What is more environmentally friendly? An A320 or a car?Do jet contrails impact weather?How much of an improvement would a 1% weight decrease on an airplane be to the industry?How much fuel do the new A320-Winglets burn vs. the B737-800?A320 procedures for one thrust reverser inoperative; why is the old procedure more efficient?What is the “No Step” flap thingy used for on an A320 engine?Why do outboard spoilers deploy more than the inboard spoiler on the A320?What dictates the A320's 'emergency ram air inlet' operation?What is “temporary flight plan” in A320 MCDU?What is the “off-side engine generator” on an A320?What is the unit for the oil quantity display in the Airbus A320 ECAM?What is this small black rubber strip protruding out of the flap track fairing of the A320?What are the BUGS and RST buttons on the A320's ISIS for?what would couse uneven fuel levels in a cessna 207?

Why isn't there any 9.5 digit multimeter or higher?

ECDSA: Why is SigningKey shorter than VerifyingKey

Japanese reading of an integer

Why is の所 used after ドア in this sentence?

Why radial coordinate of a particle must decrease continuously once it is inside the Schwarzschild radius?

Why would anyone ever invest in a cash-only etf?

Copying an existing HTML page and use it, is that against any copyright law?

8086 stack segment and avoiding overflow in interrupts

Must a song using the A minor scale begin or end with an Am chord? If not, how can I tell what the scale is?

To find islands of 1 and 0 in matrix

Why not notify faculty candidates of the position being filled?

What steps would an amateur scientist have to take in order to get a scientific breakthrough published?

Spacing after a tikz figure

How can Paypal know my card is being used in another account?

Adopting a feral cat

Why did Windows 95 crash the whole system but newer Windows only crashed programs?

What is this 4 sharp symbol and what does it mean?

Why is it "on the inside" and not "in the inside"?

How to store my pliers and wire cutters on my desk?

Filter search results by multiple filters in one operation

What are the closest international airports in different countries?

Why did House of Representatives need to condemn Trumps Tweets?

Should I accept an invitation to give a talk from someone who might review my proposal?

Does Wolfram Mathworld make a mistake describing a discrete probability distribution with a probability density function?



What is more environmentally friendly? An A320 or a car?


Do jet contrails impact weather?How much of an improvement would a 1% weight decrease on an airplane be to the industry?How much fuel do the new A320-Winglets burn vs. the B737-800?A320 procedures for one thrust reverser inoperative; why is the old procedure more efficient?What is the “No Step” flap thingy used for on an A320 engine?Why do outboard spoilers deploy more than the inboard spoiler on the A320?What dictates the A320's 'emergency ram air inlet' operation?What is “temporary flight plan” in A320 MCDU?What is the “off-side engine generator” on an A320?What is the unit for the oil quantity display in the Airbus A320 ECAM?What is this small black rubber strip protruding out of the flap track fairing of the A320?What are the BUGS and RST buttons on the A320's ISIS for?what would couse uneven fuel levels in a cessna 207?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;








5












$begingroup$


Presuming the A320 is at least 80% full (of passengers) and comparing it to a typical road car with 2 people inside, which one is more environmentally friendly, per passenger mile?



I have attempted to do some rudimentary calculations, but then was reading that because aircraft release their emissions at altitude, this offsets (?) some of the environmental impact.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$









  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Define environmentally friendly. Are you referring to global warming or air quality (e.g. fine particulates)?
    $endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (also, the typical road car has one person inside, sadly)
    $endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    8 hours ago

















5












$begingroup$


Presuming the A320 is at least 80% full (of passengers) and comparing it to a typical road car with 2 people inside, which one is more environmentally friendly, per passenger mile?



I have attempted to do some rudimentary calculations, but then was reading that because aircraft release their emissions at altitude, this offsets (?) some of the environmental impact.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$









  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Define environmentally friendly. Are you referring to global warming or air quality (e.g. fine particulates)?
    $endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (also, the typical road car has one person inside, sadly)
    $endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    8 hours ago













5












5








5


1



$begingroup$


Presuming the A320 is at least 80% full (of passengers) and comparing it to a typical road car with 2 people inside, which one is more environmentally friendly, per passenger mile?



I have attempted to do some rudimentary calculations, but then was reading that because aircraft release their emissions at altitude, this offsets (?) some of the environmental impact.










share|improve this question









$endgroup$




Presuming the A320 is at least 80% full (of passengers) and comparing it to a typical road car with 2 people inside, which one is more environmentally friendly, per passenger mile?



