Any updates regarding the avgas replacement effort?

[James331]

I am not sure what buttholes you are studying that have lead being vented from them.

AGain, the point is, your anecdotes are not data, you deny science and facts.

You may be correct, or, you may just be the smartest guy at your local bar.

Methane and carbon dioxide, that doesn't contribute to global warming?? there's a little science and facts for ya

The scary thing for me is that people can't reason and forum an opinion, look at things and see what's what without some authority or media or study telling them what's what. The lack of critical thinking in INDIVIDUALS now days is freaky.

 

[OkieFlyer]

First off, I know very little about the chemistry of fuel. However, I work with several guys who came to my company directly from a nearby refinery, who represent nearly all levels of the refining operations, ie. operators, console techs (the guys who actually control the operations), supervisors, and a lab tech. At their refinery, they made basically 2 gasoline products, 87ish octane and 91-93ish octane pure gasoline. Anything other than pure gasoline gets added after the gas leaves the refinery, including the detergents and other things that fuel vendors put in their commercials to make their product stand out, including ethanol and the TEL in avgas. So it sounds like the Avgas companies just take 91-93ish octane pure gas and blend in some TEL, which boosts the octane rating up to 100. Wherever you fill up in your area, chances are it all came from the same refinery, then blended to certain specs.

I understand that it's been determined that lead is the devil, but what if the Avgas folks just added half or a quarter of the lead? If you cut the lead in half, wouldn't you have a 96-97 octane fuel? Or if you quartered it, wouldn't you have a 94-95 octane fuel? I'm not sure how much lead or octane is really needed for those high compression engines, but a fuel with a pretty high octane rating, that still retains some of the seemingly all important lead for lubrication and anti-knock, while reducing lead emissions by 50-75% seems like it would appease both sides, and would simply be a matter of dumping in less TEL on the back end of the refinery.

Then there are those of us who can run mogas. Personally, I use it almost all the time. There isn't a mogas pump at an airport anywhere near me, but I just fill up a 55 gal drum at the gas station and go pump it in the plane. It's not nearly as convenient as taxiing up to the pump, but it's worth it to me to do it this way. I understand than most people wouldn't go to the trouble to do it that way, but I do know a bunch of people what would use it if it were available on the field. So again, if lead is the debil, why the hell don't we have mogas pumps all over the place? That would significantly reduce lead emissions without having to really do anything, and it's easier to come by than any other fuel at nearly half the price of Avgas.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Methane and carbon dioxide, that doesn't contribute to global warming?? there's a little science and facts for ya

The scary thing for me is that people can't reason and forum an opinion, look at things and see what's what without some authority or media or study telling them what's what. The lack of critical thinking in INDIVIDUALS now days is freaky.

Now deflecting from lead exposure to global warming?

Keystone Light will save you money on your day drinking tab.

 

[UngaWunga]

So again, if lead is the debil, why the hell don't we have mogas pumps all over the place? That would significantly reduce lead emissions without having to really do anything, and it's easier to come by than any other fuel at nearly half the price of Avgas.

Not all engines can run mogas. Not all planes can run mogas (fuel pumps, vapor lock problems, etc) . All piston powered planes can run 100LL at the current level of lead. They'd have to do a bunch of testing to prove that the lower amount of lead doesn't cause a problem, then a STC for the plane/engine combos that it tests fine for. Who's going to pay for that testing?

I agree on the mogas. My airfield has it. I've been thinking of looking into the STC for my 172 to run it. I don't know what octane the mogas is at our field. There's a log of people that show up to buy it with gas cans for their yard tools.

 

[ChemGuy]

First off, I know very little about the chemistry of fuel. However, I work with several guys who came to my company directly from a nearby refinery, who represent nearly all levels of the refining operations, ie. operators, console techs (the guys who actually control the operations), supervisors, and a lab tech. At their refinery, they made basically 2 gasoline products, 87ish octane and 91-93ish octane pure gasoline. Anything other than pure gasoline gets added after the gas leaves the refinery, including the detergents and other things that fuel vendors put in their commercials to make their product stand out, including ethanol and the TEL in avgas. So it sounds like the Avgas companies just take 91-93ish octane pure gas and blend in some TEL, which boosts the octane rating up to 100. Wherever you fill up in your area, chances are it all came from the same refinery, then blended to certain specs.

