[lutorm]

How do you get seven times?

Takeoff constitutes a negligible part of the total fuel consumption. Climb to altitude uses more, but you get that back when landing since you're then using your stored potential energy.

Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use, and it will be quite easy to replace that with some renewable fuel solution (compared with the huge amounts of fuel consumed by transport aircraft). For my part, I think it would be a shame to kill GA because of a temporary and relatively unimportant concern.

[Aachen]

> Small-aircraft GA is a vanishingly small fraction of total fossil fuel use

OP wrote: "We want people who don’t think about airplanes as a mode of transportation to start flying"

They're meaning for this to become a larger fraction, besides that the relevant measure is pollution per benefit or per capita or something rather than absolute amount of pollution

[lutorm]

So you're concluding that there is no benefit to general aviation because, presumably, you don't fly?

I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation, because the alternative is that all small airports go away and then it won't matter when renewable fuels become a reality because there will be no longer be anywhere to land and take off. Those airports would not come back.

[Aachen]

> because, presumably, you don't fly?

First off, you've got this backwards. One doesn't have an opinion because one flies or not; conversely, one flies or not because one concludes their situation does or does not warrant the pollution for a particular destination

But equally weird, why are you making this about me personally? If I say I don't fly, that's probably unusual where you're from so I'll be the environmentalist out-group whose opinion is too extreme and can be dismissed. If I do I'll be considered a hypocrite (like what you called someone in the other thread). I can tell you the answer is a middle ground but I don't think it helps anyone here to make this about me. I'd much rather make this about facts and science rather than opinions and feelings

> I think we should absolutely keep airplanes as a mode of transportation

I agree, but since nobody said anything to the contrary, that seems like a given

[entropie]

> How do you get seven times?

I asked chatgpt what the average consumption of a car is; the answer was 0.5-1 gallon on a highway.

[FabHK]

Don't confuse gallons per hour with gallons per mile.

[entropie]

I think I did not.

https://i.imgur.com/4Ik69ki.png

[FabHK]

True. Next, don't forget that airplanes cover about 3x the distance as cars per hour. So, per mile they are on par with bad cars, and about 2x normal cars.

[entropie]

> Cruise Speed 148 KTAS is equivalent to approximately 170 mph or 275 km/h.

if the consumption is 7 times as high (very conservative calculation) and the speed is about twice as high, we are still at a modifier of 3.5. right?

Too much for me. We should be aiming for the absolute minimisation of fossil fuels.

[FabHK]

Speed is thrice, thus modifier = 2, or so.

Look, this is peanuts compared to everyday consumption by the world.

> We should be aiming for the absolute minimisation of fossil fuels.

Should we? We could easily do that. Just stop cars and busses and trains and planes and heating and the production of medicine and everything else.

Oh, our life would be much worse.

As a matter of fact, we should not aim for "the absolute minimisation of fossil fuels". Not at all. It is dispiriting for me to learn that you believe such primitive nonsense.

Seriously, you need to learn the basics of economics and trade-offs and all that.