Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (15146)	3/9/2007 5:55:41 AM
From: 8bits	Respond to of 218815

But if one tries to reduce speed from the Mach 0.86 optimal speed to Mach 0.84 to save on fuel with the 747, the wing design actually hurts and the plane's nose goes up and increases fuel consumption. The Airbus A330 however can go from Mach 0.82 to Mach 0.78 and save about 4 tons of fuel on a 14-hour journey, even though it does add another 45 min to flight time. The Boeing 777 and Airbus A330 are closer in specs (and vintage by almost 2 decades..) than the 747. I am noticing more Airlines using 777s where formally they used 747s. Maybe his airline doesn't have any 777s so he isn't familiar with them.