Jump to content

100LL Phase out???


1964-M20E

Recommended Posts

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

 If there is a single developer they would then sell or license the rights to others. Still leaves one gate to increase cost in the supply chain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Hey guys (long post).  I realize that most of what I’m saying right now is dreaming but there is always hope.


 


There are several aircraft engine manufacturers who are working on piston diesel aircraft engines.  Some are new comers and some are established.  The EPA is pushing to eliminate 100LL fuel though I do not see that happening for several years.  Those of us with the IO-360s and the O-360s my personal opinion is that we could utilize a good quality 94 or 95 octane unleaded fuel with little or no modifications to our current fuel or ignition systems but that is another topic.


 


My plan is to get the GA community especially the Part 135 operators who do charter flights and small cargo flights primarily utilizing the 6cyl 300 to 400 HP engines and our sector utilizing the 4cyl 150 to 200 HP engines actively petitioning legislators.  This is multipoint plan is to finish developing, certifying and using aircraft diesel engines preferably a turbocharged or supercharged 2 stroke diesel whit high power to weight ratios and that fit into the existing space of the current production aircraft engines.


 



  1. The FAA needs to give to any manufacturer who has a production or prototype diesel engine in testing or production right now a limited certification to be installed on certified aircraft.  Preference would be to manufactures who have engines I production right now.
  2. The FAA needs to give to any manufacturer who has a production or prototype diesel engine in testing or production right now a limited STC for that engine to be installed on certified aircraft.
  3. The limited certifications and STCs would lessen the financial burden on the manufacturers so that they can get the engines to market sooner and cheaper than the present system.  Testing would still be required.
  4. In exchange for the manufactures accepting these limited certifications they would need to pledge that the new engines would be sold at prices equivalent to today’s prices for a similar gasoline aircraft engines or preferably less and they would need to have a continuous engine testing program to identify any potential problems early.
  5. The blanket STC would be granted to the engine manufacturer as well as to all airframe manufacturers so that they both could work together or separately to install the engines on all new and legacy aircraft.  This would reverse the current sequence for STCs in that the STC is granted and when needed the manufactures work on designing the installation for that aircraft rather than having to design it for many types before the market demands it.
  6. The EPA and FAA would be work together to promote the new engine designs by having grants available (from there current budgets) for engine testing of up to $20M per manufacturer.
  7. The engines should be capable of running on automotive diesel fuel or jet A fuel.
  8. Once we have several manufacturers with certified and STC’d diesel engines the EPA and FAA can then establish a solid 5 to 10 year plan to eliminate 100LL fuel.
  9. Everyone utilizing a diesel engine would experience a 10 to 15% increase

 


To summarize above


 


Minimize engine manufacturer’s costs and time by streamline and fast tracking the certification processes and the STC process.


Motivate GA community to ask their legislators to push for a plan like this.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how much the issue is discussed MOGAS is the worldwide universal fuel. If AVGAS is worlwide eliminated tomorrow the only available option is MOGAS engines. Diesel engines are not practical for propeller airplanes. Diesel engines requires a gear box, and they are heavier. Diesel fuel is more expensive than MOGAS and harder to obtain. MOGAS engines are more fuel efficient and MOGAS weight less than Diesel. What Diesel engines are good for is for low RPM high torque applications like trucks, large boats or ships, locomotives and construction equipment. If Diesel engines were such a panacea for cars and small planes they would have already taken the market in the past 100 years. 


José

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

 No.  How about let the free market work and have private enterprise make a viable solution since there is clearly a future need..  My money's on GAMI winning out in this one.  They are the model of how an aviation business should be run.

Last thing I want is the FAA trying to develop something.  They're the ones not knowing what's going on with ADS-B within their own ranks.  Government "research" and "funding" is what has brought us the ethanol failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK


I’ll definitely buy eliminating item 6 and not have any federal grants.  I’m all for smaller less intrusive government.


