[HN Gopher] Going to the Moon Was Easy Compared to 100UL
___________________________________________________________________
Going to the Moon Was Easy Compared to 100UL
Author : another
Score : 82 points
Date : 2021-01-23 13:46 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.avweb.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.avweb.com)
| orange_tee wrote:
| When I learned this a while back it blew my mind. Why are people
| allowed to dump lead on habited areas for a hobby? I understand
| if it were allowed for some commercial use, but to allow it for
| some random Joe who just wants to dick about in the sky. It seems
| wrong. I think there would be an outrage if it was something well
| known. I was also curious how much damage it is causing and found
| this article which says 16 million Americans are potentially
| affected, those living close to airports. [1]
|
| In Europe all new training aircraft are using diesel(-like)
| engines now which run on jet fuel or even straight diesel. It's
| not exactly hard to make the switch.
|
| [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-
| aviation-...
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _I understand if it were allowed for some commercial use_
| [...]
|
| You mean like all the flight schools that use 1970-era Cessnas
| as part of the training fleet? Or old King Airs to build hours
| for multi-engine qualifications?
| wankeler wrote:
| >In Europe all new training aircraft are using diesel(-like)
| engines now which run on jet fuel or even straight diesel. It's
| not exactly hard to make the switch.
|
| No they aren't and yes it is.
| Sileni wrote:
| I've been voicing this for years since I found out about it
| working for the company that manufactures leaded fuels in the
| UK.
|
| Even here, I got quite a bit of dismissal. It was jarring,
| really reminded me how little most people understand outside of
| their area of expertise.
| leetcrew wrote:
| for one thing, there just aren't that many of them. there are
| under 200k hobbyist pilots in the US, and they mostly fly small
| single-engine planes. it's a problem, but it's pretty far down
| the list of emissions concerns. see also: two stroke engines in
| lawnmowers, boats, etc.
| sneak wrote:
| Lead is an issue not because of the general fact that it is
| dirty pollution (like two-stroke engines), but because of the
| precise neurological effects of lead in human bodies
| specifically.
|
| There is a difference between sprinkling sulphur dioxide over
| an area and, say, plutonium.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Continued use of leaded fuel over time means it can build
| up in the environment. Living near an airport now I'm
| reluctant to eat anything from gardens nearby.
| orange_tee wrote:
| Two stroke might look bad if it is burning too much oil but
| in terms of health affects it is nowhere near as bad as
| leaded petrol.
| roywiggins wrote:
| The particulate pollution of 2-stroke engines is really,
| really bad.
|
| https://phys.org/news/2014-05-two-stroke-scooters-super-
| poll...
|
| (Lead is _arguably_ worse, but only because lead is
| _unbelievably_ bad for you, not merely very bad for you)
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| Why should hobbies be prioritized below commercial interests?
|
| There's good arguments for exactly the opposite: Hobby use is
| often much less intensive than commercial use, and at the same
| time, much more price sensitive.
| chmod775 wrote:
| Would make sense if there was taxpayer-funded healthcare,
| because then you _could_ use the money those companies pay as
| taxes to fund the treatment of those they poisoned...
| jbay808 wrote:
| Lying in a hospital bed with your medical treatment paid for
| is still a much worse experience than being healthy in the
| first place.
| studius wrote:
| I'm all for healthcare, but, on topic, it'd make even more
| sense to find replacements one-at-a-time for all of the
| products we use daily that are made up in part by crude oil.
|
| Most plastics, many foods, many skin products, etc. all come
| from some by-product of oil. Because of that dependence, big
| oil is not only a huge industry, it's most industries, most
| company, most products, and touches most consumers.
|
| Also:
|
| "There are 1.65 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves in
| the world as of 2016. The world has proven reserves
| equivalent to 46.6 times its annual consumption levels. This
| means it has about 47 years of oil left."[1]
|
| Wars have been fought over it when we still had a lot left,
| and we've got until maybe 2068.
|
| [1]- https://www.worldometers.info/oil/
| sokoloff wrote:
| I suspect way over half and perhaps 80+% of the 100LL is burned
| by commercial operations (commuter airplanes (Cape Air type),
| aerial application, power and pipeline patrol, fish spotting,
| cherry drying, banner tows, etc.)
