This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The FAI page says it flew 115.11 km. Where did the "74 mi" on this article come from (presumably the book on the reference section?)? Obviously 115.11 / 1.609 = 71.54 miles but I don't know if we go with the FAI or the other source... --124.35.27.24509:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The distance that was submitted to the FAI for the record filing was based on some erroneous calculations that were done by taking latitude and longitude from some topographical maps, without the benefit of the correct formula for great circle distance (since it wasn't possible to just look up the formula on the internet back in 1988). I know, because I'm the one who did the calculation. These days it's easy to measure things in Google Maps, and based on my best recollection of the actual takeoff and "splashdown" locations, I get a great circle distance of 114.9 km (71.4 miles). This does not account for the fact that the plane had to fly almost due north at the start in order to pass to the west of the island of Dia, so the actual flight distance was slightly longer, but the measurement is for the straight-line distance, ignoring the turnpoint. However, the FAI record is what it is. The difference between the official record and what I calculate now is about 240 meters, which is in the noise in terms of exactly where on the runway the plane lifted off, and exactly where adjacent to Perivolos beach it hit the water. 74 miles is definitely inaccurate.
I have just modified 3 external links on MIT Daedalus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I assume the comparison with two back-to-back marathons has been taken from one of the sources. I find it ill-fitting for two reasons: First, 115km are quite bit more than two marathons. Second, it does not take the same amount of energy to run two marathons than two basically cycle 155km. For a professional road cyclist, 115km is not all that much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:2AE:2100:3DBF:D662:31C8:23BD (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing distance is not meaningful. The plane flew faster than anyone can run (for that duration), but significantly slower than a bicycle. The "back-to-back marathons" was based on a physiologist's assessment of the physical effort that would be required. The time of the flight was roughly double that of a world-class marathon, and would have been even closer if the flight had not had the benefit of a tailwind. However, the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft turned out to be better than the design target, such that the power requirement from the pilot to maintain cruising airspeed was lower than expected (as evidenced by his heart rate data). As a result, the actual effort for the flight on that day was likely somewhat less than back-to-back marathons.
