Jump to content

Talk:Avgas/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Europe

"In Europe, avgas prices are so high that the entire general aviation industry is being wiped out."

Is that NPOV? David.Monniaux 20:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly not sourced, at least, which such a claim should be. —Morven 20:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Piston-avgas powered general aviation is alive and well in Europe, though considerably more expensive than the United States. Europe's social engineering via high fuel taxes, use and excise/value-added taxes, etc. have placed flying out of the reach of the average person there. Diesel aircraft engines are gaining popularity but are by no means prevalent- the vast majority of piston-propeller driven aircraft in Europe (as in the US) are powered by avgas.

Is 'mogas' a European term? --vaeiou 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Airports here in the northeast United States advertise "mogas". I've also seen it advertised as autogas, though. —Cleared as filed. 23:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
ditto for Canada. -User:Lommer | talk 05:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
true, i've seen a canadian built plane have a label saying "Use only Avgas"Zoobtoob 06:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Mogas is used in Europe in the context of running aircraft on road fuel.BaseTurnComplete 09:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ethanol's impact on auto fuel STCs in United States

In the United States, the phase-out of MTBE has lead to the widespread use of ethanol blending as a substitute. Because most (all?) auto fuel STCs for aircraft specifically prohibit fuel containing ethanol, this essentially renders the STCs worthless (i.e. they no longer enable the pilot to use auto fuel legally.) 66.171.171.141 22:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Any fuel in US Aviation cannot have Ethanol for three reasons: 1) Ethanol can increase the propensity to vapor lock. 2) Ethanol can lead to extra water in the fuel system. The fuel systems (pumps, hoses, et al.) in many common aircraft engines cannot tolerate ethanol without problems. A great example is the fuel lines can swell from it. Inglix the Mad

100/130 & 80/87

Are these fuels actually still available? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly Trivia?

The word avgas actually means exhaust fumes in Swedish. I thought it might be an interesting trivia in this article since exhaust fumes and fuel are not entirely unrelated. //Roger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.188.67 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Phasing out 100LL

"Most piston aircraft engines require 100LL but it is scheduled to be phased out in the United States because of the lead toxicity." -- what schedule? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.195.217 (talk) 04:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Swiftfuel into this article?

It has been suggested that Swiftfuel is not sufficiently notable to stand alone, and should be merged into this article, since there is already a Swift Fuel section here. Anyone want to help sharpen up Swiftfuel in preparation for the merge? Is anyone opposed to the merge? --SV Resolution(Talk) 12:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, although the current text in the separate article would have to be pared down to go in here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can you help get Swiftfuel into shape? Once we see how big the improved Swiftfuel is, we can try the merge on for size. --SV Resolution(Talk) 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer to take the useful text and refs from that article and add them to this article (while leving them in that article, too). Then we can look at it and see if the existing article can just be made into a redirect at that point. How would that be? - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. And I'll (mostly) keep working at Swiftfuel. --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I should have some time later on today to have a look at it, perhaps that will give you some time to finish up on the other article? - Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay I have had a go at it - it was rather easy actually, the existing article had most of what was needed all in one place (good work there!). See what you think and whether anything else should be added from the existing article. If there are no complaints in the next few days then perhaps we can just redirect the existing article to this one? - Ahunt (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
No reason to wait any longer. --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Except that the AfD is still open. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well okay, let's turn it into a redirect then and they can AfD that!! - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Done! - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
That was bold. Cheers. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I just saw it as doing the best thing to improve the encycopedia, really. - Ahunt (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is objecting, so you must be right. The merge makes the AfD moot anyway, and I assume it will soon be closed keep. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Properties of avgas -- do they all have the same density?

