this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
943 points (96.9% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17436 readers
48 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
[–] CodeInvasion@sh.itjust.works 24 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] elephantium@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 :\

[–] jarfil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] uis@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's probably plane with propeller, not jet engine

[–] SomeAmateur@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is leaded gas still a requirement, or have they found a way around that by now for old prop planes?

[–] rexxit@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

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.