Slashdot Mirror
FAA Wants All Aircraft Flying On Unleaded Fuel By 2018
coondoggie writes "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week put out a call to fuel producers to offer options that would safely let general aviation aircraft stop using leaded fuel by 2018. The FAA says there are approximately 167,000 aircraft in the United States and a total of 230,000 worldwide that rely on the current 100 octane, low lead fuel for safe operation. It is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United States that contains the addition of tetraethyl lead, a toxic substance, to create the very high octane levels needed for high-performance aircraft engines. Operations with inadequate octane can result in engine failures, the FAA noted."
Now I know where I can get leaded gas for my old car. :) :)
Off to the airport.
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
It's piston-engine stuff like Cessnas that make up the remaining leaded avgas users, and even there, only the subset of engines that require the 100-octane avgas. Both newer and some older stuff can use 91-octane stuff that's now unleaded.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
So in 6 years, the FAA expects 167,000 aircraft owners to swap the engines in their aircraft for an unleaded engine? In 6 years companies are supposed to develop an unleaded engine that will fit in every type of small prop aircraft currently flying? Yeah, not happening.
And as a small single engine plane owner myself, I'll be damned if the government forces me to spend 30K on swapping out a new engine, then more on inspections and re-certification of the aircraft.
The Rotax 912 and Rotax 912s found in Diamond's DA20-A1 and DA20-100 are certified 91 octane unleaded fuel.
Now I know where I can get leaded gas for my old car. :)
Off to the airport. :)
I never got that. What's so great about lead in gas?
And in the meantime, it puts lead in the environment (gasp! I'm concerned about the environment!) , the refiners fought tooth and nail for decades to keep it in auto gas, and it causes lower IQ in children and m,any many other health issues.
Is your shitty old car worth it? Your old out of date technology - 19th century technology - car worth it? That piece of shit machinery?
Why don't you sell the piece of shit to a moron and buy a Tesla?
The issue is not with airlines (which use Jet fuel) or with Commercial operations (mostly using newer engines). It is with the flight schools and other General Aviation users.
The problem with leaded fuels is not really that technology to use unleaded is not available, but that most of the General Aviation Fleet that is flying is older technology. Majority of the GA fleet are from 1970's or 80's when Cessna and Piper dominated the market.
Then came lawsuits (frivolous and otherwise) and most of the manufacturers filed for bankruptcy. The airplanes from the 90s tend to be mostly homebuilt. Post 2000s a lot of the companies came back from bankruptcy and started making airplanes again. The only problem is that a new Piper costs about $200K while a perfectly usable 1970s Piper with overhauled engine and modern avionics is only about $30K. Airplanes last a lot longer than cars if regularly maintained. So most flying crafts tend to be old.
So these older planes which were designed for leaded gas get recertified for low lead gas, but can never use unleaded.
Newer aircrafts tend to do two things,
1) Run on motor gas (mostly involves certifying for unleaded gasoline) . This has the nice side effect that the gas tends to be about 30% cheaper.
2) Run on Diesel/Jet Fuel / Kerosine - In this case it sidesteps the entire lead problem and also avoids using spark plugs (depending on the design). Fuel availability is a lot better, though not always cheaper.
One easy solution is to make unleaded mandatory for any Light Sport aircraft (which tend to be the newer airplanes built) and to increase a fee imposed while overhauling older engines (which get done every 1000 hours).
That said, this move would permanently ground the WW2 display fleet that is currently flyable and a bunch of old Piper Cubs and Ercoupes. But they are all pre-ww2, so not a big loss I guess.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
No, and you can tell this from the first line in TFS: "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week put out a call to fuel producers to offer options that would safely let general aviation aircraft stop using leaded fuel by 2018."
They want fuel producers to offer options that will meet the need of aircraft that are currently dependent on leaded fuel to operate properly without lead.
I get that its a lot to ask you buy a new engine, or even to RTFA, but could you at least bother to read the first sentence of the summary before exploding with outrage next time?
