AVGAS - US attack?

[John R81]

It seems that Friends of the Earth have filed legal action in the US District Court of Columbia attempting to require the Environmental Protection Agency to take action to regulate lead from GA aircraft.

http://www.mlstrategies.com/articles/energy-3-11-12.pdf#page=6

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

When you think there's an awful lot of big piston engines flying around in the States, especially Alaska, that can't use unleaded, and really DO need avgas, I really can't see how this is gonna be easy..

Bleedin lefties, they'll spoil all the fun for everyone!:=






PS Are they called 'Friends of the Earth' cos they havent got any human friends?:E

[peterh337]

:ok:

Anyway, where are the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_%281955%29) when you really need them?

[FlyingStone]

Perhaps they would be willing to pay for conversion of all piston aircraft to turboprops. I'd support that :)

[Rod1]

If you take a look at the Lyk website there is quite a good item on the legal position and the expectation that 100LL will be dead in the US by 2020, this was pre this legal development. In the US there is a big debate on a one two or three fuel solution. In the UK we currently have a three fuel situation already, Mogas, Avgas 91UL and Avgas 100LL.

Rod1

[peterh337]

In the UK we currently have a three fuel situation already, Mogas, Avgas 91UL and Avgas 100LL

Since almost nobody stocks the first two....

[Mickey Kaye]

Thats because ASDA stock the first one at 1.36 a litre ans every jodel I know of runs perfectly well on it.

[S-Works]

Mickey Kaye
*
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 41
Posts: 414
Thats because ASDA stock the first one at 1.36 a litre ans every jodel I know of runs perfectly well on it.


Ah, yes the fuel of the bacon butty run for those with a limited imagination. Not much use in the high speed IFR tourers used to actually going somewhere......

**** speaking as a turbine pilot with no fuel issues.

[NutLoose]

Went to a seminar many moons ago and if I remember correctly Shell said that the amount of lead emitted into the atmosphere world wide per year from Aviation was about 4 tonnes, that is a lump about the size of a coffee table.. Not exactly a lot is it.
One problem they had was if they couldn't get the specific rating out of a batch of fuel, previously they would of blended it to produce car fuel, with the leaded version of that gone, they now had to pay a company to take it away, burn it and filter the emissions.

[Pilot DAR]

if they couldn't get the specific rating out of a batch of fuel, previously they would of blended it to produce car fuel

... or dyed it red, and called it 80/87

[RTN11]

I, like many on here operate an all lycoming fleet, so it's interesting to see their take on it:

Lycoming continues to believe that piston general aviation is best served in total by pursuing an unleaded aviation specification fuel to replace 100LL.

Unleaded Fuels: Avgas by any other name... is Avgas - Lycoming (http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips-advice/unleaded-fuels/avgas-by-other-name.html)

They seem to be looking for a good alternative to Avgas. This attack is one of many, and ultimately it looks like 100LL will be dead and buried within the next 10-20 years as soon as an unleaded alternative has been found.

As has been mentioned in previous threads, the problem is when you take the lead out you end up with 91UL, which is no good for high performance singles, but fine for your typical spam can burger run or training fleet. It seems from their bulletins that Lycoming are trying to find an alternative, but the reality is that it's a reasonably specialist market, so where is the financial incentive?

From their website it looks like Lycoming would like to see a one fuel soloution, since that would make production costs more reasonable. A two or three fuel soloution would likely see the high performance aircraft paying an awful lot more for their high octane fuel, since the bulk of the market will happily run on the lower octane.

[peterh337]

I don't think it is as simple.

GA developments are led from the USA and they are looking for a single fuel which is good for the whole 100LL fleet. They need that, because they have lots of people who fly distances in high perf planes.

They also have loads of bimblers but that's OK.

In the UK, you have a sub-community (very active on the forums) which can run on car petrol and they have small tanks which can be practically filled from jerrycans filled up at petrol stations. That community will continue doing what it is doing now. They don't fly to the bigger airports anyway because they won't pay more than £5 landing fee.

The "jerrycan" solution is utterly impractical for larger private aircraft. To fill mine up I would need a trailer full of heavy jerrycans, plus a bodybuilder to lift them. And no garage will let me fill up that many anyway. And mine is just a 1400kg MTOW 4-seater.

The oil companies would much rather sell a single fuel, and I suspect they are also waiting for whatever comes out of the USA.

France is a different case again. There is almost no French-pilot touring there; they have an almost wholly club based scene where people fly short distances from one club to another. They can burn something lower than 100LL in the Robins etc. But the airports there have the same dilemna as elsewhere unless they want to exclude foreign visitors, most of whom need 100LL because they are flying the more capable planes.

[Genghis the Engineer]

In my opinion, a clear and impending removal of AVGAS 100LL at, say, 18 months notice, would be a very good thing for GA.

