Miscellaneous desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 16

Most nutritious fruit/vegetable?

I am preparing to go on a multiple day kayaking trip. Will be primitive camping on a fresh water river system for likely 4 nights. Space/weight is obviously a concern, so I have to take the bare minimum of gear. The basics of food water and shelter are covered (tent, sleeping bag, water, potted meat & ramen noodles...fish will also be plentiful)…but I’d like to take a fresh fruit or vegetable as well. I have room for about 1 gallon Ziploc bag. What is the best “bang for your buck fruit/vegetable,” nutrition-wise? I am concerned not only about nutrition, but also energy (sugar) and staying regular (fiber). It would be nice to get this all from one source. Any suggestions? Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 01:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're concerned about nutrition and you're bringing potted meat ? StuRat (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Why does it only have to be one ? I'd bring a variety of dried fruit in that bag. Or you could make your own trail mix with nuts and dried fruit and maybe MMs. If it has to be just one, how about dried blueberries ? (Dried veggies don't seem to work quite as well.) StuRat (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I share your feelings on potted meat, but when camping like this, nutrition does not necessarily equal "healthy." Spam and Ramen noodles are small, light, easy to prepare, and filling. Admittedly not foods I would base my everyday diet on, but in this context they are pretty much staples, and I xould survive on just those foods in a pinch, but I wouldn't feel right after the second or third day. This is one reason I'd like to take a fresh fruit or vegetable to "offset" the processed foods. Also, I am taking some trail mix, boiled eggs, and beef jerky...but I didn't want to include my entire packing list. The fresh fruit and/or vegetable is something new I'd like to try to improve my overall "feel good" factor after a couple of days. I'd really like to focus on the specific benefits of freshfruits and/or veggies. Quinn ^✹SUNSHINE 03:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with fresh fruit or veggies is that they will spoil. They would need to be canned to prevent it, which, of course, increases weight. Perhaps plastic cups of mixed fruit and applesauce might work, and still be relatively light. I prefer cinnamon applesauce myself, for the beneficial effects of that spice, and always add my own cinnamon, as they never have enough for me. For veggies, I think you're stuck with a can. You could bring some veggie juice, like V8, or canned mixed veggies, like Veg-All. Some pineapple juice would be good, too (I wonder if you can get that in a juice box). One of those little squeeze bottles of lemon juice that looks like a lemon would be good to add to things for flavor (like water).

You could also bring fresh fruits and veggies, for the first day only, but don't expect them to last beyond that. You'd want something tough, so it won't turn to mush, perhaps celery and carrot sticks.

As for the potted meat, might I suggest you replace that with a jar of peanut butter ? Lots of protein and not nearly as disgusting. You could dip the celery in it or bring crackers, or just eat it straight (with water, of course). I also wonder if those eggs might go bad by the end of the trip. StuRat (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some fruits and vegetables will last for several days at room temperature (and above) and are tough enough (as long as you don't peel them). Apples, oranges, carrots, potatoes and onions are some examples.Sjö (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be worried that falling on your back with an orange in there would produce a backpack full of orange juice. StuRat (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A better idea than asking strangers on the Internet would be to grab a backpacker's cookbook. Libraries have them (and outdoor stores.) Rmhermen (talk) 03:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course dried fruit is much more efficient. The fresh fruit I most commonly take on backpacking trips is limes, but they generally end up mixed with something alcoholic. The other things that make sense are apples, oranges, grapes, and cherries -- most other fruits don't survive abuse very well. Citrus fruits are nice because they are virtually indestructible. For fresh vegetables, I recommend carrots and cucumbers. Looie496 (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dried fruit isn't necessarily more efficient, if you're talking about mass. Yes, dried fruit should weigh less, but you also have to consider the amount of water needed to reconstitute the fruit, either outside or inside your body. Viewed another way, you don't have to drink as much water, if you get lots of water from your fruit. So, if you are camping someplace where you need to bring your own water, it shouldn't make much difference. However, if you plan to drink water from streams (hopefully sterilized), then it will make a big difference in weight. StuRat (talk) 06:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also a tip: it is much better to take fresh eggs than boiled eggs. Fresh eggs, contrary to common belief, have powerful antibacterial agents in the egg white and can last for weeks without spoiling, even without refrigeration. Boiled eggs spoil much more quickly. Looie496 (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if they crack, you have a mess on your hands. StuRat (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest dried cranberries. Good for you, plenty of energy, compact, and unlikely to be damaged by squishing. Don't buy Ocean Spray's Craisins, though, they are more watery than other brands, presumably because people like them that way. If you are not allergic, some nuts or trail mix might be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On my backpacking trips, I prefer apples. One a day. Since I actually carry a backpack, that much weight amounts to a luxury, but when you are living on dried or otherwise preserved crap, a fresh apple is a pretty sweet luxury. Advantages of apples are that 1) they resist spoilage, bruising, and turning to mush better than most fresh fruits, and 2) they are very rich in fiber, good for keeping your digestion moving. Marco polo (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, a ziploc bag isn't the most efficient way to pack apples, since their round shape means wasted space filled with air. I would just pack them in with clothes so that there is no wasted space. Also the clothes will cushion them. Marco polo (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if one does start to rot, you want to contain the effluent. StuRat (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On my many backpacking trips, that issue has never come up. Maybe that's partly because I am usually in a place with cool nighttime temperatures. Also, when I stop for the night, I remove the food from my pack (to secure it from bears) and could see if an apple were starting to get soft and act accordingly. Though I don't think that has even ever happened, because apples are such hardy fruits. If you start with nice fresh apples, your trip is shorter than about 10 days, and you are not going to be in a place with tropical temperatures and humidity, this shouldn't be an issue. Marco polo (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could place the apples individually into ziploc bags, and most of the times can reuse them. Bags are cheap, I use them for freezing stuff quite often (not apples).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't put them into plastic you will end up with apple-scented clothes in your pack which is almost as bad as leaving food in there. Better hang the whole kit and kaboodle out of bear reach. Rmhermen (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When a bear entered my wilderness camp a couple of years ago, she was not interested in my perhaps faintly apple-scented clothes or pack. She headed straight for my bear canister (full of food) and batted it around. When it didn't come open for her, she gave up and headed off. Fortunately, she was no more interested in me than my clothes. Anyway, this method seems to work for me. Marco polo (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of meal replacements available in the market. --NGC 2736 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bonus for taking an apple kayaking is that it floats - if you cap you can just pick it back up out of the water. Unless a) you're paddling monster white water, in which case you've got no chance or b) you're paddling the Lea Navigation Canal[1], in which case you probably won't want to eat it. Alansplodge (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