Why, do 6-cyl aero engines typically have higher compression?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Yeah, its a good thing that the FAA isn't talking about new engines at all, but instead calling on fuel producers to come up with replacement fuels that will work in current engines. Which is stated not only in TFA, which I can understand is a huge bother to read before complaining, but in the first sentence of the summary, as well.
I expect the authorities would make exceptions for warbirds... I'd hope so, at least.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The removal of lead from automotive gasoline in 1976 brought about a very significant reduction in airborne lead, for which there was a risk of exposure by inhalation. There is little to no need for additional reduction to mitigate that risk. The only remaining serious risk of lead exposure is by ingestion of lead paint chips by children living in old houses. The FAA will need to be very careful not to increase the risk of aircraft engine failure beyond any possible mitigation of a minuscule inhalation exposure.
100LL avgas has over 20 times the tetra-ethyl lead compared to leaded automobile fuel. And that was after the TEL in 100LL was reduced by a factor of 2.
Airplanes last a lot longer than cars if regularly maintained
That might be true, because so many of them are mostly Aluminum, and Aluminum oxide protects Aluminum in precisely the way that Iron Oxide doesn't protect Iron. But it might not be, because who properly maintains cars? Washing the undercarriage regularly and so on? Pretty close to nobody.
this move would permanently ground the WW2 display fleet that is currently flyable and a bunch of old Piper Cubs and Ercoupes. But they are all pre-ww2, so not a big loss I guess.
Isn't it possible to produce conversion parts?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Kittenman wants to win huge amount on lottery by 2018"
Yawn. We need less speculation and wishes in slashdot, more hard data. Well, that's my opinion.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Higher output per weight. Aircraft manufacturers and operators, especially for smaller planes, obsess about weight.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I used to do analytical work on fuel certification in a refinery, and while I didn't measure the "octane number", I understand what it means.
The number 100 refers to the performance of pure isooctane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) as a fuel - isooctane is simply a reference for the "100" rating. Fuels are assigned a higher number when they are tested and shown to have a lower tendency to undergo premature ignition in an internal combustion engine (this phenomenon is known as knocking). Such premature ignition occurs when fuel and oxidant in a hot engine cylinder are compressed as part of normal operation of the engine and is more probable when the fuel has a lower activation energy for combustion and fewer radical scavengers are present in the fuel mixture.
Other compounds (aromatics like toluene and xylene isomers, tetraethyllead, methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl ) also enhance the "octane" number. The latter (MMT) is routinely blended into automotive gasoline in Canada despite being a known heavy metal/neurotoxin with likely worse long-term effects than tetraethyl lead (...!).
Among these various options, the straight hydrocarbons are far preferable and can be used without modification of engines to accomodate the exclusion of lead.
The only reason the heavy metals are used is to reduce the cost of filling one's tank.
Yes sure they can make an exception, but where would you then get the gas from ? You probably have to mix in lead directly in at the carb or something...
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
They probably won't.
The FAA has a deep and seething contempt towards former military aircraft in private hands... above and beyond their general malicious contempt of aircraft in general in private hands.
Just another bright idea by our government that will hugely cost and destroy an industry.
General aviation is mostly the 1% ... our illustrious leader couldn't care less about them. Occupy General Aviation now!
When Canada phased out leaded gas some years ago, you could buy an additive for older engines that you just poured in the gas tank. So I imagine that something similar could be done for exempt aircraft. Mixing in a tank first would probably be much cheaper than modifying a carb and much safer.
Plenty of old engines can get a supplemental type certificate (STC) to run on motor gas. The problem is that gasoline is hard to find these days. In Massachusetts, there is not a single service station, on or off airport that sells gasoline. They all sell gasohol, which is gasoline with 10% ethanol (or in rare cases MTBE) added. Every STC that I've seen specifically excludes fuel with alchohol additives. One reason being alcohol's affinity for water. You need to be able to separate out the water from the fuel and you can't do it if alchol is present. At high altitudes (cold temperatures), water, or hydrous ethanol can become slushy, clogging fuel lines and filters. Needless to say, that's very bad. Cubs and Ercoupes probably can run on motor gas (without alcohol), because they do not have high performance / high compression engines, and were never restricted to at least 100 octane fuel.
I've believed for years that there's a large disconnect between aviation/avionics and auto technology, in the same way that ham radio people are vastly behind the revolution in wireless communications. Yes, both were pioneers in reliability and safety. But innovation has left them in the dust. Imagine: 300baud modems-- that's what many hams are left with, wirelessly.
In the same way, I like flying an old Cessna 152 or 172. Reliable, somewhat easy to understand, and are predictable (often). If I go to a car rental place, I jump into a Toyota or a Kia or a Chevy, and the checkout time is ten seconds-- they're all the same, basically, and today's aircraft it gets somewhat similar, but there is a huge variance in controls and engine configurations, and nothing like 10Khrs between MOHs.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
I would refuse a search and call my lawyer.
And for failing to comply with a "vehicle inspection" they may deny you the privilege of driving on a public road. Keep in mind, you agreed to certain acts of compliance in order to get your driver's license and in order to register your vehicle to drive on a public road. Calling your lawyer seems like an expensive way to get a ride home.
I own two aircraft. A 1946 Taylorcraft (think piper Cub, just better) and a 1967 Piper Comanche (4-place retractable. Fast. 260 HP fuel injected 540 Cubic inch 6-cylendar engine).
The Taylorcraft has an STC for unleaded auto gas of 91 octane or better (but see below). It runs quite well on stuff from the local unleaded pumps. The Comanche, with its compressions, could run well on 91 octane unleaded auto gas, but there is currently no STC to legally allow use of such fuel.
The problem with both is ALCOHOL!!! My autogas for the Taylorcraft must be alcohol free. Alcohol in the fuel does more than just degrade old fuel lines and fuel tanks.
Alcohol in an aircraft goes up and down over much more air-pressure and temperature varioation than does a car. Alcohol in fuel has led to many documented aircraft accidents and fatalities( See the NTSB reports over the years). Our fine government has mandated that the corn farmers deserve subsidies more than we deserve either fuel efficiency or safety (in the case of aicraft approved for unleaded auto fuel). i CANNOT find unleaded auto gas with no alcohol. Thus I still run 100LL in my Taylorcraft. I MUST by law run 100 LL in the Comanche.
If you will give me a reliable 91 octane auto gas replacement with no alcohol, and get the FAA to approve such gas in my Comanche, I will motor along happily.
There are still a large number of turbocharged high compression aircraft flying at 20,000' MSL that simply absolutely cannot operate on something with less detonation prevention that 100 LL. I will support those, my brethren, but for myself, if you will get rid of the insane alcohol requirements and get the FAA to cooperate, I will be glad to switch to unleaded.
Yes sure they can make an exception, but where would you then get the gas from ? You probably have to mix in lead directly in at the carb or something...
Lead additive was available for my 1966 car for quite some time after leaded gas disappeared. Plenty long enough for an engine rebuild -- a normal, wear-and-rear related rebuild -- with new seals, gaskets, etc.
I am not a crackpot.
Yet another uninformed individual who has obviously never hung out with pilots. The 1% guys are usually the ones that are using Jet Fuel and therefore not affected by this.
I've believed for years that there's a large disconnect between aviation/avionics and auto technology, in the same way that ham radio people are vastly behind the revolution in wireless communications. Yes, both were pioneers in reliability and safety. But innovation has left them in the dust. Imagine: 300baud modems-- that's what many hams are left with, wirelessly.
In the same way, I like flying an old Cessna 152 or 172. Reliable, somewhat easy to understand, and are predictable (often). If I go to a car rental place, I jump into a Toyota or a Kia or a Chevy, and the checkout time is ten seconds-- they're all the same, basically, and today's aircraft it gets somewhat similar, but there is a huge variance in controls and engine configurations, and nothing like 10Khrs between MOHs.
Hams are limited to 300 baud when the bandwidth of the signal is too large to fit in the licensed limit. CW (morse code) can fit into 500 Hz. SSB voice (and the limit for most of the digital on HF) fits into 3 kHz. Your typical high speed 3g cell phone data connection is up to 20 MHz. They aren't even in the same ballpark.
Unfortunately, there are additional restrictions on digital modes beyond bandwith, but that is the biggest limiter when you try to compare against cell phones.
I can run a one cylinder motorcycle to 150mph. If you're speaking of efficiencies, 300baud can be encoded to furious rates of information, but a limited vocabulary. IEEE 802.3ac transmits a huge amount of data that dwarves what a ham can do. Innovation has become brittle, and motivations have been stanched by archaic standards masqueraded as barriers to entry.
A boxer four cylinder aircraft motor is a wonderful work of reliable art, until something gives. The rated overhaul term for older engines is frequent, and costly. There are many arguments that say that reliability and quality control is better in general aviation manufacturing and that's true. Yet the liability incurred in a fatal accident is the same: death.
When you look at the supply chain for say, Honda in Ohio versus Cessna's, the prices are vastly different scales, but general aviation suffers from a severe case of paranoid manufacturing. QA for a Cessna vs Honda is vastly different. You can kill four people in either vehicle by having a catastrophic failure. Aviation costs are enormous compared to modern automotive costs.... for so many different reasons. But part of it is: older designs, a very slow certification process, an FAA that is comprised more of a good old boys club than innovative yet safe engineers, and the result is we have a largely reliable fleet of both autos and planes at a huge cost differential.
It needn't be that way, IMHO.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
Some of the aircraft engines in the piston GA fleet can tolerate lower-octane unleaded gasoline such as mogas without modifications. The Experimental Aviation Association has developed an STC that that permits the use of mogas in some combinations of aircraft and engines. Several popular engines, such as the Continental O-200 used in the Cessna 150, are on the list.
I fly a Cessna 150, and we have applied the EAA STC to our aircraft. Mogas can work just fine for normal operations and it's cheaper than avgas, but we run straight avgas after we've done certain types of engine work that require a break-in.
The real issue is that most of the avgas burned today is used by aircraft that have engines with large-bore cylinders and high compression ratios. They need the higher octane rating to prevent knocking. Engines like the Continental IO-550 have compression ratios of 8.5:1 or more.
Additionally, consider that all of the components of an aircraft's fuel system need to be evaluated. The fuel tanks, hoses, gaskets, pumps, valves and everything else need to be considered. A replacement fuel cannot have any adverse impact on the engine or the rest of an aircraft's fuel system. Performance with any replacement fuel must also be evaluated.
As for a replacement, if it eats away at the seals (like mogas with ethanol), it's unsuitable. If it shaves too much off of an aircraft's performance due to reduced power output or a weight difference, it's unsuitable. If it doesn't work with existing fueling infrastructure, it's unsuitable. If it costs too much to produce, and therefore will be far more expensive than what we have today, it's unsuitable.
Just run them on nuclear already. It works for submarines, lol.
The new Cessna 182 that can use Jet-A and the light sports and experimentals that can run on 91 octane unleaded are essentially in the noise in terms of total number of aircraft being produced.
Continental has expressed interest in licensing Safran's diesel engine technology for a wider range of output power. The engine is expensive enough that it may take a decade before a significant portion of light aircraft are diesel powered, though the price differential and Jet-A may encourage a fair number of engine swaps. 'Course this still leaves out the folks with big honkin' radial engines...
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
It's not.
The reason aircraft engines are built so very simply is for reliability. Everything you add is just another thing to malfunction. When you are 1500' in the air, over a city, you have pretty much no wiggle room. Find someplace to land now! At 1500' you have less than a minute to get it figured out and and around 1 more minute to get the thing on the ground.
MANY people have tried to adapt car engines to GA aircraft only to see them fail, time and time again. Cooling problems, vibration problems, fuel problems, you name it.
Diesel engine technology is being heavily tested and one or two have even entered production, but those have a very long way to go before they can be said to be reliable. And that is reliable to a standard that everyone can basically bet their life on, not just the pilots, not just the passengers, but people just like you, living your life peacefully until that airplane comes through your roof.
