Travel with MacBook Air

[Johan Mac R]

I have just found out that, according to specifications for MacBook Air, we should not fly above 10 500 metres with the laptop. Since most commercial flights raise to an altitude of
10 000 - 12 000 metres I wonder what the the problem is? If there is any problem? What can happen when i bring my MacBook Air when traveling? Does anybody know? Best Regards Johan

 

[Raz0rEdge]

They've tested it to 10,000 meters. There are likely no issues with a flight being higher than that for some duration..if you operate constantly at that elevation or in space, then the materials used would have to be different..

 

[RadDave]

I have just found out that, according to specifications for MacBook Air, we should not fly above 10 500 metres with the laptop. Since most commercial flights raise to an altitude of
10 000 - 12 000 metres I wonder what the the problem is? If there is any problem? What can happen when i bring my MacBook Air when traveling? Does anybody know? Best Regards Johan

Hi Johan - welcome to the forum!

Below are the physical specifications of the MB Air from Apple's website - note that the 10,000 ft top operating altitude does not refer to being in a plane, but more like climbing up a mountain. In a pressurized airplane, the figure is meaningless; I've been on a lot of planes usually flying at the 30,000 ft+ altitude w/ plenty of passengers using their laptops - SO, not a concern for you. For interest, here is a discussion Electronis & High Altitude of the effects on a computer in a non-pressurized high environment. Dave
.

 

[Johan Mac R]

Thanks Dave!
The answer is obvious when given. Why didn´t I think of that...?
:Blushing:

 

[pigoo3]

Awesome answer Dave!

- Nick

 

[RadDave]

Awesome answer Dave!

- Nick

Hi Nick - appreciated!

Got to ride twice (NYC to Paris & back) on the BABY below - MACH 2.04 at 60,000 ft - a mere 3 hour trip - but was over 20 years ago and I cannot remember if anyone had a laptop (assume the first ones were around); BUT, again in a pressurized cabin, no problem. Dave
.

 

[pigoo3]

Wow Dave…not too many folks can make that claim! As I'm sure you know…not only due to the cost flying on it…but also due to it being deactivated/retired since 2003.

Did it really cruise at Mach 2.04…or was that its top speed? I thought that its claim to fame was cruising faster than the speed of sound (just above Mach 1.0). If it was cruising at Mach 2.0…no wonder it was so expensive (plus much fewer passengers to spread the cost)!!!

- Nick

 

[RadDave]

Wow Dave…not too many folks can make that claim! As I'm sure you know…not only due to the cost flying on it…but also due to it being deactivated/retired since 2003.

Did it really cruise at Mach 2.04…or was that its top speed? I thought that its claim to fame was cruising faster than the speed of sound (just above Mach 1.0). If it was cruising at Mach 2.0…no wonder it was so expensive (plus much fewer passengers to spread the cost)!!!

Hi Nick - don't want to bore all, but I believe the date was the late '80s - my colleague & I were replacing 5-6 remote GI fluoroscopes @ a 2.5 million dollar cost then - we had older Siemens units then and debated between that company (Erlangen, Germany just north of Nuremberg) & GE (Liege, Belgium) - well, we had issues w/ our current units and wanted to visit the 'factory', so both Siemens & GE brought the two of us to Europe and we traveled from Paris to Belgium, then to Germany, and finally back to Paris - a hectic week!

Well, I had been to Europe probably 10x and did not want to fly coach, so I told my colleague that I would go if we could fly 'first class' - well the price came back as $5000 round trip and was OKed by both companies who were splitting our expenses (i.e. cost to us nothing) - so I asked 'how much' would it cost to fly on the Concorde? Well, that month or so, the price was the same as first class on a sub-sonic plane - HEY, no decision - the Concorde round trip for free!

We took off from Kennedy about 7 PM, and once over the ocean the afterburners were activated and it felt the same as rapidly accelerating in your car - there was a 'mach meter' over the front aisle (kind of like the attached pic - not sure if the altitude was also there - this was the French Concorde, but there were pilot comments) - but we were going twice the speed of sound at over 10 miles above the ocean - and even at that height, I touched the windows which were warm - WOW - there aren't many atmosphere molecules up there! We arrived at our hotel in Paris about 11 PM their time.

I won't go into all we done (a complete other post) - but on return from Paris to Kennedy, grab a cab to La Guardia, and a flight back to North Carolina - I got home before I left Paris - it was indeed an experience. Dave
.

 

[pigoo3]

Thanks for the story & info Dave…pretty interesting! The reason why I asked was for 2 reasons:

1. Didn't think that the Concorde cruised at too much more than Mach 1.0 (just ignorance of the topic on my part)! Of course they did slow down a lot as they descended…and got close to airports (noise issues).
2. Don't think too many military aircraft of the late 80's cruised at Mach 2.0+ very often.

When I was in the military in the 80's…a big part of my job was aircraft recognition (good guys & bad guys)! And knowing various specs about them.

As I'm guessing you also know…the speed of sound varies greatly with altitude. I looked up the speed of sound at various altitudes. At sea level the speed of sound is 761mph…at 60,000 feet…it's roughly 660 (100mph difference). So Mach 2.0 being 1522mph at sea level vs. 1320mph at 60,000 feet.

And the military aircraft I'm thinking of…were probably flying lower then 20,000 feet…and many times a lot lower than that (a LOT lower).

- Nick

 

[chscag]

I'm not sure Nick, but I believe the B-58 held the speed record in those days when you and I were wearing blue.

 

[pigoo3]

I'm not sure Nick, but I believe the B-58 held the speed record in those days when you and I were wearing blue.

Lol Charlie! I was wearing green…and I was trying to shoot them down! Only the "bad guys" of course!

- Nick

 

[RadDave]

Thanks for the story & info Dave…pretty interesting! The reason why I asked was for 2 reasons:

1. Didn't think that the Concorde cruised at too much more than Mach 1.0 (just ignorance of the topic on my part)! Of course they did slow down a lot as they descended…and got close to airports (noise issues).
2. Don't think too many military aircraft of the late 80's cruised at Mach 2.0+ very often.

When I was in the military in the 80's…a big part of my job was aircraft recognition (good guys & bad guys)! And knowing various specs about them.

As I'm guessing you also know…the speed of sound varies greatly with altitude. I looked up the speed of sound at various altitudes. At sea level the speed of sound is 761mph…at 60,000 feet…it's roughly 660 (100mph difference). So Mach 2.0 being 1522mph at sea level vs. 1320mph at 60,000 feet.

And the military aircraft I'm thinking of…were probably flying lower then 20,000 feet…and many times a lot lower than that (a LOT lower).

Hi again Nick - well, I just looked up the mileage between NYC & Paris = 3,625 miles which was accomplished in about 3 hrs; of course, departing & arriving @ much slower speeds over land.

Relative to the speed of sound through different media, i.e. different densities, I was an abdominal radiologist and did ultrasound, so aware of the physics, BUT even @ 60k ft still pretty fast.

Ya know, one of the best parts of those two flights were looking at the gals that served us & the food & drinks - French champagnes before dinner, a good meal, and a little cart coming down the aisle w/ after dinner drinks - I usually don't drink on planes but this was an exception & I was much younger then - drank TOO much! BUT, what can one say in an experience of a life time? Dave

 

[pigoo3]

Hey. Whatever the exact speeds were…one heck of an experience…and certainly a lot faster than any normal commercial flight. Certainly something few folks experienced when the Concorde's were flying…something at the moment impossible to do…and maybe something that will be a longgg time before it can be done again.

There's pretty much nothing fun about flying commercial any more!!!

- Nick