One fact that was missed from this particular video... jet fuel is not taxed like petrol or diesel in your car. If it was, then the airplane would lose the battle. It only wins because the airline industry has friends in high places (no pun intended).
@jet49263 жыл бұрын
You have a point regarding taxes.
@rkan23 жыл бұрын
Airlines usually also have other major tax advantages too... Like say your Irish Aircraft Lessor..
@misham65473 жыл бұрын
on the other hand those taxes are for maintaining the road so it makes no sense to charge them just like offroad fuel is also untaxed, unless we start charging carbon taxes
@DanSmithBK3 жыл бұрын
@@misham6547 only about ten percent of the taxes on fuel are used to maintain the roads in the UK!
@misham65473 жыл бұрын
@@DanSmithBK in the UK
@jd143053 жыл бұрын
0:23 The best a380 livery I have seen so far
@aviationchannel62043 жыл бұрын
HAHA
@Tobu9105F3 жыл бұрын
Lol
@tinuvarun58067 ай бұрын
But I think thats the worst one
@jd143057 ай бұрын
@@tinuvarun5806 "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
@Ananth81933 жыл бұрын
Simple flying A380 livery looks good 😉😉😉😉
@filthywings3533 жыл бұрын
Hardly any 747s carried 500 passengers over a 5 hour flight. Most carried 350 to 380 passengers.
@coldforgedcowboy3 жыл бұрын
They used 500, to simplify the math, these are journalists not engineers.
@spongebubatz3 жыл бұрын
I flew on a 747(-400) with around 400 seats, standard for the airline
@coldforgedcowboy3 жыл бұрын
@@spongebubatz ... This is why the 747 is being replaced by the 777-9 which can seat 426 people.
@larrydugan14413 жыл бұрын
The 777 is more fuel efficient than the 747 and the belly cargo is the equivalent of a fully loaded 18 wheeler. Not an insignificant amount.
@CocoaBeachLiving3 жыл бұрын
79% of people that haven't subscribed, but a lot of the channels I watch have less than 5% subscribed, so you're doing better than most 😁 yes, I'm subscribed 😉
@Chris_at_Home3 жыл бұрын
I commuted to work for years and the pilot of the 737 told us it took 7 gallons per person in a full plane to take us 631 miles. When you think about that and it only took 1 hr and 40 minutes it is pretty amazing.
@rkan23 жыл бұрын
Meh, not really.. With a sufficiently designed boat, you could probably take a similar mass than the said 737 a similar distance on the sea with a similar amount of fuel as per person. Of course it would take a week or thee, but..
@Chris_at_Home3 жыл бұрын
@@rkan2 you can’t get a boat there most of the year as it is frozen. The distance by water is way over 1000 miles to get there.
@rkan23 жыл бұрын
@@Chris_at_Home Ever heard of icebreakers? Should work fine for most seasonal ice.
@Art_bor3 жыл бұрын
The a380 looks *gorgeous* awesome job 👌
@trevorgwelch7412 Жыл бұрын
Remember a 777-300 ER is more fuel efficient then 4 people in a Honda Civic ( University Study )
@59jm245 ай бұрын
Same true of all modern aircraft.
@tinuvarun58065 ай бұрын
High power to weight and bypass ratio.
@Art_bor3 жыл бұрын
3 minutes late man i actually was thinking about this 3 days ago tnx for this vid 👍
@cade_olson3 жыл бұрын
Really curious how much fuel something like a 777-300 ER would need for a 13 hr flight to qatar or tokyo.
@meme-od2vs5 ай бұрын
About 110,000 litres are enough, considering no hard turbulence on its journey .
@CLdriver19603 жыл бұрын
Thank you for pointing out the economics of air travel. What we tend to overlook is the incredible speeds that these machines are capable of while delivering a low passenger seat mpg. As we know, speed costs $$
@JosipRadnik12 жыл бұрын
Well, I don't think comparing the fuel consumption of an almost fully loaded airplane on a long distance flight with the consumption of a car that has just one person in it. You'll have to put 4 people in the car (which normally would take up to 5 people) in order to have a fair comparison - or take 3 people for the car and 400 people for the plane - that'll be more realistic anyway.
