Future of GA piston fuel?

[xerj]

If you had to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, what do you think the engines
of the GA fleet will be drinking in 10-15 years time?

The same avgas as today, just much more expensive?

Jet-A in diesel engines?

Something else?

[Peter Dohm]

> If you had to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, what do you think the
engines
> of the GA fleet will be drinking in 10-15 years time?
>
> The same avgas as today, just much more expensive?
>
> Jet-A in diesel engines?
>
> Something else?
>
>
When the alternative fuel discussion, and the automotive fuel STC, first
gained popularity; I read that 100LL AvGas was about 96 octane without the
lead.

That would suggest an obvoius solution of 96 octane for most of the fleet,
and blend-at-the-pump (or from the truck) for those that actually make use
of the higher octane fuel. OTOH, that makes too much sense...

Peter

[Jim Macklin]

They are looking at a universal "gasoline" for cars and
aviation. Can be done fairly easily for new engines, but
retrofitting high compression, turbo-charged or other high
demand engines will cost a lot.
The government and private organizations are working on it.


"xerj" > wrote in message
...
| If you had to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, what do you
think the engines
| of the GA fleet will be drinking in 10-15 years time?
|
| The same avgas as today, just much more expensive?
|
| Jet-A in diesel engines?
|
| Something else?
|
|

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> When the alternative fuel discussion, and the automotive fuel STC, first
> gained popularity; I read that 100LL AvGas was about 96 octane without the
> lead.
>
> That would suggest an obvoius solution of 96 octane for most of the fleet,
> and blend-at-the-pump (or from the truck) for those that actually make use
> of the higher octane fuel. OTOH, that makes too much sense...
>
Not economically. Not with the EPA around.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 11:35 pm, "xerj" > wrote:
> If you had to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, what do you think the engines
> of the GA fleet will be drinking in 10-15 years time?
>
> The same avgas as today, just much more expensive?
>

Jet-A in diesel engines?

This is the one that I am betting on...

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> They are looking at a universal "gasoline" for cars and
> aviation. Can be done fairly easily for new engines, but
> retrofitting high compression, turbo-charged or other high
> demand engines will cost a lot.
> The government and private organizations are working on it.
>

The introduction of alcohol into many/most autofuels is pretty much mucking
up any plan for a universal fuel...

KB



> "xerj" > wrote in message
> ...
> | If you had to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, what do you
> think the engines
> | of the GA fleet will be drinking in 10-15 years time?
> |
> | The same avgas as today, just much more expensive?
> |
> | Jet-A in diesel engines?
> |
> | Something else?
> |
> |
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

Stupid idea by enviro-wacko, takes more energy to make
alcohol and it is now making tacos more expensive in Mexico,
fueling [pun intended] the Mexican invasion.



"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > They are looking at a universal "gasoline" for cars and
| > aviation. Can be done fairly easily for new engines,
but
| > retrofitting high compression, turbo-charged or other
high
| > demand engines will cost a lot.
| > The government and private organizations are working on
it.
| >
|
| The introduction of alcohol into many/most autofuels is
pretty much mucking
| up any plan for a universal fuel...
|
| KB
|
|
|
| > "xerj" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | If you had to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, what do
you
| > think the engines
| > | of the GA fleet will be drinking in 10-15 years time?
| > |
| > | The same avgas as today, just much more expensive?
| > |
| > | Jet-A in diesel engines?
| > |
| > | Something else?
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> Stupid idea by enviro-wacko, takes more energy to make
> alcohol and it is now making tacos more expensive in Mexico,
> fueling [pun intended] the Mexican invasion.

Yep, but unfortunately, all that's likely to result in is the US giving the
Mexican Government grants to hold down tortilla prices. Even worse, the
corrupt bureaucracy down there will abscond with the money and tortilla
prices won't come down. ;-)

[Owen[_4_]]

Peter Dohm wrote:

> > If you had to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, what do you think the
> engines
> > of the GA fleet will be drinking in 10-15 years time?
> >
> > The same avgas as today, just much more expensive?
> >
> > Jet-A in diesel engines?
> >
> > Something else?
> >
> >
> When the alternative fuel discussion, and the automotive fuel STC, first
> gained popularity; I read that 100LL AvGas was about 96 octane without the
> lead.
>
> That would suggest an obvoius solution of 96 octane for most of the fleet,
> and blend-at-the-pump (or from the truck) for those that actually make use
> of the higher octane fuel. OTOH, that makes too much sense...

