It’s actually 160 hp, for the Rotax 916 iS. They have a six-cylinder under development which will probably exceed 200 hp. The point is, all new manufacturers of aircraft engines design them to run on mogas or Jet-A (diesel). We should be looking forwards, not backwards.
2 Likes
Thanks to Darren for his statement. I also appreciate his reference to Rotax engines. Many of us fly aircraft with those engines, yet it’s the first time I recall seeing any mention of them in all the AvWeb discourse on unleaded fuels. Like many Rotax owners, to take care of my engine I have to carry auto gas in gas cans to fuel my airplane. I would have loved to have seen access to unleaded fuel (either auto gas or 94UL) required in grant assurances by last year’s Reauthorization legislation. But there seems to be almost no thought being given to the continued costs imposed on aircraft owners by forcing them to use a fuel that they do not need and that is harmful to the life of their engines.
1 Like
Where did the 70% statistic come from?
Please get your facts straight.
Transponders and ADSB are not required items. And if you think they are you might want to start looking out the window more because there are a lot of aircraft that are not equipped with those items.
Yes we fly inside the mode C veil around class B airspace.
Yes we fly into class C airspace
Yes we fly in Class D airspace
But you are correct you will most likely find us in class E and G
I own several aircraft. I have done much testing using leaded, unleaded and a mixture of both fuels. And yes the lead in fuel keeps the older air cooled normally aspirated aircraft engines running better, longer, safer and with less ware between overhauls.
Thanks Mike
"While airplanes with lower compression engines make up 70 percent of the GA piston fleet, they only burn about 30 percent of the 100LL. Higher compression engines use 70 percent of the 100LL supply. "
IOW the high compression engines are burning most the fuel and doing most the traveling. Time to stop talking about “Rotax” and this or that bug smasher. People like me who typically fly 500-700nm missions for business are the real users. When you think about it, it makes sense.
So where did AOPA come up with this? Yes Twins burn almost twice as much as single engine aircraft. But piston twins are a dwindling market and can be replaced with Jet A burning substitutes. Larger piston singles have to make up the difference. Take out Cirruses used in primary training and then what do you have? Probably an amount close to or less than the so-called “bug smashers”.
I knew you would question the number because it does not comport to your narrative, and that is all you got, a narrative.
Another way of looking at that statistic that never gets talked about is 70% of aircraft operators have been paying higher fuel and engine maintenance costs for 40 years to support the flying done by the other 30 percent. I think it’s more fair to say that each aircraft flying segment has been carrying the other’s mail.