Microlighting went through something similar when 4-star was withdrawn; everybody knuckled down, the various organisations worked together, and by the time we no longer had 4-star, everybody had the necessary permissions to run on EN228 unleaded. Which they still do.

Whilst I'm not much of a fuel expert, I'm quite certain that all of the problems of running light aircraft on unleaded fuel can be solved and if we were forced to, we'd solve them. It might also end the dominance of some of the mainstay 1960s era training aeroplanes, but I can't honestly see that as a bad thing.

In the meantime, if we all start paying MOGAS prices, if you take fuel as around 2/3 of the cost of flying a light aeroplane, and MOGAS as 2/3 of the cost of AVGAS, you'll shave around 15-20% off the cost of GA flying.

That would, despite a lot of fuss in the short term, be a really good thing.

G

[JOE-FBS]

If I understand correctly, the aeroplane doesn't have to be very high performance to be incompatible with UL91. I would be delighted to be proved wrong but as far as I can tell the PA28-161 that I fly from a club may not use UL91.

Yes it would be nice if club rental aircraft were not generally so old and horrible (although I was lucky to find a club that has aircraft which are old but very tidy and well equipped, it can be done) but where in the new generation stuff are four seats and approval to fly night and IMC? (Genuine question, I don't know the new aircraft market).

Also of course is it any surprise that clubs and schools run knackered old kit when people whinge about a tenner to land and post questions along the lines of "Where is the cheapest place to learn to fly" rather than "Where is the most suitable place to learn to fly" or similar.

[Hodja]

In my opinion, a clear and impending removal of AVGAS 100LL at, say, 18
months notice, would be a very good thing for GA.The industry's been dicking around with a 100LL replacement for decades. (greatly simplified statement :))

Couldn't they just move to UL94 (UL91/96) and be done with it?

[thing]

In the meantime, if we all start paying MOGAS prices, if you take fuel as around 2/3 of the cost of flying a light aeroplane, and MOGAS as 2/3 of the cost of AVGAS, you'll shave around 15-20% off the cost of GA flying.

That would, despite a lot of fuss in the short term, be a really good thing.
Fine in theory but don't you think that Mogas would creep up to the price of Avgas? Due no doubt to 'difficulty with supply and production blah blah' :yuk:

Look how Diesel has shot up in price over the last twenty years or so. For no reason whatsoever other than demand.

[S-Works]

The problem is that most of the GA flight can't move to Mogas or the UL91/96 because the engines won't run on it and there are no alternative engines for them.

My Cessna will not run on low Octane fuel and neither will something like Peters TB20.

So ending Avgas will effectively ground most of the GA fleet and thus end GA. Now the Microlight and Permit boys may just sit there all smug that they can carry on as they have no problems. But with most of the GA fleet gone the world will become a whole lot smaller and without the big GA targets in the way to run interference, how long do you think it will take those with idle hands to target you? Someone has to feed the CAA machine........

[abgd]

Went to a seminar many moons ago and if I remember correctly Shell said that the amount of lead emitted into the atmosphere world wide per year from Aviation was about 4 tonnes, that is a lump about the size of a coffee table.. Not exactly a lot is it.

At about 1g lead/litre for 100LL, that's only 4 million litres of fuel - 1 million gallons or thereabouts. According to Wikipedia, "The annual U.S. usage of avgas was 186 million US gallons in 2008". I doubt that leaded avgas is the most pressing environmental concern out there, but I think your figures are out.

How much avgas do the military use in drones and trainers? Would it be plausible to wager that it will only be available whilst they still require it?

[peterh337]

It might also end the dominance of some of the mainstay 1960s era training aeroplanes, but I can't honestly see that as a bad thing.

Great to have you on our side :ugh:

It would take out all mission capability / utility value out of GA.

It would shrink GA to farm strips, mostly. I know a lot of UK GA would be happy, on the basis of "I am allright Jack".

A proper solution needs to be found.

My engine (IO540-C4) can probably run on 96 octane just fine; it's one of the marginal cases. But most of the more capable ones can't and the airframes would be scrapped.

[JOE-FBS]

"How much avgas do the military use in drones and trainers?"

I imagine that you are right about piston engine basic trainers using Avgas (the Air Cadet Grob 109s which share our airfield certainly do) but I would guess that piston powered drones might be on jet fuel / Diesel. Back in the mid 1990s I was slightly involved in a project to develop a 100 cc capacity Diesel powered piston engine because the US military wanted a human portable electrical generator but also wanted no gasoline on the battlefield.

[achimha]

Wouldn't it be possible to switch to unleaded high octane fuel which is good for most engines (like the Swedish stuff) and offer a certified lead additive for those engines that can't? Obviously the issue there would be the highly poisonous character of such an additive.

Most high compression engines could be made work by adding water injection. The only real issue with unleaded fuel is the risk of detonation. Someone would have to come up with such a water injection system and get STCs for all engines.

I have a O-540 with an add-on turbo normalizer and the only fuel it's certified for is 100LL (and its 100 high lead predecessor). I bet it would run just fine on whatever replacement there is.

[Rod1]

“The problem is that most of the GA flight can't move to Mogas or the UL91/96 because the engines won't run on it”

This is certainly not the position as far as Total is concerned. Totals target when it launched Avgas 91UL was to have 80% of the GA fleet approved over a 2 year period. My understanding is that batches of fuel have been delivered for certification testing is on-going. As 80% is most of GA the trick will be to avoid being left in the minority 20% when the music stops. Total have around another 18 months to get to its self-imposed target and according to Lyk there will still be another 5 or 6 years left in 100LL by then even if prices are likely to keep going up.

One comment on Permit flying – the popular Vans range uses mostly the same 160 – 250 hp Lyk’s that are common in GA, so the LAA is taking a very active interest in fuel, its testing and approval. It is important to have an alternative to 100LL for the good of GA and at least Total have launched a new fuel that will help.

Rod1

[NutLoose]

Quote:
Went to a seminar many moons ago and if I remember correctly Shell said that the amount of lead emitted into the atmosphere world wide per year from Aviation was about 4 tonnes, that is a lump about the size of a coffee table.. Not exactly a lot is it.
At about 1g lead/litre for 100LL, that's only 4 million litres of fuel - 1 million gallons or thereabouts. According to Wikipedia, "The annual U.S. usage of avgas was 186 million US gallons in 2008". I doubt that leaded avgas is the most pressing environmental concern out there, but I think your figures are out.

How much avgas do the military use in drones and trainers? Would it be plausible to wager that it will only be available whilst they still require it?


A lot of lead in an aero engine never makes it into the atmosphere, which is what they were talking about, quite a lot will get washed off the bores and mixed with the oil, you just have to see the amount you scrape out af a crankshaft on a wobbly prop engine, it coats the inside of the shaft often about 1/2 inch thick. It was a while ago since I went, (years) but that was a figure I can remember, they said they were experimenting with a cocktail of chemicals to replace the lead but were struggling to get the Knock rating up, I think they said the drop in power would equate to the reduction in cargo carrying capacity on something like a DC6 of several tons.

[peterh337]

I can see why TOTAL are doing this. Almost nobody in France flies very far, and the club fleet is pretty uniform and can use unleaded.

[abgd]

A lot of lead in an aero engine never makes it into the atmosphere, which is what they were talking aboutAbout 3/4 makes it into the air, so your figure was still out by several orders of magnitude.
Vehicular air pollution: experiences from seven Latin American urban centres. Volumes 23-373 pg. 20. Published by the World Bank, 1997 Authors: Bekir Unursal and Surhid Gautam (found on google books)

Here's another question - are they still manufacturing engines that cannot currently run on any form of unleaded fuel. I'm suspecting the answer is 'yes'.

[Rod1]

Taken from the lycoming website.

The fact we face is that because automobiles no longer burn
leaded fuel, aviation fuel has become the largest source of
airborne lead emissions. By EPA reports, 45% of airborne
lead emissions is attributed to TEL enhanced avgas. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has been petitioned by
environmental concerns and will need to act in accordance
with the U.S. Clean Air Act. It has begun a process that
will most likely lead to the elimination of leaded aviation
gasoline within this decade.

“The 20% of aircraft burning Avgas mandatorily burn most of the current supply so there would be relatively little reduction in demand if the other 80% start going to the trouble of sourcing auto fuel or whatever.”

Avgas 91UL is Avgas. Biggest users in the UK are the flying clubs / schools and my guess is that 99% of the school fleet will get approved for Avgas 91UL. Even some of the IO540 variants will get approved if the “Total plan” comes off.

Rod1

[AN2 Driver]

Several issues with regards of Avgas and what will come once that one is gone.

Even today, availability of Avgas is a huge issue in most of Europe. In Southern Europe, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria and others, most customs airports cater for jets and jets only and have either no Avgas or at astronomical prices. Outside Europe, lack of Avgas makes trips South almost impossible.

Then comes the illusion that Automotive fuels will be better available. They would be if the regulators would ALLOW them to be used, which is not the case. What is Mogas today is again a specialized Aviation fuel available only on a very small share of airports. It's not what is sold at the gas station but some other mix. Of course that has to do with the fact that at least European regulators do not WANT piston GA in their future concepts at all. So they will fight any and all initiatives to make this kind of fuel available at airports or if so then at artificially higher pricing.

Personally I think that Jet A1 is the only way forward for today's Lycoming or Continental customers for several reasons.

