FAA Wants All Aircraft Flying On Unleaded Fuel By 2018 366
coondoggie writes "The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) this week put out a call to fuel producers to offer options that would safely let general aviation aircraft stop using leaded fuel by 2018. The FAA says there are approximately 167,000 aircraft in the United States and a total of 230,000 worldwide that rely on the current 100 octane, low lead fuel for safe operation. It is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United States that contains the addition of tetraethyl lead, a toxic substance, to create the very high octane levels needed for high-performance aircraft engines. Operations with inadequate octane can result in engine failures, the FAA noted."
Re:Thanks Slashdot. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Thanks Slashdot. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen the Missouri State Police show up at a livestock auction and check every pickup as they leave. They were writing tickets by the bushel.
Re:Thanks Slashdot. (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone else mentioned that avgas is similarly marked and similarly illegal to use on the road, though I know more than one street racer who fills up at the airport. And yes, it matters when you are trying to run turbos at higher compressions.
Re:Who's going to pay for it? (Score:4, Interesting)
In any environmental issue like this it makes sense to compare the damage and the cost of mitigating that damage. The total aircraft fleet is very small (1/1000 of the automobile fleet) so the lead emissions are nothing like we used to have from cars. Still I would very much like to get the lead out of aviation gas if there were a way to do it and keep flying. The problem is that the money has to come from somewhere.
We could insist that aircraft only use unleaded. The problem is that the aircraft manufacturers have no interested in improving old planes, but most pilots cannot afford new ones: my '66 beechcraft baron cost about $100K to buy, a new one is about $1.2M. Replacing the engines would be about $90K even if engines certified for unleaded gas were available.
The airlines would love to see GA shut down, it just gets in their way and maybe this is an activity that we can no longer support. Maybe flying is to be left to the big corporations. Many countries have made personal aircraft prohibitively expensive.
On the bright side there are a couple of possible unleaded substitutes being tested. One works for some, but not all planes. Another seems to work in all planes but is a proprietary formulation and that is making the FAA nervous.
Re:Thanks Slashdot. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry, I must disagree.
The bike I ride is water cooled and uses CV carbs. A one-in-four gal mix seemed to increase torque somewhat dramatically. Were the carbs clean? Yes. Valves adjusted? Yes. Compression fine? Yes.
Hilly country rides became immensely pleasurable, although yes, the engine temp increased two notches in ten. Unfortunately, that doesn't translate to degrees on the bike's thermometer. Nonetheless, it was wahhhhhoooo time.
Placebo effect entirely. In fact, the bike actually made LESS power on the 100 octane than it did on the lower octane fuel. In all scenarios, the best power is made on the lowest octane fuel that doesn't result in detonation.
caveat: assuming similar fuel composition. Therefore, if the pump gas in your area has 10% ethanol, the non-ethanol avgas will run slightly better. However, the increase in energy density from the lack of ethanol is offset by the inefficiency of combustion associated with the higher octane burning significantly slower...so we're back to the placebo again.
Re:low lead is misleading (Score:3, Interesting)
Aviation 100LL fuel has from 2 to 4 times the lead content of the old leaded auto fuel formulation, not 20 times.
http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/187232-1.html
In the US, 2012 av gas consumption (all types) was 4.9 million barrels. 100LL is pretty much all you can find at the pumps these days. At an average of 3 ml per gallon, and 55 gallons to the barrel, that is a total of about 800,000 liters TEL burned.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgaupus1&f=a
1986 auto fuel consumption (all types) was 2.5 billion barrels. I think this was the last year leaded auto fuel was sold. At an average of .5 ml per gallon, that is a total of about 68 million liters TEL burned.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mgfupus1&f=a
So the lead released today by aviation fuel is only about 1.2% of the lead released in 1986 by a fleet burning leaded auto gas. If autos still burned leaded fuel, the total lead released would be from 88 million liters TEL burned.
Unleaded aviation fuel formulations have already been developed and tested to FAA standards, and witnessed by the FAA in the largest, highest compression modern aircraft engines. They could be implemented immediately if the FAA got off their buts and acted. But that would cut an entire department of FAA employees out of work for the next 5 years. It is in the FAA's internal interests to drag this conversion process out as long as they can.
Re: Thanks Slashdot. (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that NASCAR technology is 50+ years old. If they would change their ways and move towards a modern engine, it wouldn't be a problem.
Here in Australia, the V8 Supercars (which is becoming more and more like NASCAR with all the rule changes they keep bringing in) are using modern 5.0L N/A V8 engines with EFI and they are doing just fine running E85 Ethanol.
Given NASCAR has hillbilly/farmer/rural/redneck associations/roots and given how big corn ethanol is in the US, using E85 in NASCAR would actually be seen as a good thing among much of its traditional fan base. They would just need to move into the modern era and embrace engines that aren't 50+ years old.