[HN Gopher] FAA approves hundreds more engines to use unleaded a...
___________________________________________________________________
FAA approves hundreds more engines to use unleaded avgas
Author : throw0101a
Score : 257 points
Date : 2021-10-29 21:03 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aopa.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aopa.org)
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| A hidden gem in the approval is the ability to finally use
| _synthetic oil_ and extend the oil service interval:
|
| https://youtu.be/mhMKTe3tkv0?t=4223
| mmaunder wrote:
| There are some interesting Diesel engines in aviation now like
| the Diamond DA42 and 62. They run on Jet A and are basically
| Diesel engines. Jet A and diesel are similar.
| phoenix3200 wrote:
| Aren't those engines rather difficult to overhaul? As in, you
| have to send them to Europe?
| 535188B17C93743 wrote:
| Yes, they're twice as expensive and basically impossible to
| overhaul--it's basically buying anew.
| 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.
| notatoad wrote:
| i'm hopeful that the interest here is indicative of a broader
| politically-relevant interest. personally, i have no great
| interest in general aviation and am not even a very good
| environmentalist, but i'm enthusiastic about the advancements
| here because it seems like the sort of easy wins we should be
| pushing for, where a lot of the hard work has already been
| done.
|
| i'm basically just here as a bandwagon fan so i can celebrate
| when "we" win this one. the same way i cheer when my local
| hockey team makes the playoffs. and i suspect that a lot of us
| are following this story for similar reasons.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I visited GAMI's Ada, OK facility in early 2014 and got a
| demo of their fuel that was already flying (in experimental
| category). A lot of the hard work was done almost a decade
| ago. It's frustrating to me how slow the approval process has
| gone, but it's got to be 10x as frustrating to GAMI.
| VLM wrote:
| The entire topic is a virtue signalers paradise. Insert
| unscientific outrage in the vending machine, get free karma. No
| need to know anything about the specific topic or the
| environment or chemistry or aviation or statistics to get that
| sweet karma.
| 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.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| How many people here do you think live near under the flight
| path of GA airports?
|
| How many people here do you think see the "LL" in 100LL and
| see an easy source of internet virtue points?
|
| Hatred for lead pollution in any capacity is just one of
| those community tropes here. The people who care are probably
| outnumbered 10:1 by people who just wanna be seen looking
| like they care. It's the same level of caring as a retweet or
| signing a change.org petition. Welcome to bike shedding 101.
|
| I don't expect this to be a popular comment.
| loves_mangoes wrote:
| You should honestly ask yourself why this is not a popular
| comment.
|
| If you start by assuming everyone else is arguing in bad
| faith ("people who just wanna be seen looking like they
| care"), then it's easy to dismiss any criticism, and it'll
| be hard for you to prove yourself wrong.
|
| If you never try to know when you're wrong, you could end
| up stuck with wrong beliefs for the rest of your life.
|
| I have no stake in your life, but I'd recommend against
| that.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I know why it's a not a popular comment. Because everyone
| who cares enough to sling shit on the internet but not
| more than that is annoyed that I pointed out that that's
| where their line is drawn.
|
| The fact that people think every un-flattering
| observation about online discourse is assumed to be in
| bad faith says something. I'm not sure what but it's
| certainly un-flattering as well.
| kelnos wrote:
| Unflattering observations are fine, if they're based on
| solid evidence or at least some sort of logical process
| of determination. You do neither of those things and just
| throw around your personal opinion as gospel. It's
| unnecessary and doesn't add anything of value to the
| conversation.
| 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...
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I wonder how that compares living near traffic in the 1970s
| when all cars ran on lead.
|
| I'm (wildly) guessing 0.1% of those lead levels.
| Cerium wrote:
| I could not find any data on the actual levels, but there
| is data available on the effect on children.
|
| By the late 1970s "88% of children had a level exceeding
| 10 mg/dl" [1] while current data from near the Reid-
| Hillview Airport shows that there is no particularly
| noticable effect [2] with just 1.7% of children having a
| blood level above 4.7 ug/dl. On average around 2% of
| children in the US regardless of location have a blood
| lead level around that number.
|
| [1] https://www.jci.org/articles/view/28232 [2]
| https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-airport-lead-
| levels-ar...
| nimish wrote:
| No level of lead is safe in children, so even that is
| concerning.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| If levels at the airport aren't higher than the
| "background level" elsewhere, our concern should focus on
| other factors.
| VLM wrote:
| Actually no, not for policy decisions.
|
| Guaranteed kids will have levels medically too high is a
| policy problem. Immediately downwind of the interstate in
| the 70s was apparently a very bad place for kids to be,
| and policy fixed that (more or less).
|
| Almost no kids will have high levels now, and those few
| with higher levels experimentally are from uncountable
| random sources rather than the point source airport, is
| not a useful aviation policy problem.
| nimish wrote:
| The issue is high level = any detectable level above
| zero, especially if man made and easily preventable.
|
| Allowing leaded avgas has always been a policy decision
| to cater to GA over the health of, among others,
| children.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| The main lead sources now are old water pipes and paint.
|
| Both seem very countable and fixable.
| 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.
| [deleted]
| skybrian wrote:
| I don't know enough to judge how bad a problem it is
| either. What's a good way to find out more?
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/default.htm
| skybrian wrote:
| I'm already aware of lead's environmental effects in
| general. I was wondering what we know about the scope of
| the problem from burning 100LL?
| dpe82 wrote:
| Santa Clara County did a study, found there was not much
| of a difference: https://sanjosespotlight.com/san-jose-
| airport-lead-levels-ar...
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I'd rather have Cessnas above me than a fab upwind. There
| is and has been some _very_ nasty stuff in types of plants.
| downrightmike wrote:
| Arizona gives you both!
| 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.
| heresie-dabord wrote:
| Pertinent references:
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230438/
|
| https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Airport/N
| ews...
| jliptzin wrote:
| I had no idea leaded fuel was still used anywhere
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| It's limited to general aviation: Small piston-driven
| private airplanes. Lead is not used in jets.
| tialaramex wrote:
| And importantly in this context: The magic word is
| "piston-driven". Lots of aircraft you see _look_ to a lay
| person like they don 't have a jet engine, because there
| are propellers just like on a piston-engined plane. But a
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop is a very
| efficient _jet_ engine that just happens to be driving a
| propeller and so they 're running on JetA fuel which
| never had lead in it. (There are still lots of reasons
| not to exhaust that into the sky either, but at least it
| doesn't have lead in it)
| tialaramex wrote:
| It may also be used for some very old cars. "This should
| be in a museum" (and maybe is) level cars may have been
| impossible to adapt to unleaded gasoline. So, one option
| is you just don't run them - after all these are very old
| cars they're both unsafe and inefficient by modern
| standards with few creature comforts. But if you're
| exhibiting cars in working condition you've got two
| practical options:
|
| 1. Add a lead additive, you don't need very much, and
| since this isn't exactly your daily driver it's not so
| terribly inconvenient, you can buy this over the
| Internet. You just pour a measured ammount in to the tank
| each time you re-fuel. I don't think this is illegal in
| the US, but I don't know if it's common. At population
| scale it isn't a big nuisance.
|
| 2. Choose a substitute additive, which is likewise added
| to fuel. There are several, but whether they work for you
| is a question and of course the manufacturers are not
| interested in insuring your potentially unique 100+ year
| old car for damage from their cheap additive product. If
| you suffer mechanical problems that's your problem.
|
| There's a _lot_ more piston plane flight than there are
| people still driving a classic era car on any particular
| day.
| [deleted]
| refurb wrote:
| Do you have a source that's it's worse?
| ineedasername wrote:
| It would make sense that lead aerosolized in the air has
| more access to human biology than lead in undisturbed
| paint.
|
| Degraded lead paint consumed by unknowing children would
| probably deliver high concentrations, but a lot of that
| will travel unabsorbed through the intestinal track.
| Aerosolized lead paint would be unavoidable with a higher
| proportion passing into the bloodstream through the
| lungs, and therefore on a more express route northwards
| where it can pass between the blood-brain barrier.
| slimsag wrote:
| Concentration could make a huge difference, though. Paint
| is in enclosed spaces without ventilation, often.
| Aeroplanes are not in the context of suburb effects.
| refurb wrote:
| Aviation 100LL is 0.56g of lead per gallon. Small Cessna
| 172 burn ~10 gal/hr in flight.
|
| Presumably taxiing and take off burn a few gallons, so
| 1gm of lead dispersed over a pretty wide area. So at any
| given point in the area your overall exposure is low.
| jandrese wrote:
| With hundreds of GA flights per day this will add up over
| time. One of the terrible things about lead is how hard
| it is to get out of the environment.
| lutorm wrote:
| Thanks for those numbers. As a contrast, the lead content
| in lead-based paint can be up to _50%_ by weight for
| really old paint, down to 0.5% before lead was banned. A
| single house full of old lead paint can easily contain
| many kg of lead.
|
| It's true that as long as that paint is in good condition
| and isn't disturbed, it's not harmful. However, paint
| deteriorates and chips, is disturbed when remodeled, etc.
| One tiny paint chip of old paint can easily have more
| lead than that Cessna dispersed around the airport, and
| it's concentrated in a single article.
|
| There's a crap ton of lead paint still around and sooner
| or later it's going to be mobilized. It's a fiction to
| think that an EPA-approved hazmat team will be dispatched
| whenever one of these old houses are torn down or
| remodeled. I'm much more worried about paint than a
| little avgas spread out evenly across the landscape.
| [deleted]
| ineedasername wrote:
| How many planes land & take off every day though? Over
| the course of a decade, sitting in small quantities on
| literally ever outdoor surface...
|
| Comparing it to lead paint is the wrong comparison. Take
| a look at what lead in the water supply, even at small
| concentration, can do to people. That's more comparable
| to air dispersal.
| 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]
| 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...?!
| camkego wrote:
| From Wikipedia: The Living With Your Plane Association
| estimates that there are at least 426 residential
| airparks in the United States. Florida is estimated to
| have 52 airparks, followed by Washington with 50,
| California with 28, and Oregon with 23.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| ...how is that legal? I thought flight corridors had to
| be far away from residential areas. You can't even
| legally fly a drone in most cities...
| RNCTX wrote:
| I'd say the vast majority of airparks used to be the
| town's municipal airport, and the town built a newer one
| and sold the old one.
|
| That's the case where I live around Dallas and we have a
| lot of them.
| 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.
| therein wrote:
| > As well, every time I test the fuel on a Cessna it
| inevitably sprays everywhere so there's that worry too.
|
| Yeah that bothers me as well. Especially since Tetraethyllead
| is in the perfect form to be absorbed through the skin.
|
| I started using nitrile gloves during that process but it
| still gets around with the wind at times.
|
| Would be a cool 3D printing project or even a better drain
| tube product design that springs flush with the plane so that
| it can't splurt out.
|
| Edit: After some searching came across this [0] -- will
| probably be buying that.
|
| [0] https://www.sportys.com/multisumptm-fuel-tester.html
| sokoloff wrote:
| I use the Gats jar, which has the additional advantage of
| having a chance to detect Jet-A contamination of your fuel.
| 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.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Woodwork seems like pretty much the perfect retirement
| hobby too. Not too physical, time > skill > exertion, and
| enough depth in the topic to last a lifetime.
| tw04 wrote:
| Honestly: at least in my circle there is an oddly massive cross
| section of tech workers who have private pilot's licenses. In
| my relatively small circle (less than 200 people) of close
| friends/acquaintances, 25% of the tech workers have a private's
| pilot's license and 0 of the non-tech folks.
|
| Maybe it's truly just my circle but I always found it
| odd/amusing that such a high percentage had or were going for
| their pilot's license. Maybe the same personality trait that
| pushed them to tech pushes them to want to fly themselves.
| And/or it's just a matter of having more expendable money and
| free time than the average joe.
|
| Either way I think it's less HN and more the profession.
