Chemtrails: holiday update

[Super 80]

Re: Two things....

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 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.

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

Okay Mar, and by the way I liked your story on Difficult Captains, here's the numbers:

Picking a typical flight, 130,000# @ FL330, mach .76 at cruise power, I use 3,096 pounds of fuel per hour per engine.

Times two, that's 6,192 pounds per hour total, divided by an average fuel density of 6.7 pounds per gallon that equates to 924 gal/hr.

At this altitude and airspeed, which is pretty much standard operation for the Super-duper, really Super 80, I'll be doing 442 ktas on a standard day. Assuming no wind, l'll equate that to ground speed and convert to miles as 508mph. Now in that time, I used 924 gallons of kerosene, or jet fuel.

My miles per gallon is 508/924 (per hour cancels out) and I get a whopping .550 miles per gallon.

Granted this is less than 1mpg but I'm hauling 129 people plus a crew of 5 and up to 3 more jump seaters X and W so we kind of make up for it on an individual basis and each person in that scenario would have to get 75 mpg to equate to the total fuel burn to transport them all across the sky as efficiently as a full airplane would.

And we do it pretty safely too. Maybe even better than your SUV.

So no I'm not hypoxic, and yes we are burning millions of gallons of kerosene at altitude every hour of the day without the benefit of a catalytic converter but as far as moving people around, it's not too bad a system. I think that's your economies of scale you were talking about.

Apples and oranges, eh? You can look at it more than one way and try to justify either argument.

The car I drive gets 34mpg.

 

[mar]

So we agree?

Super80--Thanks for the nod re: Difficult Capts.

So we're in agreement over the efficiency of jet aircraft. I was surprised to see that you used M 0.76 in your calculations.

I'm sure the 747 Capt used M 0.86.

At any rate, I appreciate your response.

I think the engine manufacturers have come quite far in the last 20 years in the areas of fuel economy, emissions and noise.

Any self-respecting Greenie will recognize that these aircraft are truly state of the art.

Grid lock on the nation's highways, on the other hand, is nothing but poor planning.

Drive safe.

 

[Super 80]

Re: So we agree?

So we're in agreement over the efficiency of jet aircraft. I was surprised to see that you used M 0.76 in your calculations.

I'm sure the 747 Capt used M 0.86.

Jet aircraft are efficient on a weighted per person basis when fully loaded and flying at the optimal altitude and airspeed.

However, as a gas user, they can be incredibly wasteful when not full. Take my example out of the Performance - Cruise page 13 of my Operating manual. If I take 100 people off, basically 20,000 pounds and I operate it as efficiently as possible, .762 mach and FL370 my total fuel flow will be 5146lbs/hour and the TAS will be 437. Doing the math results in .654 mpg. Now spread over 29 people + 5 crewmembers means we're averaging around 22 mpg if everyone drove separately as far as total fuel usage. That's inline with some SUV's highway mileage.

.76 is the most efficient mach for the Super 80. I looked through the manual because while .77 has the best overall performance, .76 has the highest specific range when compared to .77 and .78 at various weights and altitudes. At .79 or greater, you're just pissing gas away. I can easily burn an extra 1500 pounds on a DFW-IAD leg at .79 and only save a few minutes. Above .81 has been rare in my experience, (3200 F/0, 1100 CA) and I've never done it as Captain.

I think the 74 would fly more around .80-.82. I think the limiting mach on that is .90 and I would be surprised if .86 was its normal cruise. The 72 could easily do .86, but it was a waste of gas too. Although we did do one SJU-IAD flight at .88 with a barber pole descent.

We made up about 20 minutes that night and caught the SJU-BWI flight before Bacus, the checkpoint off N.C. so they got slowed down for ATC separation going in the D.C. area instead of us. We got a good laugh out of it too. We passed over them blacked out with the transponder in stdby, then with both hands, the Captain and I turned everything we had on at once. It gave our friends we had been partying with the previous night a real good start. I'll always remember the Captain, calling on the air-to-air freq; "A/C at 330 identify yourself!" (Jan was pretty laid back, and didn't ruffle easily.) I think he spilled his coffee.

