|
Copyright ©2009 by Paul Niquette. All rights reserved. |
|
 light
is supposed to be fast -- faster, certainly, than other modes of
transportation. "Faster the better," we say. Flight has been
optimized for fast. The Jet Age sure did give us faster ways to get
from where we are to where we want to be. The Jet Age did such a
good job of it that for many journeys, flight has become the only
practical mode of public transportation, displacing trains and buses and
ships. Fast has its costs, though...
The world is gradually becoming sensitized to both of these matters in all realms of human activity. Saving energy and protecting the environment have emerged as international priorities. Whereas new technologies are needed -- hoped for! -- conservation appears to be the most practical mitigation for the near term and beyond. One thing must be clear to everybody: Flight cannot benefit directly from many promising new technlogies: fission and fusion, geothermal and solarthermal, hydroelectricity and tides, hybrids and photovoltaics -- least of all wind. Meanwhile, the wheels seem to be coming off of the biofuels bandwagon...
...a severe set-back for alternative aviation fuels. Conservation, then, is key. "Going green" means giving up what flight does best. "Faster the better" won't -- well, fly. |
|
 |
|
| After pushing back from the gate, taxiing to the runway,
and waiting in line for departure, an aircraft must conduct three fundamental
phases of flight: [1] take-off and ascend to cruising altitude, for terrain
avoidance and favorable winds, [2] cruise in level flight along the most
direct route, preferably, and [3] descend for the approach to landing.
Flight routinely uses maximum allowable power -- "pushing
the envelope" -- for all three phases, even flying in a shallow power-dive
during descent "top-of-the-green,"
all of which, of course, consumes the most fuel. Flight will do all
of that to optimize for fast.
|
Energy
Consumption and Environmental Damage.