I understand that it's been determined that lead is the devil, but what if the Avgas folks just added half or a quarter of the lead? If you cut the lead in half, wouldn't you have a 96-97 octane fuel? Or if you quartered it, wouldn't you have a 94-95 octane fuel? I'm not sure how much lead or octane is really needed for those high compression engines, but a fuel with a pretty high octane rating, that still retains some of the seemingly all important lead for lubrication and anti-knock, while reducing lead emissions by 50-75% seems like it would appease both sides, and would simply be a matter of dumping in less TEL on the back end of the refinery.

Then there are those of us who can run mogas. Personally, I use it almost all the time. There isn't a mogas pump at an airport anywhere near me, but I just fill up a 55 gal drum at the gas station and go pump it in the plane. It's not nearly as convenient as taxiing up to the pump, but it's worth it to me to do it this way. I understand than most people wouldn't go to the trouble to do it that way, but I do know a bunch of people what would use it if it were available on the field. So again, if lead is the debil, why the hell don't we have mogas pumps all over the place? That would significantly reduce lead emissions without having to really do anything, and it's easier to come by than any other fuel at nearly half the price of Avgas.

Octane and lead isnt the only thing different about Avgas. There are some other things to worry about like vapor pressure and a few other properties that you dont really care about in mogas.

But in general all the fancy additives get added down stream from the refinery, so you could easily take 100ll and make ~95 no lead from it. Problem is TEL is great at resisting detonation and there are many engines that must have that resistance. Most of the big bore and big turbos really need it. Until someone gets a "green" chemical that will resist detonation like TEL, we need lead.

I also agree, somewhat, with James that there are many other places to remove lead/harmful chemicals from our environment before going crazy on TEL in avgas.

 

[PaulMillner]

So it sounds like the Avgas companies just take 91-93ish octane pure gas and blend in some TEL, which boosts the octane rating up to 100. Wherever you fill up in your area, chances are it all came from the same refinery, then blended to certain specs.

Well no, not at all. The average refinery has about a dozen components that go into blending Mogas. Only four of those are suitable for avgas, due to limits on olefinicity, distillation, and octane.

Most refineries nowadays lack the alkylate splitter required to make aviation alkylate, the predominant ingredient of avgas, from whole alkylate. Of the nine refineries in the US that make 100LL, the lead is added in the refinery... not downstream. And the components in avgas before lead addition make it a more expensive fuel, so it would be foolish to downgrade it to Mogas.

Paul

 

[PaulMillner]

Most of our bugsmashers could be running on mogas and I for one would be thrilled to switch over to just for the cost difference.

The reason I don't get the STC and switch is pretty straightforward.... it's not available at most fields and I can hardly make up the cost to get the STC in what I'd save lugging gas cans into my home field. I'd wager a guess that reasoning applies for most of us at this point.

It would be nice if the EPA and FAA could get together and find a way to get more mogas availability and encourage owners to get the STCs done. Maybe throw some sweet tax incentives to carriers to get off the leaded fuel. It would be nice... and they won't do it because that's not how our government works. Our government comes in, bans things we need, strangles us in red tape, and generally craps all over our dreams, lives, and livelihoods.

You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say we need an EPA or something like it. The environment matters and there really does need to be some kind of group watching over things. The problem is, much like the other alphabet agencies, they rarely seem to work with or for the people... instead they always seem to be working against us.

The EPA agreed that avgas lead wasn't a priority, especially after they got spanked by the Supreme Court during the Bush administration for trying to take over avgas regulation... seems like their mutual boss should have settled that one, but W demurred.

However, Friends of the Earth is suing the EPA to move forward on avgas... so in response to that lawsuit, the work we've seen on reviewing ambient lead levels etc. has been ongoing.

We have rule of law... so the EPA can't choose to just ignore the law without being sued. It's far from clear that the new republican sweep wants to change those laws either, but we shall see...

