Don’t underestimate the EPA. They imposed catalytic converters and lead-free in spite of the auto industry’s complaints that it is going to kill their business. If they didn’t care swinging a market of millions of units (with incomparably more lobbying power than GA) what makes you think they’ll care about the fate of ca 100k airplanes, most of which are derelict?
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Don’t underestimate the EPA.
+1
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
what makes you think they’ll care about the fate of ca 100k airplanes, most of which are derelict?
Because they are after bigger fish?
It is all too obvious that diesel/kerosene is the only viable long term fuel. The consumption of jet fuel is 5.2 mill barrels per day. Avgas is 12k barrels per day. 99.75 % of all aviation fuel is jet fuel. But, 80-90% of all Avgas aircraft can use UL91 and/or mogas, so the problem is what exactly? Any 100LL substitute is bound to be more expensive than 100LL/UL91, so the moment the 100LL substitute enters the market, the demand will plummet. People will do what it takes to “convert” to UL91 and similar. Why bother at all developing a new fuel? Put some taxes on the led, it’s only fair that those polluting shall pay, and things will sort themselves out and 100LL will eventually disappear within 5-10 years (or better still, just prohibit it’s use right now). That doesn’t solve the distribution problem. GA on jet fuel/diesel is indeed one of those things that is essential for GA to grow in the future. GA has to evolve with the rest of the world, or it will stagnate and die.
Received an email from Superior. The Gemini two stroke diesel is undergoing 100h endurance runs atm. But they are delayed for entering the market. A two stroke diesel is simple, light and powerful compared with modern 4 stroke diesels. Simple enough for people to maintain them themselves. Hopefully the Gemini will make it.
The EPA doesn’t care about fish size. There is already an initiative to implement emission standards in commercial air travel so the emission control momentum picks up in aviation. God forbid the air measurements the EPA is now conducting show elevated levels of lead – they’ll have no hesitation to pull the plug.
Probably it’ll finally prod the engine makers to update their products (but I’m not holding my breath).
Yet, this is nothing new. Everybody knows 100LL has lead in it.
The car industry has changed because it was possible to do. The EPA has tried this before and got blocked.
Ultimately, in European GA (which doesn’t hang together even if it means hanging separately) these discussions tend to become the entrenched positions of the stakeholders so e.g. if you are burning 91UL then it’s fine to kill everybody else… and the other permutations. Fortunately the US community does hang together… with a lot of political representation.
Diesel is not an option for retrofits except at the very best case for a very limited number of “low hanging fruit” airframes and “low hanging fruit” operations (training, basically) so “100UL” is the only way out. And sure enough this is what is happening.
So I would not get too concerned.
Airports cannot usually stock multiple grades of avgas so if 100UL appears they will just sell that. Unless there are huge price differences but TOTAL’s cynical “market cornering experiment” has made everybody realise this is likely to be a massive con. They are not going to fall for this again.
Peter wrote:
“100UL” is the only way out. And sure enough this is what is happening.
Yes, apparently, and until then we’ll be buying 100LL. The rest is Euro fantasy, hoping that the GA world will align with Euro interests for no practical reason. Two fuels was the case in the past but the push for efficiency in US distribution eliminated 80/87. Most US airports aren’t going to carry jet fuel (ever) or 91UL (ever) they’re going to continue carrying a single fuel which provides what their customers want and need.
So… Peter… are you suggesting that EPA will leave GA alone because “it is impossible to change” and “it has political representation”?
In that case I suggest you study very closely what is currently happening to US coal miners.
Compared to that, if you think the EPA will care about shutting down an industry that is a fraction in size… well I guess one can resort to “say it with conviction and that will make it true” technique.
Aviathor wrote:
Flight testing of two fuels is about to start
The alternative 100LL fuel program has been ongoing for the past five years. The FAA entered Phase I testing a year ago selecting 4 fuels from 17 fuels submitted. https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/
No one is going to take 100LL away until the alternative fuel is selected and distributed.
The FAA also has a drop-in alternative fuels program for Jet-A https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/apl/research/alternative_fuels/
Silvaire wrote:
Most US airports aren’t going to carry jet fuel (ever) or 91UL (ever) they’re going to continue carrying a single fuel which provides what their customers want and need
Nonsense. This depends entirely on the price of this new (and currently non existing) 100UL. If 90% of the users happily get by with much cheaper UL91 or similar, then it will be distributed by someone, unless the US of A have started with 5 year planning dictatorial system.
Peter wrote:
these discussions tend to become the entrenched positions of the stakeholders so e.g. if you are burning 91UL then it’s fine to kill everybody else…
Well, these “everybody else” are the 5-10 percent who “need” led in the first place. They are the problem.
…except that these 5-10 percent who need it buy 50 percent of the fuel…