First of all, there are commercially available and approved engines around. Centurion (frmr Thielert), Austroengine and SMA. Retrofitting has been done with the Thielert engines and if it had not been for that companies bancruptcy, would have continued on a large scale. This phase will pass however and I fully expect that as well Thielert as well as Austroengine will start to come online with STC's for most popular airframes. Current engines exist at 135 and 155 hp in production (2.0/2.0s) and have STC's for Cessnas 172, PA28 and Robins at this stage. A 350 hp Centurion 4 is in final development. Austroengine have the 170 hp AE300 which is running on DA40's and 42's. SMA have a 230 hp engine STC'd to the Cessna 182 Q and R.

So we do have Jet A1 burning piston engines at 135, 155, 170, 230 and 350 hp available now. The Centurion 2.0 is the prime replacement candidate for the O-320 and 300 series, the SMA and the Austroengine for the O360/IO360 series and the Centurion 4 for the larger models.

There is few doubt in my mind that this will be one way out of the Avgas problem. However, STC's are needed fast to give owners time to change over at the next approaching TBO. I had hoped that when my O360 in my Mooney would need a TBO I could possibly even then go for a diesel conversion but due to the Thielert bancruptcy and the fall out from that, development on the Diesel front have been thrown back 5 years or so. Nevertheless, most of the current 4 seater cells and even some twins would be good candidates for this.

Looking at the data, those engines burn between 5 and 7 GPH of Jet A1 in normal power regimes. This will increase range and economy dramatically over current Avgas engines. Plus of course, Jet A1 is available nearly everywhere .

What GA does NOT need is a new special use fuel which will a) be regulated and taxed to death by the authorities and b) has no better availability than Avgas has even today. Somehow I do not see Southern Europe, Africa or Asia stocking yet a renewed fuel for these planes they do not want anyhow on their airports and which were easy to keep away by banning Avgas and Mogas sales. Jet A1 however is available everywhere and it will be very hard for airports not to sell it to visiting GA planes.

What we need are diesel engines to directly replace any Lyco/Contisaurus around and the STC's to go with them. Once that is done and these engines are available in sufficient numbers and in states of development which allow a comparable reliability (TBO 2000 hours +, no recurring inspection/replacement intervals like at Centurion) e.t.c. then I think the original surge will restart fairly fast.

If I were in Lycomings and Continentals place, that is what I'd bet my money on. Develop direct Jet A1 replacements which plug in place of the existing engines and be done with it.

[AN2 Driver]

EPA and their non-government activist brethren are clowns with ambition beyond reason or likelihood. That's also without doubt. FAA has authority over aviation and keeps them under control. Lycoming is just trying to solve a long term commercial problem ASAP - who can blame them, but they don't regulate aviation fuel, and neither does EPA.

Looking at what the FAA are doing right now, I have my doubts that FAA will be the champion for the light aircraft industry. If there is no change in administration (and even if there is, who knows what ideas future administrations may come up with), I would NOT even half trust the FAA to put up more than a for show fight to save Avgas burning airplanes.

Certainly, EASA would be overjoyed if they could get rid of the troublesome hobby pilots (as they see anyone between glider and PC12 users) and concentrate on 100 person plus airliners finally.... Many of those people look at the system of aviation in the old Soviet Union with one state carrier and no GA whatsoever and like the idea just fine.

In most other places, Avgas is even today not really available. Prices in Southern Europe or Northern and Central Africa are horrendous, 4 Euros plus per Liter of Avgas, which would make it somewhere near 15 Euros/20$ per USG, where it's available. NO local CAA nor EASA have shown ANY interest in fighting this. Just the opposite, every GA plane which is broken up or goes to a museum is for them a victory.

Regulators today will "tolerate" ULM's or VLA's as they are mainly VFR and don't disturb the big guys. However, they do disturb a lot of anti aviation guerillia who live around just about every airport. The Avgas crisis is one massive chance for these people to do away with those hated planes once and for all.

So in my view, relying on today's regulators is like relying on the tax collectors to pay you rather than take from you. And the only way to get over the Avgas problem is to eliminate the need for "Special Fuels" altogether. Either we are allowed to use what is available at the gas station outside the airport, get sufficient pumps at the airports it self of that material, or we go Jet A1. Failing that, GA as we know it won't be there in 10 years from now.

[peterh337]

I agree that would be the perfect solution but avtur burning piston engines aren't going to happen anytime soon.

Thielert have been playing with them for some years but the technology cannot be considered long term proven - quite the opposite at present.

I think it's fair to say that if you compare failure rates that cause an aborted departure, or a forced landing, on or off an airport (i.e. not just counting catastrophic mech failures), the current diesels are at least 10x less reliable than the Lyco/Conti engines. It makes me laugh when Diamond are talking about Merc engines being reliable; Mercs have a pretty lousy reputation for QA nowadays.

Maybe 10 years from now?

But look at the retrofit cost. It is totally nuts and in the average case more than the value of the whole aircraft. It's OK for new planes but who is making those? Cirrus, Diamond, Cessna, plus a load of marginal players.

