If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
With all the problem of the modern planes according to ecology (CO2,
white vapour trails, etc ...) I would like to ask a question : -- does turbines and normal airscrew planes less pulluting aircraft than pure jets one ?? -- does this aircraft use less petrol for a journey ( knowing that they are 200 km/h slower than jets) ? If ies... how much less ? tHanks for somebody "whoknows" to answer |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
On Apr 5, 7:28 am, wrote:
With all the problem of the modern planes according to ecology (CO2, white vapour trails, etc ...) I would like to ask a question : -- does turbines and normal airscrew planes less pulluting aircraft than pure jets one ?? -- does this aircraft use less petrol for a journey ( knowing that they are 200 km/h slower than jets) ? If ies... how much less ? tHanks for somebody "whoknows" to answer "Turbine" is just another name for "jet." All turbines, including turboprops, pollute more than gas piston engines. Sort of. Remember that a jet spreads its fuel costs and pollution among many more passengers than a piston engine does. On a per-passenger basis, jets and turboprops probably pollute less than a gas piston engine. There is some evidence that the vapor trails from jet engines, while they add smoke pollutants to the atmosphere, actually reduce global warming by creating cloud cover. A four passenger Cessna burns about 12 gallons per hour. It flies at about 120 miles per hour. A 747 burns 300 lbs per passenger for a 3450 mile flight. That would be 60 gallons of fuel per passenger. To fly the same distance, if it was full, the Cessna would burn a little over 86 gallons of fuel per passenger. Typically, though, the Cessna will carry only two passengers, so it works out to nearly 173 gallons of fuel per passenger. Clearly the 747 is more fuel efficient per passenger. Think of it this way: a bus gets much worse gas mileage than a car and it pollutes more. But a bus carries the same number of people as many cars (perhaps 30 cars), so if it pollutes less and uses less fuel than 30 cars, the bus is better for the environment. The same rules hold true for cargo. But it is not that clear-cut. Cessnas do not fly 3450 miles on a normal trip. The typical Cessna journey is less than 500 miles, usually much less. You cannot fly a 747 for such short trips -- it would be horrendously expensive or, in other words, a horrendous waste of resources. It would be a rare day indeed that you could find upwards of 500 people all wanting to take the same 200 mile trip at the same time, especially when you consider that the 747 requires a huge airport and terminal and other support facilities that the Cessna does not. The Cessna gives you the flexibility to travel short distances at the times you need to go. Think of the difference between a bus and a car again. Buses have regular stops and schedules and are pretty much structured to carry only passengers and perhaps a handbag or briefcase. Obviously, it is not going to stop at the grocery store, the day care, the hardware store, and all the other places you may need to go during the day. The bus is okay if all you are doing is going straight from the bus terminal or park and ride to work and back. It does not work out so well if you are a tradesman who must carry large quantities of tools to many different work locations during the course of a day. With a bus, you have to go where the bus goes. With a car, you go where you want. It is the same with a Cessna and a 747. With the 747, you are pretty much relegated to flying wherever the airline goes on the airline's schedule. Maybe you want to fly from Seattle to Chicago. In a Cessna, you could fly straight to Chicago. But the big jet will fly to Phoenix on the way. Or Dallas. Or some other hub. So where a Cessna can make a 1000 mile journey by flying 1000 miles, the jet makes a 1000 mile journey by flying 2000 miles or more. Going back to our figures, now we see that a fully loaded Cessna would burn about 30 gallons of fuel per passenger for a 1000 mile trip. But the jet will burn 120 gallons of fuel per passenger. Clearly the Cessna is much more fuel efficient for this type of journey. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
