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.
As a pilot, the one big red button I'm most familiar with is the autopilot quick disconnect. It's large, it's red and it sits right underneath your thumb on the yoke. Any aircraft with an autopilot has to have one - from a little Cessna on up to anything Boeing or Airbus make. Pilots are specifically trained to press the button if the autopilot is engaged and the airplane does something they don't expect. In many designs, it's actually an electrical interrupt - it removes current from an engage clutch or solenoid. This is, obviously, a safety feature. Use of this button is quite routine, though. Pilots often use it as the primary method to disconnect the autopilot because it is so convenient and easy to use.
Specifically, check with the manufacturers of avionics for the experimental or light sport market. Any certified avionics will be significantly more expensive. There are a number of companies that make EFIS displays for the experimental/LSA market. This avionics shop seems to have a pretty good list.
"Glass" cockpit displays must be readable in direct sunlight - you don't want to be flying an approach with the sun behind you and not be able to see important stuff like airspeed.
Not only do they make money off of late fees, but people are prone to saying, "Well, as long as I'm here, I might as well pick something else up...."
I'm not sure of the actual statistics, but Blockbuster and other rental chains make a significant portion of their rentals when people are forced to return things.
The rental chains will never get behind such a technology because it is ultimately harmful to their business - it will deprive them of repeat customers. Thus, the distributors of such discs will have lost a major outlet for their technology.
generally does not make for the safest fuel source. Liquid hydrogen is *cold* (-400 F) and hydrogen in gaseous form tends to be explosive.
If you had a laptop powered by one of these, you would *not* want to drop it. If you did, you just might destroy your office.
Even if this were powered by some other combustible (such as gasoline) I'd have a hard time putting one in a child's toy, where it could be a fire hazard if the fuel tank breaks, let alone in a $2000 laptop.
At clock speeds approaching 20 GHz, it seems there would be not only manufacturing problems to overcome, but physics problems as well.
Some quick math:
20 Gigahertz = 20*10^9 Hz (1/seconds)
For time per cycle, 1/(20*10^12) = 5*10^-11 seconds per cycle
Speed of light = 3*10^8 meters/sec
In 1 cycle, light will travel (3*10^8) * (5*10^11) = 0.015 meters = 1.5 centimeters per cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this roughly approaching the size of the die? I know Intel's a big company, but I think someone might get a little upset if they try and break the laws of physics.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
As a pilot, the one big red button I'm most familiar with is the autopilot quick disconnect. It's large, it's red and it sits right underneath your thumb on the yoke. Any aircraft with an autopilot has to have one - from a little Cessna on up to anything Boeing or Airbus make. Pilots are specifically trained to press the button if the autopilot is engaged and the airplane does something they don't expect. In many designs, it's actually an electrical interrupt - it removes current from an engage clutch or solenoid. This is, obviously, a safety feature. Use of this button is quite routine, though. Pilots often use it as the primary method to disconnect the autopilot because it is so convenient and easy to use.
Specifically, check with the manufacturers of avionics for the experimental or light sport market. Any certified avionics will be significantly more expensive. There are a number of companies that make EFIS displays for the experimental/LSA market. This avionics shop seems to have a pretty good list. "Glass" cockpit displays must be readable in direct sunlight - you don't want to be flying an approach with the sun behind you and not be able to see important stuff like airspeed.
Not only do they make money off of late fees, but people are prone to saying, "Well, as long as I'm here, I might as well pick something else up...."
I'm not sure of the actual statistics, but Blockbuster and other rental chains make a significant portion of their rentals when people are forced to return things.
The rental chains will never get behind such a technology because it is ultimately harmful to their business - it will deprive them of repeat customers. Thus, the distributors of such discs will have lost a major outlet for their technology.
generally does not make for the safest fuel source. Liquid hydrogen is *cold* (-400 F) and hydrogen in gaseous form tends to be explosive.
If you had a laptop powered by one of these, you would *not* want to drop it. If you did, you just might destroy your office.
Even if this were powered by some other combustible (such as gasoline) I'd have a hard time putting one in a child's toy, where it could be a fire hazard if the fuel tank breaks, let alone in a $2000 laptop.
Whoops, couple of typos - 1(20*10^9) in second line, (5*10^-11) in the last. Apologies in advance.
At clock speeds approaching 20 GHz, it seems there would be not only manufacturing problems to overcome, but physics problems as well.
Some quick math:
20 Gigahertz = 20*10^9 Hz (1/seconds)
For time per cycle, 1/(20*10^12) = 5*10^-11 seconds per cycle
Speed of light = 3*10^8 meters/sec
In 1 cycle, light will travel (3*10^8) * (5*10^11) = 0.015 meters = 1.5 centimeters per cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this roughly approaching the size of the die? I know Intel's a big company, but I think someone might get a little upset if they try and break the laws of physics.