Does that take into consideration the area of the Rocky Mountains and other mountains on the continents? A 1 sq mile of flat ground has less surface area than a square mile with a 14,000' tall mountain on it.....I calculated a 7% difference between the claimed acre-feet of Lake Superior and the reported area of N & S America. The United States comes in at 7% water coverage per square mile, and I am certain that Canada is much higher, while Mexico is almost certainly lower. I don't know about S America, but I would guess somewhere around 3% or less since they don't have a geologic history of huge glacial deposits (I think). Subtracting 7% off the reported square miles seems to bring the two figures pretty close.
So...Yooper's claim about covering both continents with a foot of water seems close enough for me to call it valid.
Considering the base of the Rocky mountains is already about a mile high, that "14,000' tall mountain" is more likely only around 8,000' tall or less. The first time I went to the Rockies, I was underwhelmed because I was expecting more height-wise, and felt like I was back among the Appalachians.Does that take into consideration the area of the Rocky Mountains and other mountains on the continents? A 1 sq mile of flat ground has less surface area than a square mile with a 14,000' tall mountain on it.....
another pic for scaleView attachment 882231
Cadillac's new Verticle Take Off & Landing(VTOL) drone as shown at the CES Expo.
Powered by a 90 Kw battery pack capable of top speeds of 55-56 mph.
The "aerial mobility" craft was built to fly "from roof top to roof top", say in NYC or LA on those occasions when getting off one's arse
and going down the elevator/stairs from one's penthouse is just too much of a PITA!