The properties section says "Avgas has a density of 6.02 lb/US gallon at 15 °C, or 0.72 kg/l". Is this true for ALL grades of AVgas, or are different grades of avgas made of different blends of hydrocarbons with different densities, resulting in density differences in the final products? --SV Resolution(Talk) 14:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Transport Canada official publication, the Canada Flight Supplement all grades of aviation gasoline (Avgas) have the same densitiy at the same temperature. It lists 1.59 lb/litre, 7.20 lb/imp gal and 6.01 lb/US gal at 15C. There are other temps listed as well. Based on this authoritative publication, I think we can say that all grades have the same density. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow! --SV Resolution(Talk) 16:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Glad you found that of use. If needed I can add a citation to that effect to the article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Density of SwiftFuel is .819 kg/l at 15°C, so that could be a confusing safety risk -- it's much denser even than mogas. --SV Resolution(Talk) 17:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
It seems to have greater energy density, though, so at last in theory you wouldn't have to carry as much of it as avgas for the same range. I think that is spelled out in the article, although perhaps it could be expanded upon. - Ahunt (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
My mistake - the article currently says: "96.3% of the energy per pound and 113% of the energy per gallon as 100LL" so in fact you would have to carry more weight of Swift fuel to go as far. I presume that if the fuel gets into operational use this will be a factor and will be mentioned in aircraft POHs, although the same is true of Jet-A (1.85 lb/litre at 15C) vs Jet-B (1.77 lb/litre at 15C) and those of us who have flown aircraft capable of using both have had to account for this when using the heavier Jet-A. - Ahunt (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Coal-to-liquids

Why is there no mention of avgas derived from coal? I've been working on this technology, and I know that naphtha from direct coal liquefication processes (such as the Bergius process) can be upgraded to gasoline of performance rating as high as 100/130 without addition of lead. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the section "Phase-out of leaded aviation gasolines"? 67.170.215.166 (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All we need are some references and this can be added! - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll do that as soon as I recover from strep throat (from which I'm suffering right now). Hopefully next week. Clear skies to you 67.170.215.166 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
That is no fun, hope you are feeling better soon! - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"changed 'drain' to more aptly titled 'sump'."

Meseemeth the common term is "drain" and "draining water from the fuel tanks". I intend to revert this change but will first wait for some comments. To this non-native speaker of English, a "sump" is a kind of reservoir like the oil pan under a car engine; not what we are talking about here. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case I agree. the photo is of an AA-1 Yankee and the sample is taken from the low point in the tubular spar, which serves as the fuel tank. There is no sump, just a drainline from the fuel tank itself. I will fix it. - Ahunt (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What is the significance of the two numbers separated by a "/" in some grades?

In the case of 100/130 and 80/87 do the pairs of numbers refer to different methods of defining octane rating such as RON versus MON? If that is the case I think it should be explained in the article. Actually no matter what the reason for the "double numbers" they do need to be explained anyway. Roger (talk) 09:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually the rating indicates "lean and rich" octane equivilents. Let me see if I can find a source for that and add it, as you are right, it needs to be exlained. - Ahunt (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ref found, text added. Hope that makes sense now? - Ahunt (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant! Roger (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad that helped. It is always important to have new editors looking over old articles mostly to see what is missing or needs explaining better. Those of us who work on articles regularly seem to often "miss the forest for the trees", so thanks for pointing that deficiency out. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The "fresh eyes effect" is a very effective editing "tool" - I've experienced it on quite a few articles. I might have done the edit myself but I had to go out for a while. Roger (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Add Ext Links section?

Below is a first pass.

External links

dond (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

On 11 Sep 10 I cleaned out the external links, because they all failed WP:EL. Of these ones you have proposed the first three are probably too spammy for this article, being commercial in nature, but the others would probably meet WP:EL for inclusion. - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
We should try to balance it with a few non-US links. Roger (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That would be good, too. - Ahunt (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

POV

Inglixthemad (talk · contribs), please take a couple of steps back and spend a couple of minutes reading up on the basics of how we do things on Wikipedia (and how we don't). You seem very passionate about matters related to the subject of this article, and eager to contribute, and that's all terrific and genuinely welcome. However, contributions must be in accord with core Wikipedia protocols such as Verifiability and Reliable Sources. You're obviously quite an avid fan of John Deakins and he appears to have some apposite things to say on the subject, but the blog article of his that you refer to certainly isn't the final or only word on the subject. Mr. Deakins seems to have some strongly-held opinions and preferences, some of which may well be 100% factual, true, and correct…and others of which may not. Please take a look here to understand why some guy's web page (anyone's, not just Deakins') is not adequate by itself to serve as a source for an assertion. I'm a little troubled by his haughty dismissal of Tetraethyl lead as a countermeasure to valve recession, given that he implicitly admits it's a real phenomenon in engines without hard exhaust valve seats. Of course it's robustly demonstrated that hard seats eliminate the need for lead to prevent valve recession, and Deakins seems to know this, so why the eye-rolling, smarmy, smug dismissal of valve recession per se as a bunch of hooey? It makes him appear biased, and makes me wonder what else he's talking up and talking down to promulgate his opinions and preferences without regard to the facts. Moreover, while he makes vague reference to FAA tests and such, he doesn't provide a way for us to go look at what he says he's looked at. That means we don't know if it really exists, and if it exists we don't know if it really says what Deakins says it says. Do you begin to see the problem?

