What I don’t understand, Trent, is why you don’t use your vast experience in long range operations to explain why I’m wrong and, thereby, to educate others.
I’ve quoted, in this thread, an article by John Deakin in which he talks about ‘extreme long-range work’. Happy to be convinced that what he says about what do when the mission is 'extreme long-range' is not correct. (Indeed, I reckon he’d be happy to be convinced he’s not correct.)
I stand by my statement that had CCQ been flown at the IAS for minimum drag, whether or not it was adjusted a couple of knots for the wind component, the aircraft would have made it with fuel to spare. Lots of fuel to spare.
Sure it would have been a much longer flight, but at that speed the fuel consumption would have been at a much lower rate (if the pilot understood how to lean properly, which is the
first issue I raised in my
first post in this thread …).
After all, that’s the point of maximum range speed, is it not?
The PIC wasn’t dealing with an 80 knot head wind or a 25 knot headwind. He was dealing with no wind or a slight tail wind, during a flight over a long distance for that aircraft.
Please Trent, educate everyone
else and explain why flying at minimum drag speed would
not have resulted in CCQ arriving with fuel to spare.