@fkaptijn71113 жыл бұрын
Miles, gallon? What is it? The majority of the people use liters and km, or in the aviation nautical mile
@j.s.73353 жыл бұрын
I actually think a lot about fuel burn. If you think about it, 1 gallon per second isn't a lot. You figure you're going a mile each 6 seconds, so that's only six gallons per mile, carrying hundreds of people. As a fun aside, you can measure the speed pretty well when flying over the central US where the roads are a mile apart. It will be a little under 6 seconds between when each road passes under the edge of the wing.
@rkan23 жыл бұрын
But then again... 6 gallons per mile would allow for with mpg you could run ~355 Toyota Priuses (59mpg/0.166mpg) the same distance. With electric vehicles that number would also be around twice as high if ee consider the MPGe. Also 355 priuses would weigh around 500 tons, though also considerably more if you were to carry 4 passengers in each.
@will8914103 жыл бұрын
I subscribed.
@actemple32823 жыл бұрын
Great blog keep up the good work
@SimpleFlyingNews3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the feedback! - JS
@TheFirePilot3 жыл бұрын
Fuel questions are always a topic people are interested in. Have to say I am one of them as well. Thanks!
@SimpleFlyingNews3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the feedback! - TB
@habun_islam3 жыл бұрын
Nice
@trob09143 жыл бұрын
INTERESTING! I wonder(somebody's already figured it) in comparison, how much fuel the first B 707s and DC-8s burned per hour?? Thanks..
@harrybarodawala35883 жыл бұрын
707-300 is about 7.2 tonnes an hour and the DC-8 about 8 tonnes
@trob09143 жыл бұрын
@@harrybarodawala3588 Thanks, I appreciate your response!
@alphaadhito3 жыл бұрын
Types of normal fuel load: Trip fuel, diversion fuel, reserve fuel, contingency fuel, taxi fuel and some additional fuel Air Canada Flight 143: What trip fuel?
@killefitz353 жыл бұрын
The world is metric. I've subscribed this very interesting channel, but will unsubscribe, if finally you don't learn, that the metric system is world standard. It is for fueling a plane, as it is for all kinds of scientists. Even in the USA, Australia and the UK, although still not used in public. Not using metric lead to crashed Mars probes and sailing passenger planes without fuel. Use terms, that are used worldwide within the industry, fuel is liters, weight is kilograms, distances are nautical miles. If someone is here for indepth information about airplane industry, he'll know the terms and can work with that. Although I like the simple flying A 380 very much. Keep on with your excellent work, but keep industry terms, not those from the grocery store.
@timmanboy13 жыл бұрын
The aviation standard is the imperial system in all certified aircraft manufacturers like Boeing or Airbus
@timwynn60793 жыл бұрын
atr 72-600 drinks about 242 gal/hr, much less than turbo fans.
@nurrizadjatmiko213 жыл бұрын
That's great
@leonard.c Жыл бұрын
One question, how can a flight from London to NY be 25.000$? They need around 50 tons of fuel, and unfortunately the price per kg is not 0,5$
@craigbrown53597 ай бұрын
Outstanding!!!
@timwilson87283 жыл бұрын
Why are you using a 747-400, an aircraft that has been retired by almost all airlines? I know it is the extreme example, but it would have been better to compare an efficient 787 with other fleets.
@B512173 жыл бұрын
Awesome and Nice video 👍☺️
@SimpleFlyingNews3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the feedback! - JS
@MrBat0002 жыл бұрын
You got it wrong at 3:14 about fuel consumption. Its not $25000 for fuel... Its over $250,000 on fuel. big diff.
@bigfish74933 жыл бұрын
Depending upon the aircraft Type, the fan-jet, turbo-prop, pure turbo jet, reportedly consume more petro based fuel per person (passenger) than competitive forms of transport. The trade-off is speed/time. Please consult the various websites that report estimations of fuel-burn and related yields of pollutants that are emitted by aircraft. Keep in mind that over 10,000 aircraft are said to be airborn at any one time around be this planet. If you live under a flight path, you're already polluted, same as living nearby to any major autoroute. We inhale minute particles of spent petroleum fuels, automobile cast-offs such as brake pad and fanbelt residue, and everything else that can be expended for the sake of producing and converting heat energy into kinetic motion. That is the basic reason why life as we know it on planet Earth is imperiled.