Oh yeah, and on the 72, the FE opened up the Chemgoo nozzles and sprayed Solvent Green all over them. They had to use their wipers to see to land.

 

[414Flyer]

Re: Re: So we agree?

Oh yeah, and on the 72, the FE opened up the Chemgoo nozzles and sprayed Solvent Green all over them. They had to use their wipers to see to land.

And we all know what Solvent Green is made from

PEOPLE!

 

[Denver130]

Chemtrails the controversy

What is it that is mesmerizing people about this issue? Why are intelligent people spending their time analyzing this issue? Don't they have better things to do? To tell you the truth, I never noticed it until a supervisor came to me with a puzzled look on her face and asked me if a contrail grid laid over her area was "normal". I was like you pilots at the time. I was sure there was a logical explanation out there. If I was a pilot I would have quoted page 294 in the HAND BOODK OF CLOUDS and TRAILS and given her the usual explanation of what a jet contrail was.

But anybody with an open mind can see the obvious. It only takes SIMPLE observation to see that what is going on is "un-normal". It doesn't take rocket science, a Doctorate degree or any fancy equipment from NASA. It only takes SIMPLE observation.

For example, grid patterns over your subdivision are totally un-normal as well as X patterns, massive trails, drippy appearance of contrails, on again off again trails being laid by aircraft at low altitudes and on it goes. Any average person on the street (educated or uneducated) can see there’s something un-normal with what they are seeing. Even the skeptics at the office at Conoco after observing these trails daily during lunch hours admitted that they were un-normal. But alas, you have to decide for yourself.

For me the evidence is overwhelming.

1. Government admission: The government admits the existence of this program, just like they acknowledge Area 51, Project SHAD and hundreds of other projects. In order to deny chemtrails you have to close your eyes to what they said.
2. Jet contrail science: If we accept NASA or NOAA's scientific research as to the conditions of contrail formation as valid and as our standard, then we must interpret what we see by that standard. If citizens begin seeing low altitude trails that defy the standards set by NASA and NOAA and we just "write it off as normal", then we might as well close our eyes again.
3. Observation and documentation by citizens: Believe it or not, there's a lot of intelligent people studying the chemtrail issue. They are documenting their observations, reading up on explanations, reading scientific literature and making their own conclusions. Very few are concluding what pilots here believe: that chemtrails is just a hoax. Most, are saying the opposite: this is a real issue. I could ignore these people, but I'd have to close my eyes again to the obvious: people are concluding that this IS an issue.

There’s a lot more to say but for the sake of space I close with this: if you have your eyes closed, people might think your sleeping.

 

[414Flyer]

Here we go again..I still cant decide if you are trolling or not, because while your behavior is troll like, its typical of the chemmies.

You never have told us when an X in the sky is not normal. Do you think planes paths never cross..

Find us anything from NASA or NOAA that back you up.

 

[Mogus]

Denver130, you still haven't yet answered Typhoon's question.

But anybody with an open mind can see the obvious. It only takes SIMPLE observation to see that what is going on is "un-normal". It doesn't take rocket science, a Doctorate degree or any fancy equipment from NASA. It only takes SIMPLE observation.

To the ill-informed, uneducated, ignorant people (and there are a lot of them) out there, many things look strange and unusual. This doesn't mean their observations warrant closer attention. (By the way, where the hell did you come up with "un-normal"? Quit degrading the English language, dumb@$$.)

1. Government admission: The government admits the existence of this program, just like they acknowledge Area 51, Project SHAD and hundreds of other projects. In order to deny chemtrails you have to close your eyes to what they said.

