Russian Revolutionary Hybrid car

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

Now that really would be a waste of resources.

Reply to
hugh
Loading thread data ...

nah: 1 week 6 days 23 hours and 59 minutes once HS2 is built...

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Comet, the first jet passenger aircraft was successful once the manufacturing problems around the windows was resolved. Unfortunately by then the Boeing had overtaken it.

Reply to
hugh

Thass going the RONG WAY!

Reply to
Tim Streater

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

If you tin enough fuel a diesel engine will continue to accelerate until it self destructs - hence the warning/disclaimer notices in MOT stations. I also know because when I played around with LPG seeding we accidentally got liquid propane past the cut of solenoid so there was no way of stopping the fuel going in to the engine. Before I realised what was happened - it blew up.

Reply to
hugh

In message , Doctor Drivel writes

And how many did they lose? But of course you will call that western propaganda.

Reply to
hugh

Isn't the atlantic a bit bigger than that normally?

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

is there a RITE way?

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Yeah but, it was art.

Tim

Reply to
Tim

Smaller, normally, that picture was taken at high tide.

Reply to
John Williamson

When Concorde was retired, it was a sign that the accountants had won the war. IMHO.

The Big Thing (tm) in aviation now is aircraft that can carry many hundreds of people more cheaply than anything else. That'll be the Airbus A380, then.

Never mind doing it with style, do it cheap...

Reply to
John Williamson

Economy of ships, don't make me laugh?

QM2 does about 50 feet to the gallon using her 4 diesels. That is about 100 gallons to the mile. She can hold about 3000 passengers.

So its about 30 passenger miles per gallon.

IIRC an A380 does about 80 passenger miles per gallon.

Flying uses less fuel per passenger than taking a train most of the time as trains are frequently empty unlike planes.

Its only when you get to bulk cargo that ships are better than planes.

Reply to
dennis

You'd be more relevant comparing the fuel consumption of Concorde and the QM2.

With the same standards of comfort as a short distance ferry, say the ones that run from Southampton to Le Havre or Santander, she could carry about eight thousand people or the equivalent in freight.

Your figure almost sets an upper boundary to fuel consumption per passenger mile for ships. The vast majority of ship-borne passenger journeys are on smaller, more densely packed ferries, which would be pushed to do less than 50 passenger miles per gallon, even ignoring the freight element, and assuming half a load of passengers on the average trip. Even the high speed ferries do almost 30, and they replaced the hovercraft services on the English Channel, at least as far as time went. Now, of course, they've been superseded by the trains in the Channel Tunnel, but still offer a premium service on longer routes.

In France, using nuclear power to generate the power for the train, flying from Paris to, say, Nice, generates on average 500kg of CO2 per passenger per trip as against less than 50kg per passenger by train. Going by car with four to a car generates on average about 160kg. Going by long distance bus is about 100kg. I can take 49 passengers from London to Paris and back by coach using about the same amount of fuel as a 737 takes just to get those same passengers to the start of the runway.

The only thing that makes air transport "better" per ton or per passenger is if journey time is important, otherwise surface transport wins all the time. If not, then all the TV sets made in China would be travelling by plane, not by ship, which is what they currently do.

Reply to
John Williamson

I actually choose her because she is one of the most fuel efficient ships.

Reply to
dennis

Do NOT think. IT doesn't work for you.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

It appears that way.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

The 144 was before the Concorde and is still flying and some Americans were wanting to get it back flying passengers.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

None were front line. Used for backup work and training.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

According to DEFRA:- Foot passenger on a ferry: 22.54g CO2e per passenger kilometre

Rail passenger on a Eurostar train: 17.14g CO2e per passenger kilometre

Air passenger on a domestic flight (between UK airports): 205.15g CO2e per passenger kilometre

Air passenger on a short haul flight (UK to Central Europe): 116g CO2e per passenger kilometre.

Reply to
John Williamson

The Soviet space programme had little money. The Soviets were making motor-jets and rocket planes in WW2.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.