All great stuff which I agree with. But what's this obsession with Cessna being equivalent to small airplanes? When I talk to the nonflying public, they always refer to all GA airplanes as Cessnas. It doesn't matter if it is a Piper, Mooney or Cirrus. They are all a Cessna to them. But I would expect differently from a pilot. Another thing that nonpilots do is refer to GA airports as "private airports". On Apr 5, 11:24 am, "cjcampbell" wrote: On Apr 5, 7:28 am, wrote: With all the problem of the modern planes according to ecology (CO2, white vapour trails, etc ...) I would like to ask a question : -- does turbines and normal airscrew planes less pulluting aircraft than pure jets one ?? -- does this aircraft use less petrol for a journey ( knowing that they are 200 km/h slower than jets) ? If ies... how much less ? tHanks for somebody "whoknows" to answer "Turbine" is just another name for "jet." All turbines, including turboprops, pollute more than gas piston engines. Sort of. Remember that a jet spreads its fuel costs and pollution among many more passengers than a piston engine does. On a per-passenger basis, jets and turboprops probably pollute less than a gas piston engine. There is some evidence that the vapor trails from jet engines, while they add smoke pollutants to the atmosphere, actually reduce global warming by creating cloud cover. A four passenger Cessna burns about 12 gallons per hour. It flies at about 120 miles per hour. A 747 burns 300 lbs per passenger for a 3450 mile flight. That would be 60 gallons of fuel per passenger. To fly the same distance, if it was full, the Cessna would burn a little over 86 gallons of fuel per passenger. Typically, though, the Cessna will carry only two passengers, so it works out to nearly 173 gallons of fuel per passenger. Clearly the 747 is more fuel efficient per passenger. Think of it this way: a bus gets much worse gas mileage than a car and it pollutes more. But a bus carries the same number of people as many cars (perhaps 30 cars), so if it pollutes less and uses less fuel than 30 cars, the bus is better for the environment. The same rules hold true for cargo. But it is not that clear-cut. Cessnas do not fly 3450 miles on a normal trip. The typical Cessna journey is less than 500 miles, usually much less. You cannot fly a 747 for such short trips -- it would be horrendously expensive or, in other words, a horrendous waste of resources. It would be a rare day indeed that you could find upwards of 500 people all wanting to take the same 200 mile trip at the same time, especially when you consider that the 747 requires a huge airport and terminal and other support facilities that the Cessna does not. The Cessna gives you the flexibility to travel short distances at the times you need to go. Think of the difference between a bus and a car again. Buses have regular stops and schedules and are pretty much structured to carry only passengers and perhaps a handbag or briefcase. Obviously, it is not going to stop at the grocery store, the day care, the hardware store, and all the other places you may need to go during the day. The bus is okay if all you are doing is going straight from the bus terminal or park and ride to work and back. It does not work out so well if you are a tradesman who must carry large quantities of tools to many different work locations during the course of a day. With a bus, you have to go where the bus goes. With a car, you go where you want. It is the same with a Cessna and a 747. With the 747, you are pretty much relegated to flying wherever the airline goes on the airline's schedule. Maybe you want to fly from Seattle to Chicago. In a Cessna, you could fly straight to Chicago. But the big jet will fly to Phoenix on the way. Or Dallas. Or some other hub. So where a Cessna can make a 1000 mile journey by flying 1000 miles, the jet makes a 1000 mile journey by flying 2000 miles or more. Going back to our figures, now we see that a fully loaded Cessna would burn about 30 gallons of fuel per passenger for a 1000 mile trip. But the jet will burn 120 gallons of fuel per passenger. Clearly the Cessna is much more fuel efficient for this type of journey. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
On Apr 5, 9:22 am, "Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
All great stuff which I agree with. But what's this obsession with Cessna being equivalent to small airplanes? When I talk to the nonflying public, they always refer to all GA airplanes as Cessnas. It doesn't matter if it is a Piper, Mooney or Cirrus. They are all a Cessna to them. But I would expect differently from a pilot. Another thing that nonpilots do is refer to GA airports as "private airports". On Apr 5, 11:24 am, "cjcampbell" wrote: On Apr 5, 7:28 am, wrote: With all the problem of the modern planes according to ecology (CO2, white vapour trails, etc ...) I would like to ask a question : -- does turbines and normal airscrew planes less pulluting aircraft than pure jets one ?? -- does this aircraft use less petrol for a journey ( knowing that