Originally Posted by
A Squared
The four was a typo, I intended to type "for", as in fuel reserves for weeks. Now, that particular typo, (I'm a terrible typist) I noticed as soon as I posted that, and edited it immediately (I've edited that post a couple of times) so the only way you could have included that in my post was to have ignored the edited post and chosen to copy the text with typo unedited from your email notification of the post. Which is a a conscious act of intentional dishonesty, isn't it?
I don't get email notification. I replied to what you wrote when I saw it. I don't mind you modifying your posts later, but don't expect me to mind read.
Originally Posted by
A Squared
My point was that a ship carries huge fuel reserves, measured in weeks, not hours, and has great reserves over the planned consumption for the trip, so has a great deal of discretion in route modifications and diversion that an aircraft simply doesn't have.
I would say that a blimp with a planned endurance of weeks has sufficient, certainly enough compared to normal aircraft that the point is invalid.
How far can an airliner go on reserves? If Airlander can go as far then you are making up problems that don't exist.