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| I think it's because we all played MS Flight Simulator as
| kids
|
| (Disclaimer: I don't have a PFL, but my boss does... and his
| own Cessna)
| DaiPlusPlus wrote:
| *EDIT: PPL, not PFL. HN won't let me edit my post.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| That was me. Played FS2, F/A-18 Hornet, Falcon 3.0, tons of
| others. Always wanted to fly. Finally grew up, made some
| money, and got a lesson. Turns out I'm terrified of small
| planes. Then I learned they're roughly as dangerous as
| motorcycles for a given distance traveled (about 10x the
| risk of an auto) and gave up the dream for good.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| Ha. I did exactly the same thing. Took a lesson, was
| terrified the entire time. I like flying in the bigger
| stuff but a cessna seems like somebody has thrown a
| volkswagen beetle into the air. Every time that thing
| dropped a metre due to turbulence i was glad i went to
| the toilet beforehand.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| > Volkswagen Beetle
|
| Not a bad comparison actually. Between the airframe
| design era, air-cooling etc it's pretty apt.
|
| Fwiw I think the overlap is also because the tech thing.
| Flying airplanes is a pretty technical hobby so it makes
| sense it appeals to people like us tech workers
| ppg677 wrote:
| Wow, exactly my experience.
| machinelearning wrote:
| I think flying is especially attractive to people in tech
| because it is cognitively demanding (flight planning, comms,
| instrument work) but also requires a lot of physical
| coordination and prediction (landing, stall recovery,
| maneuvers) that working in front of a computer doesn't help
| you develop.
|
| It also requires you to develop a certain level of personal
| responsibility and good decision making to fly safely. This
| positively impacts the management of a team/company.
| sokoloff wrote:
| It's also one of the few things that lets me entirely
| unwind from other things going on and focus only on flying
| (technically and enjoying it).
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Flying is fairly expensive, no?
| m4rtink wrote:
| Depends - here in Europe you can jojn the local "aeroclub",
| pay a reasonable yearly fee, perform various work
| alignments from the club (airport and aircraft maintenance,
| manning the advisory radio service on the tower, etc.) and
| then you can fly the clubs gliders at first come first
| served basis (after appropriate training of course).
|
| This way even university students can fly (gliders) without
| being rich & quite a few of my friends did.
|
| Also, not really a problem with leaded fuel in most
| gliders. ;-)
|
| (The towing aircraft or the winch might be a different
| matter.)
| lutorm wrote:
| Yeah flying clubs and/or experimental aircraft are the
| way to go, cost wise. There are some complications for
| _learning_ to fly that way, but it can be much cheaper.
| We estimate the hourly cost of operation for our Sonex
| (https://www.sonexaircraft.com/) is $35/h.
| RNCTX wrote:
| tl;dr: private license is gonna run you about $10k.
| Instrument add-on another $10k (for flying in less than
| fair weather, it's basically required).
|
| You don't have to own an airplane, the above presume
| renting one ($150 to $200 per hour depending on the
| particulars).
| verst wrote:
| Definitely closer to $15k for VFR alone in the Seattle
| area. Doing this right now at Boeing Field.
|
| Cessna 172 with G1000 avionics rental rate is 185/hour
| wet (with fuel) if you pay for a membership program at
| the flight school. Otherwise ~200/hour.
|
| For rentals you pay for engine time only. There are
| usually minimums per day if you wanted to rent a plane
| for a weekend trip or something like that.
|
| Flying Seattle to Orcas Island is a fun little trip.
| chris_va wrote:
| Way better than my rate at bfi, which fbo?
| RNCTX wrote:
| G1000 is overkill for PPL, though. Admittedly I did mine
| in 2011 so it's been awhile, but I was paying $145 an
| hour then plus $60 for the CFI, so around $200 per hour
| all in.
|
| Considering you can do 10 hours sim time toward the
| minimums, I don't think $10k is impossible? But ancillary
| stuff will probably get you to $11k or $12k admittedly.
| In my case I did the American Flyers weekend ground
| school for the written test and they gave you a few hours
| of sim time included with the course cost.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| It's overkill but it's more easy to fly with. No periodic
| adjustment of the gyros etc. I also find it much easier
| to view everything in one go.
|
| Our non-G1000 has autopilot and the G1000 doesn't (it's
| an expensive option) but I still prefer the G1000.
| RNCTX wrote:
| No doubt safer for IFR purposes. I have a little time in
| a G1000 but a lot more with aftermarket Aspen panels, I
| put them in my own airplane back in 2014.
|
| I had no problem taking off into a fog with 3D terrain in
| the panel. On old mechanical gauges with nothing but a
| beep telling me about the mountain? .... not so much....
|
| Then again, I also live in North-Central Texas. Every
| black spot on the ground that you can't see at night is a
| cow pasture devoid of trees, land in whichever one you
| like with your dead engine and your odds are pretty good.
| [deleted]
| dghughes wrote:
| I'm sure many people who don't fly aircraft are not aware of the
| pre-flight check procedure part of which is to check the fuel.
|
| There is a small graduated cylinder with a spike at the top it is
| pushed into a valve under the wing to get some fuel from that
| tank. You look to see if there is any water floating in the gas.
| After you check it you toss the leaded gas on the tarmac. Then
| you do the same for the other wing tank.
|
| Airports especially small airports with piston powdered light
| aircraft using leaded avgas must be soaked in 70 years lead.
