Talk:Small Aircraft Transportation System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article and its claims make no sense:

-How is VLJ a solution to the 9/11 problem? It only creates much more potential hijack targets, smaller ones which are harder to detect and because the energy of a moving object is squarely related to its speed and only linearly related to its mass, the destructive capability of an impacting VLJ will still be comparable to a B-737, since both fly at high speed. A pair of Mustangs can fell towers just as well as a 767. Osama will appreciate lower costs.

-Considering the poor state of earth's natural environment and especially the large amount of ozone destruction due to jet exhaust in the higher altitudes, it is crazy to replace "mass transit" airlines industry with a zillion VLJ "air taxis". The bigs, Airbus and Boeing worked very hard to achieve fuel economy on B787 and A380 comparable to european-style small cars, that is 5-6 liters per 100 kilometers. These VLJs will burn three-five times that much kerozene per seat. And of course the jet exhaust right into the stratosphere damages Earth much worse then the zero-altitude car tailpipes do.

-All in all, somebody seen too much Jetsons on TV as a kid. Such people should not be in NASA or FAA and invent VLJs. It should be considered that there was not absolutely any airliner disaster in the USA for almost five full years between 2001 November and 2006 late August. Every day thousands of B737 were flying with a million people onboard and none crashed. There will be VLJs colliding midair every day and fell on houses. Then in 20 years a new Ross Perrot will need to write a new book titled "Unsafe at any altitude". 195.70.32.136 12:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)