User Profile Header
kmisegades
,
NC
Comments
Displaying 1-5 of 6
We Can't Afford Avgas War
from kmisegades
wrote 2 years 48 weeks ago
This is a complex, multi-faceted issue with environmental concerns over 100LL being only one, but the compelling reason for change. One needs to accept the fact that there are two major groups of piston-engine pilots: those who fly for business and those who fly for fun. The business flyers are in a hurry or need to get above weather or terrain and tend to fly the high-performance aircraft that require 100LL. The rest of us (the majority) enjoy flying low and relatively slow, prefer the new LSA class with engines best run on premium ethanol-free mogas, or fly classic/vintage/antique aircraft that should not operate on 100LL. Recreational flyers will spend their money on other hobbies if fuel or engine retrofit costs go through the roof, turning many airfields into ghost towns and reducing new pilot starts. This is a real quandary to say the least. But why must it be an "either-or" decision? If, as Mac contends, Avgas suppliers and FBOs make their money now on Jet-A and not 100LL, they might actually appreciate a higher-cost replacement for the latter. Owners of high-end 100LL-burning aircraft can probably tolerate a higher cost than owners of recreational aircraft, where the cost of fuel is a greater percentage of their annual operating cost. At European GA airfields I frequent, fuel supply issues do not exist. I can always find 100LL and premium, ethanol-free Mogas. In Sweden, Hjelmco's 91/96UL and their 100LL is generally available from this company that seems to do just fine selling only to piston-engine operators; they do not make jet fuel. Hjelmco also provides the fuel tanks; a 4,000 gallon system goes for under $25k. At my German home base (Mengen, EDTM), four fuels are available: Mogas, 100LL, Jet-A and Mo-diesel. What is so special about the U.S. that we can not have a two-fuel solution? Why don't we put more effort into changing the federal mandates on ethanol production (RFS of EISA 2007) to exclude premium from blending? The resulting low-cost fuel (under $3 at some airports) should help the low-end of G.A. grow, and that is good for everyone. If FBOs are unwilling to provide Mogas, pilots need to join together and do it themselves. A 100LL replacement will surely appear; there are many boutique fuels out there now, for instance Sunoco's wide range of racing fuels. No, we do not need a war, we need choices as in this case one size does not fit all.
Ray Stits: An Early Homebuilt Designer
from kmisegades
wrote 37 weeks 3 days ago
Nice article, Dave.
Note that a group of hard-core scratch builders in central NC are completing a Stits SA-7D Skycoupe begun in the early 1960s. It uses a Lycoming O-290-D, the same engine on Van's original RV-1 and RV-3.
Watch our progress at this link:
http://eaa1114.blogspot.com/
Kent Misegades
Bear Creek Aero Club, Pittsboro, NC
President, EAA 1114, Apex, NC
Diesel Economics
from kmisegades
wrote 46 weeks 5 days ago
Some errors in this article.
1. Thielert now sells the engines under the name of Centurion Aircraft Engines.
2. Hundreds of engine swap STCs exist for light aircraft. Obtaining one for a disel should be no more difficult than for other engine STCs.
3. Continental plans to certify their first diesel at the end of 2012, according to a company official I met at the AERO Friedrichshafen show in April 2012.
4. The Austro engine is based on a Mercedes passenger car turbo diesel that is produced at the rate of 1,500, per day!
If we are to lower the cost of flying, we must tap into large volume markets in other areas. Diamond's use of a car engine as the core of the Austro engine, burning a fuel (jet) produced in vast quantities compared to avgas are two ways of doing this. Hat's off to Diamond, Mercedes and Austro Engines, way ahead of the pack on this.
Kent Misegades
President, EAA 1114, Apex, NC
Director, Aviation Fuel Club
Video: Eurocopter X3 On U.S. Tour
from kmisegades
wrote 46 weeks 5 days ago
Will the X3 appear at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2012?
The Sikorsky X1 counter rotating system appears superior to the X3 to me, which looks somewhat like a Rube Goldberg with the wing-mounted props.
Ground operations with this aircraft will be VERY dangerous to anyone on the ground.
Unleaded Avgas Committee Issues Final Report
from kmisegades
wrote 46 weeks 4 days ago
This committee has done little more than produce paper and stall for more time, but for what? If fuel makers thought there was a growing business for a 100 octane unleaded fuel, it would have been developed years ago, and without a penny of taxpayer money. Europeans already have the solution - a mixture of mogas for the vast majority of airplanes, 100LL for the dwindling number of planes that still need it, and now jet-A for new aviation diesel engines. We're still chasing after unicorns - the mythical drop-in replacement. No wonder most of our new airplanes and engines these days come from Europe.
- 1 of 2
- ››
Newsletter Signup
Marketplace
Find great Products & Services!
Partner Pages
