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.

72 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 DaveV1.0 · · Score: 3, Informative

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

      I wouldn't be so sure about that:

      2008: Ford F150 Pickup 2WD 6 cyl, 4.2 L, Manual 5-spd, Regular
      14 city
      20 hwy

      1985: Ford F150 Pickup 2WD 6 cyl, 4.9 L, Manual 4-spd, (FFS), Regular
      15 - 17 city
      20 - 22 hwy

      Source: User reports at fuelecomony.gov

      Smaller engine, more gears, worse economy.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    5. Re:charlatans by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny

      My current car is a Crysler Concorde with a fuel injected 28 valve V-6 engine.

      Which four cylinders get an extra valve?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:charlatans by vastabo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Can you really have a 28 valve engine? Wouldn't it be 6 cylinders * (2 intake valves + 2 exhaust valves) = 24 valves.

      Just askin'...

    7. Re:charlatans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Look up the differences in how they came up with the ratings between 1985 and 2008.

      You can't just look at the specific numbers and ignore the specs of the tests that brought about those numbers.

    8. 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.
    9. 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
    10. Re:charlatans by cbreaker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you kidding?

      Don't you realize that the engines we use in cars today are *FAR* superior to the engines of 20 years ago?

      Engineers have made huge progress on the internal combustion engine. They are so much more efficient now than ever imagined.

      Fuel economy is up, and environmental impact is down.

      One of the problems with the advances over the last two decades, though - is that instead of having these great designs in smaller cars, they put them in big trucks and SUVs. So, in effect: making engines more efficient made SUV's possible.

      It's all about where the market takes the auto makers.

      You can't just say "easy. Make better engines." You know why you can't say that? Because you're an ignorant shithead that doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

      --
      - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
    11. 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.

    12. Re:charlatans by operagost · · Score: 2, Informative

      Try going to fueleconomydb.com if you wish to rebut.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. 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
    14. 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
    15. Re:charlatans by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, you are comparing your experience with overall running MPG (I assume tank-full to tank-full) against running 100 miles along a freeway at 55mph? Yeah, let's compare apples to oranges -- that will give useful figures.

      Instead, why not look at the CAFE requirements, which have shown rather more modest improvements?

      Car engines have made huge improvements in efficiency, but much of those gains have been lost by increasing the overall weight of cars. Compare a modern Mini to the weight of the original -- Old: 1,360 lb, New: 2496 lb.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    16. Re:charlatans by NoisySplatter · · Score: 2, Funny

      They're extra big valves so each one counts as 1.16 standard valves.

      --
      In Soviet Russia meme tires of you!
    17. Re:charlatans by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since the CAFE was enacted in 1975, the required fuel economy has gone from 18 mpg (1978) to 27.5 mpg (1990, originally 1985). The standards for light trucks are a little more convoluted (especially in the past), but went from a low of 15.8 mpg to 22.2 mpg (2007).

      Congress recently passed an increase in the CAFE to 35 mpg by 2020, an increase of a whole 7.5 mpg in the next 12 years, after nearly 18 years of no increases.

      It should also be noted that these numbers are for an average fuel economy across a 'fleet' of vehicles, meaning that they're not for a particular model, but for the cars sold in a particular model year by the particular manufacturer. This means that selling hybrid SUVs gives the manufacturer a boost in the average gas mileage calculation used for the rest of their SUVs and trucks (excepting those that are above the maximum weight for CAFE requirements). They also get a credit towards the calculation for hybrid and multi-fuel vehicles (beyond the increased mpg those vehicles might get).

      So, of course a 2008 full-sized Ford pickup gets better gas mileage than a 1975 full-sized Ford pickup of the same model. However, the number is unlikely to have doubled in the 33 year time period. In fact, fueleconomy.gov puts the numbers from 1985 to 2009 at an increase of roughly 3 mpg (why they don't have the numbers going back to 1975 I don't know).

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    18. 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.

    19. Re:charlatans by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      You think I've only owned three cars in the last forty years, let alone only driven three cars in the last forty years? And I haven't even driven one of the new hybrids!

      Do you have any idea how bad the gas mileage was on my friend's 1968 GTO? Or my 1968 Mustang?

    20. Re:charlatans by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know I gave numbers for 1985. That was the earliest numbers available from a trusted source. The numbers are not from the EPA MPG tests. These are numbers provided by people who own and use the vehicles, which make the numbers more reliable than the EPA tests.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    21. Re:charlatans by ptbarnett · · Score: 4, Informative

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

      Yes, they did. The Chevy Suburban was first built in 1935, and the International Harvester Travelall was built from 1953 to 1975.