For any airplane to fly it is always the weight -v- lift -v- drag -v- power trade off.
I would love to adapt a Ferrari flat 12 for aircraft use. It runs on unleaded, meets California smog rules, you can get LOTS of horsepower out of 5 liters ( 12 cylinders ). Basically you get 480hp and 480 foot pounds of torque at about 6800 rpm and when you reduce that to 2400 rpm or so you 480 foot pounds * ( 6800 / 2400 ) and you can go really fast.
Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
Right, let's get rid of lead in fuel. Why should the electronics industry be the only one to suffer from the over-zealous war on lead?
While the health effects of lead absorption are well understood, methods for absorption are not so much, and in the meantime we're substituting for it with stuff that is likely much worse. And making future generations pay with all the failed electronic devices we're throwing out in the meantime...
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
seriously, why are they still using leaded fuel? ô_0
Private pilot (PP-ASEL) here.
I am certainly NOT the 1%. Learning to fly is not more expensive than a LOT of other hobbies. The very first time I flew in a small aircraft was as passenger with a student, who certainly wasn't rich (very old scrappy car; that was in Germany - so he didn't have to pay high tuition fees), he tried to get acquaintances to fly with him and share some of the cost of most of his flights.
Hourly costs sound high, but that is the time the engine actually runs. If you do aerobatics instead of (extremely boring) cross-country flights very few if any of your flights will be longer than an hour - and that's more than enough for the weekend, it's quite exhausting. That's roughly $200/week.
You CAN spend unlimited amounts of money, same as in sailing/yachting, but you also CAN participate in these hobbies on a limited budget.
That said, I stopped flying, part of it was THIS (article) and the noise my airplanes create. When I hike through Yosemite (or anywhere) the last thing I want to hear is small aircraft noise above, but it's sooo common these days. I just don't want to be that guy.
I also stopped horse riding, for similar reasons, but for the horses sake: I did not want the responsibility of owning one, and I don't want to support the horse industry where most animals spend almost all their time in small boxes. Those animals need lots of space on grass land, that's rarely what they get, at least not close to large cities (I did most of my riding in the SF Bay Area, some Oakland Hills stables) where there are lots of people keen on riding but not enough space to give horses a natural environment. Both flying and riding are VERY fun hobbies, unfortunately there is a considerable cost - to others.
Change to Propane (110 octane) or LNG (octane 130). Though probably have to retrofit underwing or tip tanks (already some types on market). Both are much cheaper fuels, and engines could be made higher performance with higher compression ratios.
I got that scary feeling because I had only read the first four words. It was slightly less scary when I managed to read the fifth word. I hate it when can't see the title due to other windows blocking my view.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
It is scandalous that this took so long to do...
I know Europe and USA measure octane differently but still your fuel seems to suck. In Finland you have a choise between RON 95, 98 and E85(RON106). As a turbo enthusiast I would never use anything below RON98 and I've been very happy with E85.
Aluminum oxide is tough and tends to prevent oxidation of deeper layers. Iron oxide is very weak, much larger than the metallic iron it replaces, and doesn't prevent oxidation of deeper layers.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Reading comprehension? You fail it.
Aluminum oxide protects Aluminum in precisely the way that Iron Oxide doesn't protect Iron.
Aluminum oxide is tough and tends to prevent oxidation of deeper layers. Iron oxide is very weak, much larger than the metallic iron it replaces, and doesn't prevent oxidation of deeper layers.
Thank you, please drive through.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As a licensed ham, I'll tell you that there are limitations to encoding methods, bandwidth restrictions, and so forth.
Do I understand 6, 2, and 70cm transmission methods? Yes.
Do I respect what hams do during various events both in terms of public safety and ARRL connectathons-- like the one coming up weekend after next? Yes.
Was that me you just heard scanning 14X and 22X? Yes it was. My ugly little Wouxun sits to my left.
Now let's look at innovation. Yes, innovation. Now? Not so much. Cellular telephony has obviated the autopatch, and it's not a leapfrog, it's gargantuan. Want to send HD signals? Oops.
