An "airport neighbourhood" where people can store their planes in their yard and taxi directly to the runway
An "airport neighbourhood" where people can store their planes in their yard and taxi directly to the runway
You're viewing a single thread.
/c/fuckcars : "use some other form of transportation!"
Also /c/fuckcars: "No! Not like that!"
You won't commute with a plane like this lol.
Unless you live in an extremely remote place not served by roads. The arctic for example. It's not technically commuting as in going to and from your 9 to 5, but plenty of small northern communities are still completely dependent on small gravel runways or even bushplanes for things like going to the doctor or dentist, or really anything they need to go to a city for, which is a lot of things.
I actually thought this was a similar situation, that they're so out in the middle of nowhere flying is significantly more convenient than driving. But then I took a look at the map and realized that they're not far from Chicago and are within easy driving distance from nearby smaller towns, which makes this way harder to justify though still mildly interesting.
One of the first things my instructor told me was "I hope you're getting your license for fun or a job, and not planning on commuting. Eventually you'll get stuck somewhere due to the weather."
Heavy, powerful commercial jets have deicing systems. They also have the benefit of an entire team of air traffic controllers on takeoff and landing -- and they still get grounded by weather. Small planes are grounded by such inclement weather as "fog", "thunderstorms", "high winds", and "low cloud cover".
Apparently the CEO of Boeing does
Why not? Less risk of being hit by a plane if they're in the sky and requirements for a pilot license are much stricter. In a plane crash occupants are more likely to die than innocent bystanders, compared to cars that are designed for safety only for those on the inside.
Why not? Probably because:
Bike pollution: .
Car pollution: oooooooooo
Plane pollution: OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO
(bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding)
Speak for yourself, I bike with a bag on my head to capture my emissions.
Don't worry, your body will release all that carbon when you die.
What about the emissions from the other end?
That changes it from a bike to a gas powered engine
bike pollution is slightly more than nil just because of the CO2 we breathe out while riding
Technically, the CO2 animals exhale is carbon neutral because it's from plants you eat (or your food eats). Unless you're eating petroleum derived products of course.
I say technically because while the plants themselves are carbon neutral, modern food production and distribution, especially meat production, still has a large carbon footprint. So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.
So your breath is only truly carbon neutral if you foraged for food in the forest on foot.
So once again: return to monkee
Unless you're eating petroleum derived products of course.
I didn't come here to be judged
Don't forget that many small propeller driven aircraft run on leaded gas, and it's a formulation of leaded gas that has 10x the lead that motor fuel used to.
But, didn't you hear the Midgley guy who invented TEL like 100 years ago? You can safely breathe it and even wash your hands in it! (said right after he got lead poisoning)
Then he went on to make Freon.
"Most dangerous man in history"... and knowing humanity's track record, that's something.
Well sure I bet you can wash your hands in it. It's a bad idea, but you could do it.
That was a great watch - it's cool to find out the history.
I must say, society is much better off without widespread use of TEL, but as someone who used to do racecar things, TEL works like magic. A little goes a LONG way, and Midgely did legitimately stumble upon something with very high effect for the concentration (they also touch on ethanol in the video which has the drawback of needing a lot).
I'm not opposed to using it in a small scale racing context (like definitely not NASCAR) because it's so fucking useful and the quantity is unlikely to cause harm. Unfortunately so much bad has been done with it at this point, I don't think that's a very popular opinion.
Whatever your views on it, it's the only thing that can make gasoline legitimately 120+ octane, and that has huge implications for some types of racing.
Worth noting that the amount of aviation fuel burned annually should make it a negligible contributer to environmental lead contamination compared to widespread automotive use (although I'm sure it contributes on airport grounds).
Edit: All the pilots I know want to use unleaded, and it was recently approved after being stuck in a bureaucratic nightmare process, but market forces may make it hard to adopt.
Small aircraft have a carbon equivalent to large cars. My plane is from 1961 and has a fuel economy of 15mpg as the crow flies (arguably closer to 25mpg because of straight line measurements versus winding roads that can almost double the distance), seats 4 people comfortably, and flies at 160 mph.
