Carbon emissions from light aircraft and the future

[Reynard]

With the growing focus on carbon, this brief comparison analysis from France below provides some perspective, when the inevitable conversation arises with a grumpy airfield spectator. It is not a justification for action or inaction on carbon abatement that I have read at length on these forums, but I note Friezpilots reference to the Friedrichshafen Aero 2024 exhibition and the emphasis on alternative propulsion technologies there.

 

Hence, I pose the question - what will general aviation (LSA type) look like in 25 years time and 50 years time ? It doesn’t really bother me, because I will be soil fertiliser by then, but it’s still interesting to speculate…..and let’s not get bogged down with too many flying car stories.

 

From another site…….

 

“Carbon emissions from light aviation activities can be estimated (FFA 2023 numbers) as follows:

The average consumption of our aircraft is around 25 litres/hour of aviation fuel (AvGAS), which represents 18Kg/hour of fuel consumed (this is average). In 2023 light aviation completed 492,000 flight hours, including 241,000 on double command (instructional). So those 492,000 hours consumed approximately 8860 tonnes. It turns out that one kilogram of AvGAS consumed emits 3.10 kg of CO2. The Aéro-Clubs of the FFA therefore emitted about 27,500 tonnes of CO2, figures we can compare to 12 million tonnes of French air transport, and 64 million tonnes of private cars. Emission from light aviation therefore account for 0.002% of French air transport, and 0.0004% of tourist cars. Our planes emit in a year what cars emit... In 4 hours.

Our aerodromes cover 460 km2, of which 337 km2 are green spaces rich in fauna and flora. A meadow capable of capturing 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, let's do the math... and stop considering light aviation as a perfect scapegoat for many propaganda (see also the Citizen's Convention on Climate) and it's good to remember that aircraft is just a (small) part of society. Let's also imagine what would happen if we shut down our airfields. The spaces would be the prey of real estate speculation and would inevitably be concrete! “

[Reynard]

And maybe if I could frame this a little more by comparing what LSA aircraft looked like 25 and 50 years ago. Not just the propulsion methodology, but the entire aircraft.

Composites, digital avionics, safety features (dare I say autonomous flight), etc - what does the near and far future hold for the recreational pilot ?

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, Reynard said:

With the growing focus on carbon, this brief comparison analysis from France below provides some perspective, when the inevitable conversation arises with a grumpy airfield spectator. It is not a justification for action or inaction on carbon abatement that I have read at length on these forums, but I note Friezpilots reference to the Friedrichshafen Aero 2024 exhibition and the emphasis on alternative propulsion technologies there.

 

Hence, I pose the question - what will general aviation (LSA type) look like in 25 years time and 50 years time ? It doesn’t really bother me, because I will be soil fertiliser by then, but it’s still interesting to speculate…..and let’s not get bogged down with too many flying car stories.

 

From another site…….

 

“Carbon emissions from light aviation activities can be estimated (FFA 2023 numbers) as follows:

The average consumption of our aircraft is around 25 litres/hour of aviation fuel (AvGAS), which represents 18Kg/hour of fuel consumed (this is average). In 2023 light aviation completed 492,000 flight hours, including 241,000 on double command (instructional). So those 492,000 hours consumed approximately 8860 tonnes. It turns out that one kilogram of AvGAS consumed emits 3.10 kg of CO2. The Aéro-Clubs of the FFA therefore emitted about 27,500 tonnes of CO2, figures we can compare to 12 million tonnes of French air transport, and 64 million tonnes of private cars. Emission from light aviation therefore account for 0.002% of French air transport, and 0.0004% of tourist cars. Our planes emit in a year what cars emit... In 4 hours.

Our aerodromes cover 460 km2, of which 337 km2 are green spaces rich in fauna and flora. A meadow capable of capturing 20 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, let's do the math... and stop considering light aviation as a perfect scapegoat for many propaganda (see also the Citizen's Convention on Climate) and it's good to remember that aircraft is just a (small) part of society. Let's also imagine what would happen if we shut down our airfields. The spaces would be the prey of real estate speculation and would inevitably be concrete! “

Your end result is about right.

 

Car & Truck Industries

CARBON EMISSIONS: PM

As for the rest, if you're talking about carbon, it's a heavier than air material which just falls to the ground, albeit in its finer particles the wind can stir it up, it can get into the lungs and it can cause lung cancer.

So talking about Carbon, the automotive industry has been reducing the emission of Carbon in the form of those fine, invisible particles, PM10 and PM2.5 since 1975. By 1992 PM reduction had been reduced, but the industry started on the road to try to eliminate PM. Since 1992 PM emissions in new cars has been reduced by 98.4%, while Industrial operations haven't really changed, so he later cars have started sucking up ambient air and burning the PM.

PM Summary: Has increased car costs by several thousand dollars.

                        Maintenance costs due to the hours of stripping away electronics and hoses has increased substantially. 