In Southern Europe, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria and others, most customs airports cater for jets and jets only and have either no Avgas or at astronomical prices. Outside Europe, lack of Avgas makes trips South almost impossible. I am not sure that is the same issue.

The reason avgas is poorly supplied in those parts (and I have been down to Greece/Turkey so I know) is nothing to do with wholesale avgas availability, which is not problematic at all. Anybody who wants to buy avgas, and has the facilities to which the company will deliver, can just buy it.

And AFAIK anybody at all can buy it in drums, and quite a few private pilots in the further parts of Europe are doing just that.

The problem is simply that so many airports are run by stupid management which had made a decision to not support piston GA. "Piston GA is dirty" are the actual words of one UK airport manager, and "down south" having a private jet is the ultimate symbol of wealth, influence, bribe-ability, etc. Every airport manager with the MBA from some 3rd grade college absolutely falls over and kisses the runway for a bizjet to come in. And having an airline going there is like a birthday all over.

In some cases avgas is not available because of stupid regs prohibiting its sale to foreigners (Italy) or because the local aeroclub found they can buy it for less in drums than from the local BP or whatever avgas outlet, which then shuts (a couple of places in Greece, at least). In all cases one can buy it with a "private arrangement" ;) but that is kind of hard for a foreign visitor to do.

Africa is well stocked with avgas, once you get out of Egypt and across Sudan - I am informed. Not sure that's ever been different.

[abgd]

The US isn't Europe, flying is mainstream, and infrastructure planning includes aviation.

233,000 private pilots for a population of 300,000,000. Less than 1/1000 people, and falling.

[AN2 Driver]

Peter,

a few remarks here.

I think you are right insofar that the Diesel engines are still quite new and of course there is no experience in their operation yet which comes close to 50 years of O360ties. I think however, that the initial problems are well behind now. It took a few unpleasant incidents and accidents, which is not really unusual for new technology. What I do hear from people operating these engines today is very different then what it was before.

The initial problems of the Thielert engines were two:
- The fact that these engines are fully dependent on the electric system of the aircraft and initially did not have sufficient backups. That has changed certainly with the Centurion engines and never was an issue with the Austro-engine, which could profit from the experience of the Thielert shortcomings.
- The extremely short TBO for the gearbox of the Tielert engines, which was what contributed into the bancruptcy of Thielert. At the moment, the TBO for these gearboxes has been extended to 600 hours rather than 300 it was. Again, the newer Austroengine does not have this problem as the lessons learned were applied.

What really killed the initial enthusiastic drive for Diesel was the bancruptcy of Thielert, which had not a lot to do with the actual engine but with a severe business problem. The result was that many Thielert customers found themselfs in a financial disaster. That is however a thing of the past now, as for anyone now entering the Diesel world, these things are known and calculable. I think that without that bancruptcy, we would already now see a LOT more diesel powered aircraft, many of them being converted C172's or PA28's.

Locally here, there are several Diamond airplanes as well as some converted Cessnas and Pipers. Today, the customer satisfaction I hear of with those people is very good. I hear from people who fly the DA42 and simply tell me that flying a Twin with 10-12 GPH (for both engines) and 150 kt speed, being able to fuel practically everywhere they go by far outweighs the inital problems they had. The Diesel Cessna is also used a lot and has so far not had any problems whatsoever. And they also operate a DA40.

Initially, the general idea Thielert had was to motivate people to do their conversions when the TBO for their engine came up and they did try to keep prices for the conversion in the same range than a factory new replacement engine would cost, even taking the core value of the old Lycos in the calculation. That got a lot of people to take that plunge and do it. Unfortunately, Thielert did not have the financial possibilities to actually survive this promotion, had they lasted until the 2nd time around, when the first batch of engines would have been due for replacement, things would have looked differently. But as the sheer number of conversions for this first engine showed, there definitly was a demand and there still is.

Austroengine have not had these problems, a) because they work exclusively for Diamond and b) because they were able to develop in full knowledge of the problems Thielert had had. I would not have any major safety concern buying an Austroengine powered plane therefore. Nor really a Thielert one these days, I do think that the expensive lessons have been paid by now. I do not know enough of the SMA Diesel in order to have an opinion of these.

My aircraft has a 180hp O360. Looking at the power output and consumption at various altitudes, I could probably get the same enroute performance out of it with an Austroengine, but burning 30% less fuel, therefore increasing my range from today about 600 NM to approximately 800-900 NM with the same fuel quantity. Were I able to convert for the price of a TBO or abouts, I'd think about it.

The problem is simply that so many airports are run by stupid management which had made a decision to not support piston GA. "Piston GA is dirty" are the actual words of one UK airport manager, and "down south" having a private jet is the ultimate symbol of wealth, influence, bribe-ability, etc. Every airport manager with the MBA from some 3rd grade college absolutely falls over and kisses the runway for a bizjet to come in. And having an airline going there is like a birthday all over.


