FAA: Unleaded fuel by 2018

[Cruiser]

"We need to work with industry to develop an unleaded fuel that advances aviation safety and improves the environment," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood

 

 

Wow! what a brilliant statement. I always knew we had the best and brightest appointed to these high ranking positions. I am glad to know this calibre person is leading the way for us. I can rest easy at night confident in the future of GA.  

 

[FloridaMan]

-- as if there isn't already a huge economic incentive for such a thing. 

 

According to Wikipedia, one gallon of 100LL contains 1.2-2 grams of something called TEL, which has around 600mg of lead per gram.  Given that range, I think saying 1 gram of lead per gallon of 100LL. 

 

Paint up until around 1950 often was comprised of 10-50% lead.  I imagine that old houses getting rained on has an infinitely greater environmental impact than the gram of lead that gets burned in every gallon of fuel. 

 

Let us not forget that many environmental regulations don't apply at all when it comes to aviation. You can still get Chlorinated solvents, for instance (AVL is awesome if you haven't tried it to degrease something yet -- also really nice for cleaning oil out if you spill some when you do your oil changes, since it gets the flammable content out from around your engine). 

[aviatoreb]

I read his statement in the Washington Post just now.  "The Federal Aviation Administration wants some airplanes to run on the same thing cars have been using for years: cleaner burning unleaded fuel."

 

Hmmmm....are they talking about a proper replacement, or some form of mogas?

 

From bloomberg:

"Finding a substitute fuel may require design changes and recertification of some high-performance planes, the group said in its statement."

 

 

My reading suggests that switfuel and also Gami's fuel both work in unmodified high performance engines.  Oh well - I am not loosing sleep about this one.  Too many other things to worry about in life.

[NotarPilot]

"Advances aviation SAFETY" well there's a buzz word the political puppets like to use to get what they want.

[triple8s]

There are "unfunded mandates" and there are "unplanned mandates" ya have to have a brain to make a well thought out plan to get from one place to another.

[DS1980]

There is already a solution to all of this: Diesel. The new Cessna 182 uses a diesel engine and although the diesel engines are heavier, they burn less fuel than a comparable 100LL engine, have an innate toughness due to being a compression-ignition engine, produce more torque (which is what moves a prop), and lend good to being turbocharged. Plus the infastructure for diesel is already in place. Everybody is trying to get too fancy and ignoring the obvious solution.

2 cents deposited.

[danb35]

I like diesel.  I drive a diesel, and my next car will likely also be a diesel.  But while diesel may be the answer for new production, it's not the answer for the existing fleet--at least, not unless and until you can swap in a diesel engine of comparable size, weight, and power output for a cost comparable to an overhaul of your existing engine.  The few diesel swaps currently available about double that cost.

[1964-M20E]

I’d love to put in a Delta Hawk diesel engine in my plane I’d even be willing to forgo 20HP and put a 180HP in there since I’d have 180HP at all altitudes up about FL18. The big drawback firewall forward for an experimental is over $60k not going to happen in the majority of the fleet. Now if they could get it in the neighborhood of $25 to $30k installed I’d start saving my pennies now.<br /><br />The alternative is 93 to 95 octane fuel and back of a couple degrees of timing.<br />

[jetdriven]

There is already a solution to all of this: Diesel. The new Cessna 182 uses a diesel engine and although the diesel engines are heavier, they burn less fuel than a comparable 100LL engine, have an innate toughness due to being a compression-ignition engine, produce more torque (which is what moves a prop), and lend good to being turbocharged. Plus the infastructure for diesel is already in place. Everybody is trying to get too fancy and ignoring the obvious solution.

2 cents deposited.

The new turbo diesel 182 is the same 15 GPH fuel burn as the gasoline airplane. On top of that, a maximum altitude, and several times more complex with turbos, interoolers, electronic fuel injection, pumps, etc.  Plus its heavier.  Henry Ford said in the 1920s that soon we will have a lightweight dependable diesel engine. 

[Jamie]

Instead of lobbying against change, maybe AOPA could just get a "cash for clunkers" plan going to "revitalize the critical general aviation infrastructure" while "helping us transition to a greener more environmentally friendly and sustainable" propulsion system.

