New EPA proposed regs for aircraft

[hindsight2020]

In 2006 the USAF test flew a Buff with 2/8 of the engines running on a 50-50 bioblend. As much as I don't miss flying that lumbering mallard with the RCS of a small Country, the platform proved invaluable to these kinds of tests due to the highly modular nature to the fuel delivery system. You all should see the co-pilot panel and fuel controls on the thing. But it was one versatile system.

In the case of the of that test flight, you isolate one pod and run it off the main tank for that pod (2 engines) while keeping the other 3 pods running off their own main tanks and cross-feeding off the body tanks at will without affecting the CG. No modifications to the aircraft necessary like it is for many civilian applications not otherwise sole-sourced for the R/D job.

We've hung decoys, other aircraft, stealth cruise missiles (my most expensive sortie to date; expended six live JASSM-ERs over Eastern New Mexico), and ran on blended fuel. Never did get to do reverse Air Refueling, and yes that was another capability our fuel system had (emergency only).

I never heard what came about the bioblend tests, so far we've continued burning ye ol kerosene. Continued talks regarding the re-engine efforts to take it to retirement, but it would certainly be a consequential transition to biofuels if we can ever get the economics to pencil out. Waste production has never been known for being budget-conscious though, so I'm not holding my breath on the defense budget ever getting a hold of itself.

On the GA side I would like to see a transition into unleaded, but that too doesn't seem forthcoming considering the captive audience dynamics to piston revenue airplanes vis a vis recreational consumption by volume.

 

[Daleandee]

Money that should go (and is often voter-approved to go) to kids, teachers, and classrooms goes to expanding bureaucracy. Lots of highly-paid people doing nothing, while students take it in the shorts.

I've been a district employee for 15 years ... you speak the truth!

 

[dans2992]

It’s the contrails:

“One study found that as air traffic increases, the heat-trapping effect of contrail cirrus in 2050 could be three times greater than it was in 2006”.
Source:https://www.wired.com/story/plane-contrails-surprising-effect-global-warming/

3 x 0 = 0

 

[dans2992]

Holy crapola. I live in NH and pay about $6500 on a house worth $300K and I've been complaining about that and we don't have sales (other than rooms and meals) or income tax here.

$2,800 on a $700k house here in AZ. Much better here than IL where I came from!

 

[tspear]

Except until a couple of years ago the rest of the country subsidized the SALT deductions for high earners in high tax states. The equation isn't as simple as you make it.

Actually it is. SALT reduction reduces the federal taxes paid. So that is a lower income.
Even still, the trend lines are interesting.

Tim

 

[tspear]

In 2006 the USAF test flew a Buff with 2/8 of the engines running on a 50-50 bioblend. As much as I don't miss flying that lumbering mallard with the RCS of a small Country, the platform proved invaluable to these kinds of tests due to the highly modular nature to the fuel delivery system. You all should see the co-pilot panel and fuel controls on the thing. But it was one versatile system.

In the case of the of that test flight, you isolate one pod and run it off the main tank for that pod (2 engines) while keeping the other 3 pods running off their own main tanks and cross-feeding off the body tanks at will without affecting the CG. No modifications to the aircraft necessary like it is for many civilian applications not otherwise sole-sourced for the R/D job.

We've hung decoys, other aircraft, stealth cruise missiles (my most expensive sortie to date; expended six live JASSM-ERs over Eastern New Mexico), and ran on blended fuel. Never did get to do reverse Air Refueling, and yes that was another capability our fuel system had (emergency only).

I never heard what came about the bioblend tests, so far we've continued burning ye ol kerosene. Continued talks regarding the re-engine efforts to take it to retirement, but it would certainly be a consequential transition to biofuels if we can ever get the economics to pencil out. Waste production has never been known for being budget-conscious though, so I'm not holding my breath on the defense budget ever getting a hold of itself.

On the GA side I would like to see a transition into unleaded, but that too doesn't seem forthcoming considering the captive audience dynamics to piston revenue airplanes vis a vis recreational consumption by volume.

The article I recall reading was AF concluded they could without airplane modification switch to a partial bio blend fuel. I think it was 50/50 but do not hold me to it. The ground equipment actually was the problematic area in the article, but I do not recall what. Per the article, a pure bio fuel would have problems with many older aircraft but they could be retrofitted.
The largest issue with a pure bio fuel was range/power impact (lower energy density) combined with fuel stability. At the time the article was written roughly 2011 (before my late wife passed away) pure bio fuels could not be stored very long.

Tim

 

[bflynn]

“One study found that as air traffic increases, “

That’s a pretty funny statement right now.

 

[Bob Noel]

That’s a pretty funny statement right now.

well, not particularly funny. :-/

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Except until a couple of years ago the rest of the country subsidized the SALT deductions for high earners in high tax states. The equation isn't as simple as you make it.

Nope, the rest of the country did NOT subsidize the high earners. It's the other way around. Who is subsidizing those whose itemized deductions don't top the standard deduction?

 

[WDD]

So... emissions. What would need to happen to get a switch to unleaded for GA?

 

[Bob Noel]

So... emissions. What would need to happen to get a switch to unleaded for GA?

lots of money to recertify all the aircraft engines.

But let's get some perspective. The switch from leaded to unleaded for automobiles reduced lead emissions by how much (how many tons of lead going into the atmosphere annually)? Switching all avgas to unleaded would reduce how much lead?

 

[hindsight2020]

lots of money to recertify all the aircraft engines.

But let's get some perspective. The switch from leaded to unleaded for automobiles reduced lead emissions by how much (how many tons of lead going into the atmosphere annually)? Switching all avgas to unleaded would reduce how much lead?

Sure, but I thought streamlining supply lines with the rest of the unleaded fuels was a goal in itself, in order to effect economies of scale.

 

[WDD]

Didn’t think about the pain of recert - good point.

Realistically - if you ran 100 unleaded would the engines really lock up from lack of lead lubrication? Lead is primarily used as a cheap way to boost octane.

 

[cowman]

For our planes we're both fortunate and unfortunate that nobody really pays a lot of attention to us. I don't expect to see any big changes anytime soon. However, I think our best path is actually for someone to figure out how to swap jet-a burning piston diesels into our older airframes. The engineering of that is probably less of a hurdle than doing the certification process and being able to sell the STC at a reasonable price.

 

[Bob Noel]

Didn’t think about the pain of recert - good point.

Realistically - if you ran 100 unleaded would the engines really lock up from lack of lead lubrication? Lead is primarily used as a cheap way to boost octane.

iirc, lead is also a lubricant.

and don't forget about the problems of alcohol in gas.

 

[Bob Noel]

Sure, but I thought streamlining supply lines with the rest of the unleaded fuels was a goal in itself, in order to effect economies of scale.

economies of scale would be awesome. I'd love to cut fuel costs in half (or better). I was primarily responding to the concept of emissions being a consideration

 

[Kenny Phillips]

For our planes we're both fortunate and unfortunate that nobody really pays a lot of attention to us. I don't expect to see any big changes anytime soon. However, I think our best path is actually for someone to figure out how to swap jet-a burning piston diesels into our older airframes. The engineering of that is probably less of a hurdle than doing the certification process and being able to sell the STC at a reasonable price.

The STC may be cheap, but the engines won't be. If a 180 hp CI engine for a Skyhawk cost $30K installed, it would be a great thing. But it would be twice, or more, than that.

 

[bflynn]

Didn’t think about the pain of recert - good point.

Realistically - if you ran 100 unleaded would the engines really lock up from lack of lead lubrication? Lead is primarily used as a cheap way to boost octane.

I'm told the vast majority (70%+) will be just fine with an unleaded gas. That is just from Swift who is pushing it, but also coming from various government studies.

The problem is not technical, it is legal and political. Nobody wants to be the one who says "Go for it" and then have anything happen, whether it's actually based on UL fuel or not.

Prescriptively, Congress could pass a bill prohibiting tort cases involving UL aviation fuel. Maybe they could get rid of that stupid ethanol requirement while they're at it. That turns it back into a logistical and technical problem and those can be solved.

 

[CharlieD3]

Absurd, yes, but in NJ-which leads the nation in property taxes-we just passed $20K on a three bedroom house. We’re on a cul-de-sac that the town unilaterally ‘privatized’ years ago, so they stopped snow removal, leaf pickup, road repair, everything. The pavement finally got so bad the six homes on the street had to pay out of pocket to have it repaved last year.

Time to go throw some tea in the harbor... Or something... That is ludicrous!

All politics is local... And local elections don't get any turnout... So airheads with 200 votes think they have a mandate to be STUPID.. And, it doesn't matter what their party affiliation is....

 

[midwestpa24]

I'm told the vast majority (70%+) will be just fine with an unleaded gas. That is just from Swift who is pushing it, but also coming from various government studies.

