Give me a few examples, Arthur …
I don’t see your logic.
G100UL takes the same amount of alkalyte as 100LL within small margins, so what does the price of crude have to do with it?
As for other chemicals, it seems like the xylene component should actually be cheaper. Shipping and distribution should be less or the same. And avgas is not made in sufficient quantities to be sensitive to scale effects.
So the $0.85/gal premium seems to be a reasonable delta to remain.
But at the same compression ratio and with fixed timing; the power output is going to be the same. They are trying to assert that because a fuel has a higer energy density that the engine is capable of taking advantage of that. Not true at all.
Off the top of my head, the O-320 engine STC on the AA-1A to increase GW to 1600#, BRS installs on C182s get a 160# increase in GW, and the myriad of Bonanza tip tant STC’s that increase GW.
But it’s not a static, fixed environment - you still have a mixture knob.
Piston engines measure fuel by volume, not weight or energy content. The carb (or fuel-injection) presumes each gallon of fuel weighs the same. So if you feed the system with fuel of higher density, in effect you’re putting more fuel in and getting more power out.
This means if you lean to a specific fuel flow, you’ll find yourself going (slightly) faster on G100UL than 100LL.
If you lean to a specific EGT or speed, then you’ll find yourself burning (slightly) less fuel while cruising at the same speed.
Most eloquent paragraph:
“And last, EAGLE, which is looking more like a turkey at the moment. This is, of course, the FAA’s multi-year program to find and certify an unleaded fuel. In my view, it was a dead letter from the start or, to be fair, the testing component of it is. That’s just PAFI again. But that’s not to say the FAA shouldn’t have a role in encouraging competitive fuel development. But EAGLE has too many players, has overcomplicated the task and assigned testing to the FAA. In my view, this is exactly backward. The industry won’t admit it, but this is the functional equivalent of Boeing or Airbus submitting airplane designs to the FAA for testing, approval and selection.”
I always love the hate-on-California comments, especially by those who use smartphones, the Internet, fly airplanes, benefit from space, eat our food, live longer, etc.
Really guys… give it up. California banned gas-powered cars. Get over it. In fact, be thankful.
Yes, it will ban 100LL. Long overdue. Lead falling out of the sky is something nobody should support.
Californians live longer than anyone else in the US, except Hawaii, and enjoy one of the world’s largest economies, a higher standard of living, and more equality and opportunity than the vast majority of the world.
Oh, and much of space and aviation is or started here. Edwards, JPL, Mojave, SpaceX (yes, it started here), and so on and so forth.
Get over it.
Amen.
yes!
This is precisely what we need!! Economy of scale.
Every pound matters in light airplanes.
How interesting! Thank you, Kirk, for sharing the link. So it appears that, using an SR22, Gami, as a small business, was getting the job done on our behalf. Meanwhile, Cirrus and parent AVIC (AVIC estimated to have 500K employees) cannot even come up with an approved conversion to install THEIR OWN unleaded engine on the SR series aircraft.
Read the first paragraph…