Reproduction vs. Replica

[shrike]

[

No avgas? Not buying that opinion. First off electric cars do not suddenly ground jet transports. Secondly the market for avgas is very large as prop driven airplanes make up a large section of an economy.

Thirdly don't forget technology.

Fourthly not a foregone conclusion that the political outcome will be what you suspect.

Fifthly - the switch to unleaded aviation fuel is a matter only of regulation, not technology

[Saville]

Fifthly - the switch to unleaded aviation fuel is a matter only of regulation, not technology

Very true. Many general aviation planes today use "Mogas"

[JohnB]

Saville...

There will still be jet fuel....(The cynic in me will add that even the piliticians, rich folk, movie stars and environmentalists will want their Gulfstreams)...

But unless you can get a Merlin to run on JET A, you'll be in trouble.

[Saville]

Saville...

There will still be jet fuel....(The cynic in me will add that even the piliticians, rich folk, movie stars and environmentalists will want their Gulfstreams)...

But unless you can get a Merlin to run on JET A, you'll be in trouble.

There will be plenty of avgas, or at least high octane fuel for prop driven airplanes for the reasons I describe in the post that you quoted from.

[JohnB]

I don't know.
The only market for AVGAS seems to be the lower end of general aviation...which a part of the population would like to see disappear because of pollution or public perception (aka the "one percenters"). The training market is important and necessary, but even if we don't see a 172 with a PT-6, I think Cessna and engine firms are working on a recip that burns JET A.

I don't know if any piston (prop driven yes, piston no) airliners...or madevac helicopters...or modern AG planes...or fire fighters...or military types...in other words the categories that many, even environmentally concerned folks, would give exception to allow the production of AVGAS.

[Saville]

I don't know.
The only market for AVGAS seems to be the lower end of general aviation...which a part of the population would like to see disappear because of pollution or public perception (aka the "one percenters"). The training market is important and necessary, but even if we don't see a 172 with a PT-6, I think Cessna and engine firms are working on a recip that burns JET A.

I don't know if any piston (prop driven yes, piston no) airliners...or madevac helicopters...or modern AG planes...or fire fighters...or military types...in other words the categories that many, even environmentally concerned folks, would give exception to allow the production of AVGAS.

Avgas is low lead....why would they want to get rid of that?

Just because a segment of the population wants to eliminate cars and airplanes doesn't mean that will happen.

If Lycoming is working on an engine that can run on JET A then you still have a vibrant general aviation. world.

At the Lawrence airport, Jet fuel sells for $3.90 a gallon. 100 LL (avgas) sells for $5.75. If general aviation moved to jet fuel that would only increase general aviation.

[Saville]

And here is an example of what I mean when I say you cannot discount technology:

"Light-powered nano-organisms consume CO2, create eco-friendly plastics and fuels"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/12/ ... and-fuels/

[C VEICH]

My point being that when these aircraft are no longer flying and are reduced to being just static artifacts, then there will be no disconnect because, I suspect, authenticity/originality will be the determining factor when it comes to value.

Why do you make the assumption that these planes (and others) won't be flying 20, 50, 100 years from now?

No assumption on my part, just picked a number out of the air in order to make my point. My point, quoted above, remains the same whether it's five years or a thousand.

[4RG.I.'S]

[quote="Saville"]
Avgas is low lead....why would they want to get rid of that?

Avgas is "low led" not unleaded. The EPA wants it gone. There is a process currently with the FAA to find a replacement without lead while keeping the octane high enough.
There are a couple of companies currently working on non-avgas or gasoline replacement (diesel) fuels to replace avgas. One is DeltaHawk in Racine WI. They have a pretty nice system and are working toward certification soon.

https://deltahawk.com/

That being said, I don't want a diesel in my mustang...

[bdk]

Avgas is low lead....why would they want to get rid of that?

100LL Avgas has 4X the lead that premium leaded fuel ever had in the US. I've done the calculations! I run 25% Avgas in my 1965 Corvette. Cast iron valve seats require lead for longevity.

[Saville]

Avgas is low lead....why would they want to get rid of that?

Avgas is "low led" not unleaded.

Never said it was

That being said, I don't want a diesel in my mustang...

I wouldn't want diesel in your Mustang either

What the EPA wants yesterday is not what the EPA wants today and maybe the EPA won't even exist tomorrow.

[JohnB]

I'm clearly not as optimistic as some of you who think that the environmental activists and their political supporters are going to go away and allow the production of carbon fuels for a market as small (and thus without broad popular & political support) as GA aircraft.

Politics aside, what about the sheer economics of it?
Once all the cars are electric, there won't be a market for gasoline, car or plane.
Who's going to pay for the infrastructure of refineries to produce anything other than diesel and Jet A?

Trying to get back to the original point...about warbirds...

Even if someone does make a piston engine that runs on JET A...and saves part of the general aviation fleet...I don't see it helping antiques or warbirds in particular.
Really, kerosene in a Merlin? Or even a C-65.
How many Merlin powered aircraft fly in the world...less than 500?
Who would pay for the R&D of that modification with such a limited market?

If the politicians, and bureaucrats don't get you, the accountants will.

[Lon Moer]

When I was a young kid my grandfather was showing me how to cut and split firewood and he facetiously told me the story that his axe had once been carried by the great timberman Paul Bunyan.
Of course the axe had been rebuilt many times when the axe head wore out or the axe handle broke. But his axe was an original Paul Bunyan and nobody could prove otherwise.

[Mark Allen M]

When I was a young kid my grandfather was Paul Bunyan. And nobody could prove otherwise.

[4RG.I.'S]

Avgas is low lead....why would they want to get rid of that?

Avgas is "low led" not unleaded.

Never said it was

That being said, I don't want a diesel in my mustang...

I wouldn't want diesel in your Mustang either

What the EPA wants yesterday is not what the EPA wants today and maybe the EPA won't even exist tomorrow.

Yes Saville, I agree that you never said avgas was unleaded, I did not suggest that you did. My point was a reply to your question "why would they want to get rid of that?" when discussing avgas. It is because it has lead in it and that material is and has been for many years an item that is known to cause health issues and has been removed from many things (paint, gasoline, plumbing pipes, solder, etc.). Avgas is now one of the few produced items that has a known amount of lead in it.