this is about MPG and not crashes, BTW. based on this: Ranking the Airlines by Fuel Efficiency - WSJ this is my compilation: Prius (5 passengers): 250 mpg per passenger 737-900: 99 787-8: 98 767-400ER: 96.9 777-200ER: 82 A320: 77 A380: 65 Prius (1 person): 50 the surprises: Airbus planes are way behind. The smaller planes have better fuel efficiency per passenger. 737 is more fuel efficient than the 787 Dreamliner, probably due to the difference in the length of the trips (longer = worse fuel economy). edit: included the 787 numbers from: Green Car Congress: Boeing Rolls Out the 787 Dreamliner; New Jet Offers 20% Reduction in Fuel Consumption
So when I flew to Texas to pickup our used, 2003 Prius: I asked the flight crew for how many passengers on each leg and fuel burned. Bob Wilson
There's a very good comparison chart - which even brings the Prius into play - at Fuel economy in aircraft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There's no significant difference between comparable Airbuses and Boeings. What is remarkable, though, is how much more economical the new composite planes - the 787 and A350 are - than the old pig-iron-and-brick ones (the revamped models - the 747-8 and the A330neo - fall between the two groups), and how similar the figures for all the pig-iron-and-brick planes are, regardless of size. Bigger planes are a bit more economical than smaller ones as a rule, but the variation isn't as big as I'd have expected.
Last time I checked the 747 was the main jet. It was 50 miles per passenger. Efficiency has improved in the past 15 years.
you are right, that source is much better. but, boeing still leads in every category and bigger is not better though (that's the biggest surprise for me). see this from the source i quoted:
Airplanes have an intrinsic form of regeneration. The power you apply, is translated into speed and/or altitude. These two factors are inter-convertible to a large degree; you can trade speed for altitude and visa-versa, within the limitations of altitude and air-resistance. An interesting thought: perhaps a hybrid airplane could recharge it's battery upon it's descent from higher altitudes.
Think future, not present. In other news, Tesla has announced a new battery: Elon Musk says Tesla will unveil a new kind of battery to power your home | The Verge
There is no real info in your link.. just typical PR BS But even if they had real break through and double capacity, by weight the energy density of Lithium-Ion batteries is 50-120 times lower than regular gas (52.5-130 times of jet fuel): Energy density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So at present level of technology it is a beautiful pipedream.
No, I'm not making any unsupported claims, so take a rest. If a hybrid airplane should some day exist, it would naturally be able to regenerate from the descent, instead of bleeding off all the airspeed with landing-gear and flaps. My posting about battery developments was merely to remind everyone that battery technologies continue to evolve, therefore you can't rule out a hybrid airplane some day.
At EAA Oshkosh 2013 a new propeller with a wider, slightly shorter blade was shown by Pipistrell (IIRC!) that enabled regeneration on descent for their battery powered sailplane model. That was research result so not sure if it is in production yet although I believe they had taken out a patent on it.
Variable-pitch propellers have been around since the 1930s or before. It may not be outside the realm of possibility for variable-geometry propellers to some day become a reality. Just trying to think outside the box.