I have attempted to do some rudimentary calculations, but then was reading that because aircraft release their emissions at altitude, this offsets (?) some of the environmental impact.







airbus-a320 fuel-consumption environment






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 8 hours ago









CloudCloud

3,9463 gold badges28 silver badges70 bronze badges




3,9463 gold badges28 silver badges70 bronze badges










  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Define environmentally friendly. Are you referring to global warming or air quality (e.g. fine particulates)?
    $endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (also, the typical road car has one person inside, sadly)
    $endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    8 hours ago












  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Define environmentally friendly. Are you referring to global warming or air quality (e.g. fine particulates)?
    $endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    8 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    (also, the typical road car has one person inside, sadly)
    $endgroup$
    – Sanchises
    8 hours ago







5




5




$begingroup$
Define environmentally friendly. Are you referring to global warming or air quality (e.g. fine particulates)?
$endgroup$
– Sanchises
8 hours ago





$begingroup$
Define environmentally friendly. Are you referring to global warming or air quality (e.g. fine particulates)?
$endgroup$
– Sanchises
8 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
(also, the typical road car has one person inside, sadly)
$endgroup$
– Sanchises
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
(also, the typical road car has one person inside, sadly)
$endgroup$
– Sanchises
8 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

I'm going to simplify and assume that jets and cars burn the same fuel, and output the same exhaust, CO2, NOx and all. I'm going to compare only short-haul flights against cars.



According to Wikipedia, an A-320-NEO does 1.95L/100km per seat. Assuming flying at 80% capacity, that gives us 2.4L/100km per seat. According to
The Car Guide, a 2019 Honda Civic does 6.5L/100km. Assuming an average car carries 2 people, that gets 3.2L/100km. It would seem like flying is slightly better, using this simplistic measure.



Keep in mind that the longer you fly, the better the mileage, since the takeoff and climb are the fuel guzzling segments.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$














  • $begingroup$
    This is just based on emissions from the fuel, but contrails are actually worse for the climate compared to the direct CO2 emissions.
    $endgroup$
    – Bianfable
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Something that's neglected in this calculation is that (commercial) airplanes take you to airports, while cars generally take you directly to your destination. So you have to add in the impact of transit to/from the airport.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Bianfable I'm not sure that is true, the link states that The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road.
    $endgroup$
    – zymhan
    6 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf This is a simplistic eval. If we want to be specific, yes, there's the last mile problem for aviation. But then you also have to factor in the city miles for cars too.
    $endgroup$
    – Jimmy
    6 hours ago


















1












$begingroup$

It depends on what you mean by "environmentally friendly." Just for an example, let's consider a 1000 mile trip.



An A320 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per set per hour, and with 150 seats this comes to 750 gallons per hour. A 1000 mile flight will take about 2.5 hours, so this comes to 12.5 gallons per seat, or 1875 gallons total. This means that 2 seats worth of fuel would be about 25 gallons total.



For driving, if you assume a fairly efficient car will get 50 miles per gallon, and the drive is not as direct and is 1300 miles, this comes out to 26 gallons total.



So, on the face of it, they are approximately equivalent in fuel usage.



However, if the flight is only 80% full, then if you choose not to take the flight, it's still going to happen. This means the difference in fuel usage will be from the reduction in weight of two people and their luggage. The fuel usage will decrease by about the same amount as the weight reduction compared to the total aircraft weight. If you approximate 2 passengers plus luggage at 400 lb, and aircraft weight at 140,000 lb, based on the 1875 gallon fuel consumption from before, the additional fuel burned by the two people choosing to fly is about 3 gallons total. This makes it much better than driving.



But not all emissions are equal. The aircraft emits most of the exhaust higher in the atmosphere, where it will create contrails that help trap solar energy.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$






















    -1












    $begingroup$

    In regards to lbs of fuel consumed per passenger nautical mile the A320 unquestionably is.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$










    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Please provide sources for your claim.
      $endgroup$
      – AEhere
      5 hours ago













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "528"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f67080%2fwhat-is-more-environmentally-friendly-an-a320-or-a-car%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    I'm going to simplify and assume that jets and cars burn the same fuel, and output the same exhaust, CO2, NOx and all. I'm going to compare only short-haul flights against cars.



    According to Wikipedia, an A-320-NEO does 1.95L/100km per seat. Assuming flying at 80% capacity, that gives us 2.4L/100km per seat. According to
    The Car Guide, a 2019 Honda Civic does 6.5L/100km. Assuming an average car carries 2 people, that gets 3.2L/100km. It would seem like flying is slightly better, using this simplistic measure.



