Will this new lead limit affect GA?

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
EPA can't regulate avgas, they've tried before and FAA told them to pound sand.

Awesome. I think I may be the only one, but I strongly believe that piston twins and single turbo props like the PC-12 are the future of the commuter market. Everywhere we see companies running stuff like that we see dollar signs.
 

Barty

Well-Known Member
I guess it depends on what the lead emissions of aircraft are right now.

With some exceptions, lead is only used in avgas to raise octane. It apparently isn't needed for valve seat and valve stem lubrication any longer. I guess Lycoming and Continental figured out leaded avgas wasn't going to be around forever and started hardening the valve seats and started using stainless valves at some point.

Since I only fly aircraft with lower compression engines, I'd welcome a change to a less expensive, non-plug fouling, unleaded fuel.
 

Barty

Well-Known Member
Most aircraft below 200 hp can run on 91 octane mogas with an STC, which is certainly less expensive than 100LL. Avgas is still about $5 around here, 93 octane motor fuel is about $3.50.

As for the "high" compression engines (9:1 isn't high compression in my mind) it is probably going to be a matter of bringing the engine technology out of the stone age to wean them off of the high octane fuel.
 

HeyEng

NAHB Doesn't Give a Crap
Most aircraft below 200 hp can run on 91 octane mogas with an STC, which is certainly less expensive than 100LL. Avgas is still about $5 around here, 93 octane motor fuel is about $3.50.

As for the "high" compression engines (9:1 isn't high compression in my mind) it is probably going to be a matter of bringing the engine technology out of the stone age to wean them off of the high octane fuel.
It's probably going to get harder and harder to get mogas without alcohol in it.
 

Goonie

Never say die
Awesome. I think I may be the only one, but I strongly believe that piston twins and single turbo props like the PC-12 are the future of the commuter market. Everywhere we see companies running stuff like that we see dollar signs.
Eh, the PC-12 is a great reliable airplane but the non-pilot public doesn't like to see ONE engine. It is very rare to see successful PC-12s on 135 tickets. They are great 91 operated aircraft. I have seen a bunch of them being operated as Air Ambulance and such.....
 

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
Eh, the PC-12 is a great reliable airplane but the non-pilot public doesn't like to see ONE engine. It is very rare to see successful PC-12s on 135 tickets. They are great 91 operated aircraft. I have seen a bunch of them being operated as Air Ambulance and such.....
They work absolutely excellently up here, a company called illiamna air taxi, and jim air (before the feds shut them down for an accident) made serious bank off of theirs.
 

Goonie

Never say die
They work absolutely excellently up here, a company called illiamna air taxi, and jim air (before the feds shut them down for an accident) made serious bank off of theirs.
Good to hear. They are one of the best airplanes built for the operating cost and performance. IMO
 

SpiraMirabilis

Possible Subversive
It's probably going to get harder and harder to get mogas without alcohol in it.
Ethanol/alcohol is added at the distributor. Its easy to get a truck full of non-ethanol gas and probably always will be. Only problem is that ethanol adds octane and your non-ethanol gas will be subgrade.
 

Barty

Well-Known Member
It's probably going to get harder and harder to get mogas without alcohol in it.
I give ethanol maybe 5 years before people get pissed off enough about the crappy gas mileage and damage it does to older vehicles, marine equipment, landscaping equipment (including your home lawn mower) and anything else that burns gasoline that has rubber fuel lines and gaskets in it.

The EAA has been successful in some states in getting them to eliminate the requirement for ethanol in premium grade fuel. Premium fuel represents such a small portion of overall fuel sales that almost every state in the country could do that and still remain in compliance with air quality standards.
 

Patrick

Well-Known Member
I think the future for GA is going to be Jet-A fueled piston diesels. This really is a perfect application for the high torque, low RPM power that a diesel can provide, especially at a constant load.

Since no one seems interested in advancing GA Otto cycle engines beyond 1930s technology, I think diesel is a great idea. It is unfortunate, however, that one of the industry pioneers (Thielert) screwed it up.
 

Patrick

Well-Known Member
I give ethanol maybe 5 years before people get pissed off enough about the crappy gas mileage and damage it does to older vehicles, marine equipment, landscaping equipment (including your home lawn mower) and anything else that burns gasoline that has rubber fuel lines and gaskets in it.

The EAA has been successful in some states in getting them to eliminate the requirement for ethanol in premium grade fuel. Premium fuel represents such a small portion of overall fuel sales that almost every state in the country could do that and still remain in compliance with air quality standards.
What I think is a hilarious, yet disturbing sign of how stupid our government is, is the fact that the so called "clean air fuels" we're required to put into our cars only help carbureted or primitive fuel injected motors produce cleaner emissions. Modern EFI motors with closed loop monitoring simply burn more fuel to maintain performance with the crappy fuel we're stuck with.

Also, keep in mind that the rating of 100 Octane for AvGas is not the same 100 Octane used to rate motor fuels. AvGas as measured by the R+M/2 method used to motor fuels in the US only works out to about 95 Octane.

Lets be honest, a giant motor, typically making 1/2HP per cubic inch displacement out of its 8:1 or 9:1 compression ratio is not high performance. These engines do not need high octane fuel.
 

Scandinavian13

New Member
They work absolutely excellently up here, a company called illiamna air taxi, and jim air (before the feds shut them down for an accident) made serious bank off of theirs.
That's also because people have less of a choice up there. The single engine aircraft are more normal and expected there.

Down here, people are spoiled and can run off to the less-reliable aircraft with more engines just because it makes them feel better.
 

ppragman

FLIPY FLAPS!
That's also because people have less of a choice up there. The single engine aircraft are more normal and expected there.

Down here, people are spoiled and can run off to the less-reliable aircraft with more engines just because it makes them feel better.
Actually, we probably have more choice for small markets than folks down in the states do, people up here would rather have twins too, however, the costs of travel in general are fairly high, and people understand up here that airtravel is dangerous no matter how you do it, so they typically fly whatever is cheapest. Although, white people are typically more spooked than the natives are, who typically have more time riding in the airplanes over 30-40 years than the pilots.
 

PGT

Well-Known Member
I think the future for GA is going to be Jet-A fueled piston diesels. This really is a perfect application for the high torque, low RPM power that a diesel can provide, especially at a constant load.

Since no one seems interested in advancing GA Otto cycle engines beyond 1930s technology, I think diesel is a great idea. It is unfortunate, however, that one of the industry pioneers (Thielert) screwed it up.
You know I'm surprised they haven't started putting diesel in the planes sooner.

"The diesel 172 will consume 4.9 gph, produce a cruise speed of 129 KTAS at 8,000 feet (132 KTAS at 10,000 feet) for a 690 nm range with a 550-pound payload."

5gph, 130 knots @ 8000 in a 172? sounds awesome to me.
 

Scandinavian13

New Member
Actually, we probably have more choice for small markets than folks down in the states do, people up here would rather have twins too, however, the costs of travel in general are fairly high, and people understand up here that airtravel is dangerous no matter how you do it, so they typically fly whatever is cheapest. Although, white people are typically more spooked than the natives are, who typically have more time riding in the airplanes over 30-40 years than the pilots.
Wow. I was always under the impression everyone flies beaters up there like bush-rigged 170/180s, 206/207/208s and other SE bush planes, with the rare twin. Thanks for correcting my view of Alaska flight.
 
Top