AVGAS - US attack?

[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 about

About 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 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

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.