| mmaunder wrote:
| I'm a pilot and use a GATS jar that lets me separate out water
| and toss the fuel back in the tank. Tossing fuel on the ramp is
| frowned upon at some FBOs.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| We have a bucket of sand to throw it in. Local policy is not
| to throw it back in the tank for the risk of introducing
| contamination from the jar.
| ericpauley wrote:
| Same, it amazes me how many people around my airport don't
| use these. In my mind they enhance safety too because I can
| sump more gas and sump all the tanks at once, so if one tank
| is all water I'd know.
| stevehawk wrote:
| On the other hand the FBO could accidentally put in jet
| fuel and not realize it.. and it could be done in such a
| proportion that your eyes won't notice it in a gats jar..
| the best way to test it is either to dip a paper towel or
| toss it on the ground
| sokoloff wrote:
| The screen on the GATS jar is for testing for Jet-A
| contamination. Gas evaporates cleanly off the screen. Jet
| leaves a film in a random pattern as it evaporates.
|
| https://www.pooleys.com/shop/pooleys/the-gats-jar-fuel-
| teste...
| praveen9920 wrote:
| Im curious to know what happens if they find some water
| floating.
| tobinfricke wrote:
| You continue to sump the fuel until all the water is gone.
| RNCTX wrote:
| Keep draining until you don't.
|
| Pretty common when there's a fog and you get condensate. The
| tank on a small airplane isn't gonna be sealed air-tight,
| it's vented to the outside air so a little condensate is
| pretty normal.
|
| Water is heavier than the gas, so it sinks to the bottom
| where the drain fitting is.
| 535188B17C93743 wrote:
| >After you check it you toss the leaded gas on the tarmac.
|
| Good god, I think I'd be chewed out if I did this at my field.
| Always back in the tank. Avgas is too expensive to dump it all
| over the ramp.
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| It'd be less than a $0.01 worth of fuel. You should still put
| it back in the tank but for environmental reasons not for the
| cost.
| sokoloff wrote:
| $0.01 of fuel is about 7mL. If you're only sumping 7mL of
| fluid in total, you might as well just skip the theater and
| not do it at all.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| If it's all fuel it should be enough, right? The goal is
| to figure out if there's water at the bottom.
|
| We take about 20-30ml in general (about half a shotglass)
| sokoloff wrote:
| It very much depends on the airplane. Mine has 7 sump
| locations. A C172S has 13. If it overall adds up to 7mL,
| I think you're not sampling enough. 7mL per sump location
| might be barely enough.
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Ah we were taught only to use the bottom two on the wing
| tanks. This is probably why. Of course they do this for
| every student flight where it's really only necessary
| before the first flight of the day. So I think this plays
| into it (not wanting to waste too much fuel).
|
| Also the 7ml is not my figure. The "shotglass" is usally
| more than half full. I agree 7ml is not a lot.
| 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.
| sokoloff wrote:
| TEL (the lead additive) is only made in one factory (in
| the UK, IIRC). 100LL is formulated at multiple terminals
| in the US.
| inamberclad wrote:
| I hope this brings down the cost per hour a little. Not as much
| as electric small aircraft will, but anything helps!
| aliswe wrote:
| do you have tips for further reading about the part with
| electric aircraft cost per hour?
| inamberclad wrote:
| No, but nearly all of the cost associated with aircraft
| operations is either fuel or maintenance. On a light aircraft
| like a C-172, the only moving parts are the control surfaces,
| a couple gyros for the avionics, and the engine. Remove the
| engine and 99.9% of the fuel costs and 95% maintenance costs
| (avionics aren't cheap, but modern ones are more reliable)
| also go.
| 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.
| themitigating wrote:
| What lead is coming from a highway?
| redis_mlc wrote:
| There's likely trace elements in fuel. In the case of that
| area, the Capitol Expressway is a very busy highway system.
|
| If RHV air quality is monitored, then so should some
| locations around the highway. In fact, there's enough cars
| surrounding the airport that it would influence air quality
| measurements inside the airport perimeter.
|
| I mentioned the quake issue because I have seen
| documentation that RHV is part of the emergency response
| plan for transporting relief cargo.
| anonymfus wrote:
| From car paints and tire balance weights.
| sokoloff wrote:
| "Unleaded" fuel is permitted to contain up to 50mg per
| gallon*; though this is a limit, none is permitted to be
| intentionally added.
|
| 100LL by comparison contains 550mg per gallon by intent.
|
| * Sorry for the crazy mixed units; I didn't write the
| regulations.
| seoaeu wrote:
| > What city councils refuse to acknowledge is that once you
| close a city airport, you can never build another one.
|
| Is that a bad thing? A substantial fraction of the population
| uses the local highway on a daily basis, whereas very very
| few people use small local airports with any similar
| frequency
| redis_mlc wrote:
| - I've never used the hospitals near me, but I'm glad
| they're there
|
| - The airport existed before the houses went up
|
| - airports can be used for many functions that benefit
| society, including EMT and business travel
|
| - houses aren't the only zoning category, or even the most
| important. We have industrial, retail and other zones which
| help society overall.
| 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?
| lamontcg wrote:
| From what I can google it looks like they ban the sale of
| leaded avgas at those airports. If you run out of gas at one of
| those airports I imagine you're purchasing it elsewhere and one
| way or another arranging for it to be delivered to you at the
| airport at your expense + hassle.
| 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.
| dalrympm wrote:
| The Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) contains numerous tables
| that pilots use to calculate what will be safe operating
| conditions for an aircraft. These include how much runway
| will be required at specific temperatures/elevations to clear
| obstacles. Those numbers were based on a 100 octane fuel so
| if the fuel is changed, those values must be determined once
| again and I believe that is largely done with flight testing.
| To do that on the entire fleet would be prohibitive. Without
| these small planes the misery you experience flying
| commercial would increased greatly due to the lack of pilots.
| It's pretty bad as it is.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| No. The compression ratio is fixed, as is the type of valve
| seat, and both need specific octane ratings or anti-wear
| additive, respectively.
| 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.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Internal risk (&/or cost of a better engine) vs externality
| of lead slowly poisoning the population.
