Charles Newman wrote:
> "mrtravel" wrote in message
> news:b_KSg.6762$vJ2.1062@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Charles Newman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That would depend on where you were coming from.
>>>From JFK, it probably would be easier to fly on Japan
>>>Air 5 to Tokyo, and then Jalways, flight 761 to BNE.
>>
>>Why?
>>First through NRT, it is 11167 miles to BNE
>
>
> Its a little more than that. I get 11370 miles with I computer
> the routes in FS2004.
Big deal. It's still a lot further than flying via LAX, and your
calculation makes it even further.
In nautical miles, I get 5981 for
> JFK-NRT and 3900 for NRT-BNE, when those are added
> up and the coversion made to staute miles, it comes to
> 11370.
So....
> Reemmber, aircraft do not always use the exact rhumb line
> becuase of flight restrictions here and there. For JFK-NRT
> I get a nortwesterly track which goes over southern Alaska,
> which flies via the VOR at anchorage, then takes a southwesterly
> track towads Tokeo, turning a little bie more to the right at
> one intersection, known as KETAR, about 111 nautical miles
> from NRT.
> For NRT to BNE, the path takes a S-SE track, passing over
> eastern New Guinea, and then a a slight turn a few degrees to
> the right toward Brisbane.
So? Are you saying that the flight path going through NRT is shorter,
despite the 1500 mile difference when going through LAX?
What about your INCORRECT contention that you can't fly JFK-PPT on a 747
due to the distance?
What about the your contention that there were no US to BNE nonstops?
What about your contention that a car is required to get to the
Australia Zoo from BNE? FWIW, winglets are not needed on the 747-8
because of the shape of the wings. |