This gets worse even. There are airport managers around who do not even wish biz jets, but who would gladly ban anyone below 100 pax. The biz jet mania is mainly small airports who lack traffic anyhow and who instead of making themselfs attractive for ALL traffic rather cater to 2-3 biz jets per month to rip off but shun piston GA. However, what you say proves my point. They CAN keep piston GA away by banning Avgas. They can't keep away Diesel powered planes unless they sell no fuel at all.

Certainly you have realized the anti capitalist movement in Europe these days, look at Italy's luxury tax mania. We can not expect anyone to want us on these airports but to do everything in their power to destroy GA. Avgas is one factor they have in their hands, so is Mogas or anything else they need to do to cater for us. They can however not deny us Jet A1.

Africa is well stocked with avgas, once you get out of Egypt and across Sudan

True but you need to get there first. Some friends of mine had a major problem getting their Seneca II to Kenya as there was no Avgas available between Luxor and Nairobi as both Karthoum and Addis Abbeba refused them. They ended up going via Djibouti and got some gas there, 5 Euros plus per liter. Oh yes, Jet A1 sold for about 1 Euro?

Or my usual racetrack? I have about 600 NM range, so I can't do ZRH-Sofia non stop. I land in Belgrade which has great prices for Fuel and handling/landing. In order to get to my destination, I need to land in Plodiv, which has no avgas, then fly to one of the small airports there to fuel. Could I do Jet A1, I could fuel everywhere. And not pay 4 Euros per liter either.

[AN2 Driver]

650 operations per day at the public airport where I'm based. Almost the same at another airport 5 miles away, and about half as many per day at a third airport 15 miles away. A lot of those operations are training Asian and Euro ATP-track pilots.

It's entirely correct that the post-war GI Bill generation is retiring from flying, but with lower aircraft prices and kitbuilts the private ownership scene is fine in the US - the kind of low grade paranoia you read here isn't a factor. The world is not ending, nor will it

I like optimists, but unfortunately, Silvaire, I think you are not really paying attention to what happenens in the US.

First of all however, the US and Europe have not much in common anymore politically. Those days are gone. Europe is moving to the Left at a frightening rate and success is something politicians here see as evil. People who fly airplanes are treated the same whether they fly a Gulfstream 5 or a Cessna 152: The class enemy which needs to be fought and shot out of the skies. That is how Italy for starters justify their randsom tax they charge, but that is the very opinion of quite a few governments these days.

These people will do anything they can to destroy GA as a symbol of capitalist evil. it is safe for them to do and it means they can show they accomplish something for the socialist and environmental good. The way people react today to news of a biz jet crash sais it all: "Good riddance, one bloody capitalist less." That was the general consensus in the European press after the Citation X crash at Egelsbach. Co-workers told me to my face that they loved the idea I had an airplane now because they hoped I would crash and die in it! That, my friend, is what the European general mob thinks of General Aviation.

You can not expect A N Y help of such people, any understanding or even reason. Hatred is not rational, look at the way people these days are manipulated into even killing themselfs for causes some political morons deem worthy. People are sheep. And we, to them, are the wulfs who eat the sheep if the hero politicians don't see that we are killed first.

In the US, do not be sure of anything unless you get a change in administration. The current administration thinks quite similar to some European leaders and even looks adoringly towards some of the EU burocommunist achievements. Therefore, unless somehting drastic happens, I would not be surprised if Obama overrules the FAA on this and will, for the sake of the environment and his socialist background, help decimate GA to even more insignificant numbers. You still have a good lobby there, which is the major difference to Europe where GA has NO lobby. Yet, most of the recent battles in the US were lost despite vocal outcries of AOPA anyhow.

[AN2 Driver]

Silvaire,

I do hope you are right. In pre-2001 times I used to be in the US a lot, since, I did not return. The change I have seen and the deeply divided nation I can see today has really shook up my belief in the America I used to know and admire for it's unique will of freedom. Today, I avoid talking about politics with my American friends, as the rift I see is very significant, bordering in hate. That has quite unsettled my perception of the US.

For us Europeans, the US has always been the paradise for General Aviation flying. GA here has been under fierce attack by environmentalist groups, anti noise groups and the political Left. Ever since the sovereignity of the countries has been abandoned with the introduction of first JAR and now EASA, things have been steadily going down hill.

$5 a gallon Avgas is something I never experienced over here, right now the going rates are between $12 and $15 per USG, unleaded car fuel is between $ 6 and $8. I know that when I quote these figures to my American friends they usually are totally shocked. Reason for these exorbitant prices btw are mainly the horriffic taxes imposed on these fuels.

Avgas has the problem that it is a gasoline which in the scope of other fuels like automotive fuel, heating oil or jet fuel has an almost negligable quantity. That is why I don't believe in "specific" Piston Aviation Fuels anymore. I understood from someone working at a refinery that Avgas refining is something they would love to abandon as it "did not make money" for them in comparison to the rest.