Paul

 

[OkieFlyer]

Not all engines can run mogas. Not all planes can run mogas (fuel pumps, vapor lock problems, etc) . All piston powered planes can run 100LL at the current level of lead. They'd have to do a bunch of testing to prove that the lower amount of lead doesn't cause a problem, then a STC for the plane/engine combos that it tests fine for. Who's going to pay for that testing?

I agree on the mogas. My airfield has it. I've been thinking of looking into the STC for my 172 to run it. I don't know what octane the mogas is at our field. There's a log of people that show up to buy it with gas cans for their yard tools.

I'm well aware that not all engines can run mogas, but there are a sh*t load that can. Making that available to those that can run it will cut lead emissions substantially with almost no effort on anyone's part, saves many of us a big chunk of money, and increases freedom.

There are also more airplane/engine combos that could run mogas, but haven't been tested/approved yet. If we were serious about replacing 100LL, we would find out which planes really can and can't run mogas.

This really shouldn't be that hard. We're not talking about inventing a whole new fuel or reinventing refining. We're all already running automotive fuel, the only difference is the little bit of stuff added to the gas after production. If we can't figure out what we can and can't add to the gas relatively quickly, then we just suck. What would be wrong with having two fuel choices at the pump? The only problem I can see with making mogas available is that 100LL would get even more expensive. While it would suck for those that need it, why should half of us have to use a more expensive fuel that we don't need or want to keep the price of 100LL manageable.

Anyway, I'm just rambling now. The point is, IF lead emissions is the primary concern, then making mogas as available as avgas is a quick way to cut lead emissions substantially. I don't know how much, but I read a while back that a study showed that nearly 80% of the fleet can safely run on mogas. I'm not good at math, but wouldn't that cut lead emissions by 80%. That would earn somebody and EPA feather in their hat, and save us a crap load of dough. Obviously, some of the fleet is already running mogas, but you get the point. I read something else that a study by the EASA (European FAA) revealed that 50% of European aircraft are already running mogas. We're just costing ourselves more money.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

The problem is 30% of GA use 70% of the flowage and need 100LL.

 

[OkieFlyer]

Well no, not at all. The average refinery has about a dozen components that go into blending Mogas. Only four of those are suitable for avgas, due to limits on olefinicity, distillation, and octane.

Most refineries nowadays lack the alkylate splitter required to make aviation alkylate, the predominant ingredient of avgas, from whole alkylate. Of the nine refineries in the US that make 100LL, the lead is added in the refinery... not downstream. And the components in avgas before lead addition make it a more expensive fuel, so it would be foolish to downgrade it to Mogas.

Paul

Sounds like you know your stuff, and I don't mean to sound argumentative, but the more expensive fuel you're talking about is simply premium unleaded gas. You are right, the higher octane stock is made using the Alky Unit (HFAU), which again is basically premium unleaded. Downstream of the refinery, the stock is blended and loaded onto trucks by a separate entity. In essence, 100LL is premium unleaded automotive gasoline with a couple grams per gallon of TEL blended in. Again, this is second hand information, but it's information from the guys that made the stuff for years. That's just one refinery, however.

 

[OkieFlyer]

The problem is 30% of GA use 70% of the flowage and need 100LL.

Perhaps.

Either way, I truly believe that there is a large enough market for mogas to justify making it more available. And don't get me wrong, I want to see everyone in GA served, and served well. I want the high compression folks to have something that works in their engine for as little cost as possible. But, just because the low compression folks CAN use 100LL doesn't mean we're being served well. We have something we can use, which is better than not having something, but our best interest is to have something that is cheaper, more available, and has the added benefit of being at least a little better in the eyes of the EPA, rather than having to pay double for something we don't need. I believe we should have both available to us.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Perhaps.

Either way, I truly believe that there is a large enough market for mogas to justify making it more available. And don't get me wrong, I want to see everyone in GA served, and served well. I want the high compression folks to have something that works in their engine for as little cost as possible. But, just because the low compression folks CAN use 100LL doesn't mean we're being served well. We have something we can use, which is better than not having something, but our best interest is to have something that is cheaper, more available, and has the added benefit of being at least a little better in the eyes of the EPA, rather than having to pay double for something we don't need. I believe we should have both available to us.