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| The risk of getting hit by a plane whose engine has
| failed is probably the bigger externality.
| p1mrx wrote:
| I assume based on this article that running unleaded would
| have violated FAA regulations.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I honestly think there should be civil consequences for the
| FAA slow-rolling the sunsetting of leaded avgas. Red tape
| is causing very real harm to vast numbers of people.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| As with many problems with hard-to-see externalities, I
| think the FAA can't win here. If a plane falls out of the
| sky because of a fast-tracked approval, or people go out
| of business because of a fast-tracked ban, then the FAA
| is the bad guy. The number of people with the ability to
| assess the impact of atmospheric lead is much smaller.
| 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.
| tuxinator wrote:
| Just because something is old doesn't mean it should get a
| free pass on continuing to use leaded fuel though... there
| must be other reasons why leaded is still used besides
| simple knock sensors and ignition timing.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| Exhaust valve seats. If you don't use appropriately
| hardened seats, you need lead to help cushion the wear
| between the exhaust valves and their seats in the head.
|
| If your perfectly reasonable next question is, why aren't
| standard aircraft engines just built with the appropriate
| seats, well, then... The answer is low market volume
| coupled with high regulatory hurdles. There aren't any
| villains here, just written-in-blood safety regs coupled
| with a small enough market that there is a lot less money
| available to fight inertia.
| ericpauley wrote:
| In the case of Lycomings at least these valve guides have
| been hardened on cylinders produced since 1998, without
| having to certify a new type. On the Lycoming engines
| approved for 94UL I'm not aware of a restriction that
| these new guides must be installed for unleaded use.
| User23 wrote:
| > just written-in-blood safety regs
|
| To be clear, this is literally true. Those safety lessons
| were paid for in blood.
| mateo1 wrote:
| Exactly. Flying for sport is expensive as it is today
| because safety has to be a priority (as it should). Add a
| requirement for new engines or major overhauls on old
| planes and the cost will spiral out of control. Besides,
| leaded fuel was a problem when literally every single car
| on the street was burning it. The total volume of fuel
| consumed by aviation piston engines is a joke compared to
| that.
| userbinator wrote:
| Also, aviation engines are in general pushed far closer to
| their operational limits than a regular car engine. The
| latter might see full throttle and need to generate its
| rated power for a few percent of its life. Failures are not
| too dangerous. The former needs to generate rated power for
| a far larger fraction, and is also held to much higher
| reliability standards. Hence the requirement for high
| octane fuel and massive displacements relative to power
| output.
| lutorm wrote:
| The difference in operational regime is true, although
| it's my impression that automobile engines are pushed
| through some very severe tests as part of their
| development. For example, this movie,
| https://youtu.be/GNPB3RtHN2M, claims that KIA tests their
| engines for 300 straight hours at full throttle.
|
| As for reliability, I'm not convinced. In practical
| terms, I think automobile engines are far more reliable
| than aircraft engines. When was the last time your
| automobile engine broke an exhaust valve, cracked a
| cylinder head, or had a magneto come apart?
| 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/
| tantony wrote:
| Hopefully they approve IO-550s soon as well.
| birktj wrote:
| No we just have to wait until they start approving engines to use
| synthetic and/or bio-based avgas. Then we can finally have carbon
| neutral flights in existing aircraft.
| hannob wrote:
| > and/or bio-based avgas.
|
| Bio-based is a minefield of a few ways to have it reasonably
| ok'ish (mostly if it's stuff that would otherwise be waste) and
| countless ways to produce more emissions than before. The
| latter is usually what happens...
| GekkePrutser wrote:
| Here in Europe the turbodiesels seem to be more popular as an
| alternative. But it's still pretty hard to get them approved. And
| I believe they require a full replacement instead of a rebuild
| every few years.
|
| I think it's highly preferable because many airports don't really
| want to be selling avgas anymore, and this will only become more
| of a problem as it's phased out. There's also a huge price
| difference.
| 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.
| nawgz wrote:
| It is very strange to see this downvoted. It is very
| inexcusable that after removing lead from virtually every other
| source due to its intense long term damage, we let people who
| fly thru the air spew it out in not-insignificant
| concentrations from the sky!! For such a heavy particle, I
| can't imagine a more efficient strategy to distribute it widely
| than exactly that.
|
| It is not good to see the cognitive dissonance needed to
| downvote someone calling that out just because you like
| aviation on Hacker News. Maybe on an aviation forum I'd
| understand but here?
| VLM wrote:
| > after removing lead from virtually every other source
|
| Not even remotely the case.
|
| Removed from new paint sales, with measurable positive
| results in the population.
|
| Removed from motorgas for car use, with measurable positive
| results in the population.
|
| That's it. The other remaining uses, of which there are many,
| seem in infinite studies to show no measurable effect on the
| population, so its going to be difficult to remove them then
| show a measurable improvement.
|
| The money is better spent elsewhere, somewhere with more bang
| for the buck than measurably provably zero.
| biofox wrote:
| My guess would be that the downvotes are coming from
| libertarians who don't like government intervention.
| p_l wrote:
| The problem is that there's no unleaded fuel that works as
| full replacement for the low-lead AVGAS, to the point that
| there are airports where using MOGAS could be considered
| deliberately inviting disaster. As far as I know, unleaded
| avgas is quite hot topic in aviation fuel research, but when
| optimizing for "planes _not_ falling from the air " speed of
| change can be sometimes slow.