So what I think is that there are 2 fuel variants which have to be used for GA in the future. Jet A1 is the foremost, the other may be absolutely normal automotive fuel as it is available at every gas station and at the same price as the automotive gas. Anything else is economically and logistically an illusion. Especcially if one hears the "experts" on the direction they expect the oil price to go in the next years. I have heard figures up to $400-500 a barrel within the next 5 years, so that would mean fuel economy will have a completely different meaning. Knowing that the taxes on fuel are often enough percentages, this could mean prices at the pump of $50-60 per USG automotive fuel in Europe with $100 per gallon of specified aviation fuels.

That would be when things stop happening. Jet Fuel however could never reach such abusive heights as it would kill the airline industry totally.

[abgd]

Especcially if one hears the "experts" on the direction they expect the oil price to go in the next years. I have heard figures up to $400-500 a barrel within the next 5 years, so that would mean fuel economy will have a completely different meaning. Knowing that the taxes on fuel are often enough percentages, this could mean prices at the pump of $50-60 per USG automotive fuel in Europe with $100 per gallon of specified aviation fuels.

That would be when things stop happening. Jet Fuel however could never reach such abusive heights as it would kill the airline industry totally.
I don't think I could call the potential prices 'abusive' though. Jet-A1 is already untaxed in most of the world, so if the price of oil quintuples so will the price of Jet-A1 (more or less). I find it more abusive that you pay fuel duty if you take a long-distance train within the UK, but not the plane.

'Apocalyptic' doesn't mean 'impossible', and if the Chinese decide they like cars, and if the rumours about Saudi reserves are true, then this may come to pass.

At the few regional airports I've been to in the UK it's struck me that there are more multimillion $$$ private jets on the apron than there are AVGAS burners. Even if there are a few Jodels and cubs hidden in hangars, the Cessna Citations seem to fly more. I think it reflects the current massive wealth gap within our society.

My bet is that the people who have the ear of the government are more likely to be in the Citations than the cubs. I would wager that AVGAS is used primarily by people who are economically in the 90-99%iles - wealthy enough to be resented (middle grade bankers), but not rich enough to really matter to decision makers. I can't see leaded AVGAS winning many friends in politics - at least in the UK. I can't really speak for the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if the situation is similar there.

[dirkdj]

Search for G100UL. It is now in testing and seems very interesting, no exotic formulas involved.

[abgd]

Sounds interesting, but I can't find anything about it from the past 12 months.

[AN2 Driver]

Jet-A1 is already untaxed in most of the world, so if the price of oil quintuples so will the price of Jet-A1 (more or less).

Jet A1 as well as Avgas is not taxed for commercial international operations, private ops are usually fully taxed. Another example to show that private airplane users are regarded as milking cows with too much money to spend.

Frankly, the injustice of this is striking. Either it is taxed for everyone or noone. The tax levied on private ops fuel does really not bring anything of note into the government's kitty, it's purely a "luxury tax" levied by people who think all private planes are multi million jets. They should really sit in a 1960ties PA28 once to see how wrong they are.

Rather than taxing only private ops but with a 70-100% tax, if everyone was taxed say 2-5% it would actually bring in some profit while it would stop to punish those with the least potential. But then again, that would be against the Eurocommunist dogma of punishing private property.

[Human Factor]

I'd be interested to get some pointers on the UL situation for an aircraft like the Yak52. In practice, it's likely to be irrelevant for our group as the timescale suggested (2020?) would put us close to a viability decision anyway, based on airframe hours.

Other than strapping a PT6 :ok: or that 500hp German diesel V12 on the front (oh yes! :}), either of which you could probably get away with in FAA land, would UL be suitable for a Vedeneyev radial? A better question is perhaps, would the Campaign Against Aviation allow continued operation on 91UL if it is?

[abgd]

Rather than taxing only private ops but with a 70-100% tax, if everyone was taxed say 2-5% it would actually bring in some profit while it would stop to punish those with the least potential. But then again, that would be against the Eurocommunist dogma of punishing private property.


Hmm... Europe would like to tax airliner fuel, but other nations would try to stop us.

Tories back Europe-wide tax on aviation fuel | Business | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/mar/21/environment.theairlineindustry)

On the other hand, those American Commie b***rds want private aviation to pay higher fuel taxes than commercial aviation (Rockefeller-Lott bill).

[peterh337]

I wonder if Gami have taken out some patents on their stuff and are a bit too ambitious on the licensing deals?

In such circumstances no producer is going to commit until the market is well and ready and utterly desperate.

[Rod1]

The M14 is approved to run on Avgas 91UL.

