Slashdot Mirror


Plane Simple Truth

brothke writes "In the TV show House, M.D., a premise that protagonist Dr. Greg House holds dear is that people are liars and stupid. Real life is often not far from House's observation. At the general public level, people are often misled by their lack of common sense, their deficiency in understanding statistics and basic science, and therefore fall victim to the lies of the myriad charlatans that claim to have something that fixes everything. A piece I wrote on that issue, New York News Radio — The voice of bad science, details that. While it is too broad to call the authors of Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends liars; their mediocre research created the scenario that far too many took their research as reality. Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth refute the wide-spread belief that the fuel efficiency gains in the commercial aviation sector are erroneous, which is the principle theme of the Peeters report." Keep reading for the rest of Ben's review. Plane Simple Truth author Geoffrey Thomas pages 208 publisher Aerospace Technical Publications rating 9 reviewer Ben Rothke ISBN 978-0975234167 summary Valuable book in the important debate over greenhouse gases and aviations contribution to it The aviation industry is often an environmental pariah, with environmentalists crying foul at the industry. But it is only a pariah due to flawed data that negatively influences the public debate, and this book attempts to set the record straight. Plane Simple Truth is an articulate and extremely well-written and researched rebuttal to the Peeters report, and other flawed studies.

The Peeters report flies in the face of reality, in which gains in jet engine efficiency over the last 40 years have been astounding. Contrast those gains with the popular Cadillac Escalade and similar SUV's whose mileage per gallon is often measured in single digits, and whose efficiencies have gone in the opposite direction.

The authors wrote Plane Simple Truth as they felt that never in recent history has an industry been so maligned and the public so misled by so much falsehood and distortion. With the Peeters report and climate activists pointing the accusing finger at the aviation industry, Plane Simple Truth is their defense.

The reality is that while the Detroit automakers were making huge gas guzzling SUV's well into 2008, companies such as Lockheed had fuel efficiency on their mind back to the 1970's. In fact, fuel efficiency has been a key factor in the aviation industry since the early days. This is based on simple economics and physics in that every pound of fuel, is a pound of payload that the airline cannot carry, which costs the airline money as fuel economy is a major driver in the industry. The bottom line is that fuel economy is absolutely critical in commercial aviation. Witness the number of aviation bankruptcies in 2008 when fuel prices soured.

Like a first-rate defense attorney, the book defends the industry against its charges. In every chapter, the authors show the errors, both intentional and those errors of omission, where incorrect reporting and research have negatively affected public opinion.

While not a book about the history of jet engines; the book details the fascinating and phenomenal improvement into the efficiency of the technology. But the underlying theme of the book is that of the environmental issues.

The book details the fundamental errors in the Peters and other environmental reports that have been often taken as the unquestionable truth. Rather than analyzing the facts like the book authors have done, the media often creates sensationalist headlines with an emphasis on short sound bites, often at the cost of scientific fact. Not only do the authors refute the Peeters report, they show in detail how important aviation is to the global economy. In fact, the aviation industry is critical to every growing economy.

The books 18 chapters cover the entire spectrum of jet emissions and their incredible development in detail. Current topics such as bio fuels and their promise, new engine technology, aerodynamic gains, green airlines and more are discussed. The book makes ample use of charts and photographs to illustrate its points.

Plane Simple Truth is a fascinating book that exposes the myriad errors of the flawed environmental studies. It is also a fascinating look at the development and history of jet engines, and the amazing progress that has come about in the last few decades. Huge strides have been made that increase power by significant amounts, while simultaneously cutting emissions. In fact, there are less environmental issues to worry about in the future due to aviation, given the significant strides that are being made.

The book makes many of its valuable points via the approach of letting charts and diagrams do the talking of often dry statistical facts. Be it fuel efficiency, less emissions, or toxic gases, the book shows that misplaced myths and the smoke and mirror games that are often used by those with an agenda, have negatively affected the public's view of aviation.

We have seen that a single bad piece of research is enough to derail an entire industry and mislead the press and politicians. Plane Simple Truthis an important book that has relevance to everyone, as there is no one that is not positively affected by the aviation industry.

While the industry still has a long way to go in other areas such as passenger satisfactions, lost luggage, air traffic control delays and much more, the engine makers have continually pushed the envelope in terms of fuel efficiency and environmental concerns, and they have done this for well over half a century. This was long before the environment was a cool topic. It was also done when jet fuel was still quite cheap.