    22. Re:charlatans by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not always as hard as you make it out to be, either. Small changes in shape that don't really even impact style or cost can make a huge difference. For example, SUVs are made with body-on-frame construction, not unibody. This makes it easier to churn out a couple new models every year, but makes them heavier and less safe. For another example, the Hummer H2 and Scion xB are both boxy vehicles, but the Hummer has a drag coefficient of 0.57 while the Scion has a drag coefficient of 0.35 (and I'm talking about drag *coefficient*, not drag area; this is *before* you consider changes to the cross-sectional area). It's almost a willful disregard for efficiency. And we haven't even gotten into things that have a price point but pay off rather quickly, such as more efficient drivetrains (higher efficiency engine layout, IMA or other stop/start, diesel, HCCI, etc), aluminum in places where steel isn't needed for structural integrity, higher efficiency accessories, and so on, or more radical streamlining.

      That said, consumers probably are mostly to blame, namely for insisting that their vehicles look like a brick and drive like armored tanks, complete with the high weight, low visibility and lack of maneuverability that entails. But automakers are not blameless.

      Anyways, my primary hope is that the fuel crunch (which seems to be going away fast, IMHO) will help change consumer style preferences to more aerodynamic shapes and lighter bodies, as well as increasing the awareness that a higher upfront cost can pay off down the road.

      --
      That was either the start of something bad or the end of something stupid.
    23. Re:charlatans by Fozzyuw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or visit Fuelly.com and just browse what some people are getting for fuel economy. There's a few people out there that apparently can't enter numbers properly, but it's a nice view of what people are getting in reality and not just "EPA Estimates".

      Yes, my cars are on there too.

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    24. Re:charlatans by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2, Informative

      An SUV is basically a big car body bolted to a truck frame.

      Well, some SUVs are (usually the larger ones), while the smaller "crossover" vehicles, like the CR-V, Rav4 and Forester, are Unibody constructions. As for trucks, the Honda Ridgeline is built on a Unibody platform.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    25. Re:charlatans by bkr1_2k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How many cars are on the road today? I mean unique models, not cars renamed and packaged a little differently for different companies? If 40 cars isn't a decent sample size, there are a lot more than I'm aware of at this time. That's certainly possible, but I'd say there aren't likely to be more than 1000 total car models (actually on the road and making any sort of impact in engine design) so 40 doesn't really seem like such a small number. It may or may not be statistically large enough, but I'd wager it is.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    26. Re:charlatans by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you cannot even get the number of valves right, how can you be so sure about your gas mileage figures?

      OK, that's not fair. I don't agree with mcgrew, but it's perfectly possible to know one and not the other. I have no idea what engine's in my wife's Sienna minivan, but I can tell you that we got 25.8 miles per gallon on the last road trip, averaged over 2,200 miles.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    27. 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. -
    28. Re:charlatans by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, but I had a 76 chevy Vega. They were crap. I loved it, but it was a piece of crap.

      If you want to look at gas mileage over time, I suggest looking at the Honda Accord, which by happenstance came out in 76 in the U.S., although I could only quickly google up the '78 stats.

      http://www.mpgomatic.com/2007/10/16/honda-accord-gas-mileage-1978-2007/

      For those not wanting to follow the link:

      Gas mileage in 1976: 24 City, 30 Highway
      Gas mileage in 2008: 21 City, 30 Highway

    29. Re:charlatans by morethanapapercert · · Score: 2, Informative

      *ahem*
      I beg to differ, SUV's were indeed made prior to 1980.

      The label of SUV is of modern origin but the concept of a station wagon on a truck frame that has at least some off-road capability goes back as least as far as WWII. (With or without 4WD)

      --
      I need a wheelchair van for my son. Help me get the word out. https://www.gofundme.com/wheelchair-van-for-jj
  2. the truth is by aoteoroa · · Score: 4, Funny

    2 out of 4 people you meet on the street are likely to have below average intelligence.

    1. 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.
    2. Re:the truth is by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Funny

      2 out of 4 so thats, what, 2 percent? That's not bad at all!

    3. 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
    4. Re:the truth is by superdave80 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's more like 3 out of 6, if you ask me.

    5. Re:the truth is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      So then what are the other 6 people, rocket surgeons or something?

    6. Re:the truth is by foobsr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Consensus (among psychologists) is that IQ scores are following a normal distribution, thus mean and median are the same.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    7. Re:the truth is by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, psychologists must be forbidden to ever take a statistics class then. Remember, these people are usually just as fucked up as the people who pay them $$$ to listen and now we're trusting them to do math.

