The plane carries roughly 9.8 hrs of useable fuel. Normal winter winds will knock off about 25 minutes on a transcon flight from JFK to SFO. You can run the calculations with a 150 mph wind the entire way (which I’ve never seen in 25 years) and still make it. I calculated the fuel burn at 456 gallons per hour based on the site I listed. 4,494 gallons onboard fuel divided by 456 gph = 9.8 hrs. subtract out 1.5 hrs for reserves and alternate and that leaves you 8.3 hrs. If you subtract 150 knots from the 427 knot cruise you get a groundspeed of 277 knots. At 2102 nm it would tak 7.6 hrs to make the trip.
Using my earlier model of 100 knots for 2/3 of the flight and 150 knots for the remainder you end up with a flight time of 6.81 hrs (I’m using decimal minutes). That includes padding the fuel reserve by 15 minutes because most pilots prefer the extra fuel. Both models exceed the averages we use at work for winter winds which is closer to 25 minutes and that is based on historical data, not calculations.
The laws of physics do not change because someone makes a statement to the press. Aircraft specs don’t care what is inside the airplane. It can be electronic gear, politicians or Nixon’s tapes. The speed listed for max payload was used and the stats don’t lie.
According to the NPR site posted earlier she is not guaranteed anything but a 10 seat jet. Non-stop service not guaranteed. There is no requirement that she use the service at all nor is there a security issue making a fuel stop given that announcement. She even stated she would prefer a direct commercial flight over a fuel stop. It’s not about security and it’s not about Pelosi.
Irrelevant? You gotta be kidding. We have actual data on the plane. We have someone here who seems to be an expert in the area, and might be able to provide the unknowns I mentioned. I find it both odd and amusing that you would want to truncate this discussion because “somebody said so”. That’s hardly the threshold used with most other claims coming out of Washington. Why not take more information into the discussion if we have the opportunity?
I would like to know the answer to the question you pose, as well, but *actual facts *would hardly be irrelevant. It might indicate the the SaA’s statment jives with Macgiver’snumbers, in which case things would appear to be kosher. If they wildly contradict them, than I really like to know the answer ot your question. Of course there’s the muddy middle, where things might be more inconclusive. But why not find out?
In the sense that Pelosi didn’t make the request, you’re right–it’s not about Pelosi. In the sense that outrage is being manufactured around Pelosi, you’re wrong–it is about Pelosi.
I’m not sure in what sense it’s not about security.
I’d say it’s irrelevent because most people don’t really care about the fuel capacity of a C-20, or how much the White House Sargeant at Arms knows about it. The only angle that makes this story remotely interesting is the connection with Pelosi, which seems to have been throughly debunked. And given our resident “expert’s” refusal to adress or even acknowledge the mountain of evidence that she never made any such request, I don’t much trust his numbers, either. His inability to address one portion of the debate objectively makes me question his ability to address other portions of it without allowing his political motives to interfere.
Well, I did it the dumb way. Themax range for the B model is 3698 nmi. I took a cruising speed of 475 kt and divided to get a flight time to max range of 7.78 hours which I figure uses up the fuel. Using your wind profile and the 475 cruising speed I get a Washington to San Francisco flight time of 6.15 hours. Subtracting that from the flight time to max range I get 1.65 hours of remaing fuel.
I chose the C-20B vice the C-20H because according the the cite there are 5 of them in inventory versus 2 of the H’s.
It may be claimed that it’s not about Pelosi but it started out that way.
I think most of that is fair. I’ve been surprised by Magiver’s initial posts in the thread for the reasons you mention. I’ve stated as much. Yet, there facts underlying this whole issue that I think are critical for us to understand before fairly assigning blame, whether for the request itself (regardless of who made it) or the flap that it sprouted.
While I agree with you on the judgement Macgiver has brought to the table as far as partisanship and accusations, I do not think it warranted to distrust his math nor the information he bases it on. I’d say, quite the contrary, as he has repeatedly been very generous with numbers that would work against his claims. Of course I could be wrong, but that is the impression I get. As much as I disagree with the tenor of many of his posts.
Actually, the issue of maximum range and desired cruising speed, and minimum fuel usage is a lot more complicated than has been treated with here, including by me.
The claim is that this is about wasting fuel. It looks to me like if the C-20 is flown for minimum fuel consumtion it’s entirely possible that it won’t be assured of having the range to safely make the cross country trip under all conditions of headwinds.
The problem is, I don’t have the knowledge to independently verify that he’s giving us the right numbers, or performing the right operations on them. More importantly, I don’t know enough about aviation to know if he’s included all the factors necessary to arrive at the correct solution. I have to take his word on it that those numbers and operations are both accurate and comprehensive, and given his statements on this issue in areas that I can independently assess, I don’t have high confidence that he’s playing fair with us.
