Carbon Emissions for Light Aircraft?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely it should be possible to have environmentally friendly aircraft
Surely it should be possible to have more environmentally friendly aircraft without damaging GA?
This wouldn't be difficult considering the number of old aircraft in use, especially planes like Cessna 152 which trades simplicity against fuel consumption.
Ideal solution would be if environmentalists and organisation like AOPA could agree a common path to lobby governments. I could see a number advantages
(I know, I'm too idealistic)
I'm relatively new flying (still learning to fly at the moment). But when I started to fly I was surprised to learn how stone age Cessna's are. I have a car industry back ground, cars have been getting cleaner since the 70's but this doesn't stop car manufacturers producing fun car's like the Porsche Boxster. The sort of improvements found in a modern car.
This wouldn't be difficult considering the number of old aircraft in use, especially planes like Cessna 152 which trades simplicity against fuel consumption.
Ideal solution would be if environmentalists and organisation like AOPA could agree a common path to lobby governments. I could see a number advantages
- Environmentalists (reasonable ones) could get old planes replaced with cleaner and quieter planes. (I was thinking of replacing a C152 with a nice new Flight Design, CTSW)
- If AOPA could get maintenance requirements reduced for new planes and a tax incentive scheme for buying a cleaner newer plane. With some sort of exemption for classic planes.
(I know, I'm too idealistic)I'm relatively new flying (still learning to fly at the moment). But when I started to fly I was surprised to learn how stone age Cessna's are. I have a car industry back ground, cars have been getting cleaner since the 70's but this doesn't stop car manufacturers producing fun car's like the Porsche Boxster. The sort of improvements found in a modern car.
- Runs on unleaded petrol.
- Fuel injectors, no carb. (WOW)
- Engine management unit (aircraft equivalent is FADEC)
- Catalytic converters (difficult to gas yourself with CO unlike a Cessna)
- Advance diagnostics which checks that the emissions technology is working correctly, if not a MIL light appears on the dash board.
Last edited by Mr_B; 2nd Sep 2007 at 20:53.
Had the pleasure of being in the USA for 3 weeks in July/Aug and not once did I hear the words carbon footprint, greenhouse gas or global warming.
Not when I was driving my son-in-law's 6.3 litre Chevrolet Silverado or my daughter's 5.7 litre Chrysler Aspen.
I think the gas we used in 4 hours in the 172 was pretty insignificant in comparison to them.
Oh and nobody in Colorado did anything other than sling the avgas samples downwind across the apron (they probably evaporated before they landed anyway).
Did I not hear somewhere that 99% of the CO2 emitted is from human exhalation ?
DGG
Not when I was driving my son-in-law's 6.3 litre Chevrolet Silverado or my daughter's 5.7 litre Chrysler Aspen.
I think the gas we used in 4 hours in the 172 was pretty insignificant in comparison to them.
Oh and nobody in Colorado did anything other than sling the avgas samples downwind across the apron (they probably evaporated before they landed anyway).
Did I not hear somewhere that 99% of the CO2 emitted is from human exhalation ?
DGG
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I not hear somewhere that 99% of the CO2 emitted is from human exhalation ?
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...l_warming.html
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Surely it should be possible to have more environmentally friendly aircraft without damaging GA? "
- Yes, it's called a glider. ....Yippee My flying has a zero emission footprint (once I'e been launched that is).
Agree with some of the other posters htough - carbon emissions are another guilt trip to extract more taxes out of us.
- Yes, it's called a glider. ....Yippee My flying has a zero emission footprint (once I'e been launched that is).
Agree with some of the other posters htough - carbon emissions are another guilt trip to extract more taxes out of us.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, my dear whirly, have you considered the impact of your CATS on global warming? Every breath they take, all the food they eat that has to be manufactured and transported... I could go on!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The sort of improvements found in a modern car.
* Runs on unleaded petrol.
* Fuel injectors, no carb. (WOW)
* Engine management unit (aircraft equivalent is FADEC)
* Catalytic converters (difficult to gas yourself with CO unlike a Cessna)
* Advance diagnostics which checks that the emissions technology is working correctly, if not a MIL light appears on the dash board.
I know aviation is very conservative and reluctant to add new technology, but the above improvements should have been standard in aircraft for some time.
* Runs on unleaded petrol.
* Fuel injectors, no carb. (WOW)
* Engine management unit (aircraft equivalent is FADEC)
* Catalytic converters (difficult to gas yourself with CO unlike a Cessna)
* Advance diagnostics which checks that the emissions technology is working correctly, if not a MIL light appears on the dash board.
I know aviation is very conservative and reluctant to add new technology, but the above improvements should have been standard in aircraft for some time.
Of course the Thielert 1.7 is available right now in the DA-40 and the DR200 straight out of the factory, and as a retrofit for the 172 and PA-28. The 2.0 should be even better for the four-seaters (DA-40, 172, PA-28). There's a higher-powered Thielert in the pipeline for larger aircraft, and I bet there's a huge market as well for a smaller diesel that could replace the Rotax 912 in a lot of two-place aircraft like the Aquila, Europa, Technam etc.
