![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Now for a slight change of direction. If you're writing your legislators, one thing to remind them of is that we got the TEL out of gasoline, NOT because it was making us sick (although I was never keen on eating the blackberries that grow right alongside the highways everywhere in Oregon), but because it destroyes catalytic converters. And whatever anybody's opinion about catalytic converters is, nobody is proposing CCs for the tiny piston-powered general aviation fleet. Therefore efforts to remove the TEL from aviation fuel for "environmental" reasons are quixotic and contrary to good sense. Catalytic converters only do in a short time what nature does in the free air over a longer time anyway. They do not change the LONG TERM effect of burning petroleum, which is to release carbon dioxide. We could get rid of automobile emissions control in most of the cars in the continental US with a tiny effect in air quality in most of our landmass. Only six cities-LA, SFO, Denver, the greater NYC metro area, and a couple others would be impacted. They would, however, be VERY impacted if all the car fleet went back to 1963 standards. Los Angeles in particular would be uninhabitable. Where I live Mexicans buy certain 1980s-1990s trucks (primarily) and cars and remove the EFI and factory ECM and backfit them with a carb, vacuum distributor, and remove the cat con, AIR and EGR systems and assorted stuff. Those vehicles are then taken back to Mexico and sold at a profit, as the Mexican infrastructure can maintain them that way. This is great for rural Mexicans, but a little tough in Mexico City. In fact, a good case could be made for a mandate that TEL in avfuel be REDUCED from the current ridiculous levels to something that wouldn'f foul sparkplugs without drastic leaning. THAT would make everybody happy. That is called 80/87 aviation gas. All grades of aviation gasoline are of essentially the same base stock with only the levels of TEL varying. A better solution is the use of common car gas in aircraft with thoroughly refurbished fuel systems, if auto fuels are of sufficient octane rating to assure detonation is not a concern. Better yet was what the Europeans started to do in the late 80s, before giving up because of the perceived factory efforts: replacement of air cooled cylinders with ones having modern combustion chamber designs and liquid cooling jackets. Liquid cooled engines can safely operate on a given fuel at up to two points higher compression ratio as opposed to air cooled ones. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ethanol & capacitance fuel-level sensors | Adam Aulick | Home Built | 4 | May 20th 06 03:28 PM |
The effects of Ethanol on... | ventus2 | Home Built | 35 | May 8th 06 05:45 AM |
MoGas users: Ethanol replacing MTBE | John | Piloting | 167 | May 5th 06 08:31 PM |
Ethanol Mandate for Iowa? | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 155 | October 4th 05 03:17 PM |
Ethanol Powered Airplane Certified In Brazil | Victor | Owning | 4 | March 30th 05 09:10 PM |