 

CO2 EMISSIONS

Global warming caused by CO2 emissions started as a means of raising money by the UN around 1968, and today is in full swing with some social media and MSM stories that Australian new cars are some of the "dirtiest" in the world. The truth is that unlike NOx and PM, the engine alone can't reduce CO2 output; that relies on the fuel going through the engine and now, with all our cars imported we can't run the latest overseas cars on our fuel so the overseas suppliers have had to add the complication of older engine designs to their production lines. The Government did nothing about the fuel, so the farce continued. The good news is that our Vehicle industry took the initiative and has successfully negotiated a deal with the fuel companies to bring in world standard (much cleaner) fuel and as soon as that becomes available to the pumps, the vehicle manufacturers will be able to give us the engines that Europe, USA get.

 

 

                        

 

Aircraft

CARBON EMISSIONS: PM

Aircraft engines have continued to emit a full charge of PM10/PM2.5 at the level of the 1970s.

The heavier than air particles drop down along the aircraft circuits and routes.

There's a health argument that somethig should be done about it, but no one's making much noise.

PM Summary:  Development would have to start from scratch, probably using car/truck techniques

                         Several thousand dollars extra cost on new aircaft. 

 

Aircraft

CO2 EMISSIONS

As with vehicles, Australia has had no design standard for CO2 emissions from aircraft.

You would hope that if the global warmists get their way, that a similar deal could be negotiated with fuel suppliers, so that standard overseas engines could be imported.

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

23 minutes ago, Reynard said:

And maybe if I could frame this a little more by comparing what LSA aircraft looked like 25 and 50 years ago. Not just the propulsion methodology, but the entire aircraft.

Composites, digital avionics, safety features (dare I say autonomous flight), etc - what does the near and far future hold for the recreational pilot ?

Why would someone from Anatye be worried about the outside politically correct world?

 

Edited April 4 by turboplanner

[Reynard]

Why not ?

[BurnieM]

I always think these total numbers for a particular segment are close to meaningless and wonder why they keep being quoted in government reports.

Surely the numbers should quote pollutants per kilometre travelled NOT per segment or per aircraft or per litre consumed.

 

I am still trying to convince a friend to use 95 in his car (lowest cost per kilometre travelled) and I keep getting cost per litre back.

[turboplanner]

4 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

I always think these total numbers for a particular segment are close to meaningless and wonder why they keep being quoted in government reports.

Surely the numbers should quote pollutants per kilometre travelled NOT per segment or per aircraft or per litre consumed.

 

I am still trying to convince a friend to use 95 in his car (lowest cost per kilometre travelled) and I keep getting cost per litre back.

I wouldn't worry too much about the figures you see on SM, usually unrelated to what's actually going on.

[skippydiesel]

"I am still trying to convince a friend to use 95 in his car (lowest cost per kilometre travelled) and I keep getting cost per litre back."

 

There is little point in burning a fuel of a higher RON than the engine can fully utilise ie if the engine is not designed to run on 98 RON there will be little, if any, performance improvement (including L/Km)

Edited April 4 by skippydiesel

[facthunter]

Unless you want a bit of a margin against detonation IF you're working it hard. IF it's using oil the RON will drop. Lube oil will do that unless it's special formulation for use in 2 strokes.  Nev

[Reynard]

Just over 50 years ago, hang gliding was invented, and possibly the first ultralight, but so was the F16 fighter.

 

Fabrication from composites is now mainstream as is the use of GPS.  ADFs and VORs are almost gone as have cigarette lighters …,sometimes replaced by a 12v outlet or even USBs. Headsets are now routinely used, and many now have noise cancellation. Aircraft now also have seatbelts and some even have airbags and airframe parachutes. Vacuum gyros are disappearing, radios can monitor more than 1 frequency at a time, and aircraft conspicuity has been greatly enhanced with ADS-B

Leaning an engine has gone from listening for roughness to watching EGT to fully automatic.   The internal combustion engine is a mature technology and is probably ripe for disruption.

 

What will an LSA be made from in 2070, what gadgets will there be in the cockpit, what will propel it….and who will be driving it ?   Or will they all be outlawed for being to damn dangerous anyhow ?

[spacesailor]

Simple solution. 

As quoted 18 ltrs pr hour . Average .

 Make more ' ultralight ' aircraft . If there was a push,  to get small engined aircraft into the mainstream .

Fuel usage half that average ,  would surely reduce the '  c02 emissions. 

Back to " AUF " .

IT SEEMS, that higher weight RAA wants , it's opposite to what is needed .

