Roost Air Lounge => Aviation related topics => Topic started by: YawningMan on January 22, 2010, 02:13:52 AM
Title: Life without 100LL.
Post by: YawningMan on January 22, 2010, 02:13:52 AM
Some of you may have already heard about this. I only heard about it this week. Apparently, it's been a topic for 20 years. It just hasn't been a hot topic.
I believe this is the article I saw in a publication at the school that alerted me to 100LL's grim future.
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/?p=15644
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Mike on January 22, 2010, 07:57:12 PM
wouldn't it be better to have diesel next for small GA aircraft?!
just wondering.... don't hate me! let me hear some arguments!
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on January 22, 2010, 10:01:19 PM
Engine manufacturere are having problems making diesel engines that are light enough to be shoehorned into existing aircraft designs. Of greater concern is finding an alternative fuel that can be used by the current fleet of aircraft.
I fear that lots of the big singles and twins will be parked come 2016/2017. Same for the big warbirds. Those engines simply cannot produce their rated horsepower without Tetra Ethyl Lead. Sad to say it, but we may be seeing the end of the flying careers for the old WWII airplanes.
Other airplanes which will be impacted will be the newer Beech Bonanzas, Barons, Cessna's entire piston twin engine line, and Piper's Navajo's. What is going to replace these airplanes?
RC
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Mike on January 23, 2010, 01:56:24 AM
Man! I totally didn't think about the old warbirds!!!
Imagine a world with no more F4U Corsairs!! :-[ :'(
Maybe we need to do a strip about the whole thing to do our part in raising awareness.....
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on January 23, 2010, 02:05:47 AM
Man! I totally didn't think about the old warbirds!!!
Imagine a world with no more F4U Corsairs!! :-[ :'(
Maybe we need to do a strip about the whole thing to do our part in raising awareness.....
That's a good idea Mike. One which Trade-a-Plane should run to raise awareness of the impending doom of 100LL
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Oddball on January 23, 2010, 01:07:14 PM
OH NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!! A world with out RR Merlins and Griffons is un-thinkable!! ::unbelieveable:: ::loony:: ::complaining: :o >:(
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: YawningMan on January 25, 2010, 10:18:19 PM
It seems as though jet fuel is still okay, so that's good news. I'm thinking piston powered warbirds will begin to populate museums and scrapyards, sadly.
I think electricity will be viable as long as the battery technology comes about. Of course, there's the issue of what it takes to generated the electricity... The Twinstars LeTourneau University used to have had diesels. We traded them for gasoline engines when the diesel engine supplier in Germany went belly up. It would be too costly to maintain engines which are not being supported. They had roughly the same fuel burn of a single engine about the size of a Cessna 206, but everyone complained about their performance.
I'm thinking I need to really get my idea to run a sailing club off the ground. That might be the only way to cheaply fly for some time until this mess is sorted out. Business could be good.
I'm still geeking out about the Continental O-200s I saw in a catalog recently. $20,000US for a 100 hp engine that won't be usable in 7 years, at best...
I agree that it is important to keep our environment in mind. Still, this is not a small hurdle we are talking about. I'm sure we'll come out on the other side with a good solution. I just hope we don't lose too many companies or gain too much regulation in the process. The politics that can be put in place at a time like this could be the more damaging than the loss of a venerable warbird fleet.
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on January 25, 2010, 10:38:08 PM
Quote
I'm still geeking out about the Continental O-200s I saw in a catalog recently. $20,000US for a 100 hp engine that won't be usable in 7 years, at best...
The smaller engines will work just fine on unleaded autogas or the proposed 96UL grade fuel. Anything that was originally designed to run on 80 Octane fuel will be able to be used. Its only the larger displacement engines that were designed and certified to run on 100 Octane or 115/130 Octane fuel that will be adversely affected.
Continental's O-200, O-300, and O-470 will not need major alterations if any. Same for Lycoming's O-235, O-320, and O360. However, these engines only consume a small fraction of the current 100LL production. Just about any flat engine that is fuel injected will not be able to operate on 96UL unless they are derated substantially to prevent detonation.