Now let the FAA get out of the way and approve these engines for certificated aircraft and let the manufactures do their thing and let us do our thing as well.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites




MoGas






shapeimage_1.jpg



transparent.gif



 

 




Aircraft owners choose automotive fuel (mogas) rather than aviation fuel (avgas) for a variety of reasons. The primary reason is cost. The savings in fuel prices between auto fuel and avgas are quite significant. In an airplane using 15 gallons per hour, a savings of only 50 cents per gallon will be $7.50 per hour less than the cost of using avgas. In 200 hours, this adds up to $1500.00. Savings of even half this amount would clearly justify the installation of an auto fuel STC. If you use auto fuel, by the time you run an engine to TBO you will have come very close to saving enough money to buy the next engine.


 


Maintenance costs are also reduced when using auto fuel. Many of our customers use auto fuel simply because their airplanes run better on it than they do on 100LL which, despite its name (100 Low Lead), contains twice as much lead as regular leaded auto fuel prior to the lead reductions which took place in 1986. This excess lead contributes to a host of problems, including fouled plugs and sticking valves.



 



transparent.gif




Randy Schmerheim of Traverse City, Michigan


purchased our 30,000th mogas STC for this Cessna 150








Today many pilots are switching to mogas simply due to an increasingly limited supply of 100LL.  In many regions of the world it is next to impossible to find 100LL at any price.  In many parts of Africa, Asia, and the Pacific if 100LL can be found at all, the cost is so high as to be prohibitive. 


 


Petersen Aviation has been doing research on the use of automotive fuel for aircraft since 1983. Forty-eight different engine types and more than 100 airframes have been approved since we began conducting our tests. Included in these approvals are nearly all 80/87 octane engines, and the vast majority of airplanes in which these engines were installed. Several high compression engines are approved for the use of 91 octane auto fuel including the 180 horsepower 0-360 and the 0-235-L2C. Our STC's are accepted world wide.


 


Auto fuel is safe for use in approved aircraft. Over twenty-five years of use has clearly demonstrated the suitability of this fuel for General Aviation aircraft. Over 34,000 airplanes world wide are now using a Petersen STC.  Most foreign countries accept U.S. auto fuel STC's or have approved them in conjunction with localized Flight Manual Supplements.


 


The use of auto fuel is the best thing that has happened to General Aviation in the last three decades. In an era when the cost of flying has inflated to ridiculously high levels, automotive fuel STC's have done more than anything else to reduce those costs.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To summarize above


 


Minimize engine manufacturer’s costs and time by streamline and fast tracking the certification processes and the STC process.


Motivate GA community to ask their legislators to push for a plan like this."


 


The equation left out in your plan is the cost of liability insurance. An all new engine is always risky. One that has not been fully vetted by the FAA is going to make insurance companies very nervous. By fast tracking the certification process, the cost of insurance may well go up. No matter how you slice it, an all new diesel engine is going to cost the aircraft owner at least double what a new replacement engine would cost. In the case of the Mooney, besides the new engine, we will need new cowling, new prop, new exhaust, new engine controls, fuel system modifications and new instrumentation. The vast majority of aircraft owners will not make the switch until forced to and in that event, most will likely to cease to be aircraft owners.


 


A better area to focus on is a replacement fuel or a modification to our existing engines to allow MOGAS use. The later would still no doubt have to be ethanol free and that is very scarce these days.


 


Diesel aircraft engines will continue to develop because emerging countries such as China will need them. Also Europe will need them and in addition, the military will want them for any number of future UAVs. This means that in the distant future, cost effective diesel conversions will no doubt be possible. In the near future, we need a better fuel and improvements to our antique engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the government mandate of 10% ethanol in auto fuel to, ahem, "reduce our dependence on foreign oil" (ridiculous claim) .  Of course, this completely kills any ability ot use it as aviation fuel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


"To summarize above


 


Minimize engine manufacturer’s costs and time by streamline and fast tracking the certification processes and the STC process.


Motivate GA community to ask their legislators to push for a plan like this."