@nanettewalker40653 жыл бұрын
Where do they put the fuel? How do they manage “Sloshing” movement of large amounts of fuel. How long does it take to file a plane… how much fuel comes out of those hoses compared to a fire hose or other high pressure hoses..? So many questions…
@sexigrande17923 жыл бұрын
Fuel is stored in the wings and centre fuselage tanks. Some large aircraft even store fuel in the tail. Tanks are often design with bulkhead webs or baffles to reduce sloshing. Some even use foam I believe. Fueling times vary depending on the amounts, among already onboard, number of hoses, type of aircraft etc. Fuelling hoses generally operate at approximately 50 psi if my memory serves me right. Note: I was a fuel tank repair mechanic for a number of years.
@Grouuumpf2 жыл бұрын
Hi, maintenance technician here. We have an *old* refueling trailer at work when our 737 come and go. Ours is rated for 600L per minute, I'm guessing newer ones may push more than that. Takes about half an hour to fill our 737-400 to the brim. And as the other commenter said, there are baffles in the tanks to reduce sloshing. Every couple of baffles, one is completely watertight in one way with valves to let the fuel flow inboard but not outboard.
@johnn3542 Жыл бұрын
What about short flights with small private jets? Or any large pleasure vehicle. Hate seeing someone in some huge 4x4 vehicle, truck is one thing but you don't need no hummer. Or the 100k pickup just to drive to your office job.
@rajeshmohan10023 жыл бұрын
Modern jet engines only use 22 percent of there power when at there cruising altitudes where there is less air density which means less drag for them, in fact at take off a jet engine needs to use full power, 100 percent engine power available to it because of the air drag.
@EricPham-gr8pg4 ай бұрын
I heard it consume on the average 3 galon / minute fly but that could be equal to fighter jet
@mann25203 жыл бұрын
Well it does depend on the distance so
@Inspiron3158 ай бұрын
Actually airplane turbine doesn't consume fuel when reached 40,000 feet and it's 500 mph research.
@theperson185 Жыл бұрын
35x1800 roughly is 63k if you drove only highway with no stopping at all
@ramprasaddas52903 жыл бұрын
@0:52 the calculation of Conversion of 18000 Gals is Wrong, it should be 18000 x 3. 79= 68,220. But you guys have written 68.137 L which is too small compared to the 18000 even.
@pedjarudnikpcservis6 ай бұрын
Where putting this amount of fuel?
@jsmorrow66003 жыл бұрын
Do airliners use Fuel System Icing Inhibitor (FSII)?
@ulukhan3 жыл бұрын
How am I so early
@iownmystrawman66002 жыл бұрын
None! It's a hoax
@alexf9622 жыл бұрын
LMAo sure honey.
@harrybarodawala35883 жыл бұрын
1:10 can you please include the metric system as well? about 95% of the world, can't imagine half a million miles without a caculator
@SimpleFlyingNews3 жыл бұрын
We're working on it. Unfortunately, it'll take time to trickle through to our videos. - TB
@InfiniteHorizons3 жыл бұрын
It is about 804 672 KM
@FreeJulianAssange232 жыл бұрын
When does he get to the point?
@veryfrozen327111 ай бұрын
Where is the 1,800 gallons stored??
@bryanbufton Жыл бұрын
Remember you got to get to the airport Add the fuel for the total trip
@sinblago2 жыл бұрын
The answer is "they spent a lot of fuel but its cheap "shortly.
@MD-md4th Жыл бұрын
This is silly! The comparison must be based on trip, not vehicle. To fly from NYC to London on the most efficient planes available ( 787 & A350 ) with all seats occupied burns about 40-45 gallons of fuel per seat. That’s not terrible, until you think how long it takes the average driver to use 40-45 gallons of fuel. Frequent and or long-distance flying is about the most environmentally damaging thing you can do as an individual, far worse than driving. The real issue is whether the trip should be made at all. I am not a green zealot - I love to fly and I do fly.
@danielyoungblood85252 жыл бұрын
What about millitary planes?
@bw74713 жыл бұрын
DOPE!
@wearethemags66133 жыл бұрын
Before we go any further, please do us a favour & STOP NAGGING PEOPLE TO SUBSCRIBE! It really means a lot...
