Alexis wrote:
Yes, but you said “Cirrus” for a reason, right?
Mostly because it has a large engine, and drinks a lot of 100LL.
Silvaire wrote:
even if there are local issues that need to be resolved through population migration.
(Although I agree that migration to Europe is needed.)
Mostly because it has a large engine, and drinks a lot of 100LL.
But is it relevant how much fuel an engine consumes without taking it’s speed (and to a degree range) into account? I don’t think so. It would be interesting to make a list of most eifficient aircraft. Mooneys should be on top of that list.
I agree with Silveraire Look at the image in this link for a moment.
https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/idb/worldpopgraph.php.Its a geometric multiple.
All those arguments for having the young take care of the old is just a bogus argument for continued unrestricted population growth. Eventually nature steps in and balances things out. Either because we kill each other over resources or a catastrophic epidemic develops. With our instant world traveling I think that is pretty likely.
But back to the essence of why we need population growth for growths sake.
1. We need the poor to provide cheap Labor… The capitalist mantra.
2.We need population for the govt to take care of the disadvantaged… The socialist Mantra
3.We need Population growth because it is Gods own word as he is quoted in the bible and other religious documents. Go forth and spread your seed etc etc
It is very difficult to have an honest discussion without bringing the above prejudices to the table.
Study the graph in 50 years from 1960 to 2010 it went from 3 billion to 7 billion. Yep withall the plastics and microscopic plastics floating in the oceans the human race might not see 2200 before it poisons itself.
I think the most harm is done to the envirement by burning the lead in 100LL. So for a green conscience you have to at least burn MOGAS.
We in the electronics industry have been through this with the Brusells driven ban on lead in solder, which has driven the scrapping of millions of tons of good equipment and the disposal of it in landfills. Most of the lead in the environment comes from sources like damaged or scrapped car batteries.
It has also created countless thousands of highly paid “compliance manager” jobs and these people are the most powerful in their companies.
Design engineers also love this regulatory stuff because they have work designing new products…
Alexis wrote:
Mooneys should be on top of that list.
As with all statistics its all how its presented. I would have to say the most efficient would have to be sailplanes launched off a cliff and doing ridge soaring.
Now if you are speaking about airplanes are we speaking about the plane itself? Or are we discussing miles traveled with occupants?
In comparing Mooney to lets say a T210. Same leg the M… carrying 2 people plus luggage or the C… carrying 5 plus luggage. I think the T210 would have the Mooney beat. Actually it would have the Cirrus beat as well.
So what Im saying is that a C210 travels 12 NM/gal with 5 on board translates to 60 energy units while a cirrus or even a more efficient Mooney will only transport 3 at most and assuming a very generous 16 NM/gal would be significantly less at 48 energy units.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Well, you said that Europe’s greatest problem was overpopulation and migration won’t exactly help that, will it?
I was making reference to migration within Europe, e.g. Polish migration to Norway (and elsewhere) as per the post by @LeSving That said, over population is global and some other areas are worse than Europe.
Re leaded fuel, the reason lead was removed from auto fuel was to prevent damage to automotive catalytic converters. From there the lead (lead oxide?) thing took on a life of its own. The current situation with gasoline additives has been created almost by chance, and the situation with relative health hazards in urban areas is not very clear. Lead in the air has been measured over time at a number of busy US airports and there doesn’t seem to be a clear consensus of whether aircraft exhaust lead emissions are a problem in the immediate vicinity of the airports – which are the places where concentrations are high enough to measure.
Exhaust fumes with lead! Come on lets do a reality check PLEASE.
I grew up when autos were using leaded gasoline in CITIES. I remember the smog in NYC. There were many health risks that occurred but lead poisoning was not mentioned. And of all things thats really easy to test. So when they are trying to find lead near a currrent airport all they are doing is blowing smoke up peoples ass. If people didnt die of lead poisoning during the 60s than they are not goint to have health problems from the amount GA puts into the atmosphere.
As far as the EU is concerned regarding lead perhaps they can give money to Hungary so that they can replace 90% of the drinking water pipes since almost all are made from lead.
europaxs wrote:
I think the most harm is done to the envirement by burning the lead in 100LL.
TEL, invented by Thomas Midgley, who is said to have had “more impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth’s history.”. He also invented ozone-destroying CFC refrigerants. He also got lead poisoning after trying to demonstrate how safe TEL was by pouring it on his hands and inhaling the vapour.