|
| Private pilots just don't fly that much compared to the small
| commercial operators. (And the few that do are likely to
| upgrade to turbine equipment, burning Jet-A.)
| jabl wrote:
| > Private pilots just don't fly that much compared to the
| small commercial operators. (And the few that do are likely
| to upgrade to turbine equipment, burning Jet-A.)
|
| Why aren't those small commercial operators that fly a lot
| then upgrading to Jet-A burning equipment?
| sokoloff wrote:
| Cost. Turbine engines are expensive to buy. (Think
| $500K-$1500K each for small ones vs $35K-75K for pistons.)
|
| Cape Air passengers aren't willing to pay enough to let
| Cape Air operate B200s or Metros.
|
| The mostly business owners flying themselves privately in
| support of their business have more money to spend on tools
| to run their business than Cape Air pax or banner tow
| advertisers. They went turbine because turbine engines have
| incredible dispatch reliability.
|
| Believe me, if turboprops cost anywhere near the same, the
| piston airplane market would evaporate overnight.
| jabl wrote:
| Note I carefully said "Jet-A burning" rather than
| turbines specifically.
|
| As OP mentioned, diesel piston engines burning Jet-A or
| diesel are fairly popular in Europe.
|
| Of course, that still requires a new engine or even a new
| plane vs. the cost of keeping the current one running.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Yes. You carefully (half-)changed the subject in text and
| then shouted "hah; gotcha!" when I missed it.
|
| There is no aviation diesel available for 402-sized
| airplanes and none for helicopters that I'm aware of.
|
| Banner tows could fly anything, sure.
| jabl wrote:
| Sorry, I didn't mean to trick you into some trap.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Cool. It's the turbine that provides the reliability and
| that happens to burn Jet-A rather than the Jet-A that
| provides the reliability and happens to be a turbine so
| the subject change was extraordinarily unlikely to be
| detected.
|
| Spinny-spinny works a lot more reliably than the suck-
| squeeze-bang-blow monkey-motion needed by reciprocating
| engines.
| NikolaeVarius wrote:
| Wait what, Turbines are suck-squeeze-bang-blow, albiet
| without the monkey motion.
| [deleted]
| sokoloff wrote:
| I'd replace "bang" with "burn" in turbines, but the real
| key is rotary vs recip.
| nine_k wrote:
| Don't most helicopter fly on (unleaded) jet fuel already,
| their engines overwhelmingly being turbines?
| mattmaroon wrote:
| I'd bet training is a huge chunk of that too. At any small
| airport most of the traffic is C172s going up for training.
|
| Also most private pilots, even the avid ones, can't afford
| turboprop airplanes. They just upgrade to a 182 or something
| like a Cirrus.
| coryrc wrote:
| The seaplanes in Seattle and Kirkland, launching from lakes
| shared by thousands of civilians and ringed by homes, are
| mostly spewing lead.
| pinewurst wrote:
| Most of those are turboprops at least. In the sense of number
| of flights e.g. Kenmore Air, anyway.
| Wistar wrote:
| Cessna Caravans, mostly. The Beavers are definitely not
| turbine but I see them less and less these days.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Why would it be allowed for commercial use but not hobbyists?
| CalChris wrote:
| What is the status of fuels like 100UL in Europe?
| antattack wrote:
| It's time for airplanes that use leaded gasoline to go the way of
| xray machines for shoe fitting.
|
| Toxic products, such as leaded gasoline, asbestos, tobacco, some
| pesticides, would had been outlawed much sooner if US had
| universal healthcare where poisoning of others costs us all -
| instead of being an externality.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Sustainable aviation fuels are 50 years behind motor fuels
| because of the fear that changing fuels could cause your engine
| to fail.
|
| For ground transportation we have methanol, ethanol, butanol and
| other ol's not to mention biodiesel, dimethyl ether, etc.
| Electric is a good option too.
|
| For aviation fuel people are so scared of change that they are
| still trying to synthesize chain hydrocarbons from H and CO.
