There is not 32656 pounds of carbon in 1564 pounds of jet fuel. If jet fuel weighed 7 pounds per gallon that would make 10948 pounds of fuel including about 1564 pounds of hydrogen. If you mean pounds of CO2 say it. More than twice the weight of the carbon in the fuel is produced as CO2; with oxygen in the air accounting for the extra weight. How much total weight was there on the plane and how many passengers should be a figure also published. It would also be interesting to find out how much it costs to transport an additional pound of luggage on the flight.

It is known that turbo-prop aircraft are more efficient, when are passengers going to be forced to use only turbo prop aircraft and only drive 50 miles an hour on freeways to save "carbon". ..HG..

>It is known that turbo-prop aircraft are more
efficient ......
>when are passengers going to be forced to use
>only turbo prop aircraft and only drive 50
>miles an hour on freeways to save "carbon". ..

Henry, you have touched on something I have been worried about for the past 30 years.

There are a lot of intellectual folks out there who seem to have a sadistic delight in squeezing the auto industry harder and harder not only on fuel economy, but safety as well. For example, there is now pending a regulation that would require double the presently required roof crush strength. And also, increasingly stringent requirements regarding pedestrian protection may be required. And finally, some state governments are demanding 40 MPH CAFE.

The only way we will be able to have all the fuel economy and all the safety that intellectuals want other people's cars to have, may be for us to settle for no more than 45 MPH or so. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprized if these intellectuals would love this as an end in itself.

Aircraft too, are now being squeezed ever harder on fuel economy and safety. So who knows, we may all have to settle for air speeds no higher than that achieved by the old Lockheed L-188 Electra.

Alex:

The new turbo-prop Q400-70 consumes almost 50% less per seat/mile than a B-737 cruising at 410 mph instead of 560 mph.

On short distances (up to 800 miles or so), the total A to B travel time (including land travel to/from airport + check-in and out times) are almost the same.

Reduced fuel consumption + very high level of safety + reduced maintenance cost + increased availability + usable on much shorter strips + less noise for people living close to airports are reasons why so many operators are buying the Bombadier Q-400-70 and future Q400-90.

Thanks HarveyD for filling me in on the Q400-70. Perhaps many passengers might be willing to spend a little more time in the air in return for lower fares, particularly if the price of oil heads upstairs again.

As an aviation buff, I have always admired business turboprop aircraft like the Beechcraft 350, the largest member of the King Air family that first took to the skyways of America in 1964. The 350 is a kewl machine: It can carry as many as 15 people, and at the same time take off with enough fuel to go at least halfway across America.

But for regional airline applications, perhaps airline managements should look at the possibility of 70 passenger straight-wing planes with high-bypass turbofans, possibly with geared fans, mounted on the rear of the fuselage.

Alex: What an appalling attitude you have, I can almost hear the sneer when you say "intellectual folks". It's politicians who pass such safety and efficiency legislation and regulation in any case, hardly the most intellectual of people!

For a start CAFE standards do not prevent any production company from producing the most gas-guzzling vehicles they want. They just impose a penalty payment for failure to meet fleet average efficiency standards. It adds to the sticker price, but that's your prerogative. Sports and Luxury car manufacturers who don't make economy models pay up without complaint.

Secondly I have yet to hear from the relatives of a dead road-accident victim who thinks that safety standards could not and should not be improved. Would you have us return to the 'good old days' without burst-proof locks, collapsible steering columns, safety windshield glass, even seat belts all of which have helped prevent people being thrown from the accident vehicle, impaled by the steering column and lacerated by the windshield as they were thrown onto the hood?

You mention roof-crush standards. Any crush-injury to the head is a sure way to get debilitating brain injury or more likely the quickest route to the morgue. Just what do you think is the value of such lost lives? What if it was you? The incremental cost per vehicle is trivial compared to the financial cost to society, let alone the human (emotional) cost to the survivors. That is why the politicians agree with the "intellectuals'" analysis and pass the regulations.

You say: "Aircraft too, are now being squeezed ever harder on fuel economy and safety." Aircraft fuel economy is not regulated by anyone. it is the airlines who are demanding better efficiency from the aircraft manufacturers, since fuel is THE LARGEST OPERATING COST they bear. So it is the market-place talking, not politicians and not 'intellectuals'. Some airlines have adopted slow-cruise procedures. Slow the aircraft by 5-10 knots, get there 15-20 minutes later, save tons of fuel and the passengers will hardly notice.

Not spoken to anyone either who thinks airline safety is way out of whack and can't be improved.

Why are you bothering to read "Green Car" congress if you don't care for greener cars? (Cuckoo in the Nest, methinks!)