    Keep in mind that the longer you fly, the better the mileage, since the takeoff and climb are the fuel guzzling segments.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      This is just based on emissions from the fuel, but contrails are actually worse for the climate compared to the direct CO2 emissions.
      $endgroup$
      – Bianfable
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Something that's neglected in this calculation is that (commercial) airplanes take you to airports, while cars generally take you directly to your destination. So you have to add in the impact of transit to/from the airport.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Bianfable I'm not sure that is true, the link states that The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road.
      $endgroup$
      – zymhan
      6 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf This is a simplistic eval. If we want to be specific, yes, there's the last mile problem for aviation. But then you also have to factor in the city miles for cars too.
      $endgroup$
      – Jimmy
      6 hours ago















    4












    $begingroup$

    I'm going to simplify and assume that jets and cars burn the same fuel, and output the same exhaust, CO2, NOx and all. I'm going to compare only short-haul flights against cars.



    According to Wikipedia, an A-320-NEO does 1.95L/100km per seat. Assuming flying at 80% capacity, that gives us 2.4L/100km per seat. According to
    The Car Guide, a 2019 Honda Civic does 6.5L/100km. Assuming an average car carries 2 people, that gets 3.2L/100km. It would seem like flying is slightly better, using this simplistic measure.



    Keep in mind that the longer you fly, the better the mileage, since the takeoff and climb are the fuel guzzling segments.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$














    • $begingroup$
      This is just based on emissions from the fuel, but contrails are actually worse for the climate compared to the direct CO2 emissions.
      $endgroup$
      – Bianfable
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Something that's neglected in this calculation is that (commercial) airplanes take you to airports, while cars generally take you directly to your destination. So you have to add in the impact of transit to/from the airport.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Bianfable I'm not sure that is true, the link states that The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road.
      $endgroup$
      – zymhan
      6 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf This is a simplistic eval. If we want to be specific, yes, there's the last mile problem for aviation. But then you also have to factor in the city miles for cars too.
      $endgroup$
      – Jimmy
      6 hours ago













    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    I'm going to simplify and assume that jets and cars burn the same fuel, and output the same exhaust, CO2, NOx and all. I'm going to compare only short-haul flights against cars.



    According to Wikipedia, an A-320-NEO does 1.95L/100km per seat. Assuming flying at 80% capacity, that gives us 2.4L/100km per seat. According to
    The Car Guide, a 2019 Honda Civic does 6.5L/100km. Assuming an average car carries 2 people, that gets 3.2L/100km. It would seem like flying is slightly better, using this simplistic measure.



    Keep in mind that the longer you fly, the better the mileage, since the takeoff and climb are the fuel guzzling segments.






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    I'm going to simplify and assume that jets and cars burn the same fuel, and output the same exhaust, CO2, NOx and all. I'm going to compare only short-haul flights against cars.



    According to Wikipedia, an A-320-NEO does 1.95L/100km per seat. Assuming flying at 80% capacity, that gives us 2.4L/100km per seat. According to
    The Car Guide, a 2019 Honda Civic does 6.5L/100km. Assuming an average car carries 2 people, that gets 3.2L/100km. It would seem like flying is slightly better, using this simplistic measure.



    Keep in mind that the longer you fly, the better the mileage, since the takeoff and climb are the fuel guzzling segments.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 6 hours ago

























    answered 7 hours ago









    JimmyJimmy

    8602 silver badges13 bronze badges




    8602 silver badges13 bronze badges














    • $begingroup$
      This is just based on emissions from the fuel, but contrails are actually worse for the climate compared to the direct CO2 emissions.
      $endgroup$
      – Bianfable
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Something that's neglected in this calculation is that (commercial) airplanes take you to airports, while cars generally take you directly to your destination. So you have to add in the impact of transit to/from the airport.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Bianfable I'm not sure that is true, the link states that The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road.
      $endgroup$
      – zymhan
      6 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf This is a simplistic eval. If we want to be specific, yes, there's the last mile problem for aviation. But then you also have to factor in the city miles for cars too.
      $endgroup$
      – Jimmy
      6 hours ago
















    • $begingroup$
      This is just based on emissions from the fuel, but contrails are actually worse for the climate compared to the direct CO2 emissions.
      $endgroup$
      – Bianfable
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      Something that's neglected in this calculation is that (commercial) airplanes take you to airports, while cars generally take you directly to your destination. So you have to add in the impact of transit to/from the airport.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      6 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      @Bianfable I'm not sure that is true, the link states that The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road.
      $endgroup$
      – zymhan
      6 hours ago