| (It's the one case where iron works as a catalyst but so poorly
| that they wish they could use Platinum instead.)
|
| Desperate people such as Nazis and South Africans found that's
| not worth doing even if you have cheap coal. Now people want to
| capture CO2 from the air to do it. Yeah right.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| SASOL is still alive and well... Cheap coal into liquid fuel is
| not particularly environmentally friendly but as a chemical
| process perfectly viable.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I think it was the worst performing stock in much of 2020.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| It may be perfectly fine if you have cheap solar. It's a
| completely different problem from starting with coal.
|
| Anyway, there are planes that use ethanol internal combustion,
| and methane reaction engines. There have been for ages. Those
| fuels aren't widely used because they are hard to handle and
| lose performance on the normal passenger transportation
| conditions. The reason they are more common on cars is because
| performance matter much less on road transportation, not
| because of any lack of testing.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| I think it is not a different problem. The FT process depends
| on many different paths, some of which build up larger
| molecules and some of which break them down.
|
| If you insist on making liquid hydrocarbons you need to be
| balanced on a knife edge -- HCs like to polymerize towards
| polyethylene (violently, blow up the container so) or break
| down to methane when heated. Thus you need a big factory to
| make a small amount of product and you might need to shut it
| down when the reaction vessel gunks up with petroleum jelly.
|
| With solar and carbon capture now you need to run an aniline
| stripper and a hydrogen factory but people dont care because
| of unicorns, rainbows, and all that.
| sokoloff wrote:
| There's some element of fear as embodied in the aviation
| regulations.
|
| There's not as much fear in the owner/pilot population, in
| large part because of those regulations. If any of the 100UL
| candidates pass certification, it's a fair bet that they'll be
| safe and I'll have no concern with flying on them.
|
| The real issue is that while you can suffer a 10% power or
| energy-density reduction (such as from alcohol displacing
| gasoline in the fuel) in an automotive application without any
| appreciable loss of safety and minimal loss of functionality,
| the same is not true for aircraft. Piston aircraft takeoffs are
| always* done at maximum available power and a 10% loss of power
| is cause for an abort.
|
| So it's unlikely that a fuel with materially worse performance
| would be certified.
|
| * - There were some extremely old multi-engine transports which
| had tables for reduced power takeoffs and some pilots
| mistakenly do them today, but the overwhelming practice is 100%
| of available.
| labawi wrote:
| Maximum power takeoff seems reasonable, and unexpected 10%
| power loss would be a very good reason to abort, but I don't
| see why you couldn't trade (stable and safe) 10% power for
| 10% runway and clearance, maybe some weight, altitude ..
|
| You _would_ need to reassess and update your tables, so
| regulations and certification are a big issue, but I don 't
| understand why would it be technically unrealisable. Half a
| century after we know it's harmful seems a long time to stop
| spewing lead all over the place.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Legally, you would have to do certification tests on every
| airplane type again.
|
| A 10% loss of power would require much more than 10%
| increase in runway for a given weight.
|
| Further, a 10% loss of energy density would require heavier
| takeoff weights for any given trip, meaning the penalty is
| further increased. I'm already weight-limited (either by
| certification limits or runway performance) on some
| flights. I carry about equal mass of fuel and people on
| trips with the whole family aboard.
|
| I'm not crying about it and I hope to see a viable 100UL
| emerge, but a 10% loss on two variables in the fuel would
| result in a lot more than "just use an extra 300 feet of
| takeoff roll and she'll be a'ight".
| baxtr wrote:
| Could anyone explain what 100 UL stands for? I tried this famous
| search engine u know, but that wasn't very insightful...
| sokoloff wrote:
| Also worth noting that while the lean octane rating of avgas is
| 100 (as compared to auto fuel's lean rating of around 85), the
| rich octane rating of avgas is around 130, providing increased
| margin against detonation on high-power takeoffs.
|
| It's a mistake to think "I can buy gas labeled as 93 octane at
| my local Shell station; surely they can find a way to find just
| 7 more points or detune the engine slightly."