To give you an idea on how good this technology is (provided that it's working, but that's another story): We had a club flight from Rotterdam to Duxford a while ago. Three club aircraft, all with three adults on board, via the same route, same day, same altitude, same conditions. Both the Warrior and the Archer were properly leaned and needed a little over 100 liters of avgas each for a one-way trip, costing a little over 150 UKP each. The DA-40 needed just 50 liters of Jet-A one-way, costing 30 UKP.
It's a shame that the cost difference, in this case, was offset by the cost of an extra night in the hotel due to engine problems with the DA-40, which nobody in the neigborhood of Duxford could fix. Plus the cost of flying in an engineer who could.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Age: 51
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a shame that the cost difference, in this case, was offset by the cost of an extra night in the hotel due to engine problems with the DA-40, which nobody in the neigborhood of Duxford could fix. Plus the cost of flying in an engineer who could.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost everybody who has a diesel is complaining.. how long do you think it will take before they will sort out problems ? In my wild guess, aven't they logged enough Tielert hours already to see what the problem is ?
First, there are some problems with the engine itself. Consider them teething problems. It's a new engine (well, okay, a new application for an existing engine, which does require some serious modification) and some problems are bound to turn up. Thielert is working on them. The 2.0 engine as a straight replacement for the 1.7 has been well received, as far as I know, by mechanics. And in any case, the problem we had was a broken sensor/valve that could have happened to any moderately advanced engine.
Second, there are rumours of non-optimum communication between Thielert and Diamond. Apparently they are quietly arguing about whether certain problems are related to the engine itself, or the engine installation. Particularly problems that are caused by long-term exposure to vibration, apparently. (I cannot substantiate this however.) Oh, and there's also a rumour about Diamond working together with some German car manufacturer to develop their own engine for the DA-40, instead of sourcing them from Thielert.
Third, there's the lack of a support network. As said, we were at Duxford, where Spitfire and Mustang engineers abound and they would be able to fix a PA-28 with their eyes shut. In fact, at virtually every GA airfield in Europe you'll find an engineer who's able to fix a Lycoming or Continental. But the Thielert, for starters, requires a laptop with diagnostics software to download the FADEC data. And some knowledge of where and how to hook up that laptop, and what to do/how to interpret the output. There's only two dozen or so places in the UK that have this expertise and, as we found out, the contact telephone number for the place closest to Duxford, as listed on the Diamond site, was wrong...
My main problem with the DA-40 is the last one: the lack of an easily accessible support network. As the number of Thielert engines is going to increase in the GA fleet, expect the support to get better. But next time I take her on a trip, I'm going to make sure I have an up-to-date list of authorized mechanics with me for whatever country I'm flying to. And I might just avoid those countries without a support network altogether.
Despite all this, I still consider the DA-40 a fantastic plane though.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and nobody in Colorado did anything other than sling the avgas samples downwind across the apron (they probably evaporated before they landed anyway).
Last edited by Contacttower; 4th Sep 2007 at 17:13.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We had a do at work today where, among other things, you could calculate your own carbon footprint. Mine came in pretty good at 4.2 hectares - less than average but nowhere near the 1.8 or so hectares that is available, per person, worldwide, for what its worth. Apparently I do need to switch to green electricity though.
But the questionnaire never asked about fuel-consuming hobbies like flying, car racing, power boating or similar pastimes. So I guess the effect of these hobbies is insignificant. Or, at least, my concience is now cleared.
But the questionnaire never asked about fuel-consuming hobbies like flying, car racing, power boating or similar pastimes. So I guess the effect of these hobbies is insignificant. Or, at least, my concience is now cleared.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at US gas (petrol) pumps they suck the vapour out of your car tank when you are filling them up with petrol. The petrol vapours are responsible for some of the smog you find above these metropolisis (sp), so they put the vapours back in the tank underground as you remove the fuel. So if you dispose of your fuel sample on the ground and it mostly evaporates you are putting VOCs into the atmosphere. I have never seen the same recycling mechanism on a avgas fuel bowser.
Also there is a major problem in parts of the States where a city gets it's water from wells in the ground, and this ground water is being polluted by plumes of chemicals which somehow made it into the ground.
Now I am not saying that chucking your fuel sample on the ground is a big problem in the grand design, but the reason behind the fines for polluting are very sensible. Using litter as an analogy, litter is litter no matter how small.
Also there is a major problem in parts of the States where a city gets it's water from wells in the ground, and this ground water is being polluted by plumes of chemicals which somehow made it into the ground.
Now I am not saying that chucking your fuel sample on the ground is a big problem in the grand design, but the reason behind the fines for polluting are very sensible. Using litter as an analogy, litter is litter no matter how small.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gt. Yarmouth, Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think all sensible people (ie pilots) know this for what it is. Complete garbage. The green, low carbon fanaticism has the following hugely damaging impact:
In all this the third world and asia will continue its headlong march to growth, completely ignoring the global warming hysteria.