Thats the common wisdom I've always heard. The normal <200 horsepower 4-cylinder motors will run just fine on unleaded, its the higher powered, higher heat, higher compression and/or turbo-charged motors that will start to see detonation on the lower octane fuels. The problem is there needs to be a single replacement product available to 100LL that works for all. Most airports and FBOs are set up for a two fuel system, Jet-A and Avgas. Most will not be willing to install the infrastructure necessary to have additional types on hand, especially for smaller volume.

 

[WDD]

Just refine more octane in and take out the lead. Costs might go up as it isn’t a large market as with auto gas. Or maybe not that much more to take 92 octane auto fuel to 100 Don’t really know.

 

[bflynn]

The problem is there needs to be a single replacement product available to 100LL that works for all. Most airports and FBOs are set up for a two fuel system, Jet-A and Avgas. Most will not be willing to install the infrastructure necessary to have additional types on hand, especially for smaller volume.

That's the kind of logistical problem that can be solved. I think there's plenty of demand for a (less expensive) UL fuel for lower powered engines. The question then becomes who pays for the infrastructure and there are ways to make that happen.

I think the real truth is that many FBOs don't make much on 100LL now and definitely don't want a lower priced fuel where they have to have a higher markup. I think they're being short sighted.

 

[midwestpa24]

That's the kind of logistical problem that can be solved. I think there's plenty of demand for a (less expensive) UL fuel for lower powered engines. The question then becomes who pays for the infrastructure and there are ways to make that happen.

I think the real truth is that many FBOs don't make much on 100LL now and definitely don't want a lower priced fuel where they have to have a higher markup. I think they're being short sighted.

You're assuming there is plenty of demand for avgas in the first place. There isn't. There is just enough to provide it. What money is to be made for FBOs and small airports is in Jet fuel, maintenance and space rentals. Selling Avgas 20-30 gallons at a time isn't that lucrative. There is no return in having to install and maintain another $100,000+ fuel tank and pumping system that will only share the market Avgas is currently covering, and that is probably low balling on cost.

Ever heard the old adage, how do you make $1 million in aviation? You start with $2 million.

 

[bflynn]

No, I’m not assuming that at all.

 

[Bob Noel]

Thats the common wisdom I've always heard. The normal <200 horsepower 4-cylinder motors will run just fine on unleaded, its the higher powered, higher heat, higher compression and/or turbo-charged motors that will start to see detonation on the lower octane fuels. The problem is there needs to be a single replacement product available to 100LL that works for all. Most airports and FBOs are set up for a two fuel system, Jet-A and Avgas. Most will not be willing to install the infrastructure necessary to have additional types on hand, especially for smaller volume.

When I converted my Lycoming O-320 to 160hp, I lost the mogas STC. Are you saying that it would run fine on regular unleaded? based on what?

 

[midwestpa24]

When I converted my Lycoming O-320 to 160hp, I lost the mogas STC. Are you saying that it would run fine on regular unleaded? based on what?

As I said common wisdom usually leans that way. Doesn't necessarily apply across the board. Also an STC is a piece of paper, something that went through an approval process. It may not be your upgraded engine can't run on unleaded, just that no one has bothered to jump through the hoops to approve that particular configuration of engine/airframe.

 

[tspear]

lots of money to recertify all the aircraft engines.

But let's get some perspective. The switch from leaded to unleaded for automobiles reduced lead emissions by how much (how many tons of lead going into the atmosphere annually)? Switching all avgas to unleaded would reduce how much lead?

There have been a few studies that actually show that construction is the number one cause of airborne lead. Basically construction kicks up the lead which has settled into the dirt. Assuming I recall one of the reports correctly, it actually demonstrated that construction was a much greater danger to public health that the local GA airport, this study was done by the state level version of EPA when some city tried to shut down the airport. I believe it was in CA.

Tim

 

[tspear]

Thats the common wisdom I've always heard. The normal <200 horsepower 4-cylinder motors will run just fine on unleaded, its the higher powered, higher heat, higher compression and/or turbo-charged motors that will start to see detonation on the lower octane fuels. The problem is there needs to be a single replacement product available to 100LL that works for all. Most airports and FBOs are set up for a two fuel system, Jet-A and Avgas. Most will not be willing to install the infrastructure necessary to have additional types on hand, especially for smaller volume.

Last stat I saw. 80% of 100LL consumption was by planes which cannot run U94 that SWIFT and a few others advocate. Those high powered and turbo planes are the planes that fly and consume fuel.

