878
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
878 points (97.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
17401 readers
583 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We should not be encouraging anyone to fly private though. Getting a plane off the ground has a large impact on the environment.
A Rutan Long EZ running autogas has a better environmental footprint than a Prius and is more than twice as fast
Source for that claim please?
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2015/december/14/indy-car-speed-with-prius-fuel-consumption
Your source talks about the consumption once it is off the ground. My understanding is that taking off requires more energy than maintaining height and speed like it works for literally every other vehicle.
What does flying 300 miles look like in terms of fuel consumption
Of course, takeoff and climb are typically at full power but to reach cruising altitudes for a single engine airplane doesn't take very long. It's a similar concept to a car on a highway onramp, except that airplanes actually get more efficient at higher altitudes.
It factors into overall consumption but it doesn't really blow the whole equation for efficiency. Pilots in training do takeoffs and landings on repeat for hours at a stretch between refueling.
My 1961 plane burns 25mpg, carries 4 people, and goes 160mph. I own a car that gets worse fuel economy.
GA is not just private jets.