they are 200 km/h slower than jets) ? If ies... how much less ? tHanks for somebody "whoknows" to answer "Turbine" is just another name for "jet." All turbines, including turboprops, pollute more than gas piston engines. Sort of. Remember that a jet spreads its fuel costs and pollution among many more passengers than a piston engine does. On a per-passenger basis, jets and turboprops probably pollute less than a gas piston engine. There is some evidence that the vapor trails from jet engines, while they add smoke pollutants to the atmosphere, actually reduce global warming by creating cloud cover. A four passenger Cessna burns about 12 gallons per hour. It flies at about 120 miles per hour. A 747 burns 300 lbs per passenger for a 3450 mile flight. That would be 60 gallons of fuel per passenger. To fly the same distance, if it was full, the Cessna would burn a little over 86 gallons of fuel per passenger. Typically, though, the Cessna will carry only two passengers, so it works out to nearly 173 gallons of fuel per passenger. Clearly the 747 is more fuel efficient per passenger. Think of it this way: a bus gets much worse gas mileage than a car and it pollutes more. But a bus carries the same number of people as many cars (perhaps 30 cars), so if it pollutes less and uses less fuel than 30 cars, the bus is better for the environment. The same rules hold true for cargo. But it is not that clear-cut. Cessnas do not fly 3450 miles on a normal trip. The typical Cessna journey is less than 500 miles, usually much less. You cannot fly a 747 for such short trips -- it would be horrendously expensive or, in other words, a horrendous waste of resources. It would be a rare day indeed that you could find upwards of 500 people all wanting to take the same 200 mile trip at the same time, especially when you consider that the 747 requires a huge airport and terminal and other support facilities that the Cessna does not. The Cessna gives you the flexibility to travel short distances at the times you need to go. Think of the difference between a bus and a car again. Buses have regular stops and schedules and are pretty much structured to carry only passengers and perhaps a handbag or briefcase. Obviously, it is not going to stop at the grocery store, the day care, the hardware store, and all the other places you may need to go during the day. The bus is okay if all you are doing is going straight from the bus terminal or park and ride to work and back. It does not work out so well if you are a tradesman who must carry large quantities of tools to many different work locations during the course of a day. With a bus, you have to go where the bus goes. With a car, you go where you want. It is the same with a Cessna and a 747. With the 747, you are pretty much relegated to flying wherever the airline goes on the airline's schedule. Maybe you want to fly from Seattle to Chicago. In a Cessna, you could fly straight to Chicago. But the big jet will fly to Phoenix on the way. Or Dallas. Or some other hub. So where a Cessna can make a 1000 mile journey by flying 1000 miles, the jet makes a 1000 mile journey by flying 2000 miles or more. Going back to our figures, now we see that a fully loaded Cessna would burn about 30 gallons of fuel per passenger for a 1000 mile trip. But the jet will burn 120 gallons of fuel per passenger. Clearly the Cessna is much more fuel efficient for this type of journey. The Cessna was used as an example because I am more familiar with its fuel consumption. You would have to ask someone else about fuel economy in a Cirrus. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
cjcampbell wrote: The Cessna was used as an example because I am more familiar with its fuel consumption. You would have to ask someone else about fuel economy in a Cirrus. Better than any Cessna, it's simply a more efficient plane. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
Andrew Sarangan wrote:
All great stuff which I agree with. But what's this obsession with Cessna being equivalent to small airplanes? There are more Cessnas than there are Mooneys, Cirrus, etc... It's not always Cessnas though. I've noticed that many in the general public and news media, think all small aircraft are "Piper Cubs". John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) -- Message posted via AviationKB.com http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message news:70447ca89a6e4@uwe... Andrew Sarangan wrote: All great stuff which I agree with. But what's this obsession with Cessna being equivalent to small airplanes? There are more Cessnas than there are Mooneys, Cirrus, etc... It's not always Cessnas though. I've noticed that many in the general public and news media, think all small aircraft are "Piper Cubs". I thought it was Cessna Cubs and Piper 172's? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