Surprisingly, a lot of the Radial engines were certified to run on 80 Octane, and will continue to operate without modification on the newer fuels. The smaller Wrights, Jacobs, and Pratts (say, below the R-985) will continue to operate. I am not sure whether the R1340 was certified on 100 Octane or 80.
I wish someone would ask Swift Fuel whether their biofuel will allow the big radials and Merlin powered airplanes to operate. That will depend whether the old warbirds decline in value. I've already advised an investor against purchasing a warbird fleet until that question is answered.
RC
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Mike on January 25, 2010, 11:52:49 PM
wait, are you saying the old birds with their radials would be able to fly on 80 octane?
getting rid of AVGAS is more a money issue than an environmental issue I am thinking......
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: FlyboyGil on January 25, 2010, 11:55:55 PM
wait, are you saying the old birds with their radials would be able to fly on 80 octane?
getting rid of AVGAS is more a money issue than an environmental issue I am thinking......
Anything that keeps the old birds flying, I'm happy.
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on January 26, 2010, 03:45:13 PM
No, it is an environmental issue. EPA claims that despite the elimination of TEL from autogas they continue to find trace amounts of lead in water supplies throughout the USA. Since EPA has determined that the goal is Zero amounts, they are taking steps to eliminate ALL possible sources of lead. The largest emissions of lead into the atmosphere is most probably Avgas, followed by certain smelters.
In general, any of the old warbirds with engines producing over 1000HP were designed to use 100 Octane fuel. I am afraid this precludes most of the fighters and bombers us old warbird fans love. The Corsair has a 2000hp radial, for instance. The Packard built Merlin used in the P51 was rated at 1600hp. These are the warbirds that I fear will be grounded, but I'm not sure yet.
RC
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Mike on January 26, 2010, 04:43:23 PM
No, it is an environmental issue. EPA claims that despite the elimination of TEL from autogas they continue to find trace amounts of lead in water supplies throughout the USA. Since EPA has determined that the goal is Zero amounts, they are taking steps to eliminate ALL possible sources of lead. The largest emissions of lead into the atmosphere is most probably Avgas, followed by certain smelters.
I agree but seeing how everything in this country seems to come down to a money issue . . . Don't you think there is a chance the whole Avgas business is starting to not pay for the big corporations anymore (possibly the grief they're getting for still using lead included) and they are playing the environmental card to keep the public from really getting upset their Avgas is going away?! ::angel:: ::whistle::
BTW: what would that mean for Robinson and Schweizer and all those little helicopters? Same thing?
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on January 26, 2010, 09:17:22 PM
Quote
...everything in this country seems to come down to a money issue...
Mike, you are becoming a dangerous man... better watch yer backside!!! ::eek:: To quote the famous Sleuths, "Follow the Money."
Yes it is a money issue, but not the money you think. Environmental groups like Friends of Earth, Audubon Society, The Sierra Club and more have legal divisions. Those lawyers have sued the US Federal Government to force the EPA into doing things like banning Lead. Through the legal system, these private groups are suing our government and they are getting the government to pay ALL costs of the lawsuit... including the Environmentalists' Attorney Fees! So in the end, it is all about the money the Lawyers can extort out of the Federal Government in order to line their own pockets. The rest of the country be dammed.
Methinks Robinson would be in trouble. They use a fuel injected engine in the R22 and a turbo'd fuel injected engine in the R44. I am not sure about the Schweizer. Again, nearly all fuel injected flat engines from about the IO-360 and up have higher compression ratios that require 100 Octane fuel in order to achieve their rated power without suffering detonation.
RC
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: TheSoccerMom on January 27, 2010, 12:56:24 AM
I remember guys getting ALL wigged out back in the 70s, because "we're gonna be out of gas!!" They even had meetings to discuss the effects on all the WWII-era airtankers... which is all there was at the time.
And, here we are, over 30 years later.... I still hear 'em overhead... Hmm-mmmm.....