|
| Personally, I can't wait for when we get unleaded
| replacements for all leaded fuels and can just ban leaded.
| nawgz wrote:
| Yes, everything you say is exactly why government action on
| this would've been appropriate as suggested by the comment
| I originally defended.
|
| Thousands of people and organizations across aviation
| benefit in terms of retaining the ability to fly more
| cheaply. This is true across existing infrastructure,
| vehicles, engines, manufacturing, certification, etc..
| Accordingly, it is clear that the industry will not change;
| "an object at rest"...
|
| Instead, because of government inaction on the topic,
| presumably because of aviation's ties with the military and
| wealthy folk in general, these thousands of people and
| organizations retain their benefit at the expense of
| everyone else. They simply spray poison from the air in a
| manner which seems, again, one of the most efficient ways
| to contaminate the environment with this poison. It is
| clearly not beneficial to anyone except those in the
| ingroup, which is a vast minority. Why would government
| action to force this stale industry be inappropriate?
| p_l wrote:
| Except it's not that there was government _inaction_. The
| very article discussed is FAA making the rounds to cover
| 70% of powerplants used in general aviation, which isn 't
| just joyriding for wealthy people (and military doesn't
| give a damn, cause they aren't bound by those limits).
| The actually wealthy people don't care either, because
| they can afford turbine engines.
|
| In fact despite somewhat higher price at source for
| G100UL, there's considerable possibility it will lead to
| cheaper operation thanks to lower maintenance impact
| compared with leaded fuel, and GAMI is hopeful about it
| being rated for full power usage even in place of other,
| even rarer fuels.
|
| There are various problems with just banning GA, no
| matter how wealthy suburbs would love to do it. From
| impacting training pipeline, to all kinds of operations
| that would be involved that you might not think of
| (whether it's connecting random communities in Alaska,
| where some cargo is still flown on WW2-vintage DC3s, to
| medical transports).
| nawgz wrote:
| > Except it's not that there was government inaction. The
| very article discussed is FAA making the rounds to cover
| 70% of powerplants
|
| ... In the year 2021, over 50 years after the automotive
| industry had already invented engines which could run on
| unleaded fuels. I'm sorry, but this is an almost farcical
| point, "it's not government inaction it's just 50 years
| late!"
|
| > In fact despite somewhat higher price at source for
| G100UL, there's considerable possibility it will lead to
| cheaper operation thanks to lower maintenance impact
| compared with leaded fue
|
| Great, so the government could've forced industry's hand
| 50 years ago and the industry would probably be running
| for cheaper right now. This doubly shows the importance
| of government action on the topic - it would've been
| better for literally everyone in and out of aviation if
| the switch had been mandated. How about that for a story
| of inefficient markets?
|
| > There are various problems with just banning GA
|
| I work in aerospace, do not condescend to me on the
| topic. The point is that 50 years of inaction results in
| cases where, like in East San Jose, "2.5 percent of
| children under 6 years old who were tested had detectable
| levels of lead in their blood"[0]. "GA" clearly could and
| should have dealt with the issue of poisoning the masses
| for their own ends, and the fact you would defend them
| and the government for not stepping in in such
| circumstances makes you a fool.
|
| [0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-
| news/leaded-gas-wa...
| imoverclocked wrote:
| That's only a problem because of the extremely old engine
| designs which we still use because of the expensive
| certification process for existing aircraft and new engine
| designs. We can design much better engines in just about
| every metric... and we do, just not for relatively cheap
| and certified GA aircraft.
|
| We actually do have 100LL alternatives and have had them
| but the missing piece has largely been certification of
| those fuels or even just carrying mogas for planes that are
| able to burn it.
| p_l wrote:
| That's why it's great to see numbers like "70% of GA
| fleet piston powerplants will be now certified to use
| unleaded fuel".
| sokoloff wrote:
| Balanced by "airplanes with those powerplants purchase
| about 20% of the avgas fuel used in a year".
| p_l wrote:
| True. But it's a considerable step forward, and some of
| those engines provide shorter pathways for certifying
| sibling models, probably.
| yrro wrote:
| If planes cannot fly safely on unleaded gas then they
| should not be flying at all.
| dodobirdlord wrote:
| It's been decades at this point. If we can't find unleaded
| fuels that work safely for these engine designs, the
| correct thing to do at this point is to ban the engines.
| sokoloff wrote:
| You're literally commenting on the article on the fuel
| that has the best chance of being that compatible
| unleaded fuel.
| Syonyk wrote:
| Then you quite literally kill general aviation, and a lot
| of smaller scale commercial aviation, because _there are
| no other engines approved for the airframes._
|
| If that's your goal, fine, but don't pretend it's
| anything else.
| throwaway472927 wrote:
| Announce it for the future, clearly some alternatives
| already exist, some more engines get certified, some
| don't and owners move to those that are.
|
| Ultimately it's a question of money i.e. how badly people
| want it.
| p_l wrote:
| tl;dr ban GA outside of very wealthy
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| what? people with private planes are the ones running
| leaded currently. people who aren't very wealthy are
| flying on commercial planes that haven't used leaded gas
| for decades.
| dTal wrote:
| Sounds like the approval process is the problem. Banning
| lead _shouldn 't_ "kill general aviation". We'd still
| have GA even if leaded fuel had never been invented in
| the first place.
| RNCTX wrote:
| The FAA is the hindrance, not anyone flying or selling the
| airplanes.
|
| If you want to talk to the FAA about an engineering approval
| you're looking at a 6 month lead time before you get an
| _appointment for a meeting_. If you are looking to compete with
| someone who has a similar approval for a similar thing, you can
| expect them to cancel the first meeting or two inexplicably and
| stretch it out to a year, maybe two, because you haven 't paid
| the FAA's brother in law engineering firm to keep competitors
| out, the other guy you're trying to compete with paid them. All
| the while you pay your fixed costs, salaries, etc out of
| pocket.
