Pilot Uninjured In Cirrus Jet CAPS Pull - AVweb

Who will pay for all of these new engines and their related systems? Seriously.

Why pro-rate the buyout?
If the government opts to outlaw my engine, they should provide me with a new one - installed, with all attendant systems - at NO cost to me. (See 5th amendment.)

At least in that scenario we can continue ops-normal for the next 200 years. :wink:

It isn’t a non-starter at all - a lot of experimentals are using auto conversions very successfully. The devil is in the details, of course, do it wrong and you have an unreliable engine. But if individuals or small groups can do it successfully, then a fully engineered solution should be trivial. But it would require the expense and complication of certification, which has killed many such attempts already, either directly, or by forcing the engine prices so high that ‘I might as well buy the tried-and-true’ engine. Similar reasons why you can still buy brand-new PA-28s and C-172s!

“If they REALLY believe that lead is that big a problem, let them fund a program to get rid of engines that require it.”

Yep.

It’s too easy to identify problems, when your paycheck depends on the number of problems identified, not the number of problems solved.

Kinda like a “safety inspector”.
Pretty easy to point out problems when you’re not required to solve them.

Yars–you are right, as usual.

That was my initial take on solving the problem–but I realized that SOMEBODY in the “Puzzle Palace” would shout “Hey, these guys are getting a new engine for NOTHING!” (never mind that the new engine was because of a dubious MANDATE that the government was unable to solve).

I HAD considered that the FAA would give so many years to replace the engines–and that old-styled engines would no longer be licensed for building–but that would be a great leap of faith in trusting multiple government agencies that have proven to be UNABLE to come up with a sensible solution. It would mean that parts for the old engines would be a problem.

My solution was that "I will install a new engine in the airplane IF you A. Certify the engine first. B. Have new engines ready for build-up. C. Have spare parts ready to ship. D. Pre-certify the STC to install the new engines. E. Give time for manufacturers to flight test and start installations of the new engines prior to the “Cash for Clunkers Part II” program.
If they started today, we “Could” have new, fuel efficient, reliable engines that don’t need leaded fuel in 5 year–but with government dithering, it would be 10 years–but at least we would HAVE a solution (unlike the half-century of “development” for a solution that HASN’T PRODUCED RESULTS.
It would be a fairly simple program–the government gives us a new, compliant, certified engine, with better reliability and systems, and no requirement for lead–and in return, I would pay the remaining hours to TBO at the rate per hour add/deduct as specified in Aircraft Blue Book.
Best of all, we STOP THE INCESSANT SQUABBLING, DELAYS, AND UNCERTAINTY ON THE PART OF THE FAA. Getting the FAA out of the fuel business and restoring certainty is worth the cost, and safety and utility is upgraded with the ability to utilize modern systems.
Maybe it wouldn’t be a Continental or Lycoming–maybe it is an FAA-approved auto engine. Remember when the auto manufacturers touted “aircraft style accessories”? The tables have turned–an aircraft engine based on an auto engine MAY be the best solution.
OR–we can watch the EPA types continue to DEMAND a product that they themselves haven’t been able to produce in 50 years–leaving us all waiting for the next blunder on their part–all the while our aircraft engines use 1930s technology.

One of the issues with general aviation is that there are a large number bureaucrats who believe that small aircraft are a problem. We know this, we have seen it. These bureaucrats believe that no individual should have the right to fly an aircraft. When they get around to it and following the typical bureaucratic path, they will mandate lead be removed from aviation fuel in the name of ecological benefit but without a replacement. Thus, the lead in aviation fuel will be used to kill off general aviation. We don’t want to hear this but I see no signs that individual will be protected.

Problem?
You missed the salient and primary point: they no longer care about small GA; in fact, it’s viewed as a nuisance.

YARS, you misread the tea leaves. Federal, local, and even unelected officials could care less about keeping little propellor planes flying; much less give you money to keep your “rich noisy” hobby going. No, the simple and cheap and elegant solution is to let you keep your now obsolete toy but on the ground. It’s even “green” that way. Sorry man but small GA is now seen as a threat. Meigs Field? California?

Dana, you nailed it. Small private gas powered GA is no longer viewed as essential or even desired. The will plow runways with big X’s before listening to rational solutions.

Arthur, you’re absolutely right, and that pesky constitution be damned.

Not so long ago, half of Americans thought that the other half were simply misguided fools. More recently, we’ve been told that half of Americans are “irredeemable deplorables” and “bitter clingers.” This week, we’ve seen open calls to “de-program” and to “de-platform” the deplorables. And open discussions about reigning in the free press, to prevent them from “spewing misinformation and disinformation.” A Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Seriously. Did any of these great leaders read 1984 in high school? A Ministry of Truth?

Yes, the Greenies will not hesitate to promote “equity,” by grounding all of us little “fat cats.” A small price (for others) to pay, in order to “save the planet” and to promote “environmental justice.” Whatever that is. (I probably should ask Humpty Dumpty.)