@johnkean68523 жыл бұрын
According to a KZbin channel planes only need fuel to get them in the air; then once buoyant they only require air to keep the turbines turning. *Don't kill the messenger* It seems pretty convincing to me. 😐 _Watch the channel first before you opinionate in the commentary please._
@ivanz32222 жыл бұрын
When u realize that full tank of fuel in your car one aircraft burns in about 60 seconds. That's insane
@YungCarl10 Жыл бұрын
Even more insane when u realise that planes store enough fuel to fill about 1500 bathtubs…
@GyanPrakash3 жыл бұрын
7
@wafflehorse14233 жыл бұрын
Hi I’m first viewer
@shubhambhuwania27693 жыл бұрын
Quite short i was looking for something more detailed
@briandicks3805 Жыл бұрын
Airbus A380 Carries 127 Tonns of fuel in each wing Plus the weight of 2 Jets engines and all the hydraulics 😂😂😂😂😂
@Ex-Pear-Rocker Жыл бұрын
Most people will never question that!!
@briandicks3805 Жыл бұрын
Most never question anything just sheep following the flock 🐑🐑🐑
@rcairflr11 ай бұрын
@@briandicks3805 Who is the sheep? I would say it is you. I've worked on many large aircraft. I have been inside the wing, I have fueled them. What is your experience with aircraft?
@Luke_Go3 жыл бұрын
Talking about KLM... They are so focused on cutting back carbon emission, that they extended the gas-guzzling 747s for as long as possible... (even if they could have easily replaced them years ago for more environmental-friendly airplanes)
@MarcusNesbitt43 жыл бұрын
Replacing planes uses a lot of Carbon in the manufacturing of a new plane, so extending the life of an older plane by a few years can make sense.
@CARBONHAWK13 жыл бұрын
Hey I’m not complaining
@Luke_Go3 жыл бұрын
@@MarcusNesbitt4 That is a great excuse! KLM should fly the old Air France A380s. Like that, no new 777x need to be produced... (Would you really believe such a marketing scam?)
@Hattonbank3 жыл бұрын
@@MarcusNesbitt4 Same applies to cars. 40% of carbon emmissions over the lifetime of the average car is taken up manufacturing all of the components and materials and final assembly. Not sure what the ratio is for aircraft, probably less, but your point is valid.
@petedambski3792Ай бұрын
Where does all that fuel fit? LOL
@ecomindedchoice3 жыл бұрын
Does 18,000 gallons of jet fuel really cost only $25,000, sounds kind of low to me?
@Hattonbank3 жыл бұрын
No tax on it.
@EricPham-gr8pg4 ай бұрын
Contract luggage carrier separate save time and fuels
@bryanbufton Жыл бұрын
If your car is carrying one person then you should compare the plane with one person. I take 5 people in my car, so leave me alone, the best I ever got was 80 to the gallon.
@kaxrimm3 жыл бұрын
Do u thing the big planes will ever come back?
@coldforgedcowboy3 жыл бұрын
Not with current birth rates below replacement, we won't that kind of density on an aircraft.
@user-no6gy9sd3f3 жыл бұрын
No electric plane?
@Servant-Of-Al-Qudus2 жыл бұрын
La ilaha illAllah.
@gooner723 жыл бұрын
A car maybe more economical but a car can't get to 35,000 ft, doesn't give you the experience an aircraft can and can't fly across as ocean.... argument over, job done!!
@ulukhan3 жыл бұрын
8 views 9 likes ??
