David, You are right. Although the routes you'd have are more likely to get crosswinds than head/tail winds, I would think -- and even that would spell trouble. But where's your adventuring spirit -- what's wrong with a few days in the Northwest Territories? Must be better than the Chicago freeways. Or, how about midair refueling? Give the passengers something to look forward to :-). Actually, I've been on an Airbus 320 (319, 321?) from Washngton Dulles to Portland that had to make a fuel stop in Minneapolis, and a friend of mine had to make a fuel stop in Billings on a 737 from Chicago to Portland. (both of these in winter) Our provost just flew to Perth last week; one leg was San Francisco to Sydney of 6445 nm. This is broaching the topic we had last year of the longest non-stop route. I forget the answer. john On Tue, 13 Aug 2002 damiross2@attbi.com wrote: > The 747 and A340 may have the range but the distances > you mention are still-air ranges. What is the distance > taking into account the average winds? If the distance > to Chicago is 6,571 nm, what is it with an average > headwind of, say, 50 kts? > > David > > Mike, > > Karachi to: > > Chicago: 6571 nautical miles > > > > Los Angeles: 7270 nm > > > > Houston: 7371 nm > > > > The 747-400ER has a range of 7670 nm and the Airbus 340-500 has a range of > > 8650 nm -- I got these from the Boeing & Airbus sites. I *think* these are > > the only planes capabale of any of these routes (short of the Space > > Shuttle). > > > > john > > > > -- > > John F. Kurtzke, C.S.C. > > Department of Mathematics > > 278 Buckley Center > > University of Portland > > Portland, OR 97203 > > 503-943-7377 > > kurtzke@up.edu > -- John F. Kurtzke, C.S.C. Department of Mathematics 278 Buckley Center University of Portland Portland, OR 97203 503-943-7377 kurtzke@up.edu