Show me your "Area 51" and its large runway on my Government-published Las Vegas Sectional. You can't. We know it's there but I don't see it on my chart. Since when has "the Government" (whoever the hell that would be) acknowledged its existence?

2. Jet contrail science: If we accept NASA or NOAA's scientific research as to the conditions of contrail formation as valid and as our standard, then we must interpret what we see by that standard. If citizens begin seeing low altitude trails that defy the standards set by NASA and NOAA and we just "write it off as normal", then we might as well close our eyes again.

You misinterpret and misapply their research.

3. Observation and documentation by citizens: Believe it or not, there's a lot of intelligent people studying the chemtrail issue. They are documenting their observations, reading up on explanations, reading scientific literature and making their own conclusions. Very few are concluding what pilots here believe: that chemtrails is just a hoax. Most, are saying the opposite: this is a real issue. I could ignore these people, but I'd have to close my eyes again to the obvious: people are concluding that this IS an issue.

What's your definition of intelligent? "Open-minded"? Naive? Gullible? Obviously there are many gifted and smart people who have strong religious beliefs. Have you ever seen one of these people defend their religion? Their antics often become illogical and childish, despite their usually rational approach to things. The same applies to contrails. People let emotion and feelings override logic and science.

There’s a lot more to say but for the sake of space I close with this: if you have your eyes closed, people might think your sleeping.

Wow, that's deep. Go to hell you moron.

 

[Denver130]

Question: You never have told us when an X in the sky is not normal. Do you think planes paths never cross..

Answer: In Houston, a study was done on jet contrails. One of the things they found was that the average jet contrail lasted less than a minute. If that is true, then an X pattern over Westhiemer and Gessner that lasts for 2 hours could be considered un-normal based on length of time. If you can demonstrate with photos a series of pictures over an hour, I would call that un-normal. I took some pictures on the way to Austin (which has a hotter and dryer climate than Houston) and did this. You can see the results at

http://www.geocities.com/houstonchemtrails/Austin3.html

Heres another common scenio: chemtrails below cloud level. Its too hot in Houston to form jet contrails below cloud level on an average day. (clouds in Houston are typically between 5K and 10K feet, well below the 30,000ft plus you need for chemtrails)

And yet here they are:

http://www.geocities.com/houstonchemtrails/dec1102.html

What about Las Vegas? If there ever was a dry, hot environment that is not conducive to contrails of any sort, surely you wouldn't expect contrails there would you? But alas, examine those at

http://www.geocities.com/houstonchemtrails/vegas1.html

What is fascinating to me is the mammoth size of the trails in the top 2 photos. Since jet contrails occur over 30,000ft, they should appear pencil thin not like a giant train track in the sky.

A more important question concerning Vegas is why are chemtrails in Vegas at all? Of all places, this climate of hot, dry desert shouldn't fit the bill for anything.

Here is what one Vegas citizen says about these observations:

"Chemtrails are a common sight here in Las Vegas. They appear EVERY weekend without fail, the only exception being the two weeks after September 11, 2001.

An acquaintance once tried to assure me that it was just the result of heavier air traffic and atmospheric conditions. But he couldn't tell me how the atmospheric conditions were always so favorable to trails on the weekend, especially when the weather here is so consistent from one day to the next during the summer.

We stood there and counted 11 jets in the air; nine of which were leaving trails, and some that were not leaving trails were flying at a higher altitude than the ones that were. That was on Sunday. The very next day, I took him back outside for another look. That time we counted 9 planes in the air, none of which were leaving trails. How very curious. The temperature was the same, and the air traffic only slightly less. Yet the trails were gone! They came back on Thursday, of course, and stayed for the weekend once again. That was a rare Monday, though, as it is common for the trails to still be hanging around then. We almost never have chemtrails on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, but they are here Friday through Sunday like clockwork."

What should we do with this gentleman’s testimony? You decide.

Question: Find us anything from NASA or NOAA that back you up.

