It seems like you don’t understand how fuel economy works. Aviation is more fuel efficient no matter how you slice it and has been since the start of the millennium.
If your premise is that 52mpg/1 passenger = x mpg/3 passengers means that x is 104mpg/passenger then that means that 67mpg/1 passenger for a flight of 100 people is 6700mpg/passenger. You can’t divide for one and multiply for the other.
Also, planes get more fuel efficient the longer the trip because the majority of their fuel burn is on takeoff. Once they’re in the air, their fuel use is minimal and they lose the weight of the fuel as they continue which further makes it more efficient.
So no…your point is not clearer because air travel is more efficient than travel by auto in all cases except, again, the shortest distance travel where it’s not even practical to fly. You can try to limit your data to only trips with more than 3 people (the point where driving becomes more fuel efficient) and only for long distances but that means you’re only further scaling down the impact that making efficiencies has since that’s not really the most prevalent use for cars.
The 67mpg figure IS ALREADY PER PASSENGER! Do you truly believe a plane full of passengers only burns 15 gallons to travel 1000 miles? Why does a 777 need to carry 13 000 gallons of fuel then? By that logic that would be enough to travel 1 066 000 miles considering they get 82mpg/passenger when full of passengers (which you interpret as 82mpg/vehicle)!
6000 to 7500 kilograms of fuel per hour for a 777, gas weights 0.72kg/L, that’s 8300L of fuel burned per hour and I’m using the most advantageous number to help you! Typical cruise speed is 900km/h. That’s 108m for every liter of fuel, 410m per gallon, 0.25 miles per gallon. Hey, look at that, pretty fucking close to the 0.21mpg with a single passenger that I calculated with the official number, isn’t it?
I KNOW! You are missing the point! The only way your point bears out is if every car has 3+ people for every trip.
The only way what you said is actually true is 2 cases: 1) The car making the trip has 3+ passengers or 2) The total distance traveled is less than 200km. If the average passenger count for all car rides is 1.3 passengers, then how many of those rides do you think are 3+ passengers? If it was any significant amount, then that average count would be much closer to 3 and not a rounding error away from being 1! And on the other end, the average plane flight for travel is transcontinental. That means that replacing flights less than 200km with car rides isn’t going to make a dent either because that’s already what’s happening most often. Unless cars suddenly become able to drive across the Atlantic Ocean, you’re not making any changes by doing what you’re proposing.
Me: People should stop using planes to travel long distances and instead go on vacation close by and by car because it would be more efficient.
You: Most plane travel is long distance so it can’t be replaced by car!
Even when proven wrong with math and with multiple people telling you what you’re saying is completely missing the point, is wrong and your math makes no sense, you keep arguing!
You: People should stop going to stores to buy their food and should instead grow their food in their own backyards because it’s more efficient.
Me: That’s completely unrealistic and won’t make a difference because most people live in cities and don’t have backyards.
You: I’m only talking about the situation of people who have backyards!!
Me: If all of those people did what you’re saying, it wouldn’t even make a dent.
You: Multiple people are telling you that growing your own food is more efficient but you keep arguing!
I’m arguing because your point and your suggestion don’t change anything in any meaningful way while also introducing changes that make them a non-starter. How many times do I have to repeat the statement that there are more meaningful ways that won’t impede on people’s lives more than banning most commercial flights.
You also argued that cars are more fuel efficient than planes. They’re not. They only are in very specific scenarios that don’t reflect the reality of how people use cars at all.
It seems like you don’t understand how fuel economy works. Aviation is more fuel efficient no matter how you slice it and has been since the start of the millennium.
If your premise is that 52mpg/1 passenger = x mpg/3 passengers means that x is 104mpg/passenger then that means that 67mpg/1 passenger for a flight of 100 people is 6700mpg/passenger. You can’t divide for one and multiply for the other.
Also, planes get more fuel efficient the longer the trip because the majority of their fuel burn is on takeoff. Once they’re in the air, their fuel use is minimal and they lose the weight of the fuel as they continue which further makes it more efficient.
So no…your point is not clearer because air travel is more efficient than travel by auto in all cases except, again, the shortest distance travel where it’s not even practical to fly. You can try to limit your data to only trips with more than 3 people (the point where driving becomes more fuel efficient) and only for long distances but that means you’re only further scaling down the impact that making efficiencies has since that’s not really the most prevalent use for cars.
The 67mpg figure IS ALREADY PER PASSENGER! Do you truly believe a plane full of passengers only burns 15 gallons to travel 1000 miles? Why does a 777 need to carry 13 000 gallons of fuel then? By that logic that would be enough to travel 1 066 000 miles considering they get 82mpg/passenger when full of passengers (which you interpret as 82mpg/vehicle)!
https://alliknowaviation.com/2019/12/14/fuel-consumption-aircraft/
Napkin math time:
6000 to 7500 kilograms of fuel per hour for a 777, gas weights 0.72kg/L, that’s 8300L of fuel burned per hour and I’m using the most advantageous number to help you! Typical cruise speed is 900km/h. That’s 108m for every liter of fuel, 410m per gallon, 0.25 miles per gallon. Hey, look at that, pretty fucking close to the 0.21mpg with a single passenger that I calculated with the official number, isn’t it?
I KNOW! You are missing the point! The only way your point bears out is if every car has 3+ people for every trip.
The only way what you said is actually true is 2 cases: 1) The car making the trip has 3+ passengers or 2) The total distance traveled is less than 200km. If the average passenger count for all car rides is 1.3 passengers, then how many of those rides do you think are 3+ passengers? If it was any significant amount, then that average count would be much closer to 3 and not a rounding error away from being 1! And on the other end, the average plane flight for travel is transcontinental. That means that replacing flights less than 200km with car rides isn’t going to make a dent either because that’s already what’s happening most often. Unless cars suddenly become able to drive across the Atlantic Ocean, you’re not making any changes by doing what you’re proposing.
Holy fuck!
Me: People should stop using planes to travel long distances and instead go on vacation close by and by car because it would be more efficient.
You: Most plane travel is long distance so it can’t be replaced by car!
Even when proven wrong with math and with multiple people telling you what you’re saying is completely missing the point, is wrong and your math makes no sense, you keep arguing!
Holy fuck!
You: People should stop going to stores to buy their food and should instead grow their food in their own backyards because it’s more efficient.
Me: That’s completely unrealistic and won’t make a difference because most people live in cities and don’t have backyards.
You: I’m only talking about the situation of people who have backyards!!
Me: If all of those people did what you’re saying, it wouldn’t even make a dent.
You: Multiple people are telling you that growing your own food is more efficient but you keep arguing!
I’m arguing because your point and your suggestion don’t change anything in any meaningful way while also introducing changes that make them a non-starter. How many times do I have to repeat the statement that there are more meaningful ways that won’t impede on people’s lives more than banning most commercial flights.
You also argued that cars are more fuel efficient than planes. They’re not. They only are in very specific scenarios that don’t reflect the reality of how people use cars at all.