E.P.A. Says It Will Set Rules for Airplane Emissions

[Henning]

Or gas cans....



This is the real problem. It can become uneconomic quickly enough to kill the market. When they made lead go away for cars, a number of the old big-bore engines were affected, but they could still run as there's no need to certify the engine to the car frame and fuel. Can't just do that with aviation under the regulatory structure. And any engine replacement will require an STC - for each airframe (which is probably part of the reason that Continental has no interest in that market - and may well be why Shell has no interest, either).

And while some planes can get a mogas STC, there are any number that can't.

I agree that getting the lead out would be a good thing. But....

Huh, have you seen the size of factory car engines? Bigger than ever, more power than ever, supercharged, and on unleaded gas and still beat emissions requirements. Continental has a FADEC replacement for all their old engines the TCM guy told me.

The economics are a false flag. As long as the cost of upgrade leaves you with a comparable use value product at a lower cost than a new airplane comparably equipped the true economics work. The problem with market derived value is you use the wrong criteria to judge value. The airplane is real, the money is imaginary.

 

[timwinters]

No, GA is just going to be dragged into the 21st century, albeit kicking and screaming. Seriously, lead in Avgas costs a lot of cylinder money every year. Lead is like glue for carbon on your valve seats, faces, and stems, the last is what causes sticking valves and guide wear. That's where the real cost of ROP operations is.

When we get unleaded AvGas, you will see it become common for cylinders to go TBO.

My chicken little "sky is falling" meme wasn't in reference to the EPA. Rather it was in reference to all our friends here who make Rush look centrist by comparison and who always inject the "Obama conspiracy theory de jour" into these conversations (you know who they are). Hate and lies and insults are what they cling to, they have nothing else.

Oh, and BTW, I bought over 1,000 rounds of ammo today for an upcoming event and the total didn't even make me blink an eye.

 

[Ted]

This is the real problem. It can become uneconomic quickly enough to kill the market. When they made lead go away for cars, a number of the old big-bore engines were affected, but they could still run as there's no need to certify the engine to the car frame and fuel. Can't just do that with aviation under the regulatory structure. And any engine replacement will require an STC - for each airframe (which is probably part of the reason that Continental has no interest in that market - and may well be why Shell has no interest, either).

And while some planes can get a mogas STC, there are any number that can't.

I agree that getting the lead out would be a good thing. But....

Bill, the FAA is involved in a no-lead solution that is a drop-in replacement. That means no STC required. The people working it are good.

I'm not worried.

 

[Dav8or]

With more jet-a aircraft coming into the market I wonder if switching some of the old engines out for diesels at overhaul time could become a thing.

There would be many ways the FAA could streamline that process... for example Piper is making a diesel powered Archer now. The engineering would seem to be already done since there's almost no difference between a modern Archer and a '78 like mine. Perhaps they could simplify the certification process for new STCs in cases like this.

Check the prices on those diesel engines, then add in new motor mount, all new cowling, new prop, all new engine controls and finally lots and lots of install time. You won't be going diesel and neither will I. We need unleaded fuel. Hopefully something that is a minor tweak to mogas to keep the costs down.

 

[Everskyward]

But would diesel Duke still be cool?

John

This might be cooler...

 

[Dav8or]

I just can't wait until my plane gets a "check engine" light and I have to buy a new gas cap every other year at the smog check station! That and having my catalytic converter stolen over night on the ramp.

 

[wilkersk]

Another nail in the coffin.

Just wait till Michael Bloomberg and his ilk finishes with all of us "gun-nuts". Then, all those little airplanes in the sky that place the public in so much danger will move to the top of the liberal nanny state's agenda.

 

[cowman]

Check the prices on those diesel engines, then add in new motor mount, all new cowling, new prop, all new engine controls and finally lots and lots of install time. You won't be going diesel and neither will I. We need unleaded fuel. Hopefully something that is a minor tweak to mogas to keep the costs down.

I could just run mogas now with an STC. Unfortunately 99% of the airports I ever go to don't have it available. From what I hear the issue is cost to provide another pump/tank/safety gear/red tape exceeds what most FBOs could make from it.

 

[N801BH]

This might be cooler...

I am pretty sure those motors are NOT Lycomings..

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=22JY

 

[wsuffa]

Bill, the FAA is involved in a no-lead solution that is a drop-in replacement. That means no STC required. The people working it are good.

