Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[STEMO]

Just watching 'Heathrow' on ITV. The first item was about the non-stop flight from Perth to London, a 17 hour flight. One of Qantas's engineers said, 'We left Perth this morning with 98 tonnes of fuel on board............'.
What!? 98 tonnes of fuel? One metric tonne of fuel is about 1370 litres, so 98 tonnes is 134,260 litres. For one flight. If you use 50 litres of fuel in your car per week, it would take you over 50 years to use that much.......for one flight.
Don't be fickin asking me to save the planet, ask the airlines.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

It wouldn't take my Jag 50 years.

About a week and a half.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Pussy is best when lubricated.

[Bigron]

So I'm given to believe!!! 

Ron.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

So I'm given to believe!!! 

Ron.

A dry pussy is never good.

Too dry and it will peel your cock like a banana if you are in a hurry.

[BazaJT]

bet they'll not be able to do non-stop flights when they go all EV unless of course they've got one hell of a long extension lead

[Andy B]

Just watching 'Heathrow' on ITV. The first item was about the non-stop flight from Perth to London, a 17 hour flight. One of Qantas's engineers said, 'We left Perth this morning with 98 tonnes of fuel on board............'.
What!? 98 tonnes of fuel? One metric tonne of fuel is about 1370 litres, so 98 tonnes is 134,260 litres. For one flight. If you use 50 litres of fuel in your car per week, it would take you over 50 years to use that much.......for one flight.
Don't be fickin asking me to save the planet, ask the airlines.

I thought exactly the same

[Mister Rog]

Just watching 'Heathrow' on ITV. The first item was about the non-stop flight from Perth to London, a 17 hour flight. One of Qantas's engineers said, 'We left Perth this morning with 98 tonnes of fuel on board............'.
What!? 98 tonnes of fuel? One metric tonne of fuel is about 1370 litres, so 98 tonnes is 134,260 litres. For one flight. If you use 50 litres of fuel in your car per week, it would take you over 50 years to use that much.......for one flight.
Don't be fickin asking me to save the planet, ask the airlines.

I've been saying that for years. If we really want to reduce polution significantly, easy. Ban flying

[Doctor Gollum]

How much fuel would a 767 use for the same journey? Probably double that with a stop in Abu Dhabi and Singapore to boot...

That's the real progress.

[Rods2]

Distance ~9000 miles
Allowing for a 8t reserve 90 x 1370 = 123,300l = ~27,122 gallons
Passengers & crew = ~240

So that works out at 9000 / 27122 = 0.33 miles per gallon

MPG per passenger 0.33 * 240 = 79.2 mpgp. 4/5 people in a car does better in a frugal tractor but not considerable so at about 240mpgp in a car until you take speed into consideration as you won't average 50 mpg at 525 mph. You would be lucky to average 0.5mpg where airlines at speed are much more efficient.

Gallons per passenger = 113 x ~£3 = ~£339 with a quoted ticket price of $1170 = £818. This suggests the calculations are in the right ball park.

So airlines carrying on flying & creating lots of plant food is fine.

[Entwood]

Distance ~9000 miles
Allowing for a 8t reserve 90 x 1370 = 123,300l = ~27,122 gallons
Passengers & crew = ~240

So that works out at 9000 / 27122 = 0.33 miles per gallon

MPG per passenger 0.33 * 240 = 79.2 mpgp. 4/5 people in a car does better in a frugal tractor but not considerable so at about 240mpgp in a car until you take speed into consideration as you won't average 50 mpg at 525 mph. You would be lucky to average 0.5mpg where airlines at speed are much more efficient.

Gallons per passenger = 113 x ~£3 = ~£339 with a quoted ticket price of $1170 = £818. This suggests the calculations are in the right ball park.

So airlines carrying on flying & creating lots of plant food is fine.

Must disagree with your maths here ... mpg per passenger (as you say) is MPG DIVIDED by passenger numbers ... 0.33 / 240 ....  (very small)

What you are describing is however accurate, if you use the correct description of passenger miles per gallon ...

240 x 9000 ( passenger miles) / 27,122 (fuel) ...  = 79.6        

I know .. picky, picky,  but in the interest of accuracy, the common aviation term was always passenger miles per gallon .. 

[VXL V6]

What I don't understand is, non-stop or not, why the Hell would you want to come to this Country if you live in Australia….

[Sir Tigger KC]

What I don't understand is, non-stop or not, why the Hell would you want to come to this Country if you live in Australia….

To escape the flies! 

[Viral_Jim]

Imo the route is little more than a publicity stunt (unless you actually want to go to Perth), I’d much rather do a 2 hopper with a break somewhere like Singapore, HK or Dubai than do a second 2-4hr flight on a w@nky Aussie domestic carrier.

As always though, ymmv. 

[Rods2]

Distance ~9000 miles
Allowing for a 8t reserve 90 x 1370 = 123,300l = ~27,122 gallons
Passengers & crew = ~240

So that works out at 9000 / 27122 = 0.33 miles per gallon

MPG per passenger 0.33 * 240 = 79.2 mpgp. 4/5 people in a car does better in a frugal tractor but not considerable so at about 240mpgp in a car until you take speed into consideration as you won't average 50 mpg at 525 mph. You would be lucky to average 0.5mpg where airlines at speed are much more efficient.

Gallons per passenger = 113 x ~£3 = ~£339 with a quoted ticket price of $1170 = £818. This suggests the calculations are in the right ball park.

So airlines carrying on flying & creating lots of plant food is fine.

Must disagree with your maths here ... mpg per passenger (as you say) is MPG DIVIDED by passenger numbers ... 0.33 / 240 ....  (very small)

What you are describing is however accurate, if you use the correct description of passenger miles per gallon ...

240 x 9000 ( passenger miles) / 27,122 (fuel) ...  = 79.6        

I know .. picky, picky,  but in the interest of accuracy, the common aviation term was always passenger miles per gallon .. 

Thanks for pointing that out, where you are absolutely right, where I'm multiplying and not dividing. Like you, I'm a stickler for getting units right (comes I suspect, like you, from doing applied maths at college and using in practical applications) or the figure is wrong and meaningless.