cjcampbell kirjutas: On Apr 5, 7:28 am, wrote: With all the problem of the modern planes according to ecology (CO2, white vapour trails, etc ...) I would like to ask a question : -- does turbines and normal airscrew planes less pulluting aircraft than pure jets one ?? -- does this aircraft use less petrol for a journey ( knowing that they are 200 km/h slower than jets) ? If ies... how much less ? tHanks for somebody "whoknows" to answer "Turbine" is just another name for "jet." Not quite - turboprops are not quite regarded as jets. But they are definitely turbines. All turbines, including turboprops, pollute more than gas piston engines. Sort of. Remember that a jet spreads its fuel costs and pollution among many more passengers than a piston engine does. It´s just that there are few big piston airliners which are modern in design as well. On a per-passenger basis, jets and turboprops probably pollute less than a gas piston engine. snip Think of it this way: a bus gets much worse gas mileage than a car and it pollutes more. But a bus carries the same number of people as many cars (perhaps 30 cars), so if it pollutes less and uses less fuel than 30 cars, the bus is better for the environment. Precisely. Compare apples with apples, not oranges. The same rules hold true for cargo. But it is not that clear-cut. Cessnas do not fly 3450 miles on a normal trip. The typical Cessna journey is less than 500 miles, usually much less. You cannot fly a 747 for such short trips -- it would be horrendously expensive or, in other words, a horrendous waste of resources. It would be a rare day indeed that you could find upwards of 500 people all wanting to take the same 200 mile trip at the same time, It is not rare. It is actually so often that 747-s were designed and built specifically for that purpose, or almost. What are the main 747SR routes in length? (Tokyo-Sapporo et cetera...) And now, let us choose some apples and other apples to compare. For turboprops, take ATR 72 and Bombardier Dash 8. Which can carry about 70 people. For jets, do not compare them with 500 seat 747. Compare them with Bombardier Canadair Regional Jet. Which also has about 70 seats. If you take a 70 seat jet and 70 seat turboprop flying the same distance - how much longer does the turboprop take? Which of them burns more fuel? How much? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
pollution of jets against turbine aircraft
On Apr 5, 8:28 am, wrote:
With all the problem of the modern planes according to ecology (CO2, white vapour trails, etc ...) I would like to ask a question : -- does turbines and normal airscrew planes less pulluting aircraft than pure jets one ?? -- does this aircraft use less petrol for a journey ( knowing that they are 200 km/h slower than jets) ? If ies... how much less ? tHanks for somebody "whoknows" to answer You mean the CO2 that is a vital nutrient to plant life and key to photosynthesis of food for those same plants? The CO2 that is currently at 380ppm but has been at 3000ppm for most of the history of life on the planet? The same CO2 that at 1000ppm stimulates plants to grow 50% faster than they do at 380ppm? The same CO2 that is a minor greenhouse gas when compared with water vapor, which is the dominant greenhouse gas and absorber of infra-red radiation? The same CO2 that you emit every time you exhale? The same CO2 that is the primary source of carbon for carbon based lifeforms on this planet? The same CO2 that has to be in excess of 5000ppm to pose a respiritory problem for animals and humans? You talk about CO2 like it is some form of pollution, rather than a key component of life on this planet. Hmmm, maybe in addition to restricting CO2 emissions, we should restriction H20 vapor emissions, the biggest greenhouse gas. You can buy Hydrogen offset credits at my website http:\\someonebuymeadrink.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Minimum age to fly turbine aircraft? | [email protected] | Piloting | 7 | December 31st 06 12:28 AM |
FA: One-Day-Left: 3 Books - JETS JETS and JETS - AIRPORT - 30 Seconds Over Tokyo | Alan | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 14th 05 01:11 PM |
FA: 3 Books - JETS JETS and JETS - and Aviation Classics | Millie | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | August 9th 05 03:48 AM |
turbine in microturbine generator for aircraft? | Shin Gou | Home Built | 19 | December 26th 04 02:19 PM |
Future Turbine Aircraft | Mike Schumann | Owning | 7 | July 1st 03 10:00 AM |