      Uh? I'm in a statistics class right now, and I can assure you that in a normal distribution the median is the same as the mean. The plot of the probability distribution function of a normal distribution is a bell curve. It's symmetric, so the mean is in the middle (which is the median). I think you might be the one who needs to crack a book.

      I think he means that its silly to think the distribution could be even remotely normal... Looking at the tails of the curve, you're always going to have more people at the low end whom are randomly physically screwed up (due to accidents or whatever) and a smaller tail at the high end of superior intellects.

      Consider that the superior intellects require good genetics AND not getting screwed up from environment or accident vs the lower end requires either bad genetics OR getting screwed up from environment or accident. And certainly the distribution of getting screwed up from environment or accident is not a normal distribution. And random mutation and un-natural selection will not give normal distribution either.

      There's just no way the high and low tails can belong to a normal distribution. Sure, maybe if you squint and look kind of blurry around the center, the range of 99 to 101 might be kind of a symmetric normal distribution...

      It's just the "soft sciences" being politically correct while using math terms they don't understand.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:the truth is by amorsen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Looking at the tails of the curve, you're always going to have more people at the low end whom are randomly physically screwed up (due to accidents or whatever) and a smaller tail at the high end of superior intellects.

      IQ has a normal distribution because IQ is defined to have a normal distribution. If the tail at the high end is too small, then the tests will be adjusted.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  3. Yep Fuel economy has always been king. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Fuel is heavy. Every pound of fuel you burn is one less you can carry and charge for.
    Of course it kind of goes south when you talk about people that take an airliner designed for 300 people and use it as a private jet.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Yep Fuel economy has always been king. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually the president usually hauls well several dozen people on Air Force One.
      I was thinking of John Travolta, and the Google guys.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. 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.
  5. Um. Illiteracy is rampant. Er. by gavron · · Score: 2, Informative
    What a nice article that says "university president's" instead of "university presidents".

    I guess while putting down the rest of America for being easily led by the nose, the author forgot to read about how to use simple punctuation.

    While we're on it, perhaps Barnum was right, but perhaps he was more right in the second less-well-known part of his statement.

    "There's a sucker born every minute -- and two to take him." -- P.T. Barnum.

    Google 101 is over. The rest is left as an exercise for the reader.

    Ehud

  6. great by nomadic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm always fascinated by how IT people frequently consider themselves experts on everything under the sun. Whoever this Rothke is, he's no aeronautical engineer, and as far as I can tell his snide remarks at the beginning of the review are based on his reading of an admittedly pro-aviation industry book.

    1. Re:great by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm always fascinated by how IT people frequently consider themselves experts on everything under the sun.

      Well, the thing is that geeks/hackers tend to be more well-read than most of the rest of the world. There are many 'IT people' who are more well-read than most liberal arts majors.

      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).

    2. 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.

  7. 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.)

  8. Reviews: how not to write them by hcdejong · · Score: 5, Informative

    Starting your review with a convoluted first paragraph chock-full of double negatives and irrelevant references is a Bad Idea. I had to read it three times before I figured out which book was being reviewed and what the reviewer thought of it.

    The review also takes whatever this book says as gospel. How do we know that this book is any more correct than the studies it tries to debunk?

  9. 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.

    1. Re:House says by jfengel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      > Amusingly, House says that we all lie, but he is the only exception.

      He says everybody lies, and he doesn't exempt himself. He lies like crazy, to get his way. He'd say he'd be stupid not to, since it does help him get what he thinks is right.

      He just thinks that lying to your DOCTOR is stupid, since that gets you dead, which is usually not what you want.

  10. So what's the bottom line? by Biff+Stu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    A Prius
    A generic 6 cylinder sedan
    An Escalade
    Amtrak

    Of course, the extra 4 days on the road really make me favor the plane, but I want to know how guilty I should feel.

    1. Re:So what's the bottom line? by agallagh42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Specifically for a Boeing 777-300ER:

      Gallons/Mile: 6.077
      Gallons/Passenger Mile: .01665
      MPG per passenger: 60.06
      (from http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2628781/)

      Amtrak reports 2005 energy use of 2,935 BTU per passenger-mile[33], or 39 passenger-miles per gallon (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#Trains)

      Passenger airplanes averaged 4.8 L/100 km per passenger (49 passenger-miles per gallon) in 1998. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#Aircraft)

      --
      Carpe Cerevisi - Seize the Beer
    2. 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.

    3. Re:So what's the bottom line? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow. I need to have more kids so that my gas mileage will increase.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:So what's the bottom line? by darrylo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A Prius is the wrong car for a cross-country trip, if gas mileage is the criteria.