While the book's authors are intimately involved in the airline industry and clearly pro-airline, and the book's publisher is Aerospace Technical Publications; the authors let the facts speak for themselves. While greenhouse gases and their potential negative effects are part of the public and scientific debate, the ability of modern jet-engines to minimize those effects is clear. Plane Simple Truth is a valuable book in the important debate over greenhouse gases and aviation's contribution to it.

Ben Rothke is the author of Computer Security: 20 Things Every Employee Should Know.

You can purchase Plane Simple Truth from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

25 of 460 comments (clear)

  1. charlatans by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At the general public level, people are often misled by their lack of common sense, their deficiency in understanding statistics and basic science, and therefore fall victim to the lies of the myriad charlatans that claim to have something that fixes everything

    Are you calling yourself a charlatan? You keep talking about SUVs when they have nothing whatever to do with engine efficiency.

    In 1976 I bought a brand new four cylinder Chevy Vega. It was a power-poor dog with a small one barrel carburator. It was small and uncomfortable. The best mileage I measured with that car was 19 mpg.

    When its fuel pump went out two years later, I bought a used 1974 Pontiac Le Mans; a big, roomy, comfortable car with a 350 cubic inch V-8 engine. Someone had milled the heads, put a four barrel carburator and a dual exhaust on it. It hauled ass when I stomped the accellerator, and as long as I kept the big back two barrells from opening I could get 19 mpg on the highway with its mandatory 55 MPH speed limit.

    My current car is a Crysler Concorde with a fuel injected 28 valve V-6 engine. It's roomier and more comfortable than the Pontiac was, its braking and handling are better than any car I've owned, it's almost as fast as the Le Mans, but with its cruise control set at 55 MPH its fuel computer measures up to a 36 mpg average on a 100 mile trip. It uses little more than half the fuel of either the LeMans or the Vega. It has even better mileage than the tiny 1984 fuel injected four cylinder VW Rabbit I bought when Reagan was President.

    I don't know how much more efficient plane engines are today, but automobiles are twice as efficient as they were in the '70s.

    I daresay a new full sized Ford pickup truck gets better mileage than a 1975 full sized Ford of the same model.

    Comparing apples to oranges is what you're doing, and it's disinginuous.

    1. Re:charlatans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know how much more efficient plane engines are today, but automobiles are twice as efficient as they were in the '70s.

      And you're basing that on your own personal experience of three whole cars? I'm sold.

    2. Re:charlatans by hedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you calling yourself a charlatan? You keep talking about SUVs when they have nothing whatever to do with engine efficiency.

      You do of course realize that SUVs are regulated as light trucks rather than cars and that small trucks are regulated under the same type of philosophy as commercial vehicles. Meaning that they might conform to higher standards, but they're only required to meet a much lower standard than typical cars. And furthermore that the standard was based upon assumptions which have long since been demonstrated to be false. Had light trucks continued to be pretty much just commercial, the lower standard would have had minimal negative impact. As opposed to now when many people drive a light truck as their main conveyance.

      So yes, it was a fair statement to suggest that an industry that's been fighting mandatory increases in engine efficiency for decades is different than one that has been trying to increase it over that period.

      American's don't want gas guzzlers but we also don't generally want to give up power or the other things which come from a larger engine. Reductions to weight in areas that don't affect safety are far more likely to go over well than things which make a vehicle actually smaller or appear girly.

      Of course as gas prices go up fuel efficiency will be more of an issue, but that doesn't let auto manufacturers off the hook for the fact that they haven't really been trying the way that they could have been during the interim.

    3. Re:charlatans by pz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you calling yourself a charlatan? You keep talking about SUVs when they have nothing whatever to do with engine efficiency.
       
      ... and, oddly, neither does your post. You complain that the OP should be talking about engine efficiency, rather than vehicle efficiency, and the proceed to make an argument based on vehicle efficiency. Not only that, but your argument is severely flawed: you start with a purely anecdotal chain of three vehicles and use it to draw conclusions about the entire industry, neatly ignoring the fourth vehicle you mention at the end of your argument that doesn't fit into the chain. That's not sound, defensible logic, and were you to attempt to publish it as science, you'd be laughed out of the room.

      You, sir, are doing exactly what you are accusing the OP of doing, and doing more of it.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    4. Re:charlatans by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, it's easy. Just build better engines.