Moreover, please participate coöperatively in talk page discussions. New sections go below existing sections, and you may not edit existing comments left by other contributors. Please also properly sign your comments. Thank you. —Scheinwerfermann T·C17:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


Talk:Swiftfuel

I have re-directed Talk:Swiftfuel here. To read original text go to the edit page.Petebutt (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

..and Europe?

more then twenty years of research and developpement , but no one word from here.. Please note that the european community is bigger then USA in number of citiciens, numbers of airfields,airports and so on. --Cosy-ch (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a section on Hjelmco Oil and their AVGAS 91/96 in the article under "Phase-out of leaded aviation gasolines". More can be added, all we lack is references as per WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Avgas properties and varieties - Density

The article currently lists a Density and w&B figure for avgas of 6.02 lb/US gal or .721 kg/l This may be somewhat misleading as ; 1. There are several Avgas products with different densities ; eg, Avgas 80 , Avgas 100 , Avgas 100LL 2. The most common Avgas - 100LL is given as .715 kg/l ( 5.967 lb/US gal ) in the air BP handbook of products (2000) 3. For weight and balance the figure used would (I think) generally be 6 lb/US gal - this is what my E6-B uses. Bobpower67 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The numbers in the article are as per the refs cited. Alternatives can be added if more refs are cited to support them, as explained at WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

FAA publication FAA-H-8083-25A - Pilot's handbook of aeronautical knowledge , section 9-7, w&b calculation uses a density of 6lb/US gal for avgas. Bobpower67 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

To convert US gallons to pounds, the Handbook and E6-B use a round number (6) that is close enough for weight calculations. This does not mean that more accurate figures are incorrect. 75.247.155.38 (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Other uses

petrol inhalant study

The following text deserves at most an obscure note in the history of avgas. →

The lower vapor pressure and slightly different composition of aviation gasoline make it less usable as an inhalant. A remote community in Australia where petrol sniffing was endemic replaced automobile gasoline with aviation gasoline for use in all automobiles.[1] Similar success was achieved with Opal fuel an unleaded, low-aromatic mogas produced by BP Australia.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Evaluation of strategies used by a remote aboriginal community to eliminate petrol sniffing". Medical Journal of Australia. 163(2). Menzies School of Health Research, Darwin, NT: 82–86. 1995-07-17. Retrieved 2010-01-04. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ "Opal fuel leads to 70pc drop in petrol sniffing". ABC News Online. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 24 June 2010. Archived from the original on 27 June 2010. Retrieved 24 June 2010.

← minus Removed from the article for lack of encyclopedic value. One-time use in a remote village for a medical study is not notable. I offered the text to an editor of Inhalant. 75.208.197.7 (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious

100/130

Resolved
Extended content

Re the claim that Avgas 100 has been mostly replaced by 100LL. - At all Hawaii, USA airports, Avgas 100 is the only avgas available. Avgas 100LL is generally not available. Thus, I added "some parts of the USA" to the statement. Reference: http://hawaii.gov/dot/airports/library/publications-and-statistics/airports-safety-guide/Airport-Safety-Guide-2010-v3.pdf (as of Jan 2012). - User:Phirst 9-Jan-2012 —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC).

That reference is a bit unclear as it says "Fuel available 100 octane" and doesn't specify the type of fuel. Both 100/130 avgas and 100LL are "100 octane fuel". Do you have a better ref that is more precise? - Ahunt (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As of June 2013, Ahunt is mistaken as to the correct interpretation of 100 sans the LL modifier. Phirst is correct. 100 octane (green) in Utah and Hawaii is not 100LL (blue). 75.247.155.38 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Seeing no further discussion here, I deleted the 'dubious' tag from the claim in the article. 75.208.255.0 (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Compressed Natural Gas section

Resolved

There is a section heading and a single photo about the use of CNG as an aviation fuel, the section contains no actual explanatory text. Does a section about CNG even belong in this article at all? The article is about Avgas, not "various substances that are not avgas". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it looks like the heading was put there to support the photo, but I agree the empty section and