Question by Andrew: Why aren’t we trying to get airplanes to run on alternative fuels?
A boeing 747, according to Boeing’s website, has a maximum fuel capacity of 63705 gallons. The maximum distance it can travel is 8826 miles (7670 nautical). If you do the math that amounts to 1/7 of a mile per gallon of jet fuel! These jumbo jets travel thousands of miles per day. Why aren’t more efforts being made to develop alternative fuels for planes?
Best answer:
Answer by Abbey
GOOD QUESTION!!
my gosh!
ive been wondering that too!
Add your own answer in the comments!
Please Link to Me
11 users commented in " Q&A: Alternative Fuels – Why aren’t we trying to get airplanes to run on alternative fuels? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWe are. You should get Aviation magazine. Boeing has been developing a new designed airplane for efficiency.
Remember that most of the airplanes used today, along with NASA, were developed 30 to 40 years ago.
Actually there are. The USAF for instance has been testing alternative fuel on a B1 and B52 test bed. The results are so promising that by 2015 half of its aircraft will run on alternative fuel, and half of that fuel will be synthetic.
Virgin Atlantic became the first carrier to fly with biofuel last February. They used a 20% mix of coconut and babasu oil derivitive. If they can make it cost effective you will see more of it.
You are forgetting that it carries 400 people at 500mph, which means that it gets 60mpg per person.
Actually Japan Airlines is starting to use Bio Fuel for their commercial flights. Don’t worry with the oil price hike carriers really are looking seriously at alternative fuel but they first have to address safety issues. Hope I answer your question.
Cheers.
With the rising cost of fuel today i believe there are moves towards that innovation. But first and foremost, they just have to place reliability and efficiency of such engines utilizing those fuels to met the safety standards of flight.
Ok… true, when you put it that way, the 747 doesnt get very good mileage… But thats only because you are comparing it to cars which usualy get anywhere between 10 and 50 mpg. but cars can only carry a few people at a time, and the 747 can carry 400. So, its actually more efficiant then you think.
alternative fuels are being tested however you have to understand that in order to gain approval for the use of such fuels, additives or mixtures that much testing data and documentation needs to be collected and submitted to the FAA for final approval. It is a process that could take years and hundreds of thousands in cost.
Pecker is right on here. Go work for a company that makes things for airplanes and you’ll understand. It’s a pain in the ass to get something certified for use in an airplane, and manufacturers don’t see any profit in it. Nothing will change until we run out of fuel.
We’ll have to go to Japan first and steal their ideas
First of all, the airliners are carrying 300 or so passengers at that fuel *economy* (1/7 mpg). You must take into account the amount of passengers it carries to calculate the fuel *efficiency*, appr. 45 passenger miles per gallon which is comparable to many cars considering they most of the time they only carry 1 or 2 occupants at a time.
Secondly, Aeronautical and Mechanical Engineers are trying to make alternitive energy safe enough for airplanes. Airplane engines must be much safer. If a car’s engine quits you pull over, if a plane’s engine quits you must make an emergency landing.
Leave A Reply