Targeting Airplane Emissions

I know this is aimed at large airplanes but I wonder if they could also be going after 100LL fuel too?
 
Romulus said:
I know this is aimed at large airplanes but I wonder if they could also be going after 100LL fuel too?
Click to expand...

Which is funny considering all the old bugsmashers flying around burning leaded fuel probably put a higher person mile dent in the ozone than the average passenger airliner.
 
How's are they doing on the getting rid of 100LL project?

Flying magazine had a long article on the research being put in place to remove it.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Which is funny considering all the old bugsmashers flying around burning leaded fuel probably put a higher person mile dent in the ozone than the average passenger airliner.
Click to expand...

I would figure they put a much higher dent than airlines would. 150 people in a Cherokee ( let's say 7gph ) would be 6,300 pph of fuel burn. An a-320 with 150 ppl would be what? Like 3,500?
 
Box hauler said:
I would figure they put a much higher dent than airlines would. 150 people in a Cherokee ( let's say 7gph ) would be 6,300 pph of fuel burn. An a-320 with 150 ppl would be what? Like 3,500?
Click to expand...
If I'm doing my math right...

60 pph for 4 seats on a Cherokee, so 13 pph per person.

The CRJ 700 is around 3600 pph for 70 seats, which is 50 pph per person.

The Cherokee gets about 12 mpg, the CRJ only about 1 mpg


I doubt you'll ever see the death of the air cooled horizontally opposed piston engine in GA until meaningful certification reform is implemented, and that's a shame because they could be so much more efficient and so much cleaner.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
trafficinsight said:
If I'm doing my math right...

60 pph for 4 seats on a Cherokee, so 13 pph per person.

The CRJ 700 is around 3600 pph for 70 seats, which is 50 pph per person.

The Cherokee gets about 12 mpg, the CRJ only about 1 mpg


I doubt you'll ever see the death of the air cooled horizontally opposed piston engine in GA until meaningful certification reform is implemented, and that's a shame because they could be so much more efficient and so much cleaner.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Part 43 is being re-written as we speak. From what I've read it's going to have some really great changes for less then 6000lbs 6 seats or less airplanes.
 
trafficinsight said:
23 :)

I'll be cautiously optimistic, until I see it. Light sport is a disaster and if they use that as a model then it won't help.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
haha yup, 23. Light sport has some good stuff in there regarding certification, mx and modification. The disaster of light sport is that they are worthless airplanes with no payload and no range.
 
trafficinsight said:
If I'm doing my math right...

60 pph for 4 seats on a Cherokee, so 13 pph per person.

The CRJ 700 is around 3600 pph for 70 seats, which is 50 pph per person.

The Cherokee gets about 12 mpg, the CRJ only about 1 mpg


I doubt you'll ever see the death of the air cooled horizontally opposed piston engine in GA until meaningful certification reform is implemented, and that's a shame because they could be so much more efficient and so much cleaner.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But you can't look at it as a function of time, rather look at the distances.

A one hour flight in a CR7 is a 3 hour flight in a cherokee. So over the same distance, the CRJ burned 50lbs/person, the Cherokee burned 39lbs/person.

Furthermore, while it can be done with caution, not many 4 seat cherokees go flying with 100% load factor with each passenger bringing a carryon and a checked bag. Nor will a CR7 fly with 100% load factor all the time. I think it'd be more realistic to say 2 pax in the cherokee and an 80% LF, or 56 people in the CR7. Over the same trip, here's how the math breaks down:

PA28- (I'll say 65% power) 54pph x 3 hrs = 162 lbs / 2 pax = 81 lbs / pax.

CR7- 3600pph x 1 hr = 3600lbs / 56 pax = 65 lbs / pax.
 
z987k said:
In order for GA engines to become efficient we'd need liquid cooling, electronic fuel injecting and ignition. Two of which the FAA won't allow.
Click to expand...

Which in 1990 made sense, but not now with how far along the technology has come. I mean car manufacturers have figured out variable valve timing with selective cylinder deactivation and those engines keep running.
 
trafficinsight said:
If I'm doing my math right...

60 pph for 4 seats on a Cherokee, so 13 pph per person.

