The issue’s been resolved. She’ll use Hastert’s old plane for long flights, a smaller jet for shorter ones. So much for this ‘theory’. You may remove your foil chapeaux now. 
However, explicit accusations of trolling by one poster to another in this Forum (or any forum outside the Pit) are expressly prohibited, so I trust that we will see no similar comments, here.
The poster in question does not have a reputation for trolling. A specific thread in which I, as Mod, have advised him to change his behavior does not make him “a troll.” And since I have alreay addressed the issue as a Moderator, I would really prefer to see no more comments on the topic.
[ /Moderating ]
Maybe next time if you try a less crummy argument…
Daniel
I posted specific data on the aircraft and also said this was not about Pelosi. And yes I tried to goad people into research. Call it what you like. A C-20 is overkill for her needs and anything larger would be obscene.
This was never about security issues. If it was then Pelosi would be guaranteed a plane that will go non-stop. If the Boston Herald is correct, she’s not.
:rolleyes:
That is an opinion piece parroting the republican accusations.
But NPR did ask:
The reason why yours is a crummy argument is that you continue to ignore that the range mentioned is usually for optimal flight conditions.
Please rephrase that statement. What are you saying is a crummy argument.
So far yours is like this:
It is in the book commander, this plane can make it from Washington to California.
What is that? That I’m ignoring that weather conditions can make us stop to refuel? Why commander, that sounds like fighting words! Here, follow these crumbs…
WTH? in English please.
That is my impression of you if you have not noticed yet.
“Headwinds”, my ass! Next yoi’ll be telling us it takes more fuel for a boat to go upriver than to go downriver, when any fool knows its the same water!
Aah good, I was beginning to wonder if someone would get it.
Mmmm, it could be that parody or imagination is not captured by the extreme partisans still complaining. To help them, that was me just imagining them talking to the commander and/or captain that said that it is not true that the c20 can always do the non stop trip, and my impression remains: The extreme right is even willing in this partisan attract to teach grandma Lindberg [del]to suck eggs[/del] what a modified plane can do or not.
So are you planning on lecturing a pilot about enroute headwind components? How about a person who has dealt with flight delays for 25 years? I start my day by pulling up en route winds at various altitudes across the country.
The lesser of the C-20’s has a range of 3460 nm. Max cruise speed is 478 knots but it would be dialed back to 427 to conserve fuel. It climbs at 4200 feet per minute so I would use a ground speed of 400 knots for the climb or you can ignore the climb calculation altogether due to the length of flight time and lower cruise speed. Distance from IAD to SFO is 2100 nm. I gave everything in matching units to make the math easier. a C-20 will burn 1,069 gallons on a 1000 nm trip. That’s block to block. The plane carries 28,090 lbs of useable fuel or approx 4,494 gallons. Aircraft distance is measured in time and you’ll need an hour reserve fuel plus alternate destination. I’d choose Reno as an alternate which is 30 minutes away in the opposite direction which means you’ll have a tail wind equal to the headwinds you wish to lecture me about. Winter winds usually hover around 100 knots at 30,000 feet but occasionally go higher in spots so you can use 150 knots for 1/3 of your journey. You have enough information to calculate a flight plan. Aaaaaannnd go.
As I said before, you are willing to lecture a captain and commander that told reporters that the lesser planes can not guarantee a non-stop flight, so contact them if you don’t agree.
Also, you are once again ignoring that these are not common c-20’s, I bet the extra weight of special communication and security equipment are some of the reasons why official range values are not taken as gospel when those modified planes are operating. And why the commander reported that they cannot guarantee a non-stop trip.
I haven’t any doubt that my math skills are central to the issue, but for the life of me, can’t remember why.
We still have some unknowns, so I don’t see why some of you are taking such a high road here. Maybe Magiver (or someone else) can tell us, from his experience, 1)how much might a plane’s weight change due to how it is outfitted compared to what is listed? 2) For that amount of additional weight, how much is fuel efficiency and range effected?
I don’t think that is germane. A more relevant explanation from him would be “Why would others with putative expertise on the topic tell the Sergeant at Arms or Pelosi herself that the plane cannot be guaranteed to make it without refueling?”
Can our resident expert answer that relevant question and leave the irrelevant questions aside?
Of course, this whole thing is irrelevant, having been trumped up by the right. The childish level of outrage material they are reduced to fabricating at this point is sort of sad to see, to be sure. It’s kind of like seeing the hated rival Cleveland Browns reduced to going 1 and 15 every year.
It’s early in the election season; I’m sure the GOP is saving their choicer cuts of meat for 2008, when it will be sufficiently putrid and moldy to get their base all a-droolin’ when it’s tossed to them.
It wasn’t meant to be a math test. It’s a simple word problem that involves adding, subtracting multiplying or dividing. I provided all the numbers you need in standard units of measure so there’s no converting. If you’re not sure how to calculate headwinds just assume the plane is always flying straight into them. You subtract the headwind from the cruise speed and conversly you add a tailwind to the cruise speed. I padded the minimum fuel requirements to your benefit.
The way I figure it the C-20 would arrive at San Franciso with 2.5 hours left of useable fuel. This assumes a 100 nmph headwind for half the distance and 50 nmph for the other half. I don’t think headwinds like that are at all unreasonable because of my computed total flight time. I calculated 5.2 hours which is about the east to west time for commercial airliners.
If the headwinds are stronger the margin would be smaller and its entirely possible, and I think reasonable, that the Air Force didn’t want to guarantee that the nonstop east-west trip could be made safely under all wind conditions. I don’t think 100 nmphjet stream winds for half the distance is at all unreasonable given the map in the cite.