|
| Whatever you bring to the meeting won't be good enough, they'll
| send you back to change something at least once, even if you
| copy and paste someone else who has done an identical thing for
| a marginally different application.
|
| If you run the gauntlet you'll get an approval to make your
| thing for ONE make/model of airplane. Want to put it on a Piper
| instead of a Cessna with the exact same engine? Go back to
| square one, repeat.
|
| This all became the norm when? IP was extended to aircraft
| modifications, during the Clinton admin when the internet took
| off.
|
| So you see, it isn't aviation that slowed aviation to an
| innovative standstill. The tech world's ideas of IP ideas did
| that. Prior to the advent of IP in aircraft paperwork, it was
| pretty common to be able to come up with an idea, sketch it out
| by hand, fly over to the local FAA office, demo it to an FAA
| engineer on the ramp, and have him help you go forward with it
| to get it approved. IP took away the motivation to innovate and
| created a motivation to fight back and forth with lawyers
| instead. You know... like tech corporations do with software
| patents.
| dTal wrote:
| > If you are looking to compete with someone who has a
| similar approval for a similar thing, you can expect them to
| cancel the first meeting or two inexplicably and stretch it
| out to a year, maybe two, because you haven't paid the FAA's
| brother in law engineering firm to keep competitors out, the
| other guy you're trying to compete with paid them.
|
| This is a shocking level of corruption you're describing.
| RNCTX wrote:
| I've been through it personally.
|
| I had an airplane until 2018 that optionally shipped with a
| rather unique air conditioning system. Rather than the
| compressor being engine powered like most other cars and
| small piston engined airplanes, there was a second
| alternator on the engine used to drive an electric motor
| which in turn powered the compressor.
|
| This was all done mostly for weight distribution. The
| design of the airplane was somewhat nose heavy because the
| factory added a turbo system with a cast-iron manifold. So
| they moved the A/C system to the tail with the electric
| motor for power, and put it all on a shelf behind the
| baggage compartment in the back.
|
| Since the airplane was built in the mid 1990s the factory
| is out of business, they went bankrupt in the early 2000s.
| The supplier of the electric A/C system components is still
| in business but they only deal with helicopters now, they
| don't have anyone left at the company who knows about the
| airplane units they used to make. Only about 50 of the
| make/model of airplane with the turbocharger option were
| built, so there's no motivation to keep them going for
| anyone else who might make parts. The market is too small.
|
| I found an aftermarket A/C system very similar to the one
| the factory built in the 1990s and with the maker of that
| system went to the FAA to get approval for it. The
| aftermarket system is actually simpler electrically. Rather
| than two alternators with a relay system it uses one of the
| largest alternators you can buy, on all of the airplane's
| existing electrical circuit. You just have to beef up the
| battery cables and the circuit breaker on the alternator to
| handle the extra amperage. It took us 6 months and
| ultimately a suggestion that we have a particular
| engineering firm look at our plans. They were basically
| requiring us to re-approve the entire system, even though
| the system is approved in other airplanes with identical
| engines. All we needed approval for was a larger alternator
| (minimal change to weight/balance) and the repurposing of a
| material made by Boeing for the rear shelf (we told them we
| intended to use the floorboard material that Boeing puts in
| 737s, it's a fiberglass sheet reinforced internally with an
| aluminum honeycomb mesh, that can bear about twice the
| weight per square inch that we needed to put on it).
|
| They made us have that engineering firm submit stress and
| load test data _on the shelf material that Boeing already
| uses for the 737_.
|
| The only reason we jumped through all the hoops was the
| fact that the aftermarket A/C system's installer has a
| relative that was a 30 year Embraer engineer. He would just
| help us do the drawings and calculus for free as long as
| his son's maintenance shop was going to get the
| installation job. Absent that, the ~$25,000 job would've
| been a $50,000 job, which just isn't worth it for an
| airplane that's worth less than $175,000 to start with.
|
| When we were willing to turn over the copyright of the
| plans to the engineering firm we were suggested to hire to
| "review" the data for the requested approval, including
| them copying and pasting Boeing's stress and load test data
| for the floor material Boeing already uses, suddenly the
| floodgates opened and everyone was happy. The paper was all
| signed and we got permission to put a marginally different
| air conditioner in one make and model of airplane (of which
| only 50 exist in the wild).
|
| From initial sales call to cool air in my airplane: about 8
| months.
|
| The time to install it for two guys was about a week of
| shop time. After all, they put it in dozens of other
| makes/models and it's all the same stuff.
|
| ----------
|
| If you want another example, you can go down the rabbit
| hole of a local (to me) company called Navworx, which was
| aggressively pursued and ultimately closed by the FAA,
| because the FAA changed the ADS-B spec rendering their
| ADS-B receiver worthless, after the spec had been in the
| field for about 3 or 4 years.
|
| The ADS-B system has a "sleep mechanism" on the network, in
| which a data relay tower for a particular air traffic
| control sector will turn itself off if no ADS-B equipped
| airplanes are in its service area. The initial spec allowed
| a generic ID to report its presence in the sector and wake
| up the tower.
|
| After Navworx had been making ADS-B receivers for old non-
| GPS equipped airplanes for about 3 - 4 years, the FAA
| pulled the rug out from under them by changing the spec and
| requiring any airplane requesting that the relay tower
| "wake up" have an FAA approved GPS unit installed. The
| initial spec only required an approved GPS for send +
| receive units, not receive-only units. After changing the
| spec with existing units already in the field, Dallas FSDO
| then promptly ordered Navworx to cease and desist
| manufacturing their previously approved ADS-B receive-only
| unit for older airplanes.
|
| In effect, people who had a traffic display in an old
| airplane (an obvious safety benefit) were ordered to take
| their traffic display out and throw it away, and go back to
| flying without a traffic display unless they were willing
| to pay $10,000 for a GPS.
|
| It just so happens that the Dallas FSDO was also the FAA
| office that approved Garmin's ADS-B boxes (which were
| technically inferior and more costly than Navworx's ADS-B
| boxes on initial release), and at the time Garmin was the
| only aftermarket supplier of approved GPS units. There was
| another maker of standalone ADS-B receivers with integral
| GPS units also in the Dallas area dealing with the Dallas
| FSDO, which was sold to a private equity fund that buys DoD
| / CIA / NSA contractors.
|
| I leave it to you to ask yourself whether all these facts
| are relevant to who the FAA decided to close down and who
| the FAA decided to protect the market of...
|
| -------
|
| This business model of the FAA guaranteeing the work for
| legal and engineering consultants in pervasive across the
| entire spectrum of things they license.
|
| Wanna buy a King Air 350 and charter it to dentists going
| to Aspen for the weekend when you're not flying it to lower
| the ownership cost? You have to hire an aviation
| specialized attorney and probably another consultant or two
| (read: someone who will sell you their paperwork) to
| represent you as the FAA goes through a manual review of
| your standard operating procedures (pilots, training,
| maintenance, the whole shebang) just like you were the
| first air charter service to ever buy a King Air 350 in the
| world.
|
| It doesn't matter if you are literally copying and pasting
| another charter license approval for an identical airplane.
| Someone from the FAA office demands to physically show up
| at your hangar and look over the paper, pretend like he's
| never seen it all before, order a few changes, and then
| maybe approve or deny your request for a charter operator
| license after the second visit.
| lutorm wrote:
| It's pretty funny to argue that "government action is required"
| when pretty much the reason that aviation piston engines
| largely are still based on designs from the 50s is precisely
| that _the government will not let you use anything else_.
|
| In order to sell an assembled aircraft, with very few
| exceptions, it needs to be certified by the FAA, and convincing
| them to allow you to sell a new engine is sufficiently
| complicated and expensive that the very small airplane market
| does not make it worth it. (The total number of piston aircraft
| sold in 2020 was 1300. The best-selling aircraft, the Cessna
| 172, sold in the 200s.)
|
| The only development of new piston aircraft engines are for
| experimental aircraft, where no FAA approval is needed. In that
| market you find electronically controlled engines with the same
| features as automobile engines, and not requiring leaded gas.
| But those airplanes cannot be sold except as kits.
|
| Even engines that need 100-octane gas would benefit from
| unleaded fuel, because the lead deposits are very bad, forces
| the use of inferior, non-synthetic oil, makes valves stick,
| fouls spark plugs, and is generally nasty. Believe me, no one
| _wants_ to use leaded gas if they can avoid it.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| The FAA and the EPA have conflicting missions here.
| Unfortunately the public is more scared off death by air
| crash than death by pollution, even though air pollution is a
| bigger killer. This means if there's a conflict, the FAA is
| probably going to win over the EPA.
| yrro wrote:
| The EPA should ban unleaded fuel immediately regardless.
| Make the FDA choose between lobbying to have the ban
| overturned (against public opinion I would hope) or
| unblocking the development of better engines.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| And as a result most small aircraft engines are naturally
| aspirated and have carburetors, even though turbo/super
| charging and fuel injection make even more sense in airplanes
| than they do in cars because of constant ambient pressure
| changes.
|
| It's hard to find a car with a carburetor these days; fuel
| injection is ubiquitous and cheap. Not so in airplanes. You
| can actually find fuel injected and/or turbo airplane engines
| but they're priced as if they're made of gold, so they're
| strictly for rich pilots.
|
| GA aircraft electronics are quite modern. But GA engines use
| 70-year-old technology. It's ridiculous.
| 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?
| p_l wrote:
| Why should they discount battery weight from the limit given
| that you do not lose that weight and thus it counts for all the
| reason weight limits are involved?
| giantg2 wrote:
| That's not actually that's not true. ICE powered ultralights
| are weighed without fuel. The fuel limit is 5 gallons. So
| while the empty weight (in the regulations) is 254 lbs, the
| expected weight ready to fly is 300 lbs with fuel. Since the
| batteries don't have empty/full weights, it makes sense that
| they would increase the limit for electric ultralights to 300
| lbs. This does not include weight added for safety devices in
| the event of catastrophic failure (eg ballistic parachute).
|
| Also the main reason for weight limits (including fuel limit)
| is to limit potential damage in the event of a crash. This is
| through a limit on kinetic impact (in addition to weight
| limit there is a speed limit) and hazardous material (the
| gasoline).
|
| So if we eliminate the highly flammable gas, then it's
| possible the battery weight doesn't really matter because a
| 254 lbs airframe will be physically limited in the weight of
| batteries that it can support.
| uuidgen wrote:
| > So if we eliminate the highly flammable gas
|
| And replace it with a battery that has to burn out because
| it is impossible to extinguish?
| giantg2 wrote:
| LiPo is extremely safe.
| gengelbro wrote:
| Great news! If we could then get a decibel limit on the planes
| than essentially all my hangups with amateur aviation are
| resolved.
| 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
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| I can't find it, but NASA concluded that piston engine
| reliability is generally a mystery.
| phoenix3200 wrote:
| There are some claims out there that engines run better without
| lead (it eats away at seals and whatnot).
| ericpauley wrote:
| Also fouls spark plugs, sticks valves, contaminates oil, and
| covers the underside of the plane. Leaded avgas is all-around
| nasty stuff.
| p_l wrote:
| Another problem is, IIRC, that many replacements for leaded
| fuels have evaporation & performance issues at lower pressures
| that don't matter in a car but can be critical in airplane
| (it's even worse with ethanol additives, IIRC).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-30 23:02 UTC)