I guess we gratefully but guiltily should fly our little toxin-emitters while we still can. Clearly, we don’t care about anyone but ourselves. Probably the underlying reason why we’re so deplorable. :wink:

What I’m seeing in the business and commercial industry, they are trading out the 100LL engines for turbines. The private owner of an engine that can only burn 100LL are/and will be priced out. The price of the fuel and the insurance will either force the 100LL users out or to trade up. There will be no “drop-in 100LL” replacement. After three decades of controversy, time to take the Rose Colored Glasses off.

The years of looking at fuel problems have fogged the brain (I was too polite to say sniffing the rag was the cause – it is not a fuel problem but an engine problem.
Look what happened with cars – the governments in their wisdom said they would stop selling leaded fuel.
The world did not end – manufacturers quickly made engines compatible with unleaded fuel, of all sizes and all power outputs.
Most found that, actually, in spite of all the fuss, doom and gloom and supposed threats to liberty – doing so was easy. Many used the opportunity to redesign engine plants at the same time and remove the weakest link (humans) from the engine assembly lines. I have one car 16 years old and another 14 years old. Neither has ever had an engine problem. My Dad finds that incredible.
Simply stop selling engines which use leaded fuel, and the problem will go away.
Old cubs and the rest with 60 year motors can still fill up with fuel and a dose of lead from the bottle, just as old cars can, if you really want the charm of the old fashioned experience.

Old Cubs don’t need leaded fuel. They can burn car gas. Old Cirri…not so much.

Brand new cars cost, on average, about $40k. Brand-new personal airplanes? Move the decimal point to the right, then double that amount.

So like I said above. The real problem is too many rules.

Those of us who got through the gauntlet of nonsense to own and fly often just don’t get how unreasonable it all is and what a towering wall it creates keeping so many out of our little club.

Just finished digging out big chunks of lead out the spark plugs on my O 235. The radial engine in my Nanchang has a minimum octane requirement of 70, so my take on 94UL which is 100LL without any lead is; HeLL yah bring it on!

But, I get the issue with the big bore turbo engines.

The biggest danger for those engines may not be government actually getting around to outlawing lead, it is the ONLY plant in the world that now makes TEL has a fire, blows up or just goes bankrupt. 30 days later there will be no 100LL full stop.

Either a supply chain failure or government regulation means 100LL is gone. As a general comment hard niche problems generally get fixed with the easiest solution, so that would be all existing refineries switch to 94UL, which would be easy.

Bottom line sadly is GA is subject to a quadruple whammy on this:

  1. Avgas is so low volume it is not even classified as a fuel by the oil companies, it is a specialty chemical. So minimal consequences for oil companies if it is outlawed

  2. Politicians know GA is not a big enough voting block to have consequences if they hurt them

  3. There is basically no “ safe “ level for particulate lead in the environment

  4. There is no easy drop in replacement for TEL. All of the other possible additives have significant issues

There is no possible happy ending here for any owner of an aircraft that can only burn 100LL

A lot of insightful comments here! We are indeed fighting a lot of inertia, technical issues, and fear of liability here, but the pilot community needs to continue pushing for and demanding a solution. Less than 100 octane is not an option with 70% of the fuel requiring at least that, if not 102 MON. Any unleaded fuel has to meet the stringent requirements set forth by the FAA and OEMs in the PAFI program. This is required to replace 100LL for fleet-wide approval. STCs won’t do it and 94 octane won’t either with only one avgas tank at each airport. If ultra-low lead were acceptable we would have a solution tomorrow, but no-one is ready to throw in the towel, despite the NAS report and suggestion that VLL may be good enough. Not likely for the NGOs who sued the EPA.

As an insider, I can assure you that your associations have your back, the FAA is genuinely interested in finding a solution, and the OEMs just want to insure they won’t be left footing the bill (or face lawsuits). But there are several fuel suppliers still invested in finding a solution. Some you have never heard of. Keep the faith and the pressure. We haven’t given up on you.

Building on the statement “we need a new engine to solve the unleaded fuel problem”, I’m drawn to alternative engines that burn unleaded fuel. The Yamaha 4 banger liter motorcycle engine come to mind. These engines are ubiquitous, have a very tough service life but are known for reliability. Normal power output of these engines is 140 HP. Change the jetting of the carbs or flash the ECU and these engines easily make 150 HP. Add a turbo and 315 HP is achievable. Google Turbo F1 to see an example. There are probably hundreds of mechanical and reliability reasons why motorcycle engines would not be suitable in aircraft but it is a start. Interesting that the greatest contribution being made by the Samson Sky flying car could be the engine. They have been testing various engines to find the most effective and reliable solution. So far, the Yamaha engine is winning.

Lol, Steven is not an airplane owner. If he was then he’d see that certified engine swaps are almost prohibitably expensive. Experimental auto engines swap into certified aircraft is double that. As YARS said, who will pay to re-engineer the fleet and then re-engine the fleet? Yea, that IS moonshot money.