      A Prius excels in areas with stop-and-go driving, like city driving (or Los Angeles freeway driving :-). It doesn't do as well in continuous, high-speed driving, like what you would find on a cross-country trip. There are better cars for that.

    5. Re:So what's the bottom line? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Umm, I'm American. I don't think we have those yet.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  11. 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?
    2. Re:I believe it. by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 2, Funny

      The answer would likely be close to zero.

      That depends on the source of the ribs, of course...

  12. Turbopropellers by Cochonou · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the review, there seems to be a lot of talk in the book about jet engines (turbofans). But is the subject of propellers and turbopropellers brought upon ? They are usually considered to be the most efficient for speeds around mach 0.6.

  13. 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.

    1. Re:Good heavens by StrategicIrony · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The funny part is that this summary of the book does a piss poor job of debunking the paper.

      In fact, I read the paper and it makes a lot of sense. It makes no claims about turbines decreasing in efficiency, merely that turbines are less efficient than piston engines... which is absolutely true.

      However, they're more reliable, require less maintinance and are easier to fit to airplane designs.

      What exactly in this paper requires debunking?

      I think the OP is a shill for someone, or just totally taken by some BS he ran into somewhere in a book. :-)

      You know, there's a reason why the US military uses turboprops on most of its transport aircraft. Because THOSE are more efficient AND more reliable than ducted turbojets used on passenger aircraft.

      But they have a slightly slower top speed, so they aren't used for passengers.

      Anyway, the whole analogy to the authors of this paper being "stupid, gullible idiots" is a bit ridiculous as it's a pretty rational paper that outlines facts based on documented evidence and draws a sensible conclusion.

      Anyone should be free to disagree with it (including the OP), but calling them idiots is not helping that cause, but rather, making HIM look like an idiot.

  14. Report is wrong... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    For a start, they seem to hinge their conclusions on per-seat-kilometer values, and then seem surprised at the outcome - per-seat-kilometer values miss significant aspects of the subject at hand:

    1. Cargo - planes carry significant amounts of cargo today, on the piston engined aircraft of yesteryear it was pretty much 'passengers OR cargo, but not at the same time'. Thus the plane today is doing work that your plane of yesterday would be excluded from because you aren't getting a per-seat-kilometer value for it (no seats).

    2. Range - planes today carry out some serious routes, with the top end of the scale actually topping out at between 8,000miles on a regular basis (there are longer routes, but they are less common). You won't be getting that in piston engined aircraft.

    3. Reliability - jet engines are much more reliable than the piston engines of yesteryear, which is why we now have ETOPS (extended-range twin-engine operational performance standard) hitting 207 minutes. Thats three hours and twenty seven minutes distance from an airfield on one single engine. Try that in a piston engine aircraft of yesteryear.

    4. Reliability - yes, its worth mentioning again. Jet engine aircraft can run sectors with minimal turn around, with minimal maintenance between sectors and with minimal top-ups of required fluids. Piston engined aircraft required a lot more in the way of coaxing and looking after on the ground between sectors. More time in maintenance means less time making money.

    5. Longevity - there haven't been many piston engine aircraft that were built for two or three decades in passenger service (the DC-3 comes to mind, but not many others). Most piston engine passenger aircraft of the pre-war and immediate post-war period were designed to last only a few thousand hours, or a couple of years in passenger service.

    Oh, and yes, I'm related to the aviation industry :)

    1. Re:Report is wrong... by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 3, Informative

      To add to the reliability part (even more), airlines liked turbines for many reasons, none of which were cited in that retarded study. Faster was not the attraction, smooth operation was.

      A piston engine is constantly trying to shake itself apart, a turbine engine doesn't do that. In addition to the mechanical wear issues, the vibration was unpleasant and also contributed to reduced airframe life.

      With piston powered airliners it wasn't uncommon to have engine fires and other catastrophic failures. But hey, no biggie right? Still have 3 good engines! With today's turbofans it is just about unheard of.

      Commercial FADEC jet engines can be treated essentially like lightbulbs, turn them on and go.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    2. Re:Report is wrong... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      I pretty much disagree with everything you said - theres very good reasons why RR, GE and P&W (plus all the lesser bit players in the civil engine market) produce primarily turbofans for the large civil aircraft market.

      Firstly, turboprops still have the vibration issue that plagued piston engined aircraft. Sure, its drastically reduced, but it still raises the cabin noise level significantly over a turbofan - which means you need more sound reduction material to counteract it and bring cabin noise levels down, which means weight.