NASA and NOAA both say this: Jet contrails occur under the following conditions:

1. Extremely cold temperatures - -40 is the temp most start at
2. High altitudes: Usually 30,000ft and above
3. High humidity: to the point of saturation (80 percent or higher)

So when my Continental pilot tells me that the bottom of the clouds is at 2,000ft and the top is 4,000ft and I get off of the plane and look up and see jet contrails under those clouds in the shape of an X, is that normal? No.... Do you see what I'm saying... This is what people all over the country are observing.

Some of the links but not all that I have found verifying this are:

http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/Flagstaff/science/contrail.htm
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/oth/cntrl.rxml
http://130.104.105.148/Bede/EBED302000/A5-187-2000.pdf
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/Pubs/Aeroeng/eng393.pdf
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/reports/2000/meps/aviationrptdraft.htm

 

[414Flyer]

So its not the X now that is unusual, its the persistance of the contrail? Make up your mind. Contrails persisted during WW2 Was that a giant spraying operation??

According to your logic, there shouldnt be snow on mountain tops either, because that is certainly warmer and more able to support evaporation/sublimation, than air at the flight levels.

Clouds in Houston are typically wherever they are, because of temperature/dewpoint spread. Maybe lower altitudes in winter, higher in summer. But there is no typical altitude.

Air at 24000 ft on up, is not hot anywhere, and while it can be dry, it takes little moisture to saturate it. Especially once you are in the 30,0000 - 40000s.

If you say it is hot in the air way above Las Vegas, tell us a temperature for the air in the 20s or 30000s.

Contrails do not have to be pencil thin, just as any cloud does not have to be any certain shape.

You have never seen contrails under clouds that are 2000 ft above the ground.

Give us a link where NASA says it has to be -40 anyways?

DId you see this quote on that same NASA website? If you had read it carefully, it completely blows away your whole conspiracy

"Since air temperatures at these high atmospheric levels are very cold (generally colder than -40 F), only a small amount of liquid is necessary for condensation to occur."

Your Green Party page doesnt mention chemtrails anywhere.

Its obvious what you are doing, is starting with your conspiracy belief, and then trying to find anything you can, any sentence, that can possibly support your belief. How about educating yourself, then coming to a conclusion. And no, reading carnicom.com, rense.com and chemtrailcentrail.com does not qualify.

 

[uscpilot]

"Chemtrails are a common sight here in Las Vegas. They appear EVERY weekend without fail, the only exception being the two weeks after September 11, 2001.

I dont know how this quote supports your theory. The groundstop following 9-11 affected civil aircraft. Presumably military/goverment aircraft would be allowed to fly. Since it is the government that is responsible for these chemtrails wouldnt they still persist on those post 9-11 days?

The link to the NOAA says exactly what we have been telling you. The pictures they showed might were identical to your "chemtrails". Further more while you provide weather conditions at the surface you are not giving the weather conditions at alititude. You have no way of accuratly measuring their altitude so you cannot possibly provide the correct tempratures. Look at a wind and temp aloft chart for Las Vegas for the summer, you will be suprised.
The only "emperical reshearch" that you have is what the weather was in Houston as stated by the Capt of a Continental Airlines flight. I dont know how many times I have gotten off of a plane and the weather is different than what the flight crew said it was. They are only relating what the most current weather report says. I t could be an hour old, compounded by the fact that the weather is give to the passangers in mid flight or during the descent some 20-30 minutes before deplaning. Of course then you went into the terminal waited for your bags then went out side. As much as two or more hours could have elapsed between the time the origonal weather observation was made and the time you made your amature observation. Weather conditions can change alot duing in a very short amount of time. This is undoubtably what happened.
Where is this government research that contradicts us? Dont link to some huge 50 page document. I dont have time to sift through endless amounts of parlimentary procedure. If it is there show it to me/us.
Otherwise STOP WASTING OUR TIME!!!
USC