I'm not worried.

Understood, but there's still a lot of testing involved. Moving from 130 to 100LL involved compromises for some engines. The cost of testing (vs the small market) is one reason I don't believe that Shell is interested.

Just wait till Michael Bloomberg and his ilk finishes with all of us "gun-nuts". Then, all those little airplanes in the sky that place the public in so much danger will move to the top of the liberal nanny state's agenda.

Like Daley?

 

[wsuffa]

Huh, have you seen the size of factory car engines? Bigger than ever, more power than ever, supercharged, and on unleaded gas and still beat emissions requirements. Continental has a FADEC replacement for all their old engines the TCM guy told me.

I was speaking specifically of the muscle cars of the early 60's. How many of those were changed to newer engines?

The economics are a false flag. As long as the cost of upgrade leaves you with a comparable use value product at a lower cost than a new airplane comparably equipped the true economics work. The problem with market derived value is you use the wrong criteria to judge value. The airplane is real, the money is imaginary.

I have to disagree that economics are a false flag. Yes, if the cost of the upgrade leaves you with a comparable product at lower cost, it will work. But that's not the case for much of the GA market. Many of the older planes are facing upgrade costs for avionics (incl. ADS-B) and other features that will push the costs higher over the next few years. And it works fine if you're an owner that will keep the plane. If you're going to sell, then you'll never recover in sale valuation a $50,000 cost for a new engine (plus avionics). Even without a mandate, folks with older planes will never see the full value for what they put into them.

Buy the plane you want, not an upgrade project, as you'll never really see the return. Same applies for engines. (exception being a rare or antique plane like Tom does).

 

[Henning]

Check the prices on those diesel engines, then add in new motor mount, all new cowling, new prop, all new engine controls and finally lots and lots of install time. You won't be going diesel and neither will I. We need unleaded fuel. Hopefully something that is a minor tweak to mogas to keep the costs down.

I will go Diesel at first excuse, because then I can make my fuel myself from algae or old fry oil.

 

[Dav8or]

I will go Diesel at first excuse, because then I can make my fuel myself from algae or old fry oil.

And you will fly using french fry oil? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Dav8or]

I could just run mogas now with an STC. Unfortunately 99% of the airports I ever go to don't have it available. From what I hear the issue is cost to provide another pump/tank/safety gear/red tape exceeds what most FBOs could make from it.

That's exactly the issue. Many cry, "Why don't they have both fuels at the airport??!", it's because the market for it is so very small and the expense quite high. Then there is the cheap bastard factor. The Mogas at the airport would definitely be more expensive than at the gas station, just like it is at marinas and so some cheap bastards will still truck/trailer/tote gas to airport instead of buy from the FBO.

GA absolutely needs a one fuel solution and from what I've read, that solution is available from many sources. It's the FAA that is standing in the way. Again. I also don't understand why there has to only be one certified fuel in the market place. The FAA should test and certify any and all competing fuels as fast as possible. I can't understand why the whole testing and certification process couldn't be accomplished in 6 months, it will take that long for the FAA to study how the process should start to begin and then write a paper about it with recommendations. Another six months to review those recommendations.

We either need a president with balls to use executive orders to clean house over there, or a congress willing to cut off the cash flow to get things done. The FAA has grown to be an arrogant, useless leach. It's time we hired aviation professionals that actually cared about airplanes to run that place instead of appointing people based on political favors.

 

[wilkersk]

...Like Daley?

Oh, don't get me started! That was pure MONEY and nothing else. Follow the money and you'll see why Meigs was unlawfully closed. Talk about your conspiracy and cover-ups!

 

[jsstevens]

This might be cooler...

Nice.

 

[jsstevens]

And you will fly using french fry oil? What could possibly go wrong?

A former co-worker of mine (and pilot!) had a 1980 5 cylinder diesel Mercedes which he converted to waste cooking oil and, more interestingly, a diesel generator which he ran on waste cooking oil mixed 90/10 with diesel. The car required some modifications for things like viscosity management. The generator did not, however, it had two fuel tanks and he started it with actual diesel fuel and then switched tanks. He'd switch back for a few minutes before shutdown.

An aircraft engine runs largely at a steady state of relatively large power output so there is some similarity with the generator. But I'm pretty sure ambient temperature at altitude would be a problem with waste cooking oil. I have no idea if Prist would help.

John