      The problem is that Detroit would rather invest in salesmen and
      advertising and figure out ways to sell more high margin doo-dads
      to the driving public.

      Ironically, one of the few automakers to apply this
      idea to "fuel economy" also makes airplane engines.

      Detroit always take the cheap and easy road and tends to
      focus on the next quarter's earnings reports. They can't
      even percieve their own self-interest past that point.

      That's why any time the market changes you need to put
      Detroit on deathwatch and then bail them out.

      Consumers just don't quite have the same motivation to be efficient that any large transport company does.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:charlatans by BitZtream · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're pretty lucky, according to Chrylers page, the 2009 Seabring gets 30mpg highway, the Crossfire gets 25mpg highway, the 300 gets 26mpg highway, and that assumes it switchs from running on 8 cylinders down to 4 for efficiecy. There doesn't appear to be a Concorde this model year so I couldn't get a number for it from the Chrysler directly, but if you go look at some other site such as Motortrend or the like, I think its highly likely that your numbers will be shown to be absolute bullshit. According to Chrysler, thier most efficient vehical, the Seabring Sedan, with the smallest engine available (173hp) gets 30, the rest are worse, some into the teens.

      According to a review http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/112_9803_chrysler_concorde_lxi_vs_pontiac_bonneville_se/data_cont.html the 2003 low end model gets 19 in the city, 28 on the highway ...

      Its pretty cool that your car gets better milage than any of their current production models get.

      Next time I suggest not using an inaccurate method of measurement (the cars computer) and base your information on what you actually used between fill ups and the milage you've driven. I'd also recommend not using the 100 miles you drove down out of the Rocky Mountains as your example.

      Even more humorous considering that most cars don't ever actually achieve the sticker value for MPG under normal driving conditions, and rarely do so with the added consistency of cruise control.

      While House is right, and most people are stupid, most Slashdotters are not that stupid.

      Btw, your a horrible puppet for Chrysler, if your going to bullshit, at least get the numbers close enough they are believable.

      For reference, my 2008 solstice told me it was averaging over a 100mpg for a 25 mile trip, with the airconditioner running ... I was driving down out of the mountains of North Carolina and never had my foot on the gas, great milage! My bullshit beats your bullshit.

      kthnx

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:charlatans by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All true, but completely beside the point. Auto engine efficiency has still doubled. An SUV is basically a big car body bolted to a truck frame. Take a truck chassis and power plant form 1970 and bolt an Escalade body on it and it will get roughly half the mileage as a new Escalade.

      The fact is they didn't make SUVs back then.

    7. Re:charlatans by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While his examples may have been anecdotal, they do correspond to what has been happening in the auto industry.

      Fuel economy - at least on the emissions-test operating cycle (which produces the mileage displayed on the stickers as a side-effect) has been a design consideration ever since its display for comparison was mandated. Part of that was the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) requirements, but more of it was comparison shopping by buyers.

      The replacement of mechanical/pneumatic computation with digital engine control computers, along with improvements in materials, research into combustion, modeling of airflow and mechanical design, and decades of engineering work, have enabled major improvements in engine, powertrain, suspension, body shape, and other factors affecting fuel economy - with a cumulative effect that is drastic.

      The appearance of corporate hostility to fuel economy is largely an illusion. The companies are indifferent to anything but their bottom line - but they do try to improve fuel economy in cases where it sells cars.

      The issue with SUVs is an unintended consequence of regulations intended to improve fuel economy. SUVs are regulated as "trucks" and outside the CAFE computation. (Their original {and still necessary} primary use is as a utility vehicle for remote locations - such a ranches in rugged terrain. They're "SPORTS-utility" because some people used them for recreation in similar driving situations.) Tightening CAFE standards killed the station wagon. So families which needed room for kids and hauling stuff home bought them as the next least expensive alternitive. Then they got used as a commuter vehicle in lieu of buying an additional car. Once that became popular (and most SUVs weren't going off-road) the car companies advertised them to that market and retweaked the vehicle characteristics to attract a bigger share of the "mall-terrain vehicle" crowd - to the point that some models were ruined for off-road function and lost their original market.