Tim

 

[tspear]

That's the kind of logistical problem that can be solved. I think there's plenty of demand for a (less expensive) UL fuel for lower powered engines. The question then becomes who pays for the infrastructure and there are ways to make that happen.

I think the real truth is that many FBOs don't make much on 100LL now and definitely don't want a lower priced fuel where they have to have a higher markup. I think they're being short sighted.

If the demand was there, you would see more mogas offered at airports. The demand just does not exist.

Tim

 

[tspear]

Just refine more octane in and take out the lead. Costs might go up as it isn’t a large market as with auto gas. Or maybe not that much more to take 92 octane auto fuel to 100 Don’t really know.

Easily said, not easily done based on what others have stated. But way outside my knowledge base.

Tim

 

[bflynn]

If the demand was there, you would see more mogas offered at airports. The demand just does not exist.

Tim

If mogas was there and cheaper, you would see demand for it.

you honestly believe that pilots want to pay more for fuel?

 

[tspear]

If mogas was there and cheaper, you would see demand for it.

you honestly believe that pilots want to pay more for fuel?

Not a question of pilots desire. Just that there is not enough demand to cover the infrastructure costs. Hence, it is rather rare to see.

Tim

 

[Domenick]

iirc, lead is also a lubricant.

That *may* have been true in the 19202, 30s, 40s, and 50s.

Lead, today in the form of tetraethyl lead (TEL), was originally added to gasoline (around 1900) to boost octane and prevent knocking. Sometime later, lead was believed to flash coat, valves, valve seats, cylinder walls, pistons, and rings to "lubricate".

While that *may* have been true for the engine metallurgy at the time, since the 1960s (or before) valves and valve seats became much much harder. In today's aircraft engines, even those manufactured/overhauled in the 1970s and likely before, TEL is solely an octane booster to prevent knocking.

Hence, the autogas lead-free STCs. Check out the STC application lists. My 1979 O-320-D3G could run on autogas, but it requires a complete redesign of the firewall forward fuel system to prevent vapor lock.

There is much confusion over the terms, detonation, pre-detonation, pre-ignition, knocking, and pinging. Learning the distinctions is left as an exercise for the reader.

 

[Kansas Flyer]

If the demand was there, you would see more mogas offered at airports. The demand just does not exist.

Tim

Depends on where you live. At least 3 of our local airports offer Mogas and I know quite a few people including myself that land there to take advantage of that even though we're often based elsewhere. Kind of a build it and they will come thing.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

In 2006 the USAF test flew a Buff with 2/8 of the engines running on a 50-50 bioblend. As much as I don't miss flying that lumbering mallard with the RCS of a small Country, the platform proved invaluable to these kinds of tests due to the highly modular nature to the fuel delivery system. You all should see the co-pilot panel and fuel controls on the thing. But it was one versatile system.

In the case of the of that test flight, you isolate one pod and run it off the main tank for that pod (2 engines) while keeping the other 3 pods running off their own main tanks and cross-feeding off the body tanks at will without affecting the CG. No modifications to the aircraft necessary like it is for many civilian applications not otherwise sole-sourced for the R/D job.

We've hung decoys, other aircraft, stealth cruise missiles (my most expensive sortie to date; expended six live JASSM-ERs over Eastern New Mexico), and ran on blended fuel. Never did get to do reverse Air Refueling, and yes that was another capability our fuel system had (emergency only).

I never heard what came about the bioblend tests, so far we've continued burning ye ol kerosene. Continued talks regarding the re-engine efforts to take it to retirement, but it would certainly be a consequential transition to biofuels if we can ever get the economics to pencil out. Waste production has never been known for being budget-conscious though, so I'm not holding my breath on the defense budget ever getting a hold of itself.

On the GA side I would like to see a transition into unleaded, but that too doesn't seem forthcoming considering the captive audience dynamics to piston revenue airplanes vis a vis recreational consumption by volume.

Navy did a big test regime with it a few years ago as well. Never heard anything more about it.

 

[NordicDave]

Straight lead free MOGAS degrades quickly where 100LL does not.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

At 31:12 mark of the Wasbi test video, why does the emergency gear drop raise the front gear? Also the left side main gear did not lock.

Why would this have not been tested and and remedied before the Wasbi guys ever arrived? <---Rhetorical question.

The engine out at low speed taxi at 49 mins due to battery run down is confidence inspiring. Especially when Peter told them the battery always has some charge to lock the gear in the earlier gear swing test.

Wrong thread? I saw that too on the gear. The whole system seems pretty damn chintzy.