 


The equation left out in your plan is the cost of liability insurance. An all new engine is always risky. One that has not been fully vetted by the FAA is going to make insurance companies very nervous. By fast tracking the certification process, the cost of insurance may well go up. No matter how you slice it, an all new diesel engine is going to cost the aircraft owner at least double what a new replacement engine would cost. In the case of the Mooney, besides the new engine, we will need new cowling, new prop, new exhaust, new engine controls, fuel system modifications and new instrumentation. The vast majority of aircraft owners will not make the switch until forced to and in that event, most will likely to cease to be aircraft owners.


 


A better area to focus on is a replacement fuel or a modification to our existing engines to allow MOGAS use. The later would still no doubt have to be ethanol free and that is very scarce these days.


 


Diesel aircraft engines will continue to develop because emerging countries such as China will need them. Also Europe will need them and in addition, the military will want them for any number of future UAVs. This means that in the distant future, cost effective diesel conversions will no doubt be possible. In the near future, we need a better fuel and improvements to our antique engines.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Our local news station is doing an investigative anti GA story on 100LL i believe it is WDSU Ch 6 New Orleans.  I believe they are airing it tomorrow night I just caught part of the promo.  They are claiming that lead levels in the ground are a result of aviation burning 100LL.  My personal opinion is this is BS.  The number of planes flying is minimal compared to the number of automobiles that used to run around burning leaded fuel with more lead in it than the AVGAS.  I believe that nay lead contamination is more from the many years of automobiles driving the streets than aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our local news station is doing an investigative anti GA story on 100LL i believe it is WDSU Ch 6 New Orleans. I believe they are airing it tomorrow night I just caught part of the promo. They are claiming that lead levels in the ground are a result of aviation burning 100LL. My personal opinion is this is BS. The number of planes flying is minimal compared to the number of automobiles that used to run around burning leaded fuel with more lead in it than the AVGAS. I believe that nay lead contamination is more from the many years of automobiles driving the streets than aircraft.

My bet is on paint, every old house had it, that stuff is buried in land fills.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caltech Professor Clair Patterson found the lead in the soil, which he eventually attributed to the automobiles and other sources, many many years ago.  He was also successful in dating the age of the Earth at 4.6Billion years.

 

http://www.caltech.edu/news/scientific-pioneer-clair-c-patterson-dies-69

 

He was trying to date the Earth based on isotopes and using core samples from Greenland, comparing old vs new parts of a core sample for lead content, he showed that there was more lead floating around today (1950s) vs thousands of years ago that then he was able to link to modern industry, especially cars.

 

I do not know - but I am doubting tremendously that this lead in the soil went away since the 1970s, and that current contribution due to avgas is much smaller because of the relatively minuscule fleet of avgas burning airplanes vs the number of lead burning cars in the 1970s.

 

Not to say it will be nice to have a lead free replacement, but the tv-station is doing junk science I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone heard anything specific lately regarding a diesel stc for legacy Mooney's?  I would think that continental would be trying to make such stc as that would sell lots of engines for them, rather than waiting on the relatively smaller market of OEMs to adopt diesel.  I have only heard of the Cessna 172/182 stc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW

 

100 LL has way more lead in it then any car gas ever did.

 

The original spec for Green gas was 6 g/gal of TEL and 100LL was 4g/gal of TEL.

 

The current spec for100LL is 1.2 - 2 g/gal of TEL

 

The last leaded premium car gas sold had 0.1 g/gal of TEL.

 

How much lead was in the car gas in the 1960s when Professor Patterson was doing his work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW

 

100 LL has way more lead in it then any car gas ever did.

 

The original spec for Green gas was 6 g/gal of TEL and 100LL was 4g/gal of TEL.

 

The current spec for100LL is 1.2 - 2 g/gal of TEL

 

The last leaded premium car gas sold had 0.1 g/gal of TEL.

 

How many cars burned that lower lead concentration gas vs. airplanes burning the higher concentration? The last premium with lead may have been .1, but I bet the premium back in the heyday was much, much higher. I agree with others. One cannot look at the soil today and not take into account all the other lead pollutants over the decades. Lead is heavy and I don't believe it just goes away by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.