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @jamesqf This is a simplistic eval. If we want to be specific, yes, there's the last mile problem for aviation. But then you also have to factor in the city miles for cars too.
      $endgroup$
      – Jimmy
      6 hours ago















    $begingroup$
    This is just based on emissions from the fuel, but contrails are actually worse for the climate compared to the direct CO2 emissions.
    $endgroup$
    – Bianfable
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    This is just based on emissions from the fuel, but contrails are actually worse for the climate compared to the direct CO2 emissions.
    $endgroup$
    – Bianfable
    6 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    Something that's neglected in this calculation is that (commercial) airplanes take you to airports, while cars generally take you directly to your destination. So you have to add in the impact of transit to/from the airport.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    Something that's neglected in this calculation is that (commercial) airplanes take you to airports, while cars generally take you directly to your destination. So you have to add in the impact of transit to/from the airport.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    6 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    @Bianfable I'm not sure that is true, the link states that The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road.
    $endgroup$
    – zymhan
    6 hours ago





    $begingroup$
    @Bianfable I'm not sure that is true, the link states that The only difference is that CO2 has a longer life than that of the contrails, and can still continue to cause warming even hundreds of years down the road.
    $endgroup$
    – zymhan
    6 hours ago





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf This is a simplistic eval. If we want to be specific, yes, there's the last mile problem for aviation. But then you also have to factor in the city miles for cars too.
    $endgroup$
    – Jimmy
    6 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    @jamesqf This is a simplistic eval. If we want to be specific, yes, there's the last mile problem for aviation. But then you also have to factor in the city miles for cars too.
    $endgroup$
    – Jimmy
    6 hours ago













    1












    $begingroup$

    It depends on what you mean by "environmentally friendly." Just for an example, let's consider a 1000 mile trip.



    An A320 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per set per hour, and with 150 seats this comes to 750 gallons per hour. A 1000 mile flight will take about 2.5 hours, so this comes to 12.5 gallons per seat, or 1875 gallons total. This means that 2 seats worth of fuel would be about 25 gallons total.



    For driving, if you assume a fairly efficient car will get 50 miles per gallon, and the drive is not as direct and is 1300 miles, this comes out to 26 gallons total.



    So, on the face of it, they are approximately equivalent in fuel usage.



    However, if the flight is only 80% full, then if you choose not to take the flight, it's still going to happen. This means the difference in fuel usage will be from the reduction in weight of two people and their luggage. The fuel usage will decrease by about the same amount as the weight reduction compared to the total aircraft weight. If you approximate 2 passengers plus luggage at 400 lb, and aircraft weight at 140,000 lb, based on the 1875 gallon fuel consumption from before, the additional fuel burned by the two people choosing to fly is about 3 gallons total. This makes it much better than driving.



    But not all emissions are equal. The aircraft emits most of the exhaust higher in the atmosphere, where it will create contrails that help trap solar energy.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



















      1












      $begingroup$

      It depends on what you mean by "environmentally friendly." Just for an example, let's consider a 1000 mile trip.



      An A320 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per set per hour, and with 150 seats this comes to 750 gallons per hour. A 1000 mile flight will take about 2.5 hours, so this comes to 12.5 gallons per seat, or 1875 gallons total. This means that 2 seats worth of fuel would be about 25 gallons total.



      For driving, if you assume a fairly efficient car will get 50 miles per gallon, and the drive is not as direct and is 1300 miles, this comes out to 26 gallons total.



      So, on the face of it, they are approximately equivalent in fuel usage.



      However, if the flight is only 80% full, then if you choose not to take the flight, it's still going to happen. This means the difference in fuel usage will be from the reduction in weight of two people and their luggage. The fuel usage will decrease by about the same amount as the weight reduction compared to the total aircraft weight. If you approximate 2 passengers plus luggage at 400 lb, and aircraft weight at 140,000 lb, based on the 1875 gallon fuel consumption from before, the additional fuel burned by the two people choosing to fly is about 3 gallons total. This makes it much better than driving.



      But not all emissions are equal. The aircraft emits most of the exhaust higher in the atmosphere, where it will create contrails that help trap solar energy.






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        It depends on what you mean by "environmentally friendly." Just for an example, let's consider a 1000 mile trip.



        An A320 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per set per hour, and with 150 seats this comes to 750 gallons per hour. A 1000 mile flight will take about 2.5 hours, so this comes to 12.5 gallons per seat, or 1875 gallons total. This means that 2 seats worth of fuel would be about 25 gallons total.