Rod1

[abgd]

re. the African aid thing... I suspect the aid would have been directed towards reducing carbon emissions in Africa. For example, buying stoves that burn fuel more efficiently or solar lighting. And if you believe in global warming and the idea that Africans will come off worst, then there's also a degree of justice in it. If you don't, then the idea will seem misguided, but there's probably some rationale behind it.

It was from a few years back and I don't think it's come to pass. Instead I believe Europe is trying to tax carbon emissions, which is a rather indirect form of taxing fuel.

You can argue for big or small government, and you can argue what should or should not be taxed, but in principle I don't see taxes as theft myself, and like AN2driver I don't personally see any justice in exempting only airline transport from taxes.

[Human Factor]

The M14 is approved to run on Avgas 91UL.

Rod1

Good news. All we need to do now is to get WW to stock it and hopefully we'll save a few ££££. :ok:

[John R81]

In resect of the initial post:

14 March the case was heard, and thrown out.

District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. declined to force EPA to study GA emissions. They are free to focus on larger and more major pollution sources first.

Article U.S. District Judge Dismisses Environmental Group's Legal Suit to Force EPA to Regulate Aircraft Engine Emissions : Business Aviation Law Blog (http://www.businessaviationlawblog.com/2012/03/articles/news-commentary/us-district-judge-dismisses-environmental-groups-legal-suit-to-force-epa-to-regulate-aircraft-engine-emissions/#page=1)

[Hodja]

Diamond Aircraft pursuing unleaded fuel capability for all Diamond models | Diamond Aircraft (http://www.diamondaircraft.com/news/news-article.php?id=134)

I also understand Cirrus is working on UL94 certification.

And the TB20 can fly on UL94 as well.

So who's left? :)

[peterh337]

And the TB20 can fly on UL94 as well.Have you got the ref for that?

I recall seeing something recently which suggested the IO540-C4 might be fairly close to it, but it was a bit ambiguous.

It's not the TOTAL UL91 though, which is the stuff everybody (well, Rod1 :) ) in the UK is banging on about. Who is actually proposing to sell UL94 in Europe?

[Hodja]

Have you got the ref for that?No, pure half-informed conjecture - but I could have sworn I saw a TB20 flying on Hjelmco UL91/96 once, hmm... (correction, not UL94)

[peterh337]

Given that GAMI had an awful lot of trouble making a TSIO-550 detonate on various fuels, and having to go to a CHT of something like 500F to do it, it doesn't at all suprise me that one could fly just fine in practice on 91UL - so long as it is "avgas" i.e. doesn't have the high altitude and the quality control issues.

On any realistic flight profile, where one climbs at Vx or Vy for the shortest possible time (due to CHT management) and then trims for a decent speed, and where the power is dropping off pretty fast post-takeoff due to the loss of MP, it cannot be an issue, IMHO. Legally... it's different.

[Mariner9]

Peter - I was told a newly-acquired TB20 now based at Gloucester was going to be run on UL91 - are you sure yours can't?

[peterh337]

I have no idea.

They stopped making them in 2002.

The standard POH is 100LL only (blue) or 100/130 (green).

Plus max 1% IPA or 0.15% EGME for fuel icing protection.

[Rod1]

If you look at the 91UL launch thread on Flyer I quoted the EASA position which was if the engine manufacturer had approved the engine then the aircraft with that engine is approved by EASA automatically. That is because 91UL is 100LL without the lead added. I would be surprised if the 540 is cleared yet, but some versions will very likely be over coming months. The links to find out are also in the flyer thread.

Rod1

[peterh337]

The C182 O-540 is approved for mogas and has been for many years. It is the various IO540 flavours, which differ in compression ratios.

The Flyer thread is too long to wade through now.

[Rod1]

Fields currently stocking Avgas 91UL are:

Barton
Compton Abbas
Dunkeswell
Henstridge
North Weald
Rochester
Turweston
Thruxton
Wellesbourne
Wolverhampton - Halfpenny Green

Popham - NOW AVAILABLE
Gloucester - Staverton NOW AVAILABLE
Oaksey Park - NOW AVAILABLE
Sherburn - NOW AVAILABLE
Wycombe/Booker - NOW AVAILABLE

Airfields that have agreed to take deliveries and are in the final stages of preparation / commissioning of equipment / tanks etc. and who should have the product soon are:

Sleap
Shobdon

[peterh337]

Can't help noticing that I have never flown to most of these, and have only very rarely flown to those I have been to.

[peterorb]

Rod1 (http://www.pprune.org/members/69140-rod1) could you tell me who is a UL91 trader/supplier in the UK?

[Mariner9]

Rod1 could you tell me who is a UL91 trader/supplier in the UK?

Rod1 most certainly could tell you, but to save him the trouble, UL91 is produced in and distributed from France by Total.

Their UK website is here (http://www.total.co.uk/Uk/ukcorporate.nsf/VS_OPM/55292DB1519E49DDC12579FE00544BC5?OpenDocument).

[peterorb]

Thx Mariner