 

Gimme money and I'll hang a different engine. It's not like it would cost a lot. Assume 250000 airplanes at an average cost of $60k each, that's $15 billion. Which is 17% of ONE MONTH's federal reserve QE budget.

[OR75]

in a free market, you are on the wrong side of the $$$ equation if you are a buyer of a niche / specialty / mandated product.

[Marauder]

The new turbo diesel 182 is the same 15 GPH fuel burn as the gasoline airplane. On top of that, a maximum altitude, and several times more complex with turbos, interoolers, electronic fuel injection, pumps, etc.  Plus its heavier.  Henry Ford said in the 1920s that soon we will have a lightweight dependable diesel engine. 

 

And if I recall correctly, my "lightweight" diesel in my new F350 is 1100 pounds wet. Bet she won't climb too well if I put wings on her.

[Jerry 5TJ]

100LL remains one of the largest contributors to airborne lead in the USA.   The EPA has been running multi-year studies on the lead levels in the air and also in communities near GA airports.   The data are clear enough and the fact that we GA fliers are a main contributor to airborne lead constitutes a steady threat to continued 100LL availability.     

 

The EPA site summarizes "The major sources of lead emissions to the air today are ore and metals processing and piston-engine aircraft operating on leaded aviation gasoline."    ref http://www.epa.gov/airquality/lead/index.html  Within a mile or two of airports with GA activity the lead levels monitored are several times the level seen away from the airports.  

 

Rather than rant about the real versus actual health risks, I realize the majority of our countrymen don't give a fig about GA and would gladly prohibit 100LL instantly if they suddenly perceived airborne lead to be a significant health threat.    If you wish to see that side of the picture, search "Friends of the Earth" or look at

http://ens-newswire.com/2012/03/08/friends-of-the-earth-sues-u-s-epa-over-lead-in-aviation-fuel/

or 

http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2012-03-environmental-group-sues-epa-to-get-the-lead-out-of-aviation-gasoline

for a look at measured, carefully-reasoned anti-100LL viewpoints. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hank]

No one has mentioned certifying a diesel engine for each and every existing aircraft model. I'm supposing that FAA approval to put a particular diesel on your F will not allow me to install the same engine in my C. Honda has been certifying their new GE jet enginefor the last 6 or 7 years, and hope for approval next year.

[1964-M20E]

Not to divert the conversation but when it comes to putting the engine on a particular aircraft. Let he manufactures run test on the engine and prop configuration itself to show that it is durable show this to the FAA for a quick approval. The FAA would set how many hours the engine and prop need to be tested and how many copies to be tested with and without failure. Then let the owner and mechanic and IA be responsible (primarily the owner since he is requesting it) for the installation, and making appropriate adjustments to the POH for range, takeoff distances etc. based on the manufactures test results. Engine swaps should not be a big deal as long as you stay within the original manufacture’s HP limits. I should be able to go get any established 180HP to 200HP engine and CS prop combination out there and put it on the front of my plane.<br /><br />Secondly I like the idea of a grant to remove the 100LL burning engine on the front of my plane and replace it with a diesel burning engine. After all the Fed are shelling out insanely large sums of money to people to raise their houses to minimize the potential to flood in some case more than $100k per house.<br /><br />Give me $45 to $50k to the cost of a new diesel to replace my engine I’d be on board but this does go against my wanting the Feds to decrease in size and scope. Of course if we get them out of the fuel business then we can have our 100LL and the feds do not need to spend any money.<br />

[danb35]

IIRC, there are currently three 100-octane unleaded avgas varieties seeking certification.  All claim to be drop-in replacements for 100LL (and even the idiotically-named "100VLL" which is still 100LL).  If we're going to keep the fleet flying, we need a 100LL replacement--re-engining is just not a realistic solution.  Lots of the fleet could fly on mogas, but the part that flies the most hours needs 100-octane gas.

[carusoam]

The io-550 is already capable running 100 octane w/o LL. It is already printed in the POH.

What would it take to convert the fleet to match what Continental has already done?

What would it take to have 100 octane fuel in a no LL variety delivered to the airport?