That's the problem....the market really isn't big enough for more than one flavor of fuel. You might recall....a few years ago there were many colors of AVgas....and later (late 70's) reduced to blue.

 

[OkieFlyer]

That's the problem....the market really isn't big enough for more than one flavor of fuel. You might recall....a few years ago there were many colors of AVgas....and later (late 70's) reduced to blue.

I agree that there is not a big enough market for more than one aviation blend, but that's not what I'm advocating. I'm saying we should simply make more available a product that already exists in great abundance, rather than add another niche fuel. Big difference in my mind.

Anyway, I'll get off my soap box. I can see my ideas are not shared. Carry on.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I don't disagree Andrew.....just trying to splain it.

 

[Marky_24]

Do you have a link to the data? Or a location of the barstool with the other scientists you had peer review your study?

Did you just gloss over my post of actual data? Also if you have data stating otherwise I would love to read it.
"Our finding that living beyond 1,000 m of an airport using avgas does not have a significant relationship with blood lead levels is reasonably consistent with previous research suggesting that lead drops to background levels beyond1,000 m from an airport (Piazza 1999"

 

[PaulMillner]

Sounds like you know your stuff, and I don't mean to sound argumentative, but the more expensive fuel you're talking about is simply premium unleaded gas. You are right, the higher octane stock is made using the Alky Unit (HFAU), which again is basically premium unleaded. Downstream of the refinery, the stock is blended and loaded onto trucks by a separate entity. In essence, 100LL is premium unleaded automotive gasoline with a couple grams per gallon of TEL blended in. Again, this is second hand information, but it's information from the guys that made the stuff for years. That's just one refinery, however.

That would be a very expensive way to make PUL... LIKE 50¢ a gallon less competitive than other blends... probably don't want to invest in a refinery that thinks that's a good idea... or, somebody misinterpreted something they observed.

You don't need HF alkylation to make avgas, it's about half and half in the US. Unlikely new HFAU will be built. Fixed bed units show promise, though... but you do need an alky splitter, and economics don't favor building or operating one just for Mogas.

Paul

 

[PaulMillner]

Perhaps.

Either way, I truly believe that there is a large enough market for mogas to justify making it more available. And don't get me wrong, I want to see everyone in GA served, and served well. I want the high compression folks to have something that works in their engine for as little cost as possible. But, just because the low compression folks CAN use 100LL doesn't mean we're being served well. We have something we can use, which is better than not having something, but our best interest is to have something that is cheaper, more available, and has the added benefit of being at least a little better in the eyes of the EPA, rather than having to pay double for something we don't need. I believe we should have both available to us.

FBOs that have added Mogas generally don't find it profitable... or there would be more adding it, eh?

Paul

 

[gov98]

The problem is 30% of GA use 70% of the flowage and need 100LL.

I guess the real problem is definition of "need." At some point, the problem is that people in possession of high performance airplanes do not want to experience any loss of performance and to make those with less high performance engines pay the cost differential so they can maintain maximum performance.

For example, my limited understanding is that the IO-540 that is designed to generated 250+ horsepower is not 94UL compatible, on the other hand the IO/O-540 derated to 235 HP is 94UL compatible. So one could think that the problem is that a portion of the GA population are desperate not to see their planes HP derated, so everyone that could use 94UL has to use 100LL. I don't know what will happen. We shall see of course, but I doubt that 70% of the flowage "needs" 100ll...instead I suspect that 70% of the flowage doesn't want to sacrifice 10% of Max Rated Horsepower in order to use 94UL, but when you put it like that, it sounds like a different problem.

 

[weirdjim]

We already have an unleaded fuel that 70-80% of the fleet can use ... it is called 80/87. I suspect if we put that fuel back in the pipeline (even if somebody takes low-octane mogas, sprinkles holy water on it, and resells it for a buck a gallon more) that we could convince the EPA that there is so little lead coming from the remaining slice of the fleet that we have reached the point of diminishing returns.

