Another reason the environment matters.

[Jarlaxle]

Note: leaded gas is still in use. Most race fuel (offhand, 110-octane Cam 2) is still leaded, as is avgas (most common is 100-octane leaded).

[rubato]

Note: leaded gas is still in use. Most race fuel (offhand, 110-octane Cam 2) is still leaded, as is avgas (most common is 100-octane leaded).

Only for the time being.

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

And you know this, how.

[Jarlaxle]

One of the voices in his head, perhaps?

[rubato]

And you know this, how.

You didn't read the articles. So you cannot be expected to know anything. I doubt if you have the capacity to understand them at all.


yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Jarl's answer is undoubtedly more accurate and funny.

Here's the skinny on avcgas from a pilot's blog (not some washed up dew rag like MoJones).

http://macsblog.com/2012/06/no-quick-ea ... ded-avgas/

No Quick, Easy Path to Unleaded Avgas

Posted on June 27, 2012 by Mac


The Unleaded Avgas Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee that was established by the FAA 18 months ago has made its recommendations, and there are no easy answers. Despite what you have heard or read, no unleaded avgas formula is a direct replacement in every way for 100ll. The committee hopes the FAA will establish an 11-year pathway that will lead to an unleaded fuel that causes the least disruption in piston aircraft operation.

The committee’s fundamental finding is that there is no unleaded fuel–and it is highly unlikely that one can be created–that is a “drop in” replacement for leaded 100ll avgas. By “drop in” replacement the committee means a fuel that would replace 100ll with no change of any kind to aircraft operation or to the fuel supply network.

There is general agreement that lead must eventually be eliminated from avgas as it is the only remaining transportation fuel in the U.S. containing lead. The amount of lead used in all avgas in the U.S. is tiny, but it is still a target of potential litigation by environmental groups and even state and local governments.

Lead is still used in avgas to raise octane and thus allow high powered, hot running air- cooled aircraft piston engines to operate with a safe detonation margin. Even minor detonation is destructive and extremely dangerous in an aircraft engine so a replacement avgas must preserve that margin.

But there are many other unique characteristics of avgas that makes it suitable for piston aircraft including vapor pressure, storage life, cold temperature performance and compatibility with aircraft fuel system materials. Though a few existing fuel formulas may meet the minimum octane requirement, the committee found that no existing fuel can match every essential performance characteristic of 100ll.

Another huge problem the committee identified is that there are no realistic market forces to drive a transition to an unleaded fuel. Avgas volume is a microscopic segment of all transportation fuels, and sales volumes are shrinking, not growing. There are simply no financially sound reasons for fuel makers and suppliers to invest the many millions necessary to create an unleaded replacement.

There are also no FAA regulatory standards or testing methods established for avgas. Over the decades refiners developed higher performing fuels and engine makers designed engines to operate on those fuels. The FAA merely blessed the standard that was created by the industry. In other words, the improved fuels came first, and engines followed. Now we’re trying to go the other way and find a new fuel that will perform in engines designed for leaded avgas.

With the absence of market forces—read profit motive–to create a new unleaded avgas the committee believes the FAA must intervene. The committee recommends that the FAA establish a centralized facility to test candidate fuels to determine which is the optimum replacement. And then the FAA must create a streamlined certification process that will provide a method for the 200,000 plus piston powered aircraft to be approved to use a replacement fuel.

If the committee’s recommendations are adopted as many as 10 candidate fuels will be tested to determine which fuel would have the least impact on piston aircraft operation. The committee determined that testing candidate fuels will take five years once the program begins.

Once an optimum unleaded avgas replacement is indentified through extensive testing, it will be up to the market to determine how quickly the new fuel could be adopted. A key feature of any new fuel is that it be compatible with 100ll so that the piston fleet can continue to operate while fuel suppliers eventually fill the avgas network.

The committee believes a transition to unleaded fuel will take 11 years once the testing phase begins and the total cost will be around $71 million with the government investing $57.5 million and industry $13.5 million. It’s possible, even likely, that a majority of piston aircraft owners will need to make at least some modification to their aircraft to use the new fuel, even if those modifications are as minor as new certification documentation. But it’s also possible some engine/airframe combinations will need hardware changes, fuel system modifications, or even reduction in performance or weight carrying capability.

The entire process is fiendishly complicated because every aspect of piston aircraft operation will be impacted beginning with the fuel manufacturer, through the delivery and storage system, and finally to the aircraft operator. You have read and heard that direct 100ll replacements already exist and are just waiting for FAA approval. But that simply isn’t true. The transition away from leaded fuel will be many years long, expensive and we must be ready for the unexpected complications.

Wrong as usual, rube and thanks for playing!

[Econoline]

http://www.kansas.com/2013/01/15/263741 ... k=misearch

Cessna Skylane with diesel engine near certification

Cessna Aircraft is nearing certification of its four-seat 182 JT-A Skylane equipped with a diesel engine, which is designed to burn jet fuel.

With an uncertain future for low-lead aviation gasoline worldwide, Cessna officials said the 182 JT-A – with its 230-horsepower engine – is poised to be an industry game-changer.

Outside the United States, 100 low-lead aviation gasoline, or avgas, is much more costly than jet fuel and more difficult to find.

Inside the U.S., the costs are about the same and avgas is more readily available — at least for now.

A push is on to find a replacement for leaded aviation gasoline.

Cessna introduced the model in July.

Eventually, Cessna will replace the T182Ts now coming down the production line at its Independence plant with the 182 JT-A.

The diesel engine, made by French engine-maker SMA, a division of Safran, is quieter and flies more smoothly in flight than the engine it replaces.

“And it uses significantly less fuel,” Brian Cozine, an engineer specialist in advanced design at Cessna, said at a briefing at Cessna’s flight operations building in west Wichita.

The $515,000 Cessna 182 JT-A model routinely burns 30 to 40 percent less fuel than comparable avgas engines on the same mission, Cozine said.

It also will fly farther — so far, in fact, that pilots will need a rest stop before they need to stop for fuel.

“Half tanks will take you almost as far as full gas tanks (in the other models),” Cozine said.

At normal cruise, it can burn 11 gallons an hour and fly nonstop for more than seven hours. At a low power setting, it can stay in the air 14 to 16 hours.

Although the plane has a diesel engine, it’s not certified to run on diesel fuel, which turns to gel at cold temperatures.

The 182 JT-A has been tested in temperatures ranging from minus 40 degrees to 108 degrees.

Besides Jet A fuel, it will be able to operate on Russia’s TS1 fuel, China’s No. 3 Jet Fuel and JP-8 jet military fuel.

The single-engine plane has been well received worldwide, said Jeff Umscheid, business leader for single-engine aircraft at Cessna.

Plus, “it’s doing a lot better in the United States domestically than expected,” Umscheid said.

Buyers like the fuel savings, lower operating costs and that it’s environmentally friendly, he said.

The diesel engine increases the time for an engine overhaul by 25 percent over the previous engine, Umscheid said.

Cessna is scheduled for Federal Aviation Administration certification by the end of March, with first delivery in the second quarter followed by certification from European authorities in the third quarter.

Flying the new 182 is easier than flying similar airplanes, Cessna officials said.

The work load is significantly reduced, said Cessna test pilot Charles Wilcox.

“It’s a very carefree operation,” Wilcox said. “Basically, you set the power, and you forget it.”

Wilcox demonstrated the ease of operation Monday afternoon.

To start, the plane cranked over like a car.

There’s no worry about magneto checks, carburetor heat, mixture settings, propeller control, exhaust gas or carbon monoxide emissions.

A single black throttle controls the power, and a computer keeps track of pressures and temperatures.

“The computer does the work and gives the engines the proper amount of fuel,” Cozine said.

If the electrical system should fail, the plane will still fly. Pilots can switch to a mechanical mode, which allows them to meter the fuel to the engine like other models.

If the engine quits in mid-flight, say because a pilot failed to switch to the other fuel tank, the plane is easy to restart.

Wilcox demonstrated the ability in mid-flight, by shutting down the engine, then adding power. The plane immediately came back to life.

That’s something the FAA looks at in certifying airplanes, he said.

So what’s next?

“We will be pursuing global fuels in other models,” Cozine said.

If there is an appropriate engine for the 162 Skycatcher, 172 Skyhawk or 206 Stationair, Cessna will take a look.

“We would certainly pursue it when the engines become available,” Cozine said.

That’s a few years away.

---

Reach Molly McMillin at 316-269-6708 or mmcmillin@wichitaeagle.com.

[oldr_n_wsr]

As long as it doesn't have lithium-ion batteries.

[rubato]

Removing lead from motor fuel is so obviously the right thing to do that removing it from aviation fuel is inevitable. The same is indubitably true of racing fuel.

And thanks to Econoline for the reference.

(which dales will not bother to read)

yrs,
rubato