From: Bod on
On 15/04/2010 17:33, Brimstone wrote:
>
>
> "Bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:82otasFtm0U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> On 15/04/2010 17:25, Brimstone wrote:
>>> "Bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:82os2aFk5jU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>> If the ash cloud is at 55,000 ft, why can't the planes fly at, say,
>>>> 40,000 ft instead?
>>>>
>>> What happens to solid matter in the air?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As I understand it, the news reported that the particles were being
>> blown south east and were not falling.
>>
> Most of it might not be falling, but some has to, unless gravity has
> been switched off.
>
>

It's in the Jet Stream at the moment, which as you know, blows at a
fair rate of knots (about 100mph).

Bod
From: Brimstone on


"Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1(a)remove.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:XsOdncaFiMAw3VrWnZ2dnUVZ8kmdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cOmdnVc6o-1xoFrWnZ2dnUVZ8tWdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>> "Bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:82os2aFk5jU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> If the ash cloud is at 55,000 ft, why can't the planes fly at, say,
>>> 40,000 ft instead?
>>>
>> What happens to solid matter in the air?
>>
>>
>
> I believe the ash is actually at between 20 and 30k feet although the
> maximum reported height has been 55k. Most jets operate at between 25k
> and 41k so they're actually going to be in the ash band or have to get
> through it neither of which is a good idea for aircraft.
exactly.


From: Bod on
On 15/04/2010 17:36, Graham Harrison wrote:
>
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:cOmdnVc6o-1xoFrWnZ2dnUVZ8tWdnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>> "Bod" <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:82os2aFk5jU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>> If the ash cloud is at 55,000 ft, why can't the planes fly at, say,
>>> 40,000 ft instead?
>>>
>> What happens to solid matter in the air?
>>
>>
>
> I believe the ash is actually at between 20 and 30k feet although the
> maximum reported height has been 55k. Most jets operate at between 25k
> and 41k so they're actually going to be in the ash band or have to get
> through it neither of which is a good idea for aircraft.
>
>

Ok, why not fly at about 10,000 ft temporarily?
The particles are apparently too light to fall from the Jet
Stream(according to the news reports).

Bod
From: Harry Bloomfield on
Bod expressed precisely :
> Ok, why not fly at about 10,000 ft temporarily?
> The particles are apparently too light to fall from the Jet Stream(according
> to the news reports).

Because it will cost considerably more fuel to fly at that level and
aircraft make use of the jetstream to reduce journey times plus fuel
costs.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk


From: Bod on
On 15/04/2010 18:31, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> Bod expressed precisely :
>> Ok, why not fly at about 10,000 ft temporarily?
>> The particles are apparently too light to fall from the Jet
>> Stream(according to the news reports).
>
> Because it will cost considerably more fuel to fly at that level and
> aircraft make use of the jetstream to reduce journey times plus fuel costs.
>
>

But nowhere near as much as it would cost, if not flying at all.

Bod
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Justice at last
Next: Grumble