinental flights anyway, I doubt this is much of an issue. I wonder if there actually is anywhere in the CONUS that's more than 3 hours from at least a rural airstrip?
- ghshephard 12y agoThe reason why I thought it might be an issue, is that according to Wikipedia, The 777-200LR is the world's longest-range airliner and can fly more than halfway around the globe; it holds the record for the longest distance flown non-stop by a commercial aircraft. . It hadn't occurred to me that because the 777 is a twin engine, it can't really use all that range. It needs to stay near airports.
- cfallin 12y agoTwin engine planes absolutely can cross oceans -- if you need three hours' flying distance in the worst case (ETOPS-180), then you can cross up to six hours of water between any two backup airports. North Atlantic routes have only a few hours of contiguous water between, say, Greenland and Iceland. Even the Pacific has enough small islands (e.g. Hawaii) to make something like this possible (shaded areas are outside 3-hour range): http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR+-+SYD&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=180 http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EWR+-+SYD&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=180
- gvb 12y agoThe 777 was rated for ETOPS 180 minutes initially, increased to 207 minutes, and then to 330 minutes (5 1/2 hours) in 2011. It can use its range. Ref: http://aviationweek.com/awin/faa-extends-777-etops-approval http://aviationweek.com/awin/faa-extends-777-etops-approval
- idlewords 12y agoIt's not the size of the aircraft, but the number of engines on it that matters. And twin jets on intercontinental service outnumber quad jets.