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

NOT IF you want to carry two Occupants and you are looking at Consumption/Occupant/ Nautical Mile A bit more weght also permits cheaper less cost of production, easier repaired. Materials.  Nev

[Area-51]

Every time i fly i feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing i am helping all the trees and plants upon the earth to breath more co2 and become more prosperous across the earth's surface with their little talked about ability to fart out moisture and oxygen 👨🏻‍✈️

[facthunter]

That's not how it works BUT. The CARBON Cycle in NATURE is Not what it was. WE Thought/ Hoped It was STABLE.  Deforestation is every where you look, Deserts Grow Not diminish..   Nev

[Area-51]

44 minutes ago, facthunter said:

That's not how it works BUT. The CARBON Cycle in NATURE is Not what it was. WE Thought/ Hoped It was STABLE.  Deforestation is every where you look, Deserts Grow Not diminish..   Nev

Yeah there's the problem right there, "WE thought/hoped it was stable"...

 

Nature is about as stable as an unmedicated tripolar schizophrenic  alcoholic crackhead in a mental asylum.

 

no offence intended

Edited April 4 by Area-51

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, Area-51 said:

Yeah there's the problem right there, "WE thought/hoped it was stable"...

 

Nature is about as stable as an unmedicated tripolar schizophrenic  alcoholic crackhead in a mental asylum.

 

no offence intended

have you met my mother in law  🤣

Edited April 4 by BrendAn

[spacesailor]

How many still offer that spare seat ? .

How many cars ' in the rush hour ' have but one person .

NSW has one lane for cars with more than.  one person.

And I know of a couple of drivers who have put " mannequins " in their passenger seat . Just to flaunt that rule .

spacesailor

 

[Area-51]

45 minutes ago, spacesailor said:

How many still offer that spare seat ? .

How many cars ' in the rush hour ' have but one person .

NSW has one lane for cars with more than.  one person.

And I know of a couple of drivers who have put " mannequins " in their passenger seat . Just to flaunt that rule .

spacesailor

 

Its not the cars with just one person in them, its the "realestate" that each car occupies on the road, and that is only half of the challenge. Years ago i had the privilege of working with david bentley; he was on the aesthetic design team for the morris mini, minor, 1200, 1800; we had this same conversation. His response in short was this, "the motor car is a place where an individual can momentarily escape into their own personal private space. A sanctuary where they feel safe, in control, free to be who they want to be".  The battle between realestate and personal space is a constant cultural challenge that a few western nations just cannot get through.

 

Over the decades every time there is a major volcanic eruption i just sigh, watching all that toxic pollution spewing out into the atmosphere, nobody doing anything to try and control it or prevent them from happening each time... i do feel better knowing that youtube tells me the world is going to end in a few more days time 🤔 better get that adsb grant application in before the grid goes down 🤔

[facthunter]

Don't worry about accuracy and relevance. II was referring to the CARBON CYCLE in NATURE.  That was the heading in the Science book s  of the day. There was also the WEGENER THEORY of continental DRIFT. A theory shown to be fact later especially when the continental shelf is accounted for Not the actual shore line. Volcanic eruptions are NOT  related to human activity at all.  Not all NATURAL occurrences are  safe or benign. . No one I know of in history had thought they could/should be controlled except by Prayer.. Dog gave you legs to run away from  danger and a brain to deal with it all..  Nev

[spacesailor]

" own personal space ",

That is bad , your personal space ' ends ' when you get behind the wheel .

Road & fuel / pollution ! Get a " Messerschmitt " two seater car .

They were a comfortable ride .

 

 

I can imagine a row of them stopped at the traffic lights ready to roar away on green .

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

They'd have to be good friends to get 2 in there.  Nev

[Area-51]

3 hours ago, spacesailor said:

" own personal space ",

That is bad , your personal space ' ends ' when you get behind the wheel .

Road & fuel / pollution ! Get a " Messerschmitt " two seater car .

They were a comfortable ride .

 

 

I can imagine a row of them stopped at the traffic lights ready to roar away on green .

spacesailor

 

 

RAM culture proved that experiment failed.

 

Anyway, done with being a cockroach on the ground; better off being a cockroach in the sky

Edited April 5 by Area-51

[spacesailor]

You definitely would have to have a good deodorant. 

Or take that glass dome off in summer .

I have never seen a convertible Messerschmitt. 

spacesailor

Holding breath after the brother farted. 

 

Edited April 5 by spacesailor
A little more !

[skippydiesel]

6 hours ago, spacesailor said:

" own personal space ",

That is bad , your personal space ' ends ' when you get behind the wheel .

Road & fuel / pollution ! Get a " Messerschmitt " two seater car .

They were a comfortable ride .

 

 

I can imagine a row of them stopped at the traffic lights ready to roar away on green .

spacesailor

 

 

Messerschmitt? Have always fancied one. I have even thought about getting a Can-Am & fitting a glass body (similar to above) on it

 

I believe there was a sports model, that was fairly quick (for its time) and I think they are probably more comfortable (for 2) than the early Mini's

[facthunter]

Messerschmitt is only a 3 wheeler.  Only ONE drive wheel at rear and very small dia  wheels. The Mini is NOT narrow. Cornered fairly well on the track if you were into FRONT,WD. The Austin A 30 would be a lot narrower.  Nev

Edited April 5 by facthunter