        For driving, if you assume a fairly efficient car will get 50 miles per gallon, and the drive is not as direct and is 1300 miles, this comes out to 26 gallons total.



        So, on the face of it, they are approximately equivalent in fuel usage.



        However, if the flight is only 80% full, then if you choose not to take the flight, it's still going to happen. This means the difference in fuel usage will be from the reduction in weight of two people and their luggage. The fuel usage will decrease by about the same amount as the weight reduction compared to the total aircraft weight. If you approximate 2 passengers plus luggage at 400 lb, and aircraft weight at 140,000 lb, based on the 1875 gallon fuel consumption from before, the additional fuel burned by the two people choosing to fly is about 3 gallons total. This makes it much better than driving.



        But not all emissions are equal. The aircraft emits most of the exhaust higher in the atmosphere, where it will create contrails that help trap solar energy.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        It depends on what you mean by "environmentally friendly." Just for an example, let's consider a 1000 mile trip.



        An A320 burns about 5 gallons of fuel per set per hour, and with 150 seats this comes to 750 gallons per hour. A 1000 mile flight will take about 2.5 hours, so this comes to 12.5 gallons per seat, or 1875 gallons total. This means that 2 seats worth of fuel would be about 25 gallons total.



        For driving, if you assume a fairly efficient car will get 50 miles per gallon, and the drive is not as direct and is 1300 miles, this comes out to 26 gallons total.



        So, on the face of it, they are approximately equivalent in fuel usage.



        However, if the flight is only 80% full, then if you choose not to take the flight, it's still going to happen. This means the difference in fuel usage will be from the reduction in weight of two people and their luggage. The fuel usage will decrease by about the same amount as the weight reduction compared to the total aircraft weight. If you approximate 2 passengers plus luggage at 400 lb, and aircraft weight at 140,000 lb, based on the 1875 gallon fuel consumption from before, the additional fuel burned by the two people choosing to fly is about 3 gallons total. This makes it much better than driving.



        But not all emissions are equal. The aircraft emits most of the exhaust higher in the atmosphere, where it will create contrails that help trap solar energy.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 6 hours ago









        foootfooot

        56.6k18 gold badges181 silver badges342 bronze badges




        56.6k18 gold badges181 silver badges342 bronze badges
























            -1












            $begingroup$

            In regards to lbs of fuel consumed per passenger nautical mile the A320 unquestionably is.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$










            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Please provide sources for your claim.
              $endgroup$
              – AEhere
              5 hours ago















            -1












            $begingroup$

            In regards to lbs of fuel consumed per passenger nautical mile the A320 unquestionably is.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$










            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Please provide sources for your claim.
              $endgroup$
              – AEhere
              5 hours ago













            -1












            -1








            -1





            $begingroup$

            In regards to lbs of fuel consumed per passenger nautical mile the A320 unquestionably is.






            share|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            In regards to lbs of fuel consumed per passenger nautical mile the A320 unquestionably is.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 6 hours ago









            Carlo FelicioneCarlo Felicione

            46k5 gold badges85 silver badges165 bronze badges




            46k5 gold badges85 silver badges165 bronze badges










            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Please provide sources for your claim.
              $endgroup$
              – AEhere
              5 hours ago












            • 2




              $begingroup$
              Please provide sources for your claim.
              $endgroup$
              – AEhere
              5 hours ago







            2




            2




            $begingroup$
            Please provide sources for your claim.
            $endgroup$
            – AEhere
            5 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            Please provide sources for your claim.
            $endgroup$
            – AEhere
            5 hours ago

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f67080%2fwhat-is-more-environmentally-friendly-an-a320-or-a-car%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

            Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

            François Viète Contents Biography Work and thought Bibliography See also Notes Further reading External links Navigation menup. 21Google Bookspp. 75–77Google BooksDe thou (from University of Saint Andrews)ArchivedGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle booksGoogle Bookscc-parthenay.frL'histoire universelle (fr)Universal History (en)ArchivedAdsabs.harvard.eduPagesperso-orange.frArchive.orgChikara Sasaki. Descartes' mathematical thought p.259Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle Bookspp. 152 and onwardGoogle BooksGoogle BooksScribd.comGoogle Books1257-7979Google BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGoogle BooksGallica.bnf.frGoogle BooksGoogle Books"François Viète"Francois Viète: Father of Modern Algebraic NotationThe Lawyer and the GamblerAbout TarporleySite de Jean-Paul GuichardL'algèbre nouvelle"About the Harmonicon"cb120511976(data)1188044800000 0001 0913 5903n82164680ola2013766880073431702w6vt1sb70287374827140948071409480