Don't think it's quite the dire emergency I've been hearing about for over 30 years now..... ::loony::
::)
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Fabo on January 27, 2010, 12:24:36 PM
I understand now it is different. It is not "running out" that is worrying (frankly, when that is going to happen, and it is NOT going to happen in proclaimed 20 years, as noted by you, it does not work this way, there will be some replacement ready. For example, diesels can run on sunflower oi with minimal or no changes.)
but this time, they are trying to BAN it, which is MUCH worse. Anyway, I guess this only applies to the US, so, hopefully, we are safe here in Europe. Because I WANT that Trener rating in my logbook, whenever I get to fly SEPs... >:( ;D
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Mike on January 27, 2010, 05:25:03 PM
I have to admit, I have flown with Avgas only once last year, so I am not 100% up on the subject, but it does seem like a bigger deal this time around.....
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Oddball on January 28, 2010, 08:21:54 AM
This just shows I'm not keep current as much as I wanted :-\ never know about 100LL being phased out.
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Lt.Fubar on January 30, 2010, 07:55:31 PM
Just use the synthetic. Cost wise it is today as costly as the oil based fuel, but some types are more "Eco - friendly". You can also use a mix of alcohol - needs a little reacher mixture though.
There are many substitutes for Avgas, don't worry, those warbirds will fly for decades after the 100LL go away (and that won't happen soon).
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Ragwing on February 15, 2010, 12:52:20 AM
getting rid of AVGAS is more a money issue than an environmental issue I am thinking......
The EPA is pushing to remove the lead. This leads to expensive costs in refining and transport of our precious Avgas. Special train cars and delivery trucks that can only haul avgas. The low volume becomes a specialty item for the refineries and that costs money. The refineries would really like to quit producing this low volume product. Today's decisions are made on financial criteria not dedication to their customers.
You can also use a mix of alcohol - needs a little richer mixture though.
Many problems with mogas. We have to test each gas station to ensure that there is no alcohol in the fuel (some stations include up to 10 percent). The mogas has a much wider allowance on the length of the hydrocarbon chains. The shorter hydrocarbon chains have less energy per volume. The shorter chains are more apt to evaporate causing varnish in your automobile or VAPOR LOCK in our aircraft. Re Alcohol. A lot lower energy per volume. That is one reason your car's gas mileage decreases when you use alcohol in your fuel.
Engine manufacturers are having problems making diesel engines that are light enough to be shoehorned into existing aircraft designs. Of greater concern is finding an alternative fuel that can be used by the current fleet of aircraft.
The diesel engines are improving their weight, but new baffling designs are required on a model by model design to handle the extra cooling (diesels run hotter).
To keep the existing fleet running means NOT an engine overhaul but a completely new engine (STC or Type requirement). You are looking at $25-50 thousand USD each.
The old low compression O-200 and O-300 engines can be used once somebody STC's a fuel system that prevents vapor lock. The cost of doing that for every model is prohibitive. Maybe for once the FAA will think with their heads.
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Ragwing on February 15, 2010, 02:27:18 AM
I forgot to mention.
For those of us who fly aircraft with fiberglass fuel tanks, the type of resin used is dissolved by alcohol. Even years after curing!
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on February 15, 2010, 03:55:18 PM
Quote
The cost of doing that for every model is prohibitive. Maybe for once the FAA will think with their heads.
This isn't being driven by FAA. It is being driven by the EPA, and EPA isn't known for thinking... period. It is pure politics, and EPA wants to show everyone just how green they are and how they are "protecting" the environment. 'Cost prohibitive' be dammed... it won't come out of their pockets.
RC
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: 4X-NTY on February 15, 2010, 05:13:11 PM
The cost of doing that for every model is prohibitive. Maybe for once the FAA will think with their heads.
This isn't being driven by FAA. It is being driven by the EPA, and EPA isn't known for thinking... period. It is pure politics, and EPA wants to show everyone just how green they are and how they are "protecting" the environment. 'Cost prohibitive' be dammed... it won't come out of their pockets.
RC
Sounds like my last homeowner. She'd attend several green conventions,claimed to be a die-hard evironmental activist and in the house she whould attend about once in two month,the light are 24/7 on,so as the heating and jets in her jacuzzi. quite ironic isn't it...
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Ragwing on February 16, 2010, 03:31:59 AM
This isn't being driven by FAA. It is being driven by the EPA, and EPA isn't known for thinking... period. It is pure politics, and EPA wants to show everyone just how green they are and how they are "protecting" the environment. 'Cost prohibitive' be dammed... it won't come out of their pockets.
