Chemtrails: holiday update

[C425Driver]

Listen up, people! Chemtrails are nothing new and are not just used as a conspiracy by the U.S. government. The history of Chemtrails and Chemgoo goes back to WWII and it is a worldwide conspiracy. Check out the link below. It clearly shows B-17's and their fighter escorts spreading massive amounts of Chemgoo over Europe and disguising the whole operation as a bombing mission. Can you imagine if Hitler had this technology?

And who wouldda believed that the Marianas Turkey Shoot wasn't really a dogfight? Nope, just a joint American/Japanese chemgoo dispersal operation.

http://www.goodsky.homestead.com/files/gallery.html

 

[mizzouguy]

Well thats about 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back reading all that crap

 

[Big Duke Six]

Brett...

Brett - I think you've been pucked in the head a few too many times.

 

[ShawnC]

You guys give the word and Denver130 is gone. We at the FAA already have his address.

We can't have a trouble maker like Denver scaring our spray pilots.

 

[blueridge71]

One question Denver...
If us pilots ARE dumping chemicals in the sky, why isn't the pilot population getting sick, ill, whatever?

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but on the Dornier 328 the chemical hopper and sprayer is in the tail and I make sure to never go near the tail while the rampers are loading and/or servicing it.

 

[mar]

Two things....

1) I feel dirty for participating in this thread. I'll be taking a shower when I'm finished here.

2) Super80, my fine feathered friend, I believe you're truly hypoxic. You wrote, <<The truth is that chemical pollution is being spread daily by our burning of semi-refined petrol-chemical fossil fuels in the upper reaches of our atmosphere.

And it's really not a secret...and when the green movement gets a hold of this, their potential campaign against aviation will make their war against fur and meat seem benign.>>

There is no question that large transport category aircraft are the most efficient users of fossil fuel.

I won't insult your intelligence with a dissertation on the concept of economies of scale but if anyone else doubts it that's where they should start their investigation.

I just had a conversation with a 747-400 Capt who told me he calculated his "mileage" to be about 3 miles per gallon.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the most wasteful application fossil fuel burners is the big-assed SUV which may manage a cool 12 miles per gallon.

Now you tell me. If you really wanted to do something about air pollution where would you start?

Please do us a favor and tone down the rhetoric and tune up the rational thinking.

Thanks a million.

 

[Brett Hull]

Well thats about 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back reading all that crap

You look new around here so you probably missed this
and this.

See you in a few hours.

 

[flywithastick]

Re: Two things....

There is no question that large transport category aircraft are the most efficient users of fossil fuel.

as compared to what?! A ship? A tractor trailer rig? Bus? auto?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the most wasteful application fossil fuel burners is the big-assed SUV which may manage a cool 12 miles per gallon.

Again, as compared to what?! That city mass transit bus? A motorcycle? A LearJet? 737? A Geo Metro?!

As for the EEE-vil SUV's, my wife drives the kids around in a Chevy Suburban. Get's 15 mpg every day around town. My big ol' 1/2 ton pickup truck get about 16 with AC, 17 without.

The Toyota Camry we used to have got about 22-24 mpg in the city.

What matters to me is: 1. safety (family protection), with reliability, purchase cost, operating cost following up.

Thr Suburban weighs about 2.3 times more than the Camry. This translates into a vehicle that's 2.3 times as safe, from a kinetic energy standpoint. Not to mention it has 9 seats, versus the camry's 5.

Decision - Suburban, based on:

1. safety - hands down (outright weight, and mileage-weight comparison), and

2. mileage-seat comparisons.

Ain't it great in the US one is still free (so far) to buy and use whatever vehicle is made and sold!!!

Now you tell me. If you really wanted to do something about air pollution where would you start?

I say we ban all volcanic eruptions!!!

and ban all airborne polution from illegally crossing the US's southern border!!

 

[mar]

You're not gonna like my answer so....

Why bother?

The question is really "How do we plan our society to make the most out of mass transit?"

But I know this reeks of communist-style Central Planning.

Whatever man.

Go ahead and drive your Suburban. It really makes no difference in my quality of life.

I just happen to react when I read a train of thought taken to absurd lengths. You know, like banning volcanic eruptions.

Have a nice day. If you can.

 

[EagleRJ]

Re: Re: Two things....

as compared to what?! A ship? A tractor trailer rig? Bus? auto?

Again, as compared to what?! That city mass transit bus? A motorcycle? A LearJet? 737? A Geo Metro?!

SUV- 9 people at 70 mph- 15 MPG
car- 4 people at 70 mph- 24 MPG
airliner- 350 people at 500 mph- 3 MPG

I'd say that airplanes are pretty efficient.

I've always wondered how much jet engines pollute, compared to a modern car with a catalytic converter. Diesels are fairly dirty as far as particulates, but usually have lower smog outputs. I wonder if Jet-A is comperable, since it's similar to diesel fuel, but burns at a much higher temperature in jets.
Older Stage II jets leave a noticable smoke trail, but newer jets appear to run without a noticible exhaust.