What would it cost to revive the turbine Mooney discussion...?

If you want turbo diesel, go turbine instead.

Best regards,

-a-

[jetdriven]

Turbines burn twice the fuel for a given SHP than piston engines, and <400HP versions burn even more.

 

Swift fuel (from the GAMI folks) has 2% more energy density and it fully compatible with 100LL in the same tank at any ratio.  However, the oil companies enjoy a nice margin on 100LL and are predatory when it comes to offering more than one fuel at the airport. This is about money.

[carusoam]

So what's next. The LL battle is dead...

Solution 1: IO550 technology doesn't require fuel with lead.

Solution 2: GAMI's fuel replaces 100LL in existing motors.

Solution 3: turbines and delta hawks.

Best regards,

-a-

[KSMooniac]

 

Swift fuel (from the GAMI folks) has 2% more energy density and it fully compatible with 100LL in the same tank at any ratio.  However, the oil companies enjoy a nice margin on 100LL and are predatory when it comes to offering more than one fuel at the airport. This is about money.

 

Swift Fuel is a different formulation and company than GAMI... GAMI is developing G100UL as a spec that is a drop-in replacement for 100LL and made from existing ingredients already at most refineries.  Swift Fuel is made at least partially from bio stock IIRC and is a different beast altogether.  Another good idea, but whether or not it can be economically scaled-up using grass and other products remains to be seen.

 

I agree that the few 100LL refiners today are enjoying very healthy margins with regional monopolies on the product.

[KSMooniac]

So what's next. The LL battle is dead...

Solution 1: IO550 technology doesn't require fuel with lead.

Solution 2: GAMI's fuel replaces 100LL in existing motors.

Solution 3: turbines and delta hawks.

Best regards,

-a-

 

I don't think any of our engines require lead per se, but many of them require 100 octane and reaching that level without lead is the problem.  The 92UL or 96UL specs being pushed by many as good for 80% of the fleet might not work in our Mooneys with 8.7:1 compression, and definitely not in the turbo Mooneys.

 

Turbines will never be economical for our end of the spectrum, unfortunately.  Purchase price and fuel burn rates are non-starters.  Heck, even if you got a turbine for free, you likely couldn't carry enough fuel to get even half of the utility you get today in most Mooneys.

 

Diesels have promise, but to date are substantially heavier and very expensive.  I would love to see both of those problems solved.

[danb35]

The io-550 is already capable running 100 octane w/o LL. It is already printed in the POH.

Of course it is, as is any other piston aircraft engine--the lead isn't required in any of them, and the 100LL spec doesn't require any lead at all (it sets a maximum lead level, not a minimum--you could, in theory, have 100LL with no lead at all, but there's just no way to get the octane that high, and comply with all the other requirements, without at least some lead).  The 100 octane is the requirement, the lead is just the only currently-legal way to get there.

[jetdriven]

There is a thread on BT right now, with George Braly, one of the inventors of the G100UL fuel.  They had a turbo Cirrus they ran 3 years on the stuff. You can put one tank full of 100LL, one tank full of G100UL.  The only thing different was the couple knots faster it would run on the unleaded fuel. Or lean it a bit and same speed, lower FF.  The FAA is reviewing it.

 

  Now getting someone to manufacture it is another deal in itself. But it is here and now, 100 MON unleaded fuel.  And the refineries have the ingredients "behind the fence" to make it right now.

 

http://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=69910

[Jerry 5TJ]

Swift Fuel withdraws from PAFI:

https://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/101/4143-full.html?ET=avweb:e4143:223568a:&st=email#231459

[cliffy]

The more emitters of TEL to the atmosphere that you remove the larger "percentage of emissions" are shown by what remains. 

Remove 98 % of the emitting vehicles (cars) and the remaining emitters equal 100% of the total emissions. 

Someone needs to compare how much total airborne TEL we had emitted back when cars had high lead fuel and how many "pounds" we have now using 100LL. Might be an interesting comparison. 

This is why Los Angeles tried many years ago to get rid of gas powered lawn mowers as now so much TEL had been removed from the ait that lawn mowers were the major source of airborne TEL. 

Its easy to "adjust" numbers to ones advantage.