3 ms·

There is also a passage about the difference in weight of aluminum cans saving the equivalent of aluminum used in 3400 Boeing 747s, but when we hear this I thin

There is also a passage about the difference in weight of aluminum cans saving the equivalent of aluminum used in 3400 Boeing 747s, but when we hear this I think we instinctively think of the total weight of 3400 jets rather than just the aluminum in those jets. I thought that was pretty deceptive.

cperciva 12y ago
Isn't most of the weight of the 747 airframe Aluminum? I know newer planes use lighter-weight composite materials, but the 747 is a pretty old design.
- hkmurakami 12y ago
  When we imagine the 747 in our minds, I suspect that most of us picture it fully loaded with the engines, electronics, hydraulics, seats, etc since that is what we have experience being inside and "feeling" the weight as it accelerates and decelerates. I'm not sure what fraction of the total weight the aluminum accounts for, but the phrasing I believe is intentionally misleading.
  - thejdude 12y ago
    Sure, a plane consists of more than aluminium. But since the topic of the post was aluminium usage, I think the 3400 planes number is exactly spot-on. Nobody cares how much a complete Boeing weights, because that's not the topic.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
majormajor 12y ago
I don't think that's misleading, because I don't know many people who instinctively, as you say, have any idea what the true total weight of 3400 jets is, or of anything else that uses massive amounts of aluminum. I think the illustration is used precisely because we have so little experience with such large values.
- hrktb 12y ago
  I think I agree it's not misleading, just not informative nor helpful. A bit like saying that my car weights as much as 10 average elephants' bones combined. Is it a lot or not so much ? who knows.
vacri 12y ago
So... you're saying that the effective reduction in jet-equivalent weight means that you're no longer swayed by the argument? Given that the maximum, fully loaded take-off weight of a 747 is 400 tonnes and the aluminium makes up 200 tonnes of that, this means that even with the worst revised numbers, you're still 'saving' 1700 jets. Are you saying that the magical number from which your opinion on the subject changes is somewhere between 1700 and 3400? Because if not, you really haven't got much call to classify it as 'pretty deceptive'.
- sooheon 12y ago
  It's not an on/off switch. Still, he's fudging numbers and images to bolster his point when, by your very point, he has no real need to. It's distasteful.
nagrom 12y ago
Well, maybe. But when you picture in your mind's eye the weight of a soft drink can, do you do it as an empty can or as a full one? I generally think of cans as full, not as empty. It's just a qualitative comparison dressed up as a quantitative one. I don't think it's all that misleading - it's just "Wow! That's a lot of aluminium!"

cperciva 12y ago

Isn't most of the weight of the 747 airframe Aluminum? I know newer planes use lighter-weight composite materials, but the 747 is a pretty old design.

hkmurakami 12y ago
When we imagine the 747 in our minds, I suspect that most of us picture it fully loaded with the engines, electronics, hydraulics, seats, etc since that is what we have experience being inside and "feeling" the weight as it accelerates and decelerates. I'm not sure what fraction of the total weight the aluminum accounts for, but the phrasing I believe is intentionally misleading.
- thejdude 12y ago
  Sure, a plane consists of more than aluminium. But since the topic of the post was aluminium usage, I think the 3400 planes number is exactly spot-on. Nobody cares how much a complete Boeing weights, because that's not the topic.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

majormajor 12y ago

I don't think that's misleading, because I don't know many people who instinctively, as you say, have any idea what the true total weight of 3400 jets is, or of anything else that uses massive amounts of aluminum. I think the illustration is used precisely because we have so little experience with such large values.

hrktb 12y ago
I think I agree it's not misleading, just not informative nor helpful. A bit like saying that my car weights as much as 10 average elephants' bones combined. Is it a lot or not so much ? who knows.

vacri 12y ago

So... you're saying that the effective reduction in jet-equivalent weight means that you're no longer swayed by the argument? Given that the maximum, fully loaded take-off weight of a 747 is 400 tonnes and the aluminium makes up 200 tonnes of that, this means that even with the worst revised numbers, you're still 'saving' 1700 jets. Are you saying that the magical number from which your opinion on the subject changes is somewhere between 1700 and 3400? Because if not, you really haven't got much call to classify it as 'pretty deceptive'.

sooheon 12y ago
It's not an on/off switch. Still, he's fudging numbers and images to bolster his point when, by your very point, he has no real need to. It's distasteful.

nagrom 12y ago

Well, maybe. But when you picture in your mind's eye the weight of a soft drink can, do you do it as an empty can or as a full one? I generally think of cans as full, not as empty. It's just a qualitative comparison dressed up as a quantitative one. I don't think it's all that misleading - it's just "Wow! That's a lot of aluminium!"