| blktiger wrote:
| 100 Octane Un-Leaded
| Reason077 wrote:
| 100 = 100 octane, a common octane rating for avgas (aviation
| gasoline) UL = unleaded.
| 51Cards wrote:
| Clicking on this article with no context makes it very difficult
| to understand if you don't already know what 100UL and avgas
| means. Took me 2 paragraphs of confusion to figure out "avgas" is
| aviation fuel and 100UL means 100 Octane Unleaded.
| umvi wrote:
| Indeed, I kept waiting until the part where unsigned long types
| came into play but it never came
| u8mybrownies wrote:
| Agreed - the sarcastic colloquial style is difficult to
| penetrate
| throw0101a wrote:
| At the top of the page they say "WORLD'S PREMIER INDEPENDENT
| AVIATION NEWS RESOURCE".
|
| The author assumes that if you're reading _AV Web_ , then
| you're already somewhat familiar with the aviation scene and
| some of its jargon. We're not talking about an article
| published in the _New York Times_ or _Forbes_ here.
| studius wrote:
| I'd seen a gas pump with 100UL before, years ago, otherwise I
| would've had an even more difficult time interpreting it.
| camkego wrote:
| I second this, I had to really read the whole article before I
| totally got the big picture. A little context explaining ought
| to be done near the start.
| sbussard wrote:
| Warning: this article is known to the state of California to
| cause boredom.
| pfdietz wrote:
| One can make any organic material from non-fossil sources with
| enough money. For example, one can make xylenes from sugar by
| demonstrated pathways (hydrodeoxygenation followed by reforming).
| p-xylene has been made this way as a renewable feedstock for
| making PET plastic. That chemical also has octane rating of 146
| (RON) or 127 (MON).
|
| https://www.virent.com/products/gasoline/
| jabl wrote:
| They want a high octane unleaded fuel, that also otherwise
| largely matches the existing fuel (viscosity, density, vapor
| pressure profile etc.).
|
| I don't specifically know what's wrong with xylene, but IIRC
| aromatics in general produce a lot of soot (PAH and other nasty
| carcinogens), which is why they've been steadily reducing the
| maximum allowable content in automotive gas.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Given that they are allowing lead in avgas I doubt a little
| soot would be showstopper.
| jabl wrote:
| Depends. If there's so much soot it reduces time between
| engine overhauls, that might not be good.
|
| Then again, TEL causes shorter overhauls as well, so...
|
| Anyway, like I said, there's a boatload of other properties
| the fuel has to satisfy as well. If it were as simple as
| just switching to p-xylene, presumably they would have
| already gone down that route.
| studius wrote:
| I see no argument as to why going to the moon was easier. That
| sort of title diminishes the sacrifices and accomplishments
| involved with going to the moon.
| nosianu wrote:
| It's not a theoretical question, we have the events and the
| outcomes, complete: The time it took from announcement to
| actually landing on the moon was shorter than the time it took
| from recognizing the lead problem to banning it from _all_ fuel
| including aviation fuel. The second one already is longer. So
| whatever your model of reality, the _complete_ model is reality
| itself and it proves that point. What else would be better for
| arguing than the actual real-world outcomes?
|
| If you want to say things like "but there were less people
| working on the problem" you are removing things from the real
| world to build a more limited model to fit your argument.
| Overall getting enough people to work on the problem is part of
| it. Including _everything_ , which includes getting attention
| and resources devoted to a problem in the first place, the moon
| landing indeed was easier. I think it's not much of an argument
| that exactly that, getting a vast effort rolling and people and
| resources devoted to a problem, really _is_ one of the hardest
| problems. It was pretty easily achieved for the moon landing.
|
| If you want to separate the policy problem of getting the
| resources from the technology problem you are only looking at a
| part, to get the desired outcome both are needed. Sure, the
| technology part was harder for the moon landing - which makes
| it even worse that the other part, the policy stuff, is so hard
| to accomplish.
| studius wrote:
| How many died?
|
| The elapsed calendar time from the birth of the first human
| to when an electronic drink blender was first invented was
| much longer, but I wouldn't say that was more effort and
| sacrifice than getting to the moon.
|
| Do you know how many lives were lost in Germany, prisoners
| marched in the cold by force, a huge number of them dying
| along the way, to dig underground missile production
| factories with their bare hands, being shot if they stopped?
| Or that those men leading those atrocious slave factories
| were then effectively saved from certain death from war crime
| tribunal, just to help with the early U.S. rocket program
| that went into the moon effort?[1][2]
|
| That's not even including the sacrifices leading up to it by
| the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., which I'd include in the overall
| effort[3][4].
|
| [1]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
|
| [2]- https://amazon.com/Operation-Paperclip-Intelligence-
| Program-...
|
| [3]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Space_accidents_a
| nd_i...
|
| [4]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-
| related_ac...
| hedora wrote:
| Certainly, fewer people died in those camps than have died
| of lead poisoning from avgas since. (The article says 16
| million people are currently impacted by lead from airplane
| exhaust.)
| Reason077 wrote:
| The problem isn't so much the fuel, it's the ancient piston
| aircraft (or at least, ancient engine designs) that are still
| kicking around.
|
| There are modern piston aircraft engines that not only run fine
| on unleaded fuel [1], but are even certified to run on standard
| automotive fuel ("Mogas"). There are videos on YouTube of pilots
| landing on remote highways and pulling up to regular gas station
| pumps to refuel their aircraft!
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_912
| sokoloff wrote:
| Very few piston airplanes above the entry-level and trainer
| fleet are normally aspirated. The piston airplanes that fly a
| lot (mostly in commercial service) are overwhelmingly
| turbocharged.
|
| Those are the ones that need the higher octane fuel (and the
| ones that burn the most of it). I could have bought paperwork
| (the Petersen STC) to allow my Cessna 182 to burn alcohol-free
| unleaded car gas. That is not available for the replacement
| engine I installed in that airplane nor for my current airplane
| (nor any turbo airplanes to my knowledge).
| Reason077 wrote:
| The turbocharged variant of the Rotax, the 914, is also
| certified to run on unleaded / automotive gas:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotax_914
|
| Fun fact: This engine also powers the USAF's Predator drones!
| sokoloff wrote:
| Which is tiny; it has 115 horsepower for 5 minutes and 100
| continuous. That's still trainer and entry level or 2-seat
| Cessna 152 sized engine and about 1/3 the power of a modern
| single-engine Bonanza.
| ericpauley wrote:
| For what it's worth, some kit planes are now using the
| Rotax 915iS (Newer injected variant of the 914) for
| 4-seaters [1]. This engine puts out 135 continous up to
| 15,000 ft. For comparison, a given Lycoming 161HP non-
| turbo engine (requiring 100LL) shouldn't run above 75%
| continous (120HP), and can't put out more than this above
| 9,000 ft [2].
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_Aircraft_Sling_TSi
| [2] https://encoreflight.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2017/06/Piper-Wa... Page 100
| olieidel wrote:
| Not quite - there are turbocharged piston engines running on
| Jet A1 (and even Diesel):
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro_Engine_E4
|
| There certainly seems to be some innovation here, in this
| case driven by Diamond in Austria. It may have "helped" that
| Avgas prices over here in Europe are really quite high.
| jabl wrote:
| > The problem isn't so much the fuel, it's the ancient piston
| aircraft (or at least, ancient engine designs) that are still
| kicking around.
|
| Yes, that's my understanding too. Aviation piston engines are
| stuck in 1950, largely because more stringent regulations have
| made it more expensive to develop new engines vs. keeping
| producing largely existing engine designs grandfathered in, and
| also because the market is pretty small.
|
| > There are modern piston aircraft engines that not only run
| fine on unleaded fuel [1], but are even certified to run on
| standard automotive fuel ("Mogas"). There are videos on YouTube
| of pilots landing on remote highways and pulling up to regular
| gas station pumps to refuel their aircraft!
|
| AFAIK the usefulness of this has been reduced, due to a lot of
| automotive gas containing ethanol. The engine itself might work
| fine with an ethanol blend, but the fuel system (bladders,
| lines, etc.) might not. There is apparently also a fear of
| vapor lock or other trouble if the ethanol and the rest of the
| fuel separate in the tank.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Right. Contaminants like ethanol are no bueno. Ethanol
| absorbs water from the air, and an ethanol-water mixture
| corrodes fuel lines, gaskets, and other parts. And thanks to
| the EPA and the corn lobby, it's getting harder and harder to
| find uncontaminated gasoline.
|
| I'm all for the transition to 100UL. I don't want to breathe
| lead either. But they need to either come up with a
| replacement that won't destroy airplane engines, or they must
| fund the replacement of everyone's engine with ones that will
| work with (and can be certified for) the new fuel.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _There are modern piston aircraft engines that not only run
| fine on unleaded fuel [1], but are even certified to run on
| standard automotive fuel ( "Mogas")._
|
| Note that _mogas_ is not necessarily the same as what one gets
| at a car gas station, called _pump gas_ by some:
|
| > _Automotive fuel from the pump is NOT the same everywhere you
| go. There are summer blends, winter blends, geographical blends
| within the seasonal changes, varying levels and types of
| oxygenates (not just ethanol) and when tanks are switched over
| a mixture of "in between". The pump labeling is accurate for
| octane, and in some parts of the world, the maximum percentage
| of ethanol. It doesn't tell you everything you need to know to
| make "pump gas" fit-for-purpose for aviation and it's not just
| about octane and ethanol. We need to control a wider range of
| fuel properties for aviation. Your equipment, your life and the
| lives of your passengers depend on it. Let's walk through
| exactly what Lycoming did in authorizing automotive gasoline -
| "mogas" - for our engines. It's also suggested that you read
| Section B of the latest revision to Lycoming Service
| Instruction 1070 - and read it carefully._
|
| * https://www.lycoming.com/content/unleaded-fuels-part-2
| kgilpin wrote:
| My airplane has a 1950s era engine (Continental O-300), which
| is able to run on automotive fuel ("mogas"). However, mogas is
| not much available at the airports. If there was a way to
| obtain it, I would use it. But it's almost never an option.
| limitedmage wrote:
| One of the local flight clubs where I live has a trailer full
| of gas canisters. Once a week, someone drives with the
| trailer to one of the few gas stations left with ethanol-free
| fuel and fills up the canisters. It's a lot of work but it
| saves the club a lot of money since mogas is much cheaper
| than avgas.
| ballenf wrote:
| I had forgotten that we all did hate ABBA in the eighties. I mean
| that no one I knew could stand to listen to a single song all the
| way through.
|
| But now I kind of like them and had kind of fake memories of
| always liking them until the article's statement.
|
| But obviously they were pretty popular even back then, so maybe
| it's just the two of us.
|
| My real point is how I think the nostalgia around the band with
| movies and such kind of hijacked my brain.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > I had forgotten that we all did hate ABBA in the eighties.
|
| I asked a European guy about ABBA's popularity in Europe at the
| time they were megastars.
|
| He said they were just enjoyable and fun to listen to.
|
| Some of the Eurovision stuff I heard though, dunno.
| jabl wrote:
| In my non-expert uninformed opinion, if the political will would
| be there UL94 would have replaced 100LL a long time ago. UL94 is
| basically 100LL but without the lead, so we certainly know how to
| produce it worldwide at decent cost.
|
| - Most planes could switch without any change
|
| - Yes, in some cases, changes would be needed, like
| - detuning. - installing an electronic ignition timing
| system. - Installing a new engine, either a newer
| gasoline engine, a diesel engine, or a turbine engine.
| - Scrapping the plane and buying a new one.
|
| Sure, this would incur cost for some, but c'est la vie. Many such
| decisions have been made in societies all over the world, often
| for good reasons.
|
| This could still be the solution if the EPA puts their foot down
| and the PAFI thing mentioned doesn't produce a workable 100UL
| recipe.
| beervirus wrote:
| > Sure, this would incur cost for some, but c'est la vie.
|
| How easily we discount costs that affect only other people.
| hedora wrote:
| Like 16 million cases of lead poisoning because people that
| can afford a plane don't upgrade their engines?
