FAA: Unleaded fuel by 2018

[jlunseth]

On 6/12/2013 at 2:41 AM, DS1980 said:

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.

And they are heavier.  

[Hank]

1 hour ago, jlunseth said:

And they are heavier.  

and expensive. And not certified on many planes . . . I'm not interested in a 182 . . . . .

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, jlunseth said:

And they are heavier.  

Back in 2013, @DS1980 did say they were heavier

I've been watching DeltaHawk Engines, they're working on a technologically interesting diesel engine that they were looking to get certified.   It's supposed to be a 2-stroke engine with the intake/exhaust air driven by turbocharger air pressure (there's an inline supercharger only for starting and failsafe).  In addition, there are no valves or timing system, the intake and exhaust are simply ports that are covered and uncovered by the piston motion.  I nice minimalist concept.

Unfortunately, they've been working on it for the better part of 10 years without a product, and the term "vaporware" comes to mind...

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

Back in 2013, @DS1980 did say they were heavier

I've been watching DeltaHawk Engines, they're working on a technologically interesting diesel engine that they were looking to get certified.   It's supposed to be a 2-stroke engine with the intake/exhaust air driven by turbocharger air pressure (there's an inline supercharger only for starting and failsafe).  In addition, there are no valves or timing system, the intake and exhaust are simply ports that are covered and uncovered by the piston motion.  I nice minimalist concept.

Unfortunately, they've been working on it for the better part of 10 years without a product, and the term "vaporware" comes to mind...

A 200Hp DeltaHawk powered M20J would be amazing.  It supposedly burns 7.5GPH at 75% so it would be about as fast as a 231 at altitude (its turbo charged) on 7.5 gph.  Imagine that with long range tanks.

I think its been in the works for more like 15 years?

Supposedly since at least 6 or 7 years ago they were doing testing flights of an SR20 with the engine.  Oh well....

[jetdriven]

We have been waiting around for a diesel engine for small airplanes since the Curtis Robin back in 1931 that flew with the Packard Diesel engine for 84 hours continuous.. Still waiting. The 182 diesel project is dead. After a couple of off field landings they canned that project. I looked at that motor at Oshkosh a few years ago, it had something like 30 turbo hose V-band clamps and about 15 silicone pipe couplers. Any one of those blows off the engine spools down and suffers tremendous power loss. complete  power loss at a higher altitude.  turbo failure, same thing.. Remember the engine requires ~50' of MP to make rated power.  That's tremendous cylinder pressure and some highly stressed components, and lots of single point failures to save the 20% of fuel. We're not there yet.

[jaylw314]

42 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

We have been waiting around for a diesel engine for small airplanes since the Curtis Robin back in 1931 that flew with the Packard Diesel engine for 84 hours continuous.. Still waiting. The 182 diesel project is dead. After a couple of off field landings they canned that project. I looked at that motor at Oshkosh a few years ago, it had something like 30 turbo hose V-band clamps and about 15 silicone pipe couplers. Any one of those blows off the engine spools down and suffers tremendous power loss. complete  power loss at a higher altitude.  turbo failure, same thing.. Remember the engine requires ~50' of MP to make rated power.  That's tremendous cylinder pressure and some highly stressed components, and lots of single point failures to save the 20% of fuel. We're not there yet.

Yikes!  Those sound like some tight tolerances required...

[aviatoreb]

52 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

We have been waiting around for a diesel engine for small airplanes since the Curtis Robin back in 1931 that flew with the Packard Diesel engine for 84 hours continuous.. Still waiting. The 182 diesel project is dead. After a couple of off field landings they canned that project. I looked at that motor at Oshkosh a few years ago, it had something like 30 turbo hose V-band clamps and about 15 silicone pipe couplers. Any one of those blows off the engine spools down and suffers tremendous power loss. complete  power loss at a higher altitude.  turbo failure, same thing.. Remember the engine requires ~50' of MP to make rated power.  That's tremendous cylinder pressure and some highly stressed components, and lots of single point failures to save the 20% of fuel. We're not there yet.

...umm yeah...I've had my fun with high altitude turbo failure already this year.  Everybody knock on wood please.

Well then I'll just wait for an improved version of my flux capacitor to be STC PMA'ed.

[Mooneymite]

Why waste time on unleaded avgas, or Diesels?

We'll all be flying electric airplanes as soon as they figure out the batteries....in a month, or two.

Didn't Tesla have a scheme to transmit electrical energy without wires?  I think Westinghouse put a kibosh on it because it couldn't figure out how to put a meter on usage without wires.

[cliffy]

"We'll be flying electric airplanes"?   SO as to cut down on emissions?

Where does the electricity come from for the electric cars now?  Power plants burning dinosaurs. 

The HP has to come from somewhere. 

[NotarPilot]

6 hours ago, cliffy said:

"We'll be flying electric airplanes"?   SO as to cut down on emissions?

Where does the electricity come from for the electric cars now?  Power plants burning dinosaurs. 

The HP has to come from somewhere. 

If this is a rhetorical question I apologize for my answer but some of the electricity comes from renewable sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric, maybe even nuclear depending on where you are in the country.

[Hank]

44 minutes ago, NotarPilot said:

If this is a rhetorical question I apologize for my answer but some of the electricity comes from renewable sources like wind, solar and hydroelectric, maybe even nuclear depending on where you are in the country.

But environmental activists don't like dams (they bother the fish) or wind (they kill birds), to say nothing of the horrors of nuclear anything. Of course, they are against burning petrofuels, too . . . Have yet to hear what large-scale power sources they approve of . . . .

[JRam]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

But environmental activists don't like dams (they bother the fish) or wind (they kill birds), to say nothing of the horrors of nuclear anything. Of course, they are against burning petrofuels, too . . . Have yet to hear what large-scale power sources they approve of . . . .

They approve of burning my dreams and my patience to fuel their political agenda... does that count?

[BulletsRockts&MissilesOhMy]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

But environmental activists don't like dams (they bother the fish) or wind (they kill birds), to say nothing of the horrors of nuclear anything. Of course, they are against burning petrofuels, too . . . Have yet to hear what large-scale power sources they approve of . . . .

You forgot to mention my all time favorite...the three 2.2 billion dollar power towers in California that instantly cook 3500-6000 birds midflight annually. They are so bright, they can been seen from the air on the California desert floor from above Las Vegas. Where is the activist outcry over these monstrosities?? The more you know!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

 

 

[Jerry 5TJ]

Worth noticing there’s a FIVE YEAR gap in this thread but the posts from 2013 are still germane.  Then and today:

• No viable alternative for 100LL has been identified 
• No new diesel planes are in production from Cessna or Cirrus or Mooney
• There is no STC to put Diesel engines into the existing fleet

About the only thing that has changed is the average age of the single engine piston fleet has increased about 4.9 years since 2013.  

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

But environmental activists don't like dams (they bother the fish) or wind (they kill birds), to say nothing of the horrors of nuclear anything. Of course, they are against burning petrofuels, too . . . Have yet to hear what large-scale power sources they approve of . . . .

bird death out of an annual total of 186,429,553 estimated deaths caused by human activity.

Come now - you aren't really concerned about birds - you are just trying to make it a knee jerk reaction against wind - but versus other human sources its trivial.  Who here is ready to get rid of their cats (number one)(400 times worse) or stop driving (#5)(50 times worse):

wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.

 

1	Cats (feral)	79,600,000	1 in 2.3
2	Cats (domestic)	54,880,000	1 in 3.4
3	Power line collisions	16,810,000	1 in 11.1
4	Buildings (houses)	16,390,000	1 in 11.4
5	Road vehicle collisions	9,814,000	1 in 19
6	Harvest (game birds)	2,817,000	1 in 66.2
7	Buildings (low, mid & high rise)	1,317,130	1 in 141.5
8	Commercial forestry	887,835	1 in 210
9	Power electrocutions	184,300	1 in 1,011.6
10	Agriculture (haying & mowing)	135,400	1 in 1,376.9

[Mooneymite]

11 hours ago, cliffy said:

"We'll be flying electric airplanes"?   SO as to cut down on emissions?

Where does the electricity come from for the electric cars now?  Power plants burning dinosaurs. 