Jim

 

[172andyou]

We already have an unleaded fuel that 70-80% of the fleet can use ... it is called 80/87. I suspect if we put that fuel back in the pipeline (even if somebody takes low-octane mogas, sprinkles holy water on it, and resells it for a buck a gallon more) that we could convince the EPA that there is so little lead coming from the remaining slice of the fleet that we have reached the point of diminishing returns

See above. Someone makes the claim that the 20% of the fleet that needs high octane is burning 80% of the fuel. If true, that would make this idea a non-starter (even if we could convince 10000 airports to build additional fuel farms).

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

We already have an unleaded fuel that 70-80% of the fleet can use ... it is called 80/87. I suspect if we put that fuel back in the pipeline (even if somebody takes low-octane mogas, sprinkles holy water on it, and resells it for a buck a gallon more) that we could convince the EPA that there is so little lead coming from the remaining slice of the fleet that we have reached the point of diminishing returns.

Jim

flowage is the issue with that. There just isn't enough flowage with the majority of GA users to support more than one fuel grade. 20-30% of the GA users (commercial operators) buy/need the majority of that 100LL.

 

[weirdjim]

See above. Someone makes the claim that the 20% of the fleet that needs high octane is burning 80% of the fuel. If true, that would make this idea a non-starter (even if we could convince 10000 airports to build additional fuel farms).

I don't buy claims without some sort of factual data on which to base the claim. I don't believe it.

Jim

 

[172andyou]

I don't buy claims without some sort of factual data on which to base the claim. I don't believe it

And yet you were making an equally baseless claim.

Seriously, I'd like to see the data also.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

I don't buy claims without some sort of factual data on which to base the claim. I don't believe it.

Jim

Oh well....here are a few nuggets for ya. http://aviationweek.com/bca/getting-lead-out-future-avgas

Roughly 30% of the piston fleet burns 70% of the avgas today, Macnair pointed out, “and that segment is the large end, the commercial part of the fleet, with a high-octane demand, because they’re flying the most. In the absence of an avgas that satisfies the whole fleet, the Cessna 172 operator would be paying a lot more for small quantities of a niche fuel, that is, auto gas without ethanol [or so-called ‘mogas’].”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas

The 100LL phase-out has been called "one of modern GA's most pressing problems",[31] because 70% of 100LL aviation fuel is used by the 30% of the aircraft in the general aviation fleet that cannot use any of the existing alternatives.[32][33][34]

 

[PaulMillner]

We could convince the EPA that there is so little lead coming from the remaining slice of the fleet that we have reached the point of diminishing returns.

Jim,

The EPA already thinks that lead in avgas is a way-down-the-list concern. However, they're being hounded by FOE (Friends of the Earth) who has litigated the EPA for not moving forward on avgas lead. The EPA's activity to date has been in response to that lawsuit. The EPA would rather not go to court and lose, and be burdened with some judge's idea about how it should exercise its discretion... so the EPA seems to be moving just enough to keep FOE from spending the money to go to court.

It is far from clear that shifting to a two-fuel solution, one with lead and one without, would satisfy either the letter of the law (Clean Air Act) or FOE's litigation. It's reasonable, yes, but then, that doesn't necessarily hold the day in a court of law.

Paul in Berkeley

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Hmmmm....I'd image things will become great again soon.

 

[weirdjim]

And yet you were making an equally baseless claim.

Seriously, I'd like to see the data also.

What was the baseless claim? That I don't believe it? That isn't a claim of any sort. That is an opinion that I and I alone hold and I'm not claiming anything else.

Oh well....here are a few nuggets for ya. http://aviationweek.com/bca/getting-lead-out-future-avgas



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas

Nuggets? A magazine article making claims without any factual basis is a nugget? Not where I come from.

Quoting wikipedia in my class in a research paper gets an automatic F. Yes, I went down to the citations. And I read the citations. And the citations are a bunch of magazine articles making the same claims without any data. We call that a circular argument and while it won't get an F, it rates a high D at best.

Data. Run by folks who have no axe to grind. Under controlled conditions or on factually reported information from reliable sources.

