ziegler@lzmi.UUCP (06/27/84)
> How come your friendly neighborhood DC-10 doesn't have to go 55? > I bet it would get better milage at a slower speed too. Quite the contrary - at 55, a DC-10 would have to stay on the ground, which would be most inefficient. The faster a jet goes, the higher it can fly (within reason), and the higher it flies, the thinner the air. The difference between air density at 0 and at 35,000 feet is significant.
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (06/27/84)
> > How come your friendly neighborhood DC-10 doesn't have to go 55? > > I bet it would get better milage at a slower speed too. > > Quite the contrary - at 55, a DC-10 would have to stay on the ground, > which would be most inefficient. The faster a jet goes, the higher it > can fly (within reason), and the higher it flies, the thinner the air. > The difference between air density at 0 and at 35,000 feet is > significant. And presumably the thinner the air the less air resistance? Fine, but passenger cars still get better fuel efficiency than commercial jetliners. (per person) Maybe 55 is a plot by the airlines to increase their business. -- _____ /_____\ Hey, Woodstock, have you seen my sunscreen? /_______\ |___| Snoopy ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert