[HN Gopher] FAA approves hundreds more engines to use unleaded a...
___________________________________________________________________
FAA approves hundreds more engines to use unleaded avgas
Author : throw0101a
Score : 104 points
Date : 2021-10-29 21:03 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aopa.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aopa.org)
| ericpauley wrote:
| Interesting to see the continued interest in G100UL on Hacker
| News. Personally I'm ecstatic to soon be able to run unleaded.
| I'm curious to know if this is indicative of a broader
| (politically-relevant?) interest in getting lead out of GA, or
| just the sort of specialist topic that tends to interest HNers.
|
| It's interesting (but not unexpected in hindsight) that this new
| slew of approvals (generally) only impacts engines previously
| approved for low-octane unleaded fuels (e.g., 94UL). Even smaller
| engines like the Lycoming IO-360 (except the derated -L2A) aren't
| approved despite only modest power increases over the O-360.
|
| At any rate if GAMI is to be believed this is all academic
| because the final set of approvals should come out before G100UL
| is practically available anyway.
| base698 wrote:
| If it hasn't been out five years you're a test pilot.
| drzoltar wrote:
| I think a big factor here is the sentiment of people who live
| near small airports. The noise is already an issue. At least
| now there won't be lead raining down on the neighborhood, so
| maybe less petitions to close the airport.
|
| As well, every time I test the fuel on a Cessna it inevitably
| sprays everywhere so there's that worry too.
| downrightmike wrote:
| If you look at Chandler Az's small airport, you'll see it is
| now in the middle of a dense sprawl of suburbs, who no doubt
| have no idea leaded fuel it burnt over their heads day and
| night. Minimum house price in the areas wasn't less that
| $500k last time I looked, and those were few. Intel is just
| to the west. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Chandler+Munic
| ipal+Airport...
| Tagbert wrote:
| Yes, we live just a couple of miles from the airport in
| downtown Renton, WA (Seattle suburb). Small planes burning
| leaded fuel takeoff and land over the town and over Lake
| Washington. We are not in the flight path, but it's very
| concerning for everyone who is and for all the fish in that
| lake.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I'm somewhat surprised, based on state lead disclosure
| laws, that this too isn't required to be disclosed to
| buyers of properties within proximity to airports that
| provide 100LL from their FBOs. It's worse than lead paint
| (typically stable if not disturbed) in that it's in the air
| and on the soil.
|
| You might expect the noise, but you'd have to be versed in
| general aviation to know you're being exposed to lead from
| combustion pollution.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > I think a big factor here is the sentiment of people who
| live near small airports.
|
| (disclaimer: am a pilot, so biased) They don't really build
| small airports anymore, so the vast, vast majority of people
| who live near small airports chose to move there knowing in
| advance that the airport was there. Then they complain about
| the noise and pollution. There's a doctrine in Real Estate
| law called "Coming to the Nuisance" [1] which exists as a
| defense to these complaints. People who moved there knew what
| they were getting themselves into and assumed the risk of
| harm.
|
| I don't like that our airplanes spew lead into the
| environment, and am really _really_ happy that an actual
| viable unleaded solution is finally on the horizon, but I
| also disagree with moving in next to an airport and then
| immediately complaining about it.
|
| 1: https://dictionary.thelaw.com/coming-to-the-nuisance/
| [deleted]
| stefan_ wrote:
| It's 2021. There is no excuse to be using leaded fuel, just
| as there was none 10 and 20 years ago. If they don't want
| to implement reforms, the obvious consequence needs to be
| _close down any operation still using leaded fuel
| immediately_. You had plenty of time.
|
| Leaded fuel is an obvious externality. As with all of
| those, there is no pressure on the ones causing the
| immediate harm to stop. Government action is required.
| davidw wrote:
| On the topic of small airports, you might find this an
| interesting oddity:
|
| https://www.google.com/maps/@44.0473359,-121.2771145,1144m/
| d...
|
| I know I did when I started looking around on Google Maps
| when we moved here. Hey, wait, is that...?!
| btgeekboy wrote:
| Airparks are a bit more common around the country than
| you'd think. Some are nicer than others.
|
| A pilot and homebuilder (of aircraft) myself, it's
| basically my dream.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'd image hackers are curious people, some of whom are
| interested in other tech like aviation, cars, etc.
| jpgvm wrote:
| There does tend to be a strong overlap with tinkering with
| code to tinkering with physical things. Woodworking in
| particular seems very popular amongst my group of software
| inclined folk.
| [deleted]
| notJim wrote:
| Can the availability of this fuel be scaled readily, or will most
| people be stuck with leaded fuel still? Can companies other than
| GAMI make this fuel?
| ericpauley wrote:
| GAMI claims the licensing for this will be relatively open, and
| Avfuel (very strong presence in GA fuel) claims they'll be
| pushing this out, so at least in theory it could see relatively
| rapid adoption.
| sokoloff wrote:
| George Braly (principal engineer at GAMI) has also claimed
| that all ingredients are readily available to and capable of
| being processed at any refinery currently making 100LL.
| lutorm wrote:
| I thought 100LL was basically only made in one refinery? Or
| maybe I'm misremembering and it's TEL that's only made in
| one factory, worldwide.
| Rutledge wrote:
| I'm excited about this push. One interesting note is how this
| entire project has been 'in flight' for 30+ years almost
| cancelled with PAFI and then with then with recent pressure to
| close airports (namely KRHV) with leaded fuel as the lighting rod
| the FAA has now accelerated to "progress at the speed of light."
|
| "He added that the accelerated commitment reflects new urgency
| arising from the FAA's awareness that some local governments are
| taking action to ban leaded avgas from being used at airports in
| their jurisdictions.
|
| Local governments threats driving innovation at the federal level
| :P
| redis_mlc wrote:
| > recent pressure to close airports (namely KRHV) with leaded
| fuel
|
| It's always been a real estate issue with KRHV.
|
| The nearby busy highways emit vastly more emissions than
| trainers, likely including lead.
|
| What city councils refuse to acknowledge is that once you close
| a city airport, you can never build another one. This is
| especially an issue in an earthquake zone.
| p1mrx wrote:
| > some local governments are taking action to ban leaded avgas
| from being used at airports in their jurisdictions.
|
| What happens if a 100LL aircraft lands at such an airport? Do
| they have to disassemble/tow it, or is there some sort of
| financial penalty?
| downrightmike wrote:
| can't it just run unleaded, albeit with slightly less power?
| colechristensen wrote:
| In general: no. In aviation you don't do "this should
| probably work so let's do it". You follow approved guidelines
| and procedures and only approved guidelines and procedures.
| When there are a hundred separate things that can go wrong
| and kill you, you don't stray outside the lines.
|
| And the issue isn't only slightly less power.
| noveltyaccount wrote:
| I know nothing about this and was surprised to learn leaded
| fuel is still a thing in _any_ gas. Found this:
| https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/
|
| _Avgas is the only remaining lead-containing transportation
| fuel. Lead in avgas prevents damaging engine knock, or
| detonation, that can result in a sudden engine failure._
|
| If engine knock can knock you out of the sky, it's probably
| not something you want to just take a chance with.
| p1mrx wrote:
| I assume based on this article that running unleaded would
| have violated FAA regulations.
| lutorm wrote:
| To somewhat expand on the other answers: The only reason
| there are cars that "require 93 octane but can run 87 with
| lower power" is that they have knock sensors and ECUs that
| can limit ignition timing to avoid knock. This is a
| sophisticated system and nothing like it is available in any
| aviation engine, being designs from the 50s (except maybe
| some new experimental engines.)
|
| The effect of running too low octane fuel in an aviation
| engine is not "slighly less power", but likely detonation and
| catastrophic engine failure.
|
| And that's _why_ it 's a violation of FAA regs to run
| aircraft on non-approved fuels.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| GAMI is a really neat company. This fuel additive is only one
| project; they're also famous for selling tuned fuel injectors to
| improve engine performance. https://gami.com/
| giantg2 wrote:
| Now can they up the weight limit for electric ultralights (300
| lbs so it's the same as a full tank of gas) or not include the
| batteries towards the limit?
| drzoltar wrote:
| Have there been any publicized studies done on the reliability of
| aircraft engines, with and without lead? I'm guessing this is
| what made the transition take so long, but I can't seem to find
| any references.
| strangemonad wrote:
| It's a rather complex topic with all sorts of factors including
| economics of a small market and FAA red tape. Av web has a
| great multi part on failure modes of engines and why new
| engines often don't succeed
|
| https://youtu.be/mwpzTnLC8BY
|
| https://youtu.be/_k1TQGK3mZI
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-29 23:00 UTC)