The CRJ 700 is around 3600 pph for 70 seats, which is 50 pph per person.

The Cherokee gets about 12 mpg, the CRJ only about 1 mpg


I doubt you'll ever see the death of the air cooled horizontally opposed piston engine in GA until meaningful certification reform is implemented, and that's a shame because they could be so much more efficient and so much cleaner.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
sure, also 60 devided by 4 isn't 13. 90 percent of my GA flying was not with every seat filled. Most GA is 1 maybe 2 pax and mainline (320-737) have less that 6k fuel burn. Also miles per hour count as well, 100 miles vs 460.
 
gotWXdagain said:
Which in 1990 made sense, but not now with how far along the technology has come. I mean car manufacturers have figured out variable valve timing with selective cylinder deactivation and those engines keep running.
Click to expand...
The FAA is forcing GA into mostly experimental because of this.
 
Box hauler said:
sure, also 60 devided by 4 isn't 13. 90 percent of my GA flying was not with every seat filled. Most GA is 1 maybe 2 pax and mainline (320-737) have less that 6k fuel burn. Also miles per hour count as well, 100 miles vs 460.
Click to expand...
You're right I switched to 10gph at the last minute but forgot to change the outcome.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
Ehh ... I suppose every little bit helps; still, I'd bet 99% of the cars with whom I interact (passing, or being passed) have a single person in them. That would be HUNDREDS (maybe a couple thousand?) on my 63 mile roundtrip daily commute (INCLUDING MY OWN).

I say "Give me a viable alternative with public transportation (rail, with existing tracks in place, or convenient bus)" and be amazed at the results.

Lets stop swallowing camels and ignoring gnats, where public transportation is concerned.
 
z987k said:
haha yup, 23. Light sport has some good stuff in there regarding certification, mx and modification. The disaster of light sport is that they are worthless airplanes with no payload and no range.
Click to expand...

I didn't think light sport was ever about payload and range - I thought it was intended to save recreational aviation - the guy wanting to go up by himself or with one other and fly for half an hour or so.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I didn't think light sport was ever about payload and range - I thought it was intended to save recreational aviation - the guy wanting to go up by himself or with one other and fly for half an hour or so.
Click to expand...

Light sport is exactly that, and maybe a "get around the region" plane for one, but not too many people are into flying airplanes just for the fun of it anymore, and if they are they are doing it in cubs and citabrias or other planes that don't need anything more than a few hundred feet worth of meadow, sand bar, or trail clear of trees to get in and out of.
 
Murdoughnut said:
I didn't think light sport was ever about payload and range - I thought it was intended to save recreational aviation - the guy wanting to go up by himself or with one other and fly for half an hour or so.
Click to expand...
That won't save GA. Flying for no purpose gets old quick, and that's why you see the people that barely leave the pattern put 10 hours a year on. The people that I know that use their airplanes go places and do things in them that are either too far to do by car in the allotted time or accessible only by airplane.
It's not hey lets see if I can avoid killing us today for an hour, cause gee wiz flying is fun. It's, hey lets fly out to this spot in the desert that's 6 hours by car but only 30 minutes by air(because geography) and bring climbing gear for this sweet wall I know about.
 
z987k said:
In order for GA engines to become efficient we'd need liquid cooling, electronic fuel injecting and ignition. Two of which the FAA won't allow.
Click to expand...

This!

The fact that carburetor engines are even an option demonstrates the dinosaur thinking being caused by restriction. Seriously it's effectively wasting 20% of its energy in excess fuel being fed into the first cylinder in the firing order. There is no reason for after market bolt on EFI systems similar to what's been running in hotrods and muscle cars since the 90s shouldn't be viewed as anything but good. If Edelbrock (which is by no means a standard of excellence) can make something so simple cheaply and reliably I don't know why the same can't be done in aviation.

The "well it's the way it's always been and it's the risks we are familiar with so we are comfortable with them" is a disastrous line of thinking that infects the FAA just like any other bureaucracy. More importantly it stifles any innovation in the market because it effectively murders opportunity for advancement before its ever even worked out on a cocktail napkin or a machine shop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top