Assembly in China / End of Lode Lane

'eer - thems facts, youm not allowed to use those!

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd
Loading thread data ...

On or around Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:30:22 +0100, Mother enlightened us thusly:

You'd have to fit some kind of flotation devices first though.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

Just pump the tyres up with helium and attach a flymo to the back, and take his rant directly to the air passengers!

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

ISTR a 747's miles per gallon per passenger when full being something like 70 MPG/P, which drops obviously when it's not full. Smaller planes are much less efficient, as the larger planes carry proportionally more passengers than the extra fuel used over smaller planes.

A car like mine that does 47MPG, if full, does about 180MPG/P, or

90MPG/P if two people are in it which is more likely for most people. A 101, if carrying two people and a dog, would do probably about 40 MPG/P.

A car however puts the pollution out at ground level, I don't know the details but the biggest issue with planes is supposed to be that they pump their pollution out in a location that is much more damaging from a global warming perspective although I can't recall why. Ages ago when people started flapping on about this issue, it was the location of the pollution and the damage it was doing that was the big issue, not the fuel efficiency of the plane.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

Juggling statistics again. I reckon per person though an aircraft chucks out a lot more s*1t than a car in burnt and unburnt fuel.

Martin

Reply to
Oily

How do you make that out, from 70 MPG/P ?

Steve

Reply to
steve

"beamendsltd" wrote >>

What about our favourite, Royal Crown Derby?

Reply to
Bob Hobden

Against the car with four people on board at 180 MPG/P??

Martin

Reply to
Oily

No idea, I'm affraid. I'm not a pottery fan, I just see the flat spaces where the potteries were, and the local paper with the latest "this'll sort it out" article that never mentions "hand made in England" which, as far as I can tell, is the only reason they sold anything for years!

Richard

Reply to
beamendsltd

Now what is the average MPG/P for a car ? Its very, very rare that they travel full. Aircraft on the other hand always try to travel full.

I would guess that most cars average around the 40-50 MPG/P and aircraft around the same level, or slightly better.

Steve

Reply to
steve

On or around Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:30:57 +0100, steve enlightened us thusly:

try being the operative word. They also operate to fairly strictly defined schedules.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

According to the airlines themselves, on average they do about 65MPG/P and run at 70% utilisation, so crank those figures down by about 10% ;-)

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

"beamendsltd" wrote after"Bob Hobden"

Seems to be still where it always was thank goodness, that's since it moved from Chelsea 250 years ago. :-)

formatting link
at least they are still doing factory tours there. In this country Doulton has gone from highly collectable stuff to zero with the move abroad and I understand old "Made in England" china of theirs is still in demand, mind you, I don't know if that is the same abroad.

Reply to
Bob Hobden

They are probably trying to justify and mask their wastage of fossil fuels as they apparently dump loads when they come in to land, they certainly seem to use a lot when taking off. When we are eventually forced off the road unless we use hybrid or electric 4x4s, I hope they make them use N.O.S C5 motors behind the props or ground them forever. :-)

Martin

Reply to
Oily

If they did, wouldn't the approaches to, say, Heathrow be rather slippery ?

Jet fuel is particularly not noted for its volatility, so if they did it , we'd have known by now.

AFAIK fuel dumping is an emergency measure only.

Steve

Reply to
steve

If those figures are true then a plane carrying say 150 people is doing the same MPG as a small diesel car with 3-4 people, which sort of backs their claims that air travel is nothing like as polluting as car travel, mile for mile. Greg

Reply to
Greg

Loosely on the same subject, those who claim buses are the future of transport don't know the figures. At a recent meeting I attended with the Council's head of transport about a new park and ride scheme they're starting in Scarborough, he had to admit that the modern buses they were going to use do a whole 4MPG, yes I did say four!. Considering a modern small Diesel car does about 15 times that, the buses need to be carrying an average of about 50 people just to break even on the pollution produced. In reality they aren't going to achieve that so one of the main reasons for the scheme, reducing pollution, just doesn't hold water.

Greg

Reply to
Greg

Time for them to change bus manufacturers. I track fleet fuel usage for one of my clients - even his trucks running at 44 tonnes with 600PS engines are returning better than 5.4MPG, and that's in NZ where we have a lot of hills.

Reply to
EMB

The big issue with air travel is supposed to be what they pump out and where they pump it, not how much the MPG figure is. I don't know the details though, I just remember that the fuss was not about MPG but they are supposed to be much more damaging for other reasons.

Reply to
Ian Rawlings

On or around Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:19:25 +1300, EMB enlightened us thusly:

buses do stop-start urban mileage though, and spend a lot of time idling going nowhere. But 4mpg sounds a bit crap, even so.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.