I have some personal experience with the whole AVGAS debacle and may provide some insight on the industry and FAA and epa views on AVGAS “politics”, for lack of a better word. I dealt with each entity, and initiatives to find substitutes to leaded fuels or other solutions to same ends.
We were initially encouraged by all parties, especially FAA, in statements that all wanted to find a solution that was deployable in terms of economically to old aircraft (the solution’s cost had to be acceptable to owners and operators of older aircraft or it wouldn’t be enough to make a pollution difference or phase out AVGAS…. This cost matrix included both acquisition and operating cost…. Essentially even if you had a perfect solution but if it cost $200k to buy, it would obviously fail as vast majority of ga pitons are close to 50 years old and hull values wouldn’t make it make sense, and there just wasn’t enough new pistons projected to be produced to offset such costs or be affordable). Example being continental’s certified diesel c172 conversion costing $110k and with no real operating savings. …it didn’t make fiscal sense for most, especially in larger ga markets as USA where AVGAS is plentiful and relatively cheap.
With the age of ga pistons and declining values, any solution had to be cheap enough to get the conversions in mass over a relatively short time.this was difficult to do almost 10 years ago as the current flight training boom had not lit off yet and private Pistons typically only flew 60 hours a year. Most owners, we figured, would most likely consider converting to a new engine solution upon reaching TBO of the current legacy engine which often took decades. So, it was a difficult solution to engineer and market to…. Not only did you need a way better mouse trap, it had to cost significantly less to buy, own and operate, a classic business 101 dilemma and many say a fool’s mission.
We briefly looked at possible modifications to Legacy engines that would allow use of a wider range of cheaper and cleaner burning fuels, but because of the rudimentary design, such as fixed timing and carburetor control, a meaningful solution would be difficult if not impossible in above mentioned constraints .
But regardless of the engineering challenges, it was clear the real hurdle was liability and the engine manufacturer’s influence with regulatory agencies in not wanting any such changes which took different forms as voiding warranty and issuing safety issues. Lycoming, the biggest manufacturer owned by same company TEXTRON as the biggest GA player Cessna, has significant influence with FAA and say in STCs related to their product. Some may say such OEM influence is irrelevant with a STC, but it’s not that simple.
in the 1970s GA piston engines were being produced at now unbelievable numbers. But over the last 20 years most of Lycoming margins come from selling rebuild parts and services, not new engines. So they are very protective of their market and margins, even buying out aftermarket parts competitors and shutting them down. It’s amazing to me that we accept the cost to overhaul a 1950s simple engine with no performance improvements is more thn a new hybrid car.
Our solution was any solution had to use modern mass produced components modified for the aircraft mission as ga was too small to rationalize starting from scratch. So we explored different options and came up with the same solution as the certified diesel engine manufacturers did, use a proven automotive engine as a core. Long story short, we decided an aluminum V8 engine would be most ideal as a core. Less than 2 years later we had a 2nd c172 flying around using cheap and cleaner ethanol car gas for about 60% less cost than with original engine.
At the time FAA had grants to develop AVGAS solutions. After completing all the required test plans FAA required for our AWC, we had real data that such a practical solution could work and worthy of funding development. Initially FAA grant personnel were bit misbelieving our c172 did what we said it did but were interested. But once they found out we did this with a new engine design, not modifying original engine or using a new gas, they explained they are only funding solutions that are new fuels or modifications to existing engines. So, that was that. We continued the development anyways, self funded, and made a great engine, even as FAA leadership did what they could to shut us down for the next few years, and continuing today. Just Last year, less than a week before flying Oshkosh, Washington sent 2 inspectors out to take our AWC and went through all our records (the AWC was a multipurpose and more complex than most so there are more requirements)…but we survived and a couple of local CFIs building time flew it Oshkosh and had a great time. Interesting enough, as they only were paying for fuel, they figured out the most cost efficient Cruise speed, that allowed them the most time logged for the least money…essentially what the airlines call Econ speed.
The engine design works well, even if not fully perfected as the FAA obstacles required us to stop further development even for the experimental market as engine was attached to an originally certified airframe. Our nest step was to evolve to a hybrid solution using same automotive automation and a smaller engine….which we projected cost to be bout $8-12/ hour.
To bad really, as our solution, even if not THE solution, could have incited other small entities to develop better and cheaper solutions in all aspects of GA, and likely have helped more proven experimental stuff cross over to certified, especially safely enhancing stuff. moreover, lowering cost would allow more to participate in ga and get pilot licenses, here and worldwide. Using our experimental c172 for training and FAA check rides, we have had private pilots get their certificates for less than $3,500 including DPE checkride fee; commercial pilots realized same cost savings; last month we had the first initial CFI training and FAA checkride in it. The cost from zero time to CFI could cost as low as $20k all in. Think how many more pilots there would be…even just the private pilots that rent a plane to fly to lunch a couple of time a month. And who knows what other small developers could bring to the market if we succeeded and opened locked doors, especially in areas of safety. We were a small self funded business, and there are many passionate entities out there far smatter than us that could have solved the AVGAS and other ga issues if given the opportunity long ago.
sorry for long post….Point is, the alternative gas solution is more complex than just finding a technical solution or how not to ruin paint or if it can cushion valves. As with many perfect solutions, there will always be some resistance. There are several interested parties each with their own motivations. If FAA really wanted to solve the issue, they could of in the 1980s when leaded fuels were outlawed for almost all other uses (few exemptions as mining and farm legacy stuff, and limited racing, for the most part). Many argued new engine designs were needed, but GA was already on life support with Cessna and piper shutting down piston production. The FAA allowed legacy manufacturers to be exempt from emissions regulations for decades so they had no reason to evolve as all other segments. And with ga future in doubt, there was little interest in financing new engines to go on airframes (which alone produce little reoccurring revenues to the airframe manufacturers) , especially when the largest airframe manufacturer owns the largest engine company. As ga size continued to shrink and fleet got older and worth less, the legacy brand continued to supply the same stuff without the fear of competition with the FAA’s continued protection. I expect the 2030 AVGAS deadline will be extended and can is kicked further down the road unless, STC’d or not, engine manufacturers fully get behind the new alternatives regardless of fuel costs. My suggestion, get aircraft that can burn mogas and not worry about it.
Apologize for long post