      Of course this means that the eco-wackos are pushing to apply CAFE to SUVs. Which would just push the city customers up to the NEXT bigger gas hogs - vans and urban light trucks - while wrecking things for people in rural areas who really need an SUV for its original purpose. The car companies would be happy to sell station wagons again (or some other multi-passenger, high cargo capacity vehicle) - with better fuel economy, comfier ride, better safety on freeways, and a bigger market. But the regulations would have to change the other way for that to be practical.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    8. Re:charlatans by hardburn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh, it's easy. Just build better engines.

      Do you have specific knowledge, or is this just deamonizing the people who actually are fixing the problem? (see also: hybrid Escalade, Chevy Volt, Ford Fiesta, etc.)

      4-stroke recipricating gas engines are a very mature technology. There are still a few things we might be able to get out of them (high compression combined with direct injection, direct computer-controled valve timing, and hydrogen injection come to mind), but for the most part we've already taken them as far as they're going to go. There are still some things we might be able to get out of 2-strokes and rotories.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    9. Re:charlatans by profplump · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great. I'll just flip the "better engines" toggle on my car designing software and we'll be all set.

      Seriously, you totally missed the point of the parent post. You might argue that vehicle manufactures should spend more money researching engine design improvements, but it's absurd to suggest that they aren't already putting in the most efficient engine available to them at salable prices.

    10. Re:charlatans by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed - and it's the same symptom. Instead of making them more environmentally friendly, these new high performance, fuel efficient engines are use to pull more weight.

      I don't blame the auto makers as much as some people do. They're bound by the same problems that we are bound by - we can't drive natural gas cars because we can't fill them up, and they can't sell any because we can't fill them up. Replace natural gas with your alternative fuel of choice.

      Until fairly recently, with the advancement of battery technology (which HAS improved greatly in the last decade) can the auto makers start seriously looking into electric vehicles. It started with Hybrids (although I think they're a waste of effort) and will hopefully turn into fully electric cars in the not-so-distant future. I do think cars like the Volt will be a good trade-off until that happens.

      Yea, the auto makers COULD have done more to push the envelope for alternative fuels but it's not all up to them. And, I really hate it when I see people saying that the reason American auto makers are in trouble is because of fuel efficiency problems - it's because of QUALITY problems, and in recent years the big American automakers have been making a lot of strides in that regard.

      Fundamental problems with personal transportation stem from many issues - like most other big problems we face today. It's never a simple answer, because the world is not simple.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  2. Re:the truth is by gnick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've found that statement to be strongly dependent on the streets you frequent.

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  3. Is this really controversial? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've never heard any accusations that the aeronautical industry was building particularly inefficient planes. Why would they? The only reason the automotive industry did it was because consumers love big cars (perceiving them as safer and wanting to show off). But unlike with SUV's, no one uses the size of the airplane they flew in on to compensate for their small dick (with the exception of Richard Branson, of course). So why WOULDN'T airlines want more efficient aircraft?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Who's calling who a liar? by MarkusQ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it is too broad to call the authors of Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends liars; their mediocre research created the scenario that far too many took their research as reality. Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth refute the wide-spread belief that the fuel efficiency gains in the commercial aviation sector are erroneous, which is the principle theme of the Peeters report."

    Pop quiz: who is calling who a liar in this paragraph? For that matter, how many parties are being discussed here, and what are their positions on fuel efficiency?

    --MarkusQ

    1. Re:Who's calling who a liar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Word. I read that paragraph twice before I gave up. What an unreadable twisted pile of trash.

    2. Re:Who's calling who a liar? by jfruhlinger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously. This is one of the most convoluted setences I've ever seen. I know that Slashdot "editors" aren't really editors in the generally accepted sense of the term, but -- really? Did you look at that sentence and think, "Hey, that's something that should go on the front page and that people will read and easily understand!"

      (Full disclosure: I am an editor, without quotation marks.)

  5. Re:the truth is by Normal+Dan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is not always so. Imagine a population of only 4 people. The first 3 have an "IQ" of 1, and the 4th has an IQ of 97. This makes the average intelligence around 25, and 3 out of 4 people have below average intelligence.

    But anyway, here's some startling statistics for you: 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of our population.

    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
  6. House says by eebra82 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In the TV show House, M.D., a premise that protagonist Dr. Greg House holds dear is that people are liars and stupid. Real life is often not far from House's observation.