The HP has to come from somewhere. 

Actually my post concerning electric planes was not motivated by any sort of environmental zealatry, but just from a performance standpoint.

Can you imagine electric flight where the ellectricity is beamed to the aircraft.  No batteries, no avgas, no internal combustion engine.  Just a smooth, lightweight servoed electric motor propelling a next-gen efficient Mooney!

Well... let me dream.  

[1964-M20E]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

Can you imagine electric flight where the ellectricity is beamed to the aircraft.  No batteries, no avgas, no internal combustion engine.  Just a smooth, lightweight servoed electric motor propelling a next-gen efficient Mooney!

Well... let me dream.  

Electric powered does have some advantages like the motor is not affected by DA.  You can get maximum power for takeoff.

I think methanol fuel cells if they can be small enough and light enough to replace our current engines and electric motors up front would make a good combination.  Or, dreaming here, a futuristic energy module the size of  car battery that can power the electric motor (LYC 200HP equivalent) for 6 hours.

I really think if the FAA stands aside some type of hybrid would become available. 150HP turbo charged engine with a 50HP electric motor boost and batteries that can power the motor for up to an hour.  Utilize the electric motor during takeoff and climb, in cruise the 150HP gasoline or diesel engine running at max rated power and efficiency propel the plane and recharge the battery.  The electric motor would even be helpful with an engine failure enabling you to extend glide to make an airport for a safe landing.

[Mooneymite]

4 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

Electric powered does have some advantages like the motor is not affected by DA.  You can get maximum power for takeoff.

I think methanol fuel cells if they can be small enough and light enough to replace our current engines and electric motors up front would make a good combination.  Or, dreaming here, a futuristic energy module the size of  car battery that can power the electric motor (LYC 200HP equivalent) for 6 hours.

I really think if the FAA stands aside some type of hybrid would become available. 150HP turbo charged engine with a 50HP electric motor boost and batteries that can power the motor for up to an hour.  Utilize the electric motor during takeoff and climb, in cruise the 150HP gasoline or diesel engine running at max rated power and efficiency propel the plane and recharge the battery.  The electric motor would even be helpful with an engine failure enabling you to extend glide to make an airport for a safe landing.

It is really unbelievable that our power plants are all stuck in the 40's and 50's.  I like your ideas, but will there ever be an implementation  of any new technology?

[Hank]

26 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

It is really unbelievable that our power plants are all stuck in the 40's and 50's.  I like your ideas, but will there ever be an implementation  of any new technology?

Not while the FAA's mandate is Safety at All Costs . . . . .

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

Actually my post concerning electric planes was not motivated by any sort of environmental zealatry, but just from a performance standpoint.

Can you imagine electric flight where the ellectricity is beamed to the aircraft.  No batteries, no avgas, no internal combustion engine.  Just a smooth, lightweight servoed electric motor propelling a next-gen efficient Mooney!

Well... let me dream.  

The electric transmitter goes down and we all crash!

[N201MKTurbo]

30 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

It is really unbelievable that our power plants are all stuck in the 40's and 50's.  I like your ideas, but will there ever be an implementation  of any new technology?

If the FAA would approve electronic ignition and fuel injection we would have systems within a year. It is not for lack of the technology.

If the airlines were still flying piston airplanes we would have had it years ago.

Edited September 7, 2018 by N201MKTurbo

[Mooneymite]

Just now, N201MKTurbo said:

The electric transmitter goes down and we all crash!

Happily the dilithium kicks in and we are all saved!

Still dreamin'.

[1964-M20E]

2 minutes ago, Hank said:

Not while the FAA's mandate is Safety at All Costs . . . . .

I'll also take a stab at the lawyers who make their living chasing every little problem and looking to blame some else.  In some instances they are justified but the appearance in many is it just a $$$ chase.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 minute ago, Mooneymite said:

Happily the dilithium kicks in and we are all saved!

Still dreamin'.

If you have dilithium what do you need ground power for? 

[Mooneymite]

1 minute ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If you have dilithium what do you need ground power for? 

A backup source....in case you ever need to go backwards.  

Oh.  Forget that.  I have a Lycoming that's pretty backwards.