Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst



Rich Grise wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:13:31 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
MooseFET wrote:

I remember some years back reading that a small plane got about 125MPG.

No way. A microlight maybe ?

Actually, that doesn't sound unreasonable for something like, say, a
Cessna 150. I have no idea how to look up something like that, other
than google for "airplane mpg" or something, which I'm too lazy and
disinterested to do at the moment, I just wanted to say that I've flown
in a Cessna 150 and it used a surprisingly small amount of gasoline.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=cessna+150+mpg

http://www.pilotshop.com/how-much-does-flying-cost-a-6.html

Most single-engine aircraft, burn approximately 8-10 gallons per hour .........
If you own an aircraft that flies at 150 mph, then you are looking at 23 cents
per mile, an a gas mileage of 16 mpg. So these figures sound pretty familiar and
comparable to SUV type of operation. The great news is that these performance
figures are average and that there are a number of aircraft that burn 4-5
gallons per hour for the same speeds, though they might not be able to carry as
many people. Also, new engines already in the market, boast even higher
performance, such as diesel engines. However, for the purpose of this article,
lets stick with a Cessna 172, a high wing fixed gear, 130 mph airplane, burning
7 gph at 10,000 feet. This translates into 18.5 mpg and a 19 cent per mile cost.



Graham

.