    I would say that only a person smarter than average could make such observation. The rest would simply not care or be capable of thinking to such depth. In House's case, this is exactly it, because he seems to have an outstandingly high IQ. Amusingly, House says that we all lie, but he is the only exception. And he certainly doesn't think he's stupid.

    Having said that, I've been working in the "med biz" for five years and I share House's philosophy. People always distort facts for one reason or another, and ultimately, that makes them look dumb.

  7. I believe it. by LibertineR · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When my neighbor complained last weekend, that my smoking baby-back ribs in my smoker for 6 hours was responsible for ice melting in the Arctic, I realized that there are no limits on stupid.

    The same will be true for any Slashdotter who wants to explain to me in scientific terms why my neighbor was 'technically' correct.

    Let me help: The wood? Hickory and Cherry. The temperature? 240deg. Time: 6hours.

    So tell me; how many polar bears did I kill?

    1. Re:I believe it. by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer would likely be close to zero. Of course, that's mostly because you have all the effect of a drop of water in a hurricane. The hurricane still does damage, though.

      But I digress...if you used charcoal you make yourself without the use of fossil fuels, you're likely to be net zero for carbon emissions. All the carbon you use was probably pulled out of the air in the last 20-40 years by the tree you are burning, and the stuff you'll burn tomorrow comes out the trees growing today.

      As for baby back ribs, I like mine wet. With a side of cornbread and beans. If I'm going to hell, I may as well do it on a full stomach.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  8. Good heavens by bperkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The signal to noise ratio in this story is astoundingly low.

    How about:

    Here's a review of "The Plane and Simple Truth."

    It's a book about efficiency gains in airliners over the last 70 years.
    I liked it.
    It had lots of good information.
    It also debunked many fallacies put forth by those who think the airline industry is bad for the environment.

  9. The reviewer confuses fuel efficiency with economy by sirwired · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fuel economy (MPG) on a modern land-yacht SUV is indeed atrocious.

    However, fuel efficiency on a modern vehicle is simply astounding. A modern engine can extract far more motive power out of a given amount of fuel than an engine even ten years old.

    The problem, as far as total consumption goes, is what the automakers have chosen to do with those efficiency gains. Instead of increasing fuel economy, they have chosen to increase the power of the engine, and put those engines in ever-heavier vehicles. This means that fuel economy has remained relatively static, even as efficiency has made huge strides.

    SirWired

  10. Re:great by nomadic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one can be an expert about everything, but it is possible to know at least a little about a lot. Aerospace engineering is not unlike hacking -- engineers often have the right mindset to do software development (though the reverse isn't always true).

    If you're working outside your field, you should approach it with some humility. The way he phrases things in the article indicate he has some agenda where the assertion--that maybe airplanes haven't increased in efficiency that much--provokes an emotional reaction from him. Which is ridiculous.

  11. Re:So what's the bottom line? by gv250 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I want to know is how much fuel does it take to travel from San Francisco to New York City by the following methods:

    • A modern plane -- Between 33MPG and 117MPG per person
    • A Prius -- 45MPG
    • A generic 6 cylinder sedan -- (?) 30MPG (?)
    • An Escalade -- 18MPG
    • Amtrak -- 46MPG per person

    Most of these numbers are from A Green Ride.

  12. Re:Homeopathy is pseudoscience: by Sj0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Intelligent, rational, and logical people support McCain / Palin.

    I'm sorry, are you arguing for the party that has increased government spending and the size of government at twice the rate of the Democrats since the end of WWII, when you adjust for inflation(and far more if you don't)?

    The same party that has also increased the accumulation of debt at 2.4 times the inflation adjusted rate of the democrats?

    Intelligent, rational, logical people can only support 4 more years of Republican rule if they support increased government, increased spending, and shunting that cost to our children -- effectively stealing from them.

    In a purely logical world of self-interest, it's entirely logical that taking a billion dollars every day from our children is perfectly logical. The more we can steal from them, the more we have for ourselves.

    Of course, I think this is what this slashdot article really reaches to the heart to. If people knew math and economics, they'd be able to see for themselves that the Republicans are just Democrats who spend more money and happen to hate immigrants and gays.

    It's a shameful day for the Republican party when people advocate voting Democrat because it means smaller government, less spending, balanced budgets, and greater liberty. The numbers don't like, however. If you love liberty, hate large government, want lower spending, balanced budgets, you vote Democrat as an empirical matter of fact.
     

    --
    It's been a long time.