Jim

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Jim....please disregard. Have a nice day pal.

btw....ponder a question.....who does the most GA flying? what kind of engines are burning that fuel?....maybe, just maybe you'll get an answer in pondering?

 

[midcap]

s

Jim,

The EPA already thinks that lead in avgas is a way-down-the-list concern. However, they're being hounded by FOE (Friends of the Earth) who has litigated the EPA for not moving forward on avgas lead. The EPA's activity to date has been in response to that lawsuit. The EPA would rather not go to court and lose, and be burdened with some judge's idea about how it should exercise its discretion... so the EPA seems to be moving just enough to keep FOE from spending the money to go to court.

It is far from clear that shifting to a two-fuel solution, one with lead and one without, would satisfy either the letter of the law (Clean Air Act) or FOE's litigation. It's reasonable, yes, but then, that doesn't necessarily hold the day in a court of law.

Paul in Berkeley

Then AOPA needs to start letting the suits fly towards FOE in order to reduce their war chest and stop messing with our 100LL. As of the end of 2015 FOE had about 10mil liquid for ops. It seems they may spend around 15-30% of that for enviormental/global warming issues.

 

[weirdjim]

Jim....please disregard. Have a nice day pal.

btw....ponder a question.....who does the most GA flying? what kind of engines are burning that fuel?....maybe, just maybe you'll get an answer in pondering?

I can ponder until those gates freeze shut. Pondering makes for great hypotheses, but damned few factual conclusions. Einstein did a GREAT deal of pondering (he called them "thought experiments") but until we did some lab work from folks who didn't have a dog in the relativistic physics fight, they were just that ... interesting daydreams.

BTW, he did as much WRONG thinking as RIGHT. Until we tested each of them with reliable instrumentation and hard data, they couldn't be sorted right from wrong.

And now, some 60 years after his death, we finally think we have data to prove his theory about gravity waves. Repeat, we THINK we have data. Until we can reproduce the effect reliably it still remains a theory.

Have a nice day yerself, buddy ...

Jim

 

[azure]

And now, some 60 years after his death, we finally think we have data to prove his theory about gravity waves. Repeat, we THINK we have data. Until we can reproduce the effect reliably it still remains a theory.

I think it's going to be a LONG time before we're able to "reliably reproduce" the kind of cataclysm that can produce detectable gravitational waves. What would you have in mind? Nudge a couple stars in each other's direction? Somehow induce a binary pulsar's orbit to decay and collide?

I'm guessing you meant something else other than "reliably reproduce". Detect GW from some phenomenon independently observed by more conventional means, a GRB source perhaps.

BTW as you probably know, there was evidence for gravitational waves long before LIGO. Indirect, not absolutely conclusive, but convincing enough to send a couple of guys to Stockholm. That was in 1974, IIRC.

</derail>

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Jim....who is it that runs 8:1 engines? It isn't your average flight school or $100 hamburger runs.....it's the charter guys doing work, day in and day out. Those are the folks burning most of the 100LL. Now for data....who would you respect providing that?

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ansportation_statistics/html/table_04_05.html

see page 36 and 58

https://www.gama.aero/files/GAMA7233_AR_FINAL_LOWRES.pdf

know of many/any charter twins that run lower compression engines?....able to run on 94 or less octane?

Google is great....I'm finding a plethora of info for you pal. ...see page 16 in this link

http://www.aci-na.org/static/conferences/enviro 2011/Monday/W. Derosier - Leaded-Avgas-Next-Steps-2011.pdf

 

[weirdjim]

I think it's going to be a LONG time before we're able to "reliably reproduce" the kind of cataclysm that can produce detectable gravitational waves. What would you have in mind? Nudge a couple stars in each other's direction? Somehow induce a binary pulsar's orbit to decay and collide?

I'm guessing you meant something else other than "reliably reproduce". Detect GW from some phenomenon independently observed by more conventional means, a GRB source perhaps.

BTW as you probably know, there was evidence for gravitational waves long before LIGO. Indirect, not absolutely conclusive, but convincing enough to send a couple of guys to Stockholm. That was in 1974, IIRC.