I don’t agree that the issue is about wasting fuel. At least not for me. Sadly, that idea was thrown into the debate early on by Macgiver. I think it is a silly argument, at best. As I’ve stated more then once. She should be able to make the flight non-stop. If the C-20 can do it, she should use that. If not, they should look to the next larger plane. If it’s a moderate step up, done deal. If, as has been intimated here, it would mean moving up to a vastly larger plane, then the overkill has to be evaluated against the increased risk and inconvenience of making a stop. Wherever that comes out I’d probably be fine with.
Understood. The impression I get is that he is being fair about the technical issues, even if I find some of his other assessments painfully, annoyingly partisan. You come away with the another impression, so be it.
i was talking about Macgiver’s claim about wasting fuel.
The thing is, as we can see, the range, fuel economy and other aspects of airplanes are complicated. Each airplane comes with a complete set of performance characterists for all aspects of their operation. I must assume that when the Air Transport Command was asked to find the plane for Pelosi’s use they consulted those books and chose the one that was a) available, and b) adequate for the task without being exhorbitant.
It’s worse than a tempest in a teapot. It’s inane, silly, outrageous, ridiculous, and so on, and so on.
I’m not sure I understand your point. **Macgiver **made a claim about Pelosi being a hypocrite by wanting to use a big private jet while complaining about the envirionment. I think that is ridiculous. Is that not to what you were referring?
This is in Great Debates, not the pit or IMO. If you want to dispute the stats of the plane, or provide ANY material from which an opinion can be based on then it belongs here. This is a drive-by opinion on your part with nothing added. I could not have been more clear when I said this wasn’t about Pelosi and nobody wants to look at the bigger picture.
You have made no effort to describe a “bigger picture” except to wave around technical data on aircraft. Rep. Pelosi was reported to have sought (or to not have sought) the use of a larger plane than her predecessor. A number of Right-wing blogs portrayed her (reported) request as an attempt to grab unnecessary perks for her new position. The explicit question of the OP was whether that was a legitimate request. In the course of the thread, however, reports have been presented that she never even made the request for which she has been excoriated by partisans of the Right.
You wandered into this thread with a lot of mysterious allusions to “not about Pelosi” and “bigger picture” while supplying nothing more than factoids about aircraft. Those factoids are all very interesting, but you have provided no information to identify why Ms. Pelosi was accused of making a request she may or may not have made. You have provided no information regarding why the partisans of the Right have been making the accusation they have made. You simply keep pointing to your factoids and making vague comments that the specific topic that was noted in the OP was not even the topic of the OP.
Had you provided information that it was a Boeing lobbyist who actually tried to initiate the request for the larger plane or some similar tale, then you would have provided information that the issue was not Rep. Pelosi. However, your repeated claim that the thread is not what is actually set forth in the OP while making oh-so-secretive allusions to it being something else are just silly. Regardless whether Ms. Pelosi needs a VC-25A or whether she could have been accommodated by an old L-4A, the thread was intended to explore her requests, real or not, and whether those requests (IF she made them) were legitimate. Yes, you have provided ample evidence (provided there is not additional information regarding staff sizes or other variables that have still not been identified) that a C-20 is adequate to get her to the coast. So what? Claiming that a C-20 can make the trip without a problem is irrelevant to the discussion if she never made the request, yet you continue to post your mysterious claims that looking at the factoids is some “real” issue without actually posting what you believe the “real” issue might be.
What **tomndebb ** said, and the saddest thing is that even accepting the latest point does not help the Republican partisan pablam.
Assuming for a moment that **Magiver ** is correct, then the focus should be on Navy Cmdr. Jefrey Gordon and Capt. Herb McConnell and others in the Airforce (not just “someone” as he misleadingly told us in one of his latest posts) that told the media (and assuming, the Sergeant at arms, the Democrats and Pelosi) that they could not guarantee a non-stop flight when using the smaller planes.
The big picture is shaping then that some bloggers on the left were correct: that some elements in the air force conspired (by telling false information to the congress Sargent and Staff) with the right wing media into making this non issue a political point.
And that is assuming if **Magiver ** is correct (Speaking of elements, it is silly to ignore the weather), so the critics here should choose their poison. Either the USAF did not tell the truth and we have to find why, or the Republicans in congress and the right wing media pulled their legs. *In any case * Pelosi and the Democrats were not responsible.
Well, if it’s not about Pelosi, why did you make the assertion that she got caught with her hand in the perks cookie jar? Why did you accuse her of being a hypocrite or liar?
The debate started off being about what to make of the reports that Pelosi had requested a bigger plane than the one Hastert used. It was pointed out that the request was made by the House Sergeant-at-Arms. Therefore, Tom has advanced the claim that he believes that the reports in question are merely the hot air of partisan commentators.
The factual discussion and additional speculation about the range of the various planes in question has been an interesting and even worthwhile conversation dealing with various issues related to the original question in the OP. It seems disingenuous to me that you have made (false) claims about Pelosi and then, rather than back them up, bitch to the rest of us that it isn’t about her.