Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Cubsrule wrote:For the Pacific, it’s probably EZE/SCL-AKL/SYD, no?
Kent350787 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:For the Pacific, it’s probably EZE/SCL-AKL/SYD, no?
There were reasons why it was a 4 engine route for so long - so, yes.
DarkSnowyNight wrote:Kent350787 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:For the Pacific, it’s probably EZE/SCL-AKL/SYD, no?
There were reasons why it was a 4 engine route for so long - so, yes.
If proximity to islands does not count, it looks like LAX-MEL takes the prize. LAX-SYD is —excepting for literally less than half a mile— entirely over water, but by GC reckoning, we will see that the landfall occurs a number of miles south of Botany Bay. This is also 150nm further than EZE-SYD, which also has significant land sections in SA.
I think the four engine requirement was owing only to the lack of islands in the far South Pacific. And even in recent times, it was as much a favor to the existing aircraft in the relevant fleets as anything else. CASA would have moved faster if QF really wanted them to.
Cubsrule wrote:
It seems to me that proximity to islands (or islands with airfields?) probably affects the answer to this. LAX-Australia passes relatively close to - though as you rightly point out not over - some decently large by Pacific standards islands. AKL-SCL passes over literally nothing.
bigb wrote:I did GUM-IAH earlier this some direct in 747 ferrying a aircraft. It was all water.
Cubsrule wrote:For the Pacific, it’s probably EZE/SCL-AKL/SYD, no?
PatrickZ80 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:For the Pacific, it’s probably EZE/SCL-AKL/SYD, no?
As far as I was able to find out, those routes aren't flown at the moment.
Another candidate for the Atlantic might be KLM AMS-EZE, it's no winner but not much shorter than ATL-JNB either. In fact AMS-EZE is even longer than AKL-EZE, however because it passes closer to land it can be flown by a twin. I believe KLM uses a 777 on this route.
DarkSnowyNight wrote:Kent350787 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:For the Pacific, it’s probably EZE/SCL-AKL/SYD, no?
There were reasons why it was a 4 engine route for so long - so, yes.
If proximity to islands does not count, it looks like LAX-MEL takes the prize. LAX-SYD is —excepting for literally less than half a mile— entirely over water, but by GC reckoning, we will see that the landfall occurs a number of miles south of Botany Bay. This is also 150nm further than EZE-SYD, which also has significant land sections in SA.
I think the four engine requirement was owing only to the lack of islands in the far South Pacific. And even in recent times, it was as much a favor to the existing aircraft in the relevant fleets as anything else. CASA would have moved faster if QF really wanted them to.
LTEN11 wrote:
LAX/MEL usually crosses the Australian coast around Wollongong south of SYD, so normally not much further than LAX/SYD overwater. YVR-SYD is almost entirely overwater at 12484 km, 7757 miles and 6741nm.