Author
|
Topic: Rollout of the A380 on video
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 22 April 2005 05:00 PM
quote: Originally posted by North Shore:
However, most people don't travel alone, they travel in pairs or bigger groups. All of a sudden our Prius turned into any other vehicle @ 8.8L/100 or a sport-ute @ 13L/100. Aeroplanes are a terribly fuel-inefficient way of travelling.
Well, actually it's more like this: four people in a Prius would consume 1.1 L/100 passenger kilometres, or in your SUV maybe 3.25 L/100 passenger km. So yeah, a fully loaded A380 would be less efficient than a fully loaded SUV. Tommy_Paine is wrong, though, about the relative safety of the two modes of transportation. You're far more likely to die travelling by car than by plane. Sure, the chance of surviving a crash is greater in a car, but the chance of getting into a crash in the first place is greater still. As regards the infamous British engineering, they seem to have done a better job with aircraft than cars... at least as regards reliability.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 22 April 2005 05:48 PM
In terms of the worst concern (CO2 production), ships ought to be better than planes, since producing lift produces drag, which must be overcome by burning more fuel. But then I did some googling. Here's some stats on the Queen Elizabeth 2:Capacity: 1791 pax Cruise speed: 25 - 28.5 kt = 46.3 - 52.3 km/h Fuel consumption per hour: 18.05 tons. The website doesn't say whether they're long, short, or metric tons. I'll assume metric tons for these purposes (almost the same as long tons). Density of diesel fuel: 0.87-1.0 g/cm3 at 20oC (source). So, for simplicity's sake, let's assume a density of 1.0 g/cm3 and a speed of 50 km/h. That means 36.1 t/100 km, or 36,100 L/100 km. Fully loaded, that means 20.2 L/100 passenger kilometres- worse than almost any other vehicle. Of course, a cruise ship like the QE2 probably doesn't carry nearly as many passengers as it could if the pax were packed in like those on an aircraft. But if they were, nobody'd buy a ticket. [ 22 April 2005: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 22 April 2005 09:25 PM
"Tommy_Paine is wrong, though, about the relative safety of the two modes of transportation. You're far more likely to die travelling by car than by plane. Sure, the chance of surviving a crash is greater in a car, but the chance of getting into a crash in the first place is greater still."Ya, but in a car you only die once, as opposed to dying a kajillion times during that two or three minute plung from 40,000 feet. Yes, I am wrong about this, but my fear of flying isn't rational, so I am not bound by rational arguement in this case.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
AppleSeed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8513
|
posted 27 April 2005 07:36 PM
I predict it will not hit an Iceberg.Everything about it's big though. Big target. Big Headlines, big, big, big. Don't worry, Mr. Big is on his own private jet. Me, I want a ticket on a smaller plane.
From: In Dreams | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|