The interlinks, matrices, and repeater networks are awesome. And little innovation coming out of amateur radio is making it into the commercial space, which is dominating wireless. That's my beef. 300baud is hilarious when you can get LTE on a device that fits in your hand at a data rate that's order of magnitudes faster and better.
Do I believe hams need to kick the FCC in the can? Sure. But face the reality: limitations imposed, and the inability to experiment with reasonable and viable safety precautions, have made the commercial space to be where innovation occurs. Kicking CW on 160 is great fun. But the infrastructure that hams have is outdated and 300baud is a travesty. Face it.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
The gas engines used in general-aviation aircraft are basically 1930's technology, frozen there by the combination of a small market and the high cost of updating them. Also, paradoxically, aviation manufacturers are afraid to improve their products because of never-ending product liability concerns (Lawyer: "Aha! So the very fact that you improved the bolts holding the wing on 10 years ago means that you must have KNOWN they were defective in my client's 40 year-old plane! Ten million dollars, please.") Aviation gasoline will eventually go away. Today's engines may be replaced by a new generation of aircraft diesels burning jet fuel, which is much more readily available.
You're on crack, sir!
Hams have always been at the leading edge of long-distance wireless communications technology. In early times, hams were largely the ones responsible for clever antenna design (which was something of a black art in those times) and improving the effectiveness of various types of radio circuits. They are constantly pushing the boundaries of doing more with less. A good ham can communicate with someone halfway around the world with a simple circuit and 9-volt battery, for instance. Nowadays, the bleeding edge is software-defined radio. You'd better believe hams are using, developing, experimenting, and field-testing right now, as we speak.
Hams have to work within the limits defined by both nature and the FCC. When there is only so much bandwidth available to legally use, and you need to send a message a great distance, 300 baud may be all you get. And in a lot of cases, it's all you need.
Aside from the physical limitations, hams are unlikely to get access to the kind of spectrum that cell phone providers enjoy for short-range high-speed digital communications simply because they don't have quite the same purchasing power as a mobile megacorp.
Aircraft technology changes much more slowly than automobile technology not because the members of one industry are more incompetent than the rest, but rather because the markets are vastly different. Anything that leaves the ground as part of the aircraft has to be FAA certified pretty much all the way around. It's safer for everyone involved to stick with proven designs, even when newer ones might make things easier on the pilot or more efficient for the plane. The stakes are just a wee bit higher in a plane than in a car of the engine stops. Aircraft have lifespans of many decades, whereas most people discard their cars when they're between 5 and 10 years old.
I don't deny or even imply that in bygone eras, hams contributed mightily to what we have today. SDNs are fun; I want one. I don't deny nature, but FCC-imposed limitations are gruesome. What kind of innovation do you do at 300baud? Modulation techniques that harken to the days of telegraph operators. Sure, CW and odd frequency combinations can bounce waves off meteors, and do all sorts of cool and novel if impractical things.
Your take on the FAA is similarly strange. There are entire sections of lighter-than-air toys that fly merrily through the air as experimentals. Whole classes of planes are relics. I flew a relic. It was safe. I landed. But it had an ancient powerplant, overhauled time and again. Disposable cars are a thing of the past. We don't buy and junk them like we used to. They're vastly safer than before. So are aircraft, but both are subject to nature and "the other guy".
Hams have a comparative wealth of spectrum, but need more, and need the ability to use both reflective atmospheric characteristics, and short-throw technique enhancements to experiment. That means very long waves, but very short ones, too.
Yes, each year someone figures out how to get 5db+ out of some strange twist of fiberglass. That's not innovation. That's incremental gains based on the same playing field... stagnant for a long, long time.
Crack? No. Cranky: always.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
...huh? Do you need a hug?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
It won't ground Cubs and Ercoupes, most of them will already run happily on mogas and actually do so (so long as it's ethanol-free. unleaded mogas sold at an airport is ethanol free but not many airports sell it). The engines in Ercoupes and Cubs are low power, low compression and just don't need the lead - in fact the lead is actually harmful to them (spark plug fouling, lead deposits etc).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows