achimha wrote:
we would see a lot of investments in technology and in the end there would be good solutions.
There are good solutions already. Only a tiny percent of GA needs 100LL. Every single one of those that need 100LL could switch to water injection or ethanol/water injection and a whole bunch of other solutions. The problem is that it is not really a large enough problem anymore to bother with.
FAA has authority over aircraft fuel and is funding development of a 100LL replacement. EPA has by its own admission limited authority over aircraft gasoline.
To me 80/87 may be the best current gasoline for many aircraft, except for it lacking very high octane. Pity you can’t buy it – I bought my last about 10 years ago. Most four cylinder aircraft engines were certified for it as their primary fuel. 80/87 has no cancer causing aromatics (unlike a lot of car fuel or 91UL or 100LL) and not a lot of lead (unlike 100LL). Also much better to me than breathing diesel particulates, as I have so often when riding a motorcycle in dense European traffic. I’ve really grown to dislike that.
Aromatics are often substituted for lead in car fuel to maintain octane rating, assuming efficiency reducing alcohol isn’t used. When aromatics are burned without a catalyst in the exhaust, as in an aircraft engine or in third world cars, the exhaust from burning unleaded auto fuel has increased levels of stuff like benzene – which causes cancer. 80/87 lacks aromatics so doesn’t have that problem.
Yes AVGAS is scarce.
The only H24 ATC General aviation airport close to Paris is Le Bourget. No Avgas there. Brussels Airport (Zaventem) is Jet A1 only.
Same for Lyon Saint Exupery.
C210_Flyer wrote:
" I for myself do not want to exercise privileges that others don’t have," Really? How many people can afford to have a private ……
Achim nice defence but you have to take the whole comment in context. The darkened sentence above is your statement . I just made an observation and my own conclusion. The reason other than, fear of flying, practicality , no chute for most of the GA fleet, no interest, is the fact that excepting those just mentioned most people cant afford to drop 20K Euros for the privilege to fly or pollute as well as increase their carbon footprint.. From what Ive seen most people cant afford 10K . They would rather go on an all inclusive vacation with their family for that money. You know the 10-20K is just a starting point. Then you have to add in meals and accommodations landing fees handling fees car rentals etc. If your cheap you can maybe get away with an additional 2.5 K . But with these numbers Im just trying to make a point, most others dont have these privileges because they cant afford it. Since you are so passionate about this topic of lead polluting and killing everyone Im surprised that you continue to do so.
Im flying a 100LL burner because as I have said for 100 yrs with 100s of milliions of cars burning billions of gallons (3.8Lt to a gal) of leaded fuel we do not have a decline of the human race. We dont have people looking like that skit on BBC “Women know your place”, that shows what too much education can do. That the amount of 100LL use is insignificant and that if the billions if not trillions of gals burned has not cause the extinction of the human race the insignificant amount we burn will not tip the scales towards mass extinction.
The real problem rest with those jerks the bureaucrats who have thrown more road blocks at the advancement of aviation than anything. If they were around when the wheel was invented it wouldnt be. An alternative fuel is available but because of politics and the FAA/EPA stupidity we still dont have it. If anything your frustration should be directed at them to get their collective asses up and out of their chairs and move forward.
PS That BBC skit is now used as a training film for the Taliban and ISIS. The reason why women should not be educated.
Peter wrote:
But for some amazing reason there is no problem with anybody making the stuff!
Well supposedly there is a decline:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=C400000001&f=A
Approximately a halving of sales in 25 years.
The lead content (even 100LL), is still fairly high, which environmentally isn’t exactly a great selling point looking forward into the future.
If I recall correctly there is only a handful of refineries that make Avgas and the quantities are very low compared with motor gasoline for example. It is also a very specialized product with a high standard of quality control required. As years go by a refinery may close here or there and not necessarily be interested to start up again!
The issue is perhaps that you buy an aircraft to last 25-30 years. Ergo the “warnings” may not be applicably for the usual interpretation of immediate term, but in terms of aircraft buying the implications need to be considered.
achimha wrote:
Not if AVGAS goes away The benefit of getting fuel vs not getting fuel is significant… I would have banned it long time ago. Polluting the environment with lead is unacceptable. There’s no justification we should be allowed to do it while everybody else isn’t.
I defy you to even measure the amount of “pollution” put out by an avgas fuelled GA plane. The numbers of aircraft vs automobiles on the planet should make the point. Automobiles fitted with all the latest technology still put out pollution, so we end up with VW running out of technology fixes and having to resort to fraud. By your way of thinking, we will all end up flying gliders, wearing open toed sandals and munching on lentil sandwiches.
No PROPMAN, that was not my point. Why is my neighbor prohibited from getting leaded fuel for his historic car and had to take expensive and inconvenient measures to cope with this prohibition while aviation is free from having to do any innovation at all? The main reason we’re stuck with this crap engine technology is because there is neither market nor regulatory pressure to improve. It was a very bad idea to exempt aviation from the lead ban.
I believe the lead pollution figures were given already and it is significant. Your argument of us not being many and thus having the right to pollute the environment with lead is a very elitist argument.
Your argument of us not being many and thus having the right to pollute the environment with lead is a very elitist argument.
But don’t you do it aswell? Do you think like that about yourself too, or is it rather that you use AVGAS (like the rest of us) because there’s no alternative?
I do not believe those numbers at all. Like noise studies it can be manipulated by who ever wants to make a point. I know because for the past 20 yrs there has been one noise study after another for 100000s of dollars each at KHTO. If that was the case in S Monica then after 100 yrs of of lead pollution from the cars there would be measureable soot of pollution in every city. Why arent cities banned as toxic waste dumps? I am not saying to not to stop pollution but at this point aviation has insignificant contribution compared to historical amounts dumped into the atmosphere.
By the way nobody is able to coerce Cont and Lyc to make a quality engine. What makes you think they can design and manuf a modern engine? Maybe a helping hand from EASA and the FAA with about 500 Billion of EU money might help.
If only 1 car existed on earth and 1 airplane no problem but there are millions of cars and even if each produce a minimal amount of whatever that is toxic, numbers add up.What we really need is sane world population growth. If we need growth at all is a question. With the way govts have engineered society right now, yes. The young have to pay for the old. But how about a system where the old can pay for themselves? I guess there would have to be less motorcades shuffling dignitaries from one meeting to another around the world. There would have to be less layers of Govt ergo less taxes so you dont have to have so many people in order to shovel money to the privileged political class.
C210_Flyer wrote:
By the way nobody is able to coerce Cont and Lyc to make a quality engine.
You can say what you want about this, but truth of the matter is that Cont and Lyc engines have become extremely reliable over the past decades. I trust my life to one every day. Many pilots will tell you they have never experienced a complete engine failure during their whole career… Not that I’m not ready for an engine failure every flight, but that’s professionalism. Airline (turbine) pilots do likewise.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Maybe a helping hand from EASA and the FAA with about 500 Billion of EU money might help.
