was bound to happen in our time, sooner or later.

snowshoe · Post by **snowshoe** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:37 pm

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Pe ... 721-1.html

I guess everyone will be keeping an ear to the ground to listen for the thundering hoofs chasing this one! Very ironic when you realize a lot of those states are major aviation centres.

Grey_Wolf · Post by **Grey_Wolf** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:50 pm

So let's shut down the airports that will carry 150 people across the continent, so that those 150 people can drive all that distance instead?

Repeat as per many flights there are out there per day

That'll save the planet

200hr Wonder · Post by **200hr Wonder** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:08 am

Nothing wrong with being environmentally friendly. There is no reason for Piston engines to still be using leaded fuel and I am sure there are more efficient engines out there, just need to get away from bashing around in 20 and 30 year old clapped out crap. Look at cars and what not. They manage to improve efficiency, GA is not really keeping in that regard.

Course most of the environmental zealots will prolly want to ban air travel

Highsea · Post by **Highsea** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:21 am

I like knowing that all the people wanting to "curb greenhouse-gas pollution from aircraft." Will be using a aircraft to get to they next meeting.

Blakey · Post by **Blakey** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:36 am

What, you don't think Al Gore is going to book passage on a sailing ship over to Sweden to collect his Nobel prize?

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:19 am

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s ... conference

Way to set an example, guys.

Liquid Charlie · Post by **Liquid Charlie** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:23 am

I drive that 30+ clapped out junk --

-- that's the legacy of when they built "airplanes to last" not the throw away generation we are getting into now- and Ironically I would suspect that there are more 20 year old passenger jets flying than ones less than 5 years old -- damn I had to fly for many years before I finally got into an airplane that wasn't built before I was born -- They can pass all the bills they want but nothing will change because the "old" airplanes will be grandfathered -- noise will chase them out far before emissions will -- and noise won't count in Canada as long as "essential" services are going north where none of the "new" generation jets can land because they aren't certified on gravel.

Now all that is left is to shut all the airports down because people bought a house and chose to live so close to an airport -- human nature -- lmfaooooo

Lommer · Post by **Lommer** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:20 pm

One thing I'm wondering is why I've seen absolutely NO exploration of hydrogen as an aviation fuel. I know that any developments would be years away from implementation and that hydrogen has many potential pitfalls, but it seems odd that no one is talking about it at all. Before people start jumping on my back about energy density of fuels, consider that hydrogen has the lowest gravimetric energy density (energy per unit weight) of any fuel we currently have. I know that Kerosene (Jet-A) still can't be beat for volumetric energy density but when weight is such an important consideration in aircraft some sort of trade-off must be possible. Also, fuel cells would make a much better APU, (they could even make potable water for the flight), so if someone were to develop a hydrogen burning jet engine I would think there would be huge interest in it. Combine the above with the fact that you only have to have a refueling supply at a few dozen major world airports and it's even starting to sound feasible. The greens would love it, so why hasn't there even been any discussion about it?

Also, I always shake my head when pilots jump all over the greens for criticizing the aviation industry. Let's face it, carbon emissions caps or taxes are coming, and aviation is a big source. Indeed, beginning in 2008 phase II of the EUETS will include the aviation industry in the carbon caps for Europe. I think we can all agree that people are not going to just stop flying, but it does mean that the price of flying will go up. What does this mean for pilots? It means that carriers who use newer aircraft that are more efficient will get an added edge over the airlines who use older aircraft and offset the higher fuel cost with the lower financing cost. Greenifying the aviation industry will deal a blow to fly-by-night and ultra-low-cost operators and will speed the transition to newer, (safer?), aircraft that we as pilots will get to fly. So why are we bashing it again?

Just some food for thought. Call me unrealistic for believing that aviation can play a part in solving global warming and that it doesn't have to crawl into a hole and die to do so.

THEICEMAN · Post by **THEICEMAN** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:47 pm

Oh c'mon...enough!
Aviation in total only accounts for 3% of world C0^2 emissions!

How about forcing car manufacturers to come up with more environmentally friendly cars then SUVs.....oh let me guess, driving to the store is more important than connecting people across the world??

How about all those Euro & American industrial companies that release some of the most harmful pollutions in 3rd world countries??

How about trying to inhibit forest fires worldwide that create huge CO^2 emissions? "Save rain forest, why do we need that???"

Bottom line is, that we need aviation. It's the other sectors that must be upgraded, or if necessary, curbed!

shimmydampner · Post by **shimmydampner** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:50 pm

200hr Wonder wrote:There is no reason for Piston engines to still be using leaded fuel and I am sure there are more efficient engines out there, just need to get away from bashing around in 20 and 30 year old clapped out crap.

No reason for leaded fuel?

FYI, a 20 or 30 year old aircraft is not necessarily clapped out. 20 years is actually relatively new for alot of aircraft in alot of areas of this country. It has nothing to do with how old it is and everything to do with how well it is maintained. I fly a piston floatplane that is more than 55 years old and is pristine. And there is nothing out there, especially nothing new, that can do what it can with such ease and practicality. Unfortunately, as much as I'd like it, it's just not in the budget to slap a million dollar pointy nose on the end of it.

If it's that simple to just all drive brand new tin, than I'm sure when you're in the market for your own personal little airplane, you'll being dropping the extra $572,500 for this fine example of a new 4 place piston (http://www.controller.com/listings/airc ... 2B314F1D0B)
as opposed to this "clapped out" 42 year old, 4 place piston with a mere 3800 hours on it
(http://www.controller.com/listings/airc ... 2B314F1D0B)

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:31 pm

shimmydampner

If it's that simple to just all drive brand new tin, than I'm sure when you're in the market for your own personal little airplane, you'll being dropping the extra $572,500 for this fine example of a new 4 place piston (http://www.controller.com/listings/airc ... 2B314F1D0B)
as opposed to this "clapped out" 42 year old, 4 place piston with a mere 3800 hours on it
(http://www.controller.com/listings/airc ... 2B314F1D0B)

If I win the lottery
http://www.cwings.com/articles/general/ ... eajet.html
Then, I'll get one of these to deflect the attention of the Climate Change Freaks from my jet.
http://www.teslamotors.com/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-shepp ... am-history

ottawa,kan · Post by **ottawa,kan** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:47 pm

HYDROGEN???? Christ can you at least read enough about your issue to discuss it intelligently? where do you think hydrogen comes from? Do they import it from the sun? Drill for it underground?? Pull it from Jupiter?
The hydrogen fuel cells being designed for cars today get their hydrogen from gasoline. And that tech is at least 10 years out. If you buy industrial gas hydrogen...and you and I probably can't, it either comes from natural gas, using lots of energy to split hydrogen off the carbon which combines with oxygen which makes CO2...a greenhouse gas, or they dissasociate it from water using electrical energy. So maybe you could make hydrogen from hydroelectic electricity and then burn it in a car, but a plug in electric would make more sense. Or you could make it from nuclear energy electricity, but again, why not just plug in? Hydrogen is no answer to global warming. And as others have pointed out avaition contributes less than3%,less than the maritime industry. Transportation as a whole contributes less than agriculture.

canwhitewolf · Post by **canwhitewolf** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:36 pm

one resource that doesnt run out is magnetic and that should be the way of the future

definetly not biofuels thats for sure, were all gonna starve if farmers do the wrong crops and waste good farmland on bio

shimmydampner · Post by **shimmydampner** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:39 pm

canwhitewolf wrote:one resource that doesnt run out is magnetic and that should be the way of the future

I hear that shit is great for the compass/electrical components.

canwhitewolf · Post by **canwhitewolf** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:49 pm

Just another factor to overcome i guess,

they already have prototypes of this and it drives electric generators, no power required at all, no emissions -and its all free enengy

But of course big oil doesnt want that

Dust Devil · Post by **Dust Devil** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:15 am

Another engine that works just fine is the internal combustion engine. Nothing out there comes close in affordability and practicality.

200hr Wonder · Post by **200hr Wonder** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:46 am

Yeah but why do we not see more diesel aircraft engines?

I mean with 2000 hours between overhauls there is no reason to have engines running around with 60 year old technology. I should rephrase what I said last time, nothing wrong with a 30 year old airframe, just that the engine tech in it is the same age. I mean the radios are new by now why not a tech advancement in the engine?

And my favorite 172 happens to be 35 years old this year.

CP · Post by CP » Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:47 am

Stinson4118C

HYDROGEN???? Christ can you at least read enough about your issue to discuss it intelligently? where do you think hydrogen comes from? Do they import it from the sun? Drill for it underground?? Pull it from Jupiter?
The hydrogen fuel cells being designed for cars today get their hydrogen from gasoline. [quote]

You should take your own advice and read. I think most people know where hydrogen comes from.Gasoline is but one source of hydrogen used in fuel cells. Pure hydrogen is the clean answer. Hydrogen produced from renewable energy is non polluting and a smart way to go.

This from a quick google search

Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs) are revolutionary automobiles that produce no tailpipe emissions. Rather than burning gas, these vehicles are propelled by electric motors that get their energy from fuel cells, devices that extract electricity from hydrogen fuel quietly, efficiently and without combustion

No gasoline required as you suggest.

CP · Post by CP » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:21 am

Stinson4118C wrote

So maybe you could make hydrogen from hydroelectic electricity and then burn it in a car,

You refer to fuel cells. Fuel cells extract electricity from hydrogen without combustion so why do you mention the word burn?

CP · Post by CP » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:33 am

Stinson4118C wrote

If you buy industrial gas hydrogen...and you and I probably can't,

I made my own hydrogen in my kitchen when I was 14 years old with 2 coke bottles and a wire plugged into the wall.

Here try this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

ottawa,kan · Post by **ottawa,kan** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:04 am

Christ I can't believe that some of you don't have a better understanding of science. Or that you think you can educate yourself from a google search of any old crap that comes up when you press "enter". Yes you made hydrogen from electricity when you were a kid. But it took way way more energy to do it than you can get back out reversing the process. Yes fuel cells produce clean energy from hydrogen. But you have to have hydrogen to put in the fuel cell in the first place. Where do you think it comes from???? You have to dig a little deeper in your research. Most of the car companies plan to use gasoline as their hydrogen source. Others don't say what there source is. Hydrogen doesn't just hang around underground or anywhere else for us to exploit. You have to make it first. It's like saying a plug in electric doesn't pollute. Well at the tail pipe it doesn't....but at the power plant it surely does. Hydrogen is no answer to anything. It's very hard to condense and store, you only get decent volumes at liquid temps...which is damn cold, it takes energy to produce it in the first place and that source has to be CO2 free to have any advantage. Plug in electrics are a better idea if we had better batteries. As for fuel cells not burning anything....on a molecular level the chemistry is the same. Hydrogen and oxygen are reacting to produce heat energy and water. There the emmissions are harmless, but if you go back to the source ( usually Natuaral gas CH4 ) you find all kinds of CO2 emmisions.

CP · Post by CP » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:21 am

Stinson4118C wrote

Christ I can't believe that some of you don't have a better understanding of science

I dont find it hard to believe at all. But many people do and I see nothing in your writings that indicate you have a better understanding of science than the average high school grad.

But it took way way more energy to do it than you can get back out reversing the process
So?

Hydrogen is no answer to anything.

Wrong again.

Maybe you should google more often.

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:11 am

From reports I've read about hydrogen tell me the difficulty in storing hydrogen is the most challenging technical problem yet to be overcome.
Storing it as a gas is fine but you'll need a large tank to store enough. Even at the highest pressures considered practical (10,000 psi) hydrogen takes up 24 times the volume as the same weight of gasoline. The only way to get enough hydrogen into a small enough space is to use liquid hydrogen. But, even as a liquid, a given weight of hydrogen takes up10 times the volume of gasoline.
Just comparing the 2 volumes might give the wrong impression though. Hydrogen has about 3 times the energy density as compared to gasoline. Also, the efficiency of the electric motor systems compared to a gasoline engines must be considered.
Electric motor systems can be much more efficient than gasoline engines. By how much depends on the specific motors and engines being compared.
I don't have the figures handy but if you took the most fuel efficient engines and the most efficient electrical motor systems the electric system would still have a fuel consumption rating 2.5 times greater per/hr than the gasoline engine.
Liquid hydrogen fuel has an important attribute to aircraft system. It's much lighter....2 identical volumes of liquid hydrogen and gasoline, hydrogen is 10 time lighter.
Storing liquid hydrogen is a BIG problem because of boil off. Even with the best vacume tanks, the hydrogen will heat up and escape through the best pressure relief valves. Making super insulated and heavy tanks is a partial solution but if you parked your plane for a few days when you came back to it most likely the tank would be nearly empty. One other solution would be to pump off the hydrogen to a storage tank. Hydrogen storage tanks are refrigerated and take lots of energy to work.
Hydrogen rich methanol may provide some solutions but require a reformer to crack the hydrogen out of the solution. Reformers are complex and as yet very heavy. Over time engineers are working at simplifing reformers and trying to reduce their weight.

newpilotwife · Post by **newpilotwife** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:53 pm

I guess solar powered planes are way off into the future too much to give a thought to? How about teleportation? LOL

Flybaby · Post by **Flybaby** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:36 pm

newpilotwife wrote:I guess solar powered planes are way off into the future

They would probably be VFR only machines. "The clouds are getting too thick, were loosing power."