time a tank of fuel would last

I was sat in traffic today doing 0 miles per hour, car idling over, no air-con on and I wondered...how long would my car just 'tick over' before it ran out of fuel? Given you guys like specifics lets pick say a Ford Focus with a 55 litre tank (full) sat idling without air-con on. I'm not looking for exact answers, just more of a ballpark, are we talking something sat 'on' for a day, a few days, a week? ny156uk (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search (on "fuel usage idling") suggests about 1 liter per hour for a 4-cylinder engine. — Lomn 17:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should think idling for 55 hours could make the engine overheat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a properly designed car in good shape. The fan should blow on the radiator to cool it down. StuRat (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~So, anyway, 9 to 10 days would be a ballpark figure.~~ -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9 innings would be a ballpark figure. 55 hours would be a 2.3 days figure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I told you it's been a long time since I did maths. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 05:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the tank were 55 gallons it might work. However, if you're stuck in a 55 hour traffic jam, gasoline might be the least of your worries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say the least. Wouldn't it matter if you are running the engine to get air conditioning? For me, that is the most likely scenario for extended idling.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the problems in the Blizzard of 78 (an event I was barely old enough to remember) where people stuck in their cars on the interstate left their cars idling to keep the heaters on; at least until the snow built up to where it clogged the exhaust pipes of their cars, and they died of carbon monoxide poisoning. --Jayron32 13:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect the exhaust to melt away any snow near the exhaust pipe. Of course, if you turned the car off for several hours, then back on, by then the snow might have built up considerably. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been driving in snowfall that heavy (but nowhere near as long-lasting). In the hour it took to drive home, I had to get out twice to manually clear snow off the directly-heated rear windshield: the snow was falling fast enough that it overwhelmed the defrost heater. --Carnildo (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is compounded by the problem of rear heaters that turn themselves off every few minutes. I find those intensely annoying. At the very least, they should make a sound so you know to turn it right back on again. StuRat (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Of course the sensible thing to do if you are going to be stuck motionless for a matter of hours or even more than a minute or two is to turn the engine off. (In winter, obviously keep a blanket in the car, especially for long trips in questionable weather.) Marco polo (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're from a part of the world where winters aren't very cold. Cars are poorly insulated, and, without the heater running, the temperatures can quickly drop inside to dangerously low levels. The sensible thing to do is to turn the engine back on whenever the temp gets dangerously low (removing any snow blocking the exhaust pipe first). When the fuel is exhausted, dig a hole in the snow (a makeshift igloo), and hide out there until rescue comes. Leave a note on the car so the rescuers can find you.

It's also possible to be stuck in an area where temps get dangerously hot, in which case running the engine to use the A/C makes sense, at least during the hottest part of the day. Once out of fuel, you'd need to look for a shady spot, or maybe, again, bury yourself under the sand (I'm assuming a desert here). Leave a note, as before. StuRat (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you, my friend, appear to be from a part of the world where the snow does not pile up. During the Blizzard of '78, snow fell at a fairly rapid rate to a height of a meter or more (3 to 4 feet). Even with an engine running, that amount of snow would eventually form a dome over any cavity kept warm by an exhaust pipe, leading to a risk of CO poisoning. While it can get quite cold in the U.S. Northeast, a snow heavy enough to stop traffic here tends to 1) occur only when temperatures are close to freezing and 2) provide a car with enough insulation that winter clothes and a good blanket will ward off frostbite until the plows arrive. Marco polo (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy snow isn't the only reason a car can stop moving (but still be able to idle). It can also suffer a mechanical problem, go off the road (maybe due to ice), etc. StuRat (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

These temps are dangerously hot (if you like that sort of thing). :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the responses, sorry I know should've probably researched google first but somehow decided it wouldn't be easy to find an answer! ny156uk (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table of fighter kill ratios - especially Mustang vs. Bf 109 and Fw 190

Grumman F6F Hellcat#Operational history gives kill ratios based on claims against all Japanese opponents, but most other articles about fighter aircraft lack such numbers. I was searching for a table of kill ratios between different fighter aircraft, but so far failed to find any. (Of course, based on claims and confirmations of both sides and evidence available, there should rather be a frame of ratios than a specific ratio between two aircraft.) In special, I'd like to know the kill ratios of P-51 Mustangs against Bf 109 and Fw 190. Does anybody have information on that? --KnightMove (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are statistics available giving the monthly losses and enemies shot down during the war. Here are a few by year: http://www.usaaf.net/digest/index.htm Not all data available online.

More detailed data:Navy aviation combat statistics: 130 pages, see page 58 and further for loss rates and combat ratios; page 76: individual models etc..

Keep in mind that with increasing losses, quality of enemy pilots and equipment will have suffered. The force multiplication due to numerical advantage is often the decisive factor, not sure whether Lanchester's square law or a lower exponent like 1.5 would best fit air combat in WW2. Ssscienccce (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]