RC, I was talking about the FAA approval process for alternate fuels or engines. A simple engine upgrade for our older planes is quite expensive. Stress analysis required - For airplanes that have never had a stress analysis done on them Have you ever thought about changing the pitch of your prop? If it is not in the type certificate, forget it.
The EPA has their own quirks. The FAA has few words, most of them are NO and Pilot Error. RW
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Mike on February 16, 2010, 07:04:32 PM
Ada — George Braly and Tim Roehl may have solved a problem that’s been plaguing the aircraft industry and the Environmental Protection Agency for years. Braly and Roehl, owners of General Aviation Modifications, Inc. at Ada Municipal Airport, say they have formulated an unleaded piston-engine-aircraft fuel that may revolutionize the industry because it produces the same octane rating as leaded fuel.
“We have one of the finest test facilities in the country for being able to evaluate the octane performance of various fuels,” Roehl said.In November 2007, Friends of the Earth — an international network of environmental organizations — petitioned EPA in attempt to get "avgas," a high lead fuel regulated. Roehl said due to a court case with Friends of the Earth the EPA must finally force a removal of lead from avgas.
“Having been familiar with a lot of the formulations that have been tried in the past, we decided to formulate our own fuel,” Roehl said. “After about a month of testing, we feel confident that we have, in fact, come up with a fully 100 Motor Octane Number unleaded avgas fuel that meets essentially all of the requirements that avgas will need to meet.”
The new fuel is called G100UL. Roehl said they have filed for a patent and have applied for certification with the FAA. He said representatives with the FAA, The Aviation Consumer magazine, and General Aircraft Manufacturers Association have come to Ada to look at the fuel they’ve developed.
No ingredients in their formula should drive the cost of avgas up significantly, Roehl said.
“Our goal here is to preserve the opportunity for today’s aircraft engines to not only maintain existing aircraft performance levels but also to be able to raise those performance levels and improve the efficiency of those engines on a new unleaded high-octane fuel,” he said.
Roehl said the fuel has been tested in their testing facility, as well as in one of their airplanes. After more testing, he and Braly hope the formula can be licensed to world-wide avgas producers.
“We hope this fuel can be adopted as a replacement for 100LL and should serve to help the environment while maintaining the performance of our aircraft today,” Roehl said.
“For 15 years since the lead was removed from automobile gas, the EPA has given an extension to the general aviation industry to allow them to continue to try to find some additive to try to replace tetra-ethyl lead which would allow for the removal of lead and yet the retention of the 100 octane rating of the fuel.” Roehl said no substitute could be found that provided the same octane rating.
Roehl said there are approximately 200,000 airplanes currently flying in the world with piston aircraft engines—typically smaller single and twin engine airplanes. The standard fuel for these engines is called avgas, also known as 100LL (Low Lead). Roehl said tetra-ethyl lead is a major ingredient in the fuel.
“It’s the last remaining leaded fuel allowed by the EPA,” he said. “As airplanes and engines are certified by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), the engines’ horsepower and performance is based upon the octane rating of the fuel. If you decrease the octane rating of the fuel, the engines cannot make the rated horsepower and the engines and the airframes in combination can’t perform according to their certification basis.”
Roehl said they’ve tested several unleaded fuels others have formulated to try and solve this problem.
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Mike on February 16, 2010, 07:06:08 PM
maybe Chucks Corsair will fly one day after all . . . ::whistle:: ;D
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Oddball on February 16, 2010, 07:24:19 PM
er how many parts does Chuck have for it so far and has any of it been put together yet? lol
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Fabo on February 17, 2010, 02:55:09 PM
Well, he has the seat and two barrels of engine oil, if i remember correctly :)
btw. isnt absence of lead contributing to shortening of engine life? I remember changes had to be make to valve system when Skoda motors were adopted for unleaded in late 80s.
Title: Re: Life without 100LL.
Post by: Rooster Cruiser on April 27, 2010, 04:23:41 AM
EPA is giving US General Aviation another heads-up on their Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (APRM). Apparently once they publish this, we'll have a clue what the time frame will be, and what the various alphabet-soup organizations have come up with for alternative fuels. Read more here from NBAA:
