4 ms·

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

by p_l 5y ago

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.

imoverclocked 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    Balanced by “airplanes with those powerplants purchase about 20% of the avgas fuel used in a year”.
    - p_l 5y ago
      True. But it's a considerable step forward, and some of those engines provide shorter pathways for certifying sibling models, probably.
dodobirdlord 5y ago
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.
- Syonyk 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    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 5y ago
      tl;dr ban GA outside of very wealthy
      - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
        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.
        sokoloff 5y ago
        Wealthy individuals’ airplanes are already burning Jet-A in turbine engines. Who’s piloting the airliners that the not very wealthy are flying on? Working pilots. In what type of airplane did they train? Piston engine aircraft. Now that they need to have 1500 hours experience before taking the yoke of a commercial airliner in the US, where will they get that time? Overwhelmingly in piston-engine aircraft. Typically as a flight instructor, which will go to near zero if you kill the ability of practical intermediate distance travel to be done by high-compression and/or turbocharged light aircraft. (Alaska and Caribbean islands also has a lot of very much not rich people flying around in or getting necessary supplies delivered by 100 octane needing airplanes.) Commercial operations using 100LL dwarf personal plane operations using 100LL. Cape Air burns way more avgas on a Tuesday in July than I burn in a year. Back to “Very wealthy” individuals running turbines. If I could afford it, I would be too. It’s a better engine solution (almost) all around, except the operating costs are a low single-digit multiple higher and capital costs around 10x, which puts it out of reach of almost every individual. No one should cry for me here, but there’s a huge subset of 100LL-based operations that you probably approve of or judge essential and want to continue.
nawgz 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    > 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-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...
yrro 5y ago
If planes cannot fly safely on unleaded gas then they should not be flying at all.

by p_l 5y ago

imoverclocked 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  Balanced by “airplanes with those powerplants purchase about 20% of the avgas fuel used in a year”.
  - p_l 5y ago
    True. But it's a considerable step forward, and some of those engines provide shorter pathways for certifying sibling models, probably.

dodobirdlord 5y ago

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.

Syonyk 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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 5y ago
    tl;dr ban GA outside of very wealthy
    - adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
      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.
      - sokoloff 5y ago
        Wealthy individuals’ airplanes are already burning Jet-A in turbine engines. Who’s piloting the airliners that the not very wealthy are flying on? Working pilots. In what type of airplane did they train? Piston engine aircraft. Now that they need to have 1500 hours experience before taking the yoke of a commercial airliner in the US, where will they get that time? Overwhelmingly in piston-engine aircraft. Typically as a flight instructor, which will go to near zero if you kill the ability of practical intermediate distance travel to be done by high-compression and/or turbocharged light aircraft. (Alaska and Caribbean islands also has a lot of very much not rich people flying around in or getting necessary supplies delivered by 100 octane needing airplanes.) Commercial operations using 100LL dwarf personal plane operations using 100LL. Cape Air burns way more avgas on a Tuesday in July than I burn in a year. Back to “Very wealthy” individuals running turbines. If I could afford it, I would be too. It’s a better engine solution (almost) all around, except the operating costs are a low single-digit multiple higher and capital costs around 10x, which puts it out of reach of almost every individual. No one should cry for me here, but there’s a huge subset of 100LL-based operations that you probably approve of or judge essential and want to continue.

nawgz 5y ago

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 5y ago
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 5y ago
  > 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-was-phased-out-25-years-ago-why-are-n1264970 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

yrro 5y ago

If planes cannot fly safely on unleaded gas then they should not be flying at all.