it's really bad on emissions, it's one of the most thermodynamically inefficient methods of transport, it's noisy, and it requires as much or more infrastructure to work as any other mode of transport.
Yes, but when you refine the crap out of the fuel to make it more energy dense, then use all that fuel to hurtle a massive object through the air at 700 km/h, it ends up using a lot of energy. Compare that to a train, where one truck is behind the next, so each one adds barely any aero drag, and the only rolling resistance is through the steel wheels, and they can run on crude diesel.
Because they're massively overused these days for what they are; noisy, polluting and expensive. You only need planes to take people over large bodies of water internationally, leave the rest to trains and ships Trains coming out as the most based transportation type yet again
Well the advantage of planes over trains is that it's a direct route and it's faster, and (correct me if i'm wrong) less turbulent/vibrating. But overall trains are indeed better.
This is the new Rx I'm guessing, it looks good, really good, but I wish they somehow kept the sharp lines of older model instead of softening the design. But definitely great design change except the front grille. I would still take g80 over this tho
Trains and most wheeled vehicles have the added disadvantage of needing roads. Big airliners and the like certainly need infrastructure of their own, but small aircraft and bush pilots are essential in some of the more remote stretches of the world and require next to nothing other than fuel.
We're not on about small aircraft but you're right when you say that small aircraft are good for very isolated communities, although you'll need a runway. Last time I checked trains don't use roads though
The runway thing depends on the specifications of the aircraft: most bush planes are designed to land on pretty much any solid, vaguely flat, vaguely smooth surface and feature wide-radius tires to suit. Though I will concede that this discussion has been more about commercial aircraft and that the aforementioned is an edge case. And I meant 'roads' in the larger sense of the word: as any sort of a man-made path, including railway.
Small off topic fact: One second of Magic that makes everything that we calculate with our modern CPUs possible, without it they wouldn't exist.
Worse, rails. This is true for jets, but all but yhe largest propeller planes need only minimal runways. Planes are succesful because of their speed and prestige. They aren't going away.
what's worse about rails tho ? i'm just wondering. Is it that they are solid, separate pieces of metal instead of liquid that can be poured however you want ?
I know they aren't which is a bit annoying, I'd hate them less if they weren't so loud and stopped flying over my house at 2am to be honest
They're restrictive. Trains are awesome, but rails are fudamentaly different from airspace, and can't just replace it.
See the following: Code: Transport Personal Control Speed Maneuverability Efficiency Airplanes 2 1 1 3 Trains 3 3 3 1 Cars 1 3 2 2 Edited because apparently BB code tables don't work --- Post updated --- It's not that hard to understand why one would choose one over the other, they're all necessary
I totally agree but how are planes slower ? Aren't they simply faster already and plus there is no traffic or curves to follow ?