Hmm, interesting. I had the opposite impression. Maybe from discussion of private jets? I wonder how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare -- similar to cars vs. buses, perhaps? I haven't actually dug much into this subject :\
how commercial jets vs. private jets vs. light aircraft fare
Just looked some up, they're approximately, per passenger:
- -, bus, ~100...300mpg/pp
- Commercial jet, -, ~60...120mpg/pp
- Ultralight, motorbike, train, ~50mpg/pp
- Light aircraft, car, ~15...60mpg/pp
- Private jet, limo, ~5...50mpg/pp
- Fighter jet, monster truck, ~0.5mpg/pp
The more passengers, the more efficient.
So, fully loaded, there isn't that much difference between a private jet, a limo, a car, light aircraft, ultralight, motorbike, train, or low range commercial jet.
But if it's a single person, a private jet would use 10 times more fuel than a motorbike.
A fully loaded bus, still wins hands down.
It's probably plane with propeller, not jet engine
Props tend to be more efficient aircraft when it comes to fuel consumption but fly relatively low and slow. Jets are faster so they make more sense for ferrying people and cargo but they burn more fuel in the process.
Is leaded gas still a requirement, or have they found a way around that by now for old prop planes?
It was caught in FAA-Bureauctatic hell for 15+ years and just approved last year. It will be still be slow to become available and adopt for reasons that are complicated, but amount to bureaucracy, economics, and an insane degree of risk aversion. The vast majority of pilots want unleaded and it's also much better for the engines.
Breathing isn't pollution
Depends who
oof
But some people are a waste of oxygen
They don't cycle
Walking pollution: ...
That's right, bike pollution is less than walking (or running) pollution in terms of CO2 per mile travelled. Cycling typically burns ~⅓ of the calories compared to making the same journey on foot and there's a direct link between calories burnt and CO2 produced.
Cycling at 12mph takes roughly the same energy as walking at 4mph. You emit the same CO2 per minute, but get there in ⅓ of the time. Running at 12mph takes 3 times the effort of cycling at 12mph. You'll get there in the same amount of time, but breath out 3 times as much CO2. Bicycles are more efficient than our own two legs - how cool is that!
I gave up flying to have kids. Probably worse for pollution
I gave up kids to have flying!
You environmental warrior!
More of an environmental Skyhawk, actually
To over-explain the joke to non-flying folk:
What I trained on (you get to the Warrior name eventually)
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-28_Cherokee
Vs @rexxit
— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172
Although I ended up a Tiger Dad
I've got to ask, though—how is breathing CO2 pollution? Aren't we just taking in air, removing the oxygen, and exhaling the waste gases? Isn't there the same net CO2 afterwards?
Have I misunderstood something as simple as breathing? Please say no.
You haven't misunderstood it! You're just coupling cellular respiration with photosynthesis, which on the surface seems to balance to net zero -- 6 CO2 molecules and sunlight create 1 glucose molecule, and we break down 1 glucose molecule for energy and generate 6 CO2 molecules.
There's one big factor though which isn't immediately obvious, and that's the rate of reaction. The chemical equations say nothing about how many molecules are consumed per second. In order for the net CO2 to be zero, they'd need to consume and generate CO2, respectively, at the same rate, which isn't the case.
It's actually a really good thing, because photosynthesis happens faster. Plants are net negative CO2 because of that. What we'd need to complete this comparison now is how much CO2 a human generates by existing, and we can determine how many plants are needed per human to have the same net CO2.
Thank you! What a great explanation. I'm always amazed by how much cooler things are than I expect.
Please accept this lemmygold: 🥇
Glad I could help!
Permanently Deleted
Correct, 100%. I was just going through the science. Targeting human respiration as a carbon source is an extremely absurd notion.
Permanently Deleted
But, do that people have light aircrafts or motherfucking Boeings 787?
Planes still require leaded gasoline and they are the largest contributor or airborne lead pollution in the US, probably the world.