@Jodyrides Жыл бұрын
A typical passenger commercial jet gets .2 miles per gallon or, 5 gallons per mile. A greyhound bus gets 6 miles per gallon To fly the New York Jets football team from New York to Pittsburgh takes approximately 1400 to 1600 gallons of jet fuel.. that does not take into consideration the amount of fuel used while in a holding position, waiting The entire team and equipment could be carried by two greyhound type buses. To make that same trip, a single bus would use approximately 63 gallons of fuel, two buses would use 126 gallons of fuel.. A savings of approximately 1400 gallons.. if we really want to save the earths environment. We should eliminate nonessential air flights. At any given moment, there are thousands of commercial passenger jets in the air. A typical Jet carries around 60,000 gallons of fuel.. A typical commercial airliner will burn 36,000 gallons of fuel every 10 hours.. to make those planes pay for themselves, their airlines have to keep those planes in the air 20 hours a day.. that’s over 70,000 gallons of fuel used by a typical airliner every day..Do some math, 1000 claims burns 70,000,000 gallons of fuel every day. That amount of fuel requires 11,700 gasoline tank trucks to transport. And that’s just considering how much fuel just 1000 planes use. There are 5000 planes in the air at every moment of the day 24 hours a day just over the United States… that comes out to 350,000,000 gallons of jet fuel being burned just over the United States every single day.. are all those trips to Disneyland and to visit Florida and the Grand Canyon really that important? If people would take the train or the bus or even drive, that would really save the amount of carbon being dumped into the atmosphere every single day.. keep this in mind. 80% of the population of the United States has never been on a plane. All that fuel is being burned by less than 20% of the population..80% of the country population is getting along without flying
@clarifiedevidence5302 жыл бұрын
Liars
@alexf9622 жыл бұрын
Huh? Oh right, only compressed air, right? Poor you gullible fools...
@searching6163 жыл бұрын
I now support air travel
@jahu353 жыл бұрын
feet, gallons, miles and pounds ? it's not like it's way more convenient to use metric measurements right 🥴 ?
@harrybarodawala35883 жыл бұрын
0:03 haha, most of us take this granted because there are people more better qualified to look after it called pilots 😂
@zk90583 жыл бұрын
What’s with the 79% of you who haven’t yet subscribed?
@emilioiglesias74012 жыл бұрын
F*** affordable but a what price? So polluting
@davidanderson29157 ай бұрын
Ok Tesla. How about some electric airplanes? 😂
@david.stachon3 жыл бұрын
If you'd like to be depressed, every pound of fuel turns into about three pounds of CO2 when burned.
@coldforgedcowboy3 жыл бұрын
Trees need to breath too!
@david.stachon3 жыл бұрын
@@coldforgedcowboy They have too much to breath, and unfortunately can't keep up.
@TheLostfoundation3 жыл бұрын
Better turn off the electricity to your house and walk to wherever you want to go and plant your own food
@david.stachon3 жыл бұрын
@@Cartoonman154 yes. We need to fix that.
@david.stachon3 жыл бұрын
@@TheLostfoundation yeah, I'm sure that'll fix it.
@cdimmm Жыл бұрын
fill it up on a scale.
@sexigrande1792 Жыл бұрын
That’s why there’s fuel capacitance probes.
@sabine48672 жыл бұрын
Seems strange to have fuel in the tail,wings .Sthing doesn't sound right. Planes carry so much fuel 🤔
@paulshepherd82952 жыл бұрын
Look at it this way. An average car engine produces about 150 horsepower. Just one of the two engines on a Boeing 777 produces 110,000 horsepower (no, that's not a typo). It burns about 3 tons of fuel an hour. A long flight can be 15 hours duration. That's why they need so much fuel.
@ATLMike94 Жыл бұрын
Aircraft wings are EXTREMELY big. You can't really tell from the inside of a plane
@aviator3563 жыл бұрын
you neads to tell this to grean peas lol
@stensballe36835 күн бұрын
they run on compressed air though 🤡
@wafflehorse14233 жыл бұрын
You know what else uses 1 gallon per second my crappy American made car
@vashishnaipaul2315 Жыл бұрын
This is false information
@mattdaddy_8887 ай бұрын
I can only just immagine Greta Thumberg watching this video 💀
@MatthewHarding0073 жыл бұрын
1st
@ethank65643 жыл бұрын
Noo! You just beat me lol
@MarcusNesbitt43 жыл бұрын
For once you actually are
@angelaashford5844 Жыл бұрын
Want the truth
@speedbird9313 Жыл бұрын
And?🤷🏻♂️
@Ex-Pear-Rocker Жыл бұрын
Most people can't handle the truth!
@MrKlinton1987 Жыл бұрын
This is bs how you can put 200tons of fuel in 747 into wings 🤣🤣
@7KIslands Жыл бұрын
This propaganda for the gullible 🤣
@GypsyHunter232UK2 жыл бұрын
They got no need to use fosil fuels now they have Alien E.T power technologies
@sinblago2 жыл бұрын
The answer is "they spent a lot of fuel but its cheap "shortly.