Green Skies ??

Taking a much overdue lift off the ground I took in a lot of air on some hearty green activity in the great blue skies. It came as no co-incidence. I was travelling an inter-continental route and as usual was overly avowed at the wonderous, marvellous and even inscrutable nature of the machinery and mechanics of the jetliner. One leg of my trip was a 14 hour flight on a Boeing 777. Its mind boggling how the engines, these girdling citadels of steel, sustain for so long the raging jet-fuel fires that are hot enough to lift 100 tons off the ground and push it up into the air at 1,500 feet per minute. Just as mind scratching is the amount of energy required to perform such a take off. As a child we lived 3 miles from an airport and I still recall the trenchant roar of the full powered engines as the plane geared for take off. Never did I once hear an engine when planes were landing at minimum thrust (due to descent inertia and lighter fuel load). Hence as an energy enthusiast I honed in on Boeing advertising the 777's energy conscience. Their website states that the 777-200LR (its long range model) uses 6,500 less gallons per flight without giving us the average flying time or the total fuel load for such a flight. The number obviously looks better on its own and so be it. 6,500 gallons after all is 6,500 gallons. Expect the average flying time for the 200LR to be something like 8 hours. The flight I was on was 14 hours but the 200LR has passed a durability test of 22 hours and 42 minutes which by the way is the new world record! The longevity of the flights is an added bonus as by avoiding a re-fueling stop makes the trip more energy efficient (some time gain and avoiding a second full thrust take off and ascent to crusising altitude). Nice going, Boeing. Get it....going....Boeing. Never mind.

Well, that's not all. Another development in the short range flight domain also seems to have taken a turn for the better. Using a jetliner for a 375 mile flight from LA to San Francisco would strike quite a few of us somewhat egregious. How do airlines make it economical? Not exactly sure but airlines to need to switch flights for planes which can mean them flying around without a load or a loss leading flight to cover sunk costs. The average price they charge probably covers the costs of these short range flights on jets. No doubt, people prefer jets and some would pay dearly for them. But not all of us. And not in this 6 billion global population era that can ill afford energy luxuries. Hence, its nice to see a resurgence of twin propellor (props) on short routes. As per a recent article by Newsweek magazine, the new generatin of this not-cutting-edge technology is made to customer order in regards that caused people to shy away from them. Two turbo-props are featured. The Q400 bombardier (featured below) and the ATR 72-500. Both can seat 70+ passengers. Both are reported to consume 30% to 40% less fuel than comparable passenger capacity jets. The Q400 can crusie at 400 mph and has something called an active vibration and noise cancelling system. Here's the best part. The business proposition is hot. Given the fuel savings some regional airlines have started to convert. Worldwide orders for small turbo props (less than 90 passengers) had dropped to a dismal 25 aircraft in 2002 and by 2004 the figure was no better than 48. In 2005 that number shot up to 150 and in 2007 we are at 125 half way through the year. The predominant factor: price of fuel.

I guess we don't really think of the sky as green but a bluer blue may just carry some hint of that awesome GREEN. Its been a while since I have found a worthwhile video to add to one of my blog entries. Here is one which is as much a tribute to the capabilities of the Boeing 777 as it is to the skills of the test pilots who can perform such acts. In this case high cross winds landings with approach angels requiring nerves of steel......