      Secondly, turboprops are high power but only in certain bands - and increasing the size of the props to give a better power band is not easy, as it increases the strain on the gear box among other things. You seem to be under the impression that

      Thirdly, because of the size of the props we are talking about, they need to be mounted on a high wing rather than a low wing. This means significantly added cost and more importantly weight, as you need to transfer the wing load down through the body of the aircraft to the undercarriage. Or you use wing mounted main gear, which has to be significantly larger than on low wing aircraft because you are now transfering the load a farther distance. Thats all extra weight to carry around.

      Fourthly, turboprops aren't as powerful as you think - the A400M needs 4 TP400-D6 turboprops to lift a MTOW of 141 tonnes, or 311,000 lbs. An A330-200 has a MTOW of 230 tonnes, or 507,000 lbs with only two Trent 700s. And even then, the A400M only has a 3,800nm max (dependant on configuration), while the A330-200 will be topping out at 6,800nm.

      In short, theres a damn good reason why the airline industry uses turbofans, and its not because they are shiney.

    3. Re:Report is wrong... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      Experience - I used to work for Rolls Royce plc (the aero engine divison of Rolls Royce).

      Turbofans are shrouded for a reason, if it was more efficient to unshroud them, they would be unshrouded because that shroud represents a hell of a lot of weight that an airline would most certainly not want to carry around.

      The shroud plays two major parts - containment in the event of blade failure, where the fan loses a blade, and smoothing of the airflow through the engine. Having a smooth airflow through the engine reduces resistence significantly, and allows for better performance of the turbine itself, as well as cleaner air flow out of hte back of the engine. This can add as much as 5% benefit in terms of engine efficiency.

      I would think that blade containment would be self explainatory, but incase it is not:

      A Trent 900 turbofan (the powerplant for the A380, alongside the GP7200 from GE and P&W) rotates at between 2,900 rpm and 3,000 rpm. Your PW124, which powers regional aircraft such as the Fokker 50, has a maximum rpm of between 1,300 and 1,600rpm.

      A Trent 900 has 24 116" fan blades, each weighing about 4 times that of the 5 blades the PW124 uses. Thats one fuckton load of potential energy you have there, when the engine is at full power - the tips of the blades are actually supersonic.

      In the event of one of those blades leaving the hub, the shroud is designed to contain the entire blade and any ejecta caused by the separation event within the engine - the engine destroys itself but causes little or no damage to the rest of the aircraft. On a regional aircraft, the blades are light enough, small enough and slow enough that you can protect the body of the aircraft.

      In any case, I think the very fact that there are many many turboprops in service today with regional airlines proves that 'passengers think turboprops look scary so airlines don't use them' is completely wrong, without having to go into all what I did.

      It most certainly is not about looks. Airlines would use whatever they deem lowest cost.

  15. 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

  16. Uhm, hello? What a ridiculous summary by Idaho · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Peeters report flies in the face of reality, in which gains in jet engine efficiency over the last 40 years have been astounding.

    Excuse me, but I just actually read that report (...on slashdot!? I must be new here), and it nowhere states that jet engine efficiency *hasn't* improved tremendously over the past 40 years. On the contrary, it shows clear diagrams that shows they *have* improved a lot.

    However, it states, probably correctly, that compared to the last-generation *piston* aircraft engines which where built around 1955 or so, first-generation Jet engines used twice as much fuel (per passenger or kg moved per kilometer) compared to those. However, that amount of fuel since halved so they are now about on par with 1955 piston technology. Doesn't look like a lie to me. Of course, modern jet engines can fly a lot faster than those with piston engines.

    In addition, it states that the amount of reduction will level off when the technology has matured. This happened for piston engines, and I don't see why it wouldn't for jet engines; most things to improve their efficiency by a lot have already been invented by now. This explains why they use much less fuel than 40 years ago, but doesn't guarantee in any way that they can get a lot more efficient still.

    Of course, I like taking a plane to the Hawaiian beaches as much as the next guy, but I don't see why we need to post this kind of bullshit stories just so we can fool ourselves into thinking that planes do not use a lot of fuel.

    --
    Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
  17. Re:Stay alive, Drive FIFTY-FIVE! by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

    If they're so stupid that they're doing eighty, can't tell that the car ahead is going slower and aren't paying attention to boot, it's not ME wasting the fuel.

    I'm not going to waste my gasoline to save yours, especially when you obviously don't give a shit about your fuel economy or you'd be going slower.

  18. English, motherfucker, do you speak it? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Funny

    Known as the Peeters report, after lead author P.M. Peeters, the authors of Plane Simple Truth...

    It took me three tries to figure out what this sentence was saying. The authors of Plane Simple Truth are known as the Peeters report?