All the handwringing and winging produce policies which are the equivalent of bailing the Titanic with a thimble (assuming that you subscribe to the whole global warming nonsense).
More critical of course will be the trend to increasingly costly fuel, which is something to be worried about!
- Increased regulation will lead companies to relocate outside the EU
- The EU will become increasingly uncompetative as a result
- The drive towards biofuel puts up the prices of basic foodstuffs in third world countries by diverting production to produce biofuel
- Forests are felled and burned to grow biofuel crops, producing more CO2 than is reclaimed
In all this the third world and asia will continue its headlong march to growth, completely ignoring the global warming hysteria.
All the handwringing and winging produce policies which are the equivalent of bailing the Titanic with a thimble (assuming that you subscribe to the whole global warming nonsense).
More critical of course will be the trend to increasingly costly fuel, which is something to be worried about!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Age: 49
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BackPacker, the key point I was trying to get across was the word standard, car engine management systems were first introduced in 1979. Modern car engines generally have good reliability but to keep costs low they have a few single failure points (like having one crank sensor, one battery etc). I would have thought 28 years should be enough time for all new aircraft to have a FADEC type system that works reliably.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! I'm sitting here reading this thread in shock! I used to think pilots in general were rather more enlightened than the general public, but apparently that is not true, they're equally ignorant and self-centered.
What's wrong with reducing environmental impact? Just because GA contributes so little doesn't mean it's completely meaningless. It's an attitude problem. Drive your 4x4 and use as much fuel as you can so that we'll be rid of it even more rapidly than necessary. Wow, how intelligent, I bow to you oh mighty thinker... Why not get an ethanol powered two ton truck and use 50% more fuel - all the more fun!
I work in an industry that contributes zero point lots of zeros of lead, yet we're striving to reduce even that amount, why? Because it makes sense to remove it altogether - it's a dangerous substance to humans. The way you're thinking reminds me of a cook we had when living in Ethiopia many moons ago. At a time of water shortage he gave everyone who knocked on our door the little water we had with the explanation that there was water in the tank. The idea that we would run out of water if he gave it away didn't sink in. He had no perception of planning ahead, and you're proving exactly the same, are you related by any chance? He had a good cause, but failed to see the consequences of his actions.
I think you may have failed to grasp the point some environmentalists are making (and I'm not one of them) but it really is quite simple. Don't use more than necessary, and if you do, pretty soon you won't have anything to use, so think about that. How hard can it be. The fact is we have X amount of everything and we're now 3 times as many on this planet than we were just 50-60 years ago.
Me, I'm all for lower fuel consumption no matter the reason, it just makes sense. I happily fly DA40s and DA42s because they use less and go faster, but I'm concerned about their emissions - I'm sure they spit out particles like crazy, check the belly and see for your self. Could be better I'm sure. Autos with diesels have particulate filters, but I doubt the Thielerts do, and I don't see the point as to why not. Ok, someone's gonna say they steal a few horses, so what, re-chip and be done with it. Ok, they weigh 10 lbs, I'll go on a diet and make my friends do the same, big deal.
For those that bothered to read to the end and are working up a flame, don't blow your top, it's just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it just like you are to yours... :-)
What's wrong with reducing environmental impact? Just because GA contributes so little doesn't mean it's completely meaningless. It's an attitude problem. Drive your 4x4 and use as much fuel as you can so that we'll be rid of it even more rapidly than necessary. Wow, how intelligent, I bow to you oh mighty thinker... Why not get an ethanol powered two ton truck and use 50% more fuel - all the more fun!
I work in an industry that contributes zero point lots of zeros of lead, yet we're striving to reduce even that amount, why? Because it makes sense to remove it altogether - it's a dangerous substance to humans. The way you're thinking reminds me of a cook we had when living in Ethiopia many moons ago. At a time of water shortage he gave everyone who knocked on our door the little water we had with the explanation that there was water in the tank. The idea that we would run out of water if he gave it away didn't sink in. He had no perception of planning ahead, and you're proving exactly the same, are you related by any chance? He had a good cause, but failed to see the consequences of his actions.
I think you may have failed to grasp the point some environmentalists are making (and I'm not one of them) but it really is quite simple. Don't use more than necessary, and if you do, pretty soon you won't have anything to use, so think about that. How hard can it be. The fact is we have X amount of everything and we're now 3 times as many on this planet than we were just 50-60 years ago.
Me, I'm all for lower fuel consumption no matter the reason, it just makes sense. I happily fly DA40s and DA42s because they use less and go faster, but I'm concerned about their emissions - I'm sure they spit out particles like crazy, check the belly and see for your self. Could be better I'm sure. Autos with diesels have particulate filters, but I doubt the Thielerts do, and I don't see the point as to why not. Ok, someone's gonna say they steal a few horses, so what, re-chip and be done with it. Ok, they weigh 10 lbs, I'll go on a diet and make my friends do the same, big deal.
For those that bothered to read to the end and are working up a flame, don't blow your top, it's just my opinion, and I'm entitled to it just like you are to yours... :-)