Click Here to Return to

50 years might seem like a long time, but at least it's a step in the right direction. In Vancouver, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) recently presented the following "challenges" to the aviation industry. I am a little concerned with the terminology "challenge" but we'll see.

Here they are:

Traffic Management
“Cut air traffic inefficiency in half by 2012 and we immediately save 35 million tonnes of CO2."

Technology
The aerospace industry must build a zero emissions aircraft in the next 50 years.

A Global Approach
Climate change is a global issue, requiring a global solution.

Green Business
Green businesses: “The final challenge is for airlines to implement green strategies across the business.

Here's the link...
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/2007-06-04-02.htm

This was proposed to the airline industry. What about general aviation? What can we do? 2yrs?, 10yrs? 50 yrs?

Any thoughts?

boeing is currently playing around with building a solar powered motorglider. it will probably take some major technological breakthroughs to make the power truly reliable and powerful enough to carry much as far as passengers and cargo. great idea though. nothing like a goal

_________________
Everyone must believe in something, I believe that I will go flying.

I read an article about a plane design using fuel cells and hydrogen/methane as the fuel source. Pretty intriguing.

_________________
Jeff Klug
RV-8A prebuild

It's going to be a long time retiring the current GA fleet (I'm not helping, having just acquired a '57 C180 ). But that's going to be key in any change, both for introducing more efficient engines and reducing the need for so much power by reducing weight & drag.

Much could be done with current technology. Today's sailplane designs hover around 50:1 lift to drag. That's 20 pounds of drag (or thrust) to keep a 1000 pound craft moving some 60 miles/hour! I think you get close to that much drag on your hand if you stick it out of a car window!
Our venerable Cessnas and most other SEL craft of years past on the other hand have maybe a 12:1 lift/drag. Requiring 4 TIMES the power to keep the same weight moving horizontally. (Plus they weight more and we want to go faster, which also requires more power.)

Some newer craft are much better, like the Diamond aircraft and other composit craft (prettier too!). But we're sure hesitant to put the old energy hogs to rest.

_________________
Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect.

This is one reason I switched to flying the Diamond Katana. It goes almost as fast as a 172, on approximately half the fuel. It's also a lot quieter.

It might theoretically be possible to green-ify the fleet of older aircraft. Apparently, the modifications to make an internal combustion engine run on hydrogen are not that extensive. Maybe I'll try it on my Volksplane if I ever get it finished.

Stefan Vorkoetter
http://www.stefanv.com

Less fuel is certainly a lot cheaper too!

Here is another link to Marion Blakey's announcement on the 18th...
"A Big Step at the Right Time"

http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/news_s ... ewsId=8989
a

(I like the idea of the volksplane )

...and it looks like Cessna might fall for a diesel?