From: INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid   
      
   In the previous article, Louis Epstein   wrote:   
   > Not sure how far an A-380 or 747-8 or C-5B could go if its entire   
   > cargo capacity was connected fuel tanks,but that would be flying for   
   > the sake of flying and the antithesis of practicality...so only on   
   > the lightweight scale of the Rutan-Yeager plane is it attempted.   
      
   Voyager was the antithesis of practicality.   
      
   A 747's cargo capacity is about half the weight of its fuel capacity   
   -- and since a majority of fuel is expended carrying fuel, you get   
   diminishing returns.  The max range of an unrefueled, empty 747 is   
   8,000 miles or about 1/3 the circumference of the earth.  Increasing   
   the fuel capacity by 50% wouldn't increase the range by anything near   
   50%, maybe more like (educated guess) 10,500 miles or so.   
      
   The base range of a C-5 is far less than a 747 (though they are   
   frequently refueled in flight).  An A-380 has a *bit* more range than   
   a 747, but the basic cargo / fuel dynamic is similar enough to a 747   
   that none of these planes gets anywhere close to 24,000 miles   
   unrefueled.   
   --   
     _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am   
   _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also   
   \      /  baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer   
   ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)