Planes still require leaded gasoline
No, they don't. It's like saying all cars require leaded gasoline. They can work on it, but it's banned in all countries.
Piston driven planes still do use leaded gasoline. There is a very recent push to certify lead free avgas and progress is being made but they're being a bit opaque and seemingly rushing it which is making a lot of people weary of it.
Planes that would land here typically use 100LL which contains lead. (LL stands for Low Lead). It's not banned for aviation use.
There has been a push recently to use alternatives which don't contain lead but most places still have 100LL as it's a very long process to get things certified for aviation use.
All the local small airports in the USA sell 100LL -- "One hundred, low lead".
Modern small plane engines can run off regular unleaded, but a lot of small planes in the air are "old" and require leaded gas.
I feel like it should be .. for the amount of gas I release while cycling.
😂
Try reading that comment with a TTS engine. Lol
oof. Apologies!
This made me giggle
Cycling has carbon emissions if you factor the additional calorie intake needed to power your bike. :| Which will vary widely depending on your size, diet, and food source. Is it still a more sustainable form of transportation? Probably, but maybe not in extreme cases (like a 300-lb person eating beef daily flown in from the other side of the planet, versus, a tiny two seater electric car power off of solar energy, using batteries sourced from recycled materials) and it certainly isn't 0 impact.
Also, for extra pedantism, carbon emission are not pollution (in the sense that it doesn't poison the life forms directly), but it is a GHG which causes harm to the environment too.
If you factor calorie intake of the bike rider you need to do the same for other forms of transportation. And if you account for the amount of exercise people are supposed to get to stay healthy there's no additional calorie intake whatsoever.
as if rich people care about how much they pollute
Planes are better than driving cross-country. Just from a safety standpoint. It's also considered mass transit. If we had high-speed cross-country rail, then maybe it'd be better but still takes several times longer.
Plane pollution is not that much worse than a car. Depending on what metric you measure it can be better (planes are more fuel efficient and thus less CO2. Small planes like the picture generally use lead fuel and old engine designs that pollute more) on long trips.
I do love having heavy metals rain down on me from the sky so rich cunts can entertain themselves.
Nearly all land near small runways and airports that fly planes using AvGas will have lead contamination. That’s because lead is still used in most aviation fuels a consumer plane would use. Runways are also required to have and use PFAS in firefighting foam for emergencies. Training and system tests will dump that stuff in the surrounding area.
Unless these fine folks have A380s they’re paying a hefty premium for lead exposure and PFAS in their water and soil.
Lead is only one factor of pollution though. You will note that i acknowledged it exists. There is no objective way to say what is the most important factor or how you compare them.
No, planes are not more fuel efficient, even driving alone a car. The reason why it costs more to go by car is due to many reasons, especially the higher cost of fuel at petrol stations.
Yes, some light planes have fuel economy similar to efficient cars (which is very impressive considering how fast they are relative to cars). If you consider the advantages of direct, straight line routing, it's not hard for planes to do better on fuel economy.
We're not talking about jets here, though some of those do very well in mpg on a per passenger basis.
You're only taking into account pollution and i bet you with the barrier of entry and cost accounted there would be less pollution from flying compared to driving.
... what?
I think they’re trying to say that less people would fly than currently drive due to the cost of flying. Although, if we subsidized personal planes at the same rate that we do personal vehicles I’m not entirely sure that flying would continue to be so expensive.
It's quite simple really. Less people would be able to fly, so those that can't will just stand still in confusion until they die from starvation. The remaining population would be the small fraction who were able to afford to fly. Net loss in pollution.
Flying is expensive and you need a license that's substantially harder to get than a driver's license.
You’re only taking into account pollution
Yes, that's correct. I'm not doing a serious study here, just summarizing the general sentiment I've observed.
I dunno, I was supposed to get 100hrs of driving experience in order to get my license. Meanwhile the minimum required for a PPL is 40, and only 20 of that is required to be with an instructor. You can get away with fewer if you are just getting a Light Sport license, and an Ultralight requires no license at all (seriously though, get training).
more stricter
much more strict.