</derail>

Depends on what you mean by a "LONG" time. Newton's laws held for 5 centuries before that upstart Einstein messed up the boat. Suppose the catcalysym doesn't happen for two centuries after you and I are dead. Who cares? Certainly not you or I. And how do we detect GW and how do we prove that they are conclusive or not? That falls to those of who are not yet born who choose to become physicists. Or their kids. Or their grandkids. And so on.

 

[Aaronk25]

A 8.7 compression io 360 200hp with 25 (not 20) btdc will run at 65% power at any mixture setting on just straight 91- no ethanol fuel. It can run at max power in hot conditions at take off target egt is used (rich). It will run lean of peak well even at 65-75% power but needs to be run either father lop or farther ROP.

Not sure why they are taking so long to get this fuel octane figured out. The injection system could be modified to increase fuel flow if needed for take off cooling where 100% is used. Once in flight 91 works well.

Reid vapor pressure needs to be formulated lower as hot starts and hot fuel is no good. 100ll is really over kill and I'm a believer that the red box (detonation) does not exist with 100ll but it DOES exist with 91mogas. If run improper you will melt the motor down. With a little education it runs greats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Depends on what you mean by a "LONG" time. Newton's laws held for 5 centuries before that upstart Einstein messed up the boat. Suppose the catcalysym doesn't happen for two centuries after you and I are dead. Who cares? Certainly not you or I. And how do we detect GW and how do we prove that they are conclusive or not? That falls to those of who are not yet born who choose to become physicists. Or their kids. Or their grandkids. And so on.

5 centuries? It's been only 337 years since the Principia was published. And for anything most of us do, Newton's laws still work well. The only reason any of us deal with relativity in our everyday lives is through the corrections in the GPS calculations for relativity, and that is hidden from us as part of the calculations for our position. Kepler's laws were formulated "only" about 400 years ago. Astronomers noticed the orbit of Mercury didn't match the predicted orbit from Kepler's laws even back then; the perihelion of the orbit kept moving. Current models predict this orbit with general relativity.

Gravity waves have been claimed to be detected- so far, the findings haven't been rebutted: https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Depends on what you mean by a "LONG" time. Newton's laws held for 5 centuries before that upstart Einstein messed up the boat. Suppose the catcalysym doesn't happen for two centuries after you and I are dead. Who cares? Certainly not you or I. And how do we detect GW and how do we prove that they are conclusive or not? That falls to those of who are not yet born who choose to become physicists. Or their kids. Or their grandkids. And so on.

Ok Copernicus....why are we still flying these old airplanes?

 

[SCCutler]

Quoting wikipedia in my class in a research paper gets an automatic F. Yes, I went down to the citations. And I read the citations. And the citations are a bunch of magazine articles making the same claims without any data. We call that a circular argument and while it won't get an F, it rates a high D at best.

Data. Run by folks who have no axe to grind. Under controlled conditions or on factually reported information from reliable sources.

Jim

...people cite to Wikipedia?

We're doomed.

But it explains a lot...

 

[GRG55]

...people cite to Wikipedia?

We're doomed.

But it explains a lot...

+1

Obviously what this world really needs is higher quality fake news sources

 

[bobmrg]

Well no, not at all. The average refinery has about a dozen components that go into blending Mogas. Only four of those are suitable for avgas, due to limits on olefinicity, distillation, and octane.

Most refineries nowadays lack the alkylate splitter required to make aviation alkylate, the predominant ingredient of avgas, from whole alkylate. Of the nine refineries in the US that make 100LL, the lead is added in the refinery... not downstream. And the components in avgas before lead addition make it a more expensive fuel, so it would be foolish to downgrade it to Mogas.

Paul

Take heed, folks. Paul is so deep in the oil industry that people do not light matches near him.

Bob Gardner

 

[comanchepilot]

Problem being, we cannot reasonably rely upon tetraethyl lead's continued availability.

GAMI has a drop-in replacement for 100LL which is being developed outside the FAA's process, and it is promising.

if its outside the control of the government, then it must be killed.