| leetcrew wrote:
| the actual quote from the scientific american article:
|
| > The EPA estimates that 16 million Americans live close to
| one of 22,000 airports where leaded avgas is routinely used
| --and three million children go to schools near these
| airports.
|
| 16 million people living near airports where leaded avgas
| is used is not the same thing as 16 million confirmed cases
| of lead poisoning. there's no need to exaggerate.
| leetcrew wrote:
| flying is already an inherently expensive, niche hobby. it's
| cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would be
| some enormous injustice to price a few more people out.
|
| a reasonable solution might be to grandfather in all existing
| engines that are only certified for leaded fuel. as long as
| the use is non-commercial and/or doesn't exceed some number
| of hours per year, you can keep using that engine until it
| dies. once it does (or you want a new plane) you have to use
| unleaded fuel.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _it 's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it
| would be some enormous injustice to price a few more people
| out._
|
| Except for all the flight schools that are part of the
| pipeline for training pilots. A lot of smaller shops use
| airplanes from many decades ago, and mandating that they
| swap in a new engine (at a cost of tens of thousands of
| dollars) for each plane (in their fleet), could be ruinous.
| leetcrew wrote:
| ultimately some businesses are going to need to feel the
| consequences of environmentally unsustainable practices.
| as another example, there might not be a future for cheap
| cruise ships that burn bunker fuel.
|
| if it would be truly ruinous to the pilot training
| pipeline, you could grandfather in the smaller flight
| schools. my main thought here is that we should not
| continue to manufacture engines that burn leaded fuel.
| there's plenty of room to compromise over who gets to
| continue using engines that already exist.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _my main thought here is that we should not continue to
| manufacture engines that burn leaded fuel._
|
| I don't disagree with you, but there are many thousands
| of perfectly good planes from previous decades that are
| in good shape (they have to be inspected annually) that
| will be a long legacy.
|
| Right now I can find 63 pre-1960 single-piston aircraft
| for sale, with the cheapest being US$ 42K from 1945 as I
| type this:
|
| * https://www.controller.com/listings/search?Category=6&S
| copeC...
|
| One of the oldest is a 1928 biplane ($130K). If you're a
| WW2 enthusiast there's a 1940 Hawker Hurricane for US$
| 2.7M.
| Reason077 wrote:
| There are already _electric_ training aircraft certified
| in Europe [1]. In the coming years and decades, these
| will very likely greatly reduce costs (fuel, maintenance)
| for flight schools while eliminating lead, and other
| emissions.
|
| [1] https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/aircraft/electric-
| flight/...
| jabl wrote:
| > flying is already an inherently expensive, niche hobby.
| it's cool that it exists at all, but I don't think it would
| be some enormous injustice to price a few more people out.
|
| Yes.
|
| > a reasonable solution might be to grandfather in all
| existing engines that are only certified for leaded fuel.
| as long as the use is non-commercial and/or doesn't exceed
| some number of hours per year, you can keep using that
| engine until it dies. once it does (or you want a new
| plane) you have to use unleaded fuel.
|
| I'm not sure that's workable. Apparently a large fraction
| of the piston engine aircraft fleet is decades old, and the
| replacement rate is very low. So you'd have a very long
| transition period. Further, GA is such a small niche market
| anyway that smaller airports are very reluctant to provide
| more than one gasoline variant.
|
| I think it'd be more realistic to set some date after which
| sale of leaded AVGAS is prohibited. That's what was done
| when leaded automotive gas was banned. Those with cars
| unable to use unleaded gas just had to suck up whatever
| expenses were needed, or stop driving.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>The U.K.-based Innospec is believed to be the only remaining
| producer of TEL
|
| Well, as a semi-interesting fact, UK is one of the very few
| countries where (extremely limited) sale of actual leaded petrol
| is still allowed at a handful of garages around the country.
| Pretty much exclusively used by owners of classic cars which
| haven't been modified to run on unleaded fuel. The list of
| garages that still sell it is here:
|
| https://www.fbhvc.co.uk/fuels
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-23 23:01 UTC)