From what I understand, the TEL is just far too toxic to deal with when it
isn't dilluted by a lot of (also toxic) gasoline. It's challenging enough at
the oil company production tank farm level, I don't see how it would work at
the pump dispensing (or even regional terminal) level.

NASCAR is finally going lead free in the very near future, I expect piston
aircraft will as well. Even absent a government regulation banning lead fuel
in aircraft, the simple economics of the situation will make it more and more
untenable.

Diesel engines running with Jet A for high and low power applications and
piston engines burning lead free avgas (UL__ or whatever they want to call it)
for low applications will be the future.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Owen" > wrote in message ...
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>> > If you had to do a bit of crystal ball gazing, what do you think the
>> engines
>> > of the GA fleet will be drinking in 10-15 years time?
>> >
>> > The same avgas as today, just much more expensive?
>> >
>> > Jet-A in diesel engines?
>> >
>> > Something else?
>> >
>> >
>> When the alternative fuel discussion, and the automotive fuel STC, first
>> gained popularity; I read that 100LL AvGas was about 96 octane without
>> the
>> lead.
>>
>> That would suggest an obvoius solution of 96 octane for most of the
>> fleet,
>> and blend-at-the-pump (or from the truck) for those that actually make
>> use
>> of the higher octane fuel. OTOH, that makes too much sense...
>
> From what I understand, the TEL is just far too toxic to deal with when it
> isn't dilluted by a lot of (also toxic) gasoline. It's challenging enough
> at
> the oil company production tank farm level, I don't see how it would work
> at
> the pump dispensing (or even regional terminal) level.

Do you have a cite for the toxicity (sp?)... I know that there are tens of
thousands of people who dealt with 100 to 140 octane highly leaded gasolines
over the years and I don't see many old guys at the airport growing extra
ears or with problems that is/are/was/were seemingly caused by leaded fuel..

>
> NASCAR is finally going lead free in the very near future, I expect
> piston
> aircraft will as well. Even absent a government regulation banning lead
> fuel
> in aircraft, the simple economics of the situation will make it more and
> more
> untenable.

I agree. Leaded fuel will eventually become so pricy that everyone who can
will move to unleaded fuel, and that'll drive a downward spiral forcing
100LL out of the market. I feel sorry for the folks flying aircraft with
highly stressed engines which really need the extra octane, 'cause they are
gonna be left out in the cold.

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Stupid idea by enviro-wacko, takes more energy to make
>> alcohol and it is now making tacos more expensive in Mexico,
>> fueling [pun intended] the Mexican invasion.
>
> Yep, but unfortunately, all that's likely to result in is the US giving
> the Mexican Government grants to hold down tortilla prices. Even worse,
> the corrupt bureaucracy down there will abscond with the money and
> tortilla prices won't come down. ;-)

In which case they can kiss the whole enchilada good-bye! :~)

[nrp]

On Feb 16, 2:41 am, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> They are looking at a universal "gasoline" for cars and
> aviation. Can be done fairly easily for new engines, but
> retrofitting high compression, turbo-charged or other high
> demand engines will cost a lot.
> The government and private organizations are working on it.

Jim - Are "they" really working on it? I wonder just how many
aircraft engines are under serious test and in what lab is it being
done. I have a funny feeling that there are none. It certainly has
been quiet out there except for the hand wringing.

Given the ongoing number of naysayers etc after 20 years of autofuel
experience, how long is it going to take for everyone (fuel and
airframe manufacturers, lawyers, repair shops, engine suppliers, etc)
to endorse a financially acceptible substitute for 100LL without major
engine modifications or even engine substitutions.

Personally I don't think it is going to happen.

[Matt Barrow[_3_]]

"nrp" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Feb 16, 2:41 am, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>> They are looking at a universal "gasoline" for cars and
>> aviation. Can be done fairly easily for new engines, but
>> retrofitting high compression, turbo-charged or other high
>> demand engines will cost a lot.
>> The government and private organizations are working on it.
>
> Jim - Are "they" really working on it? I wonder just how many
> aircraft engines are under serious test and in what lab is it being
> done. I have a funny feeling that there are none.

http://www.engineteststand.com/
http://www.gami.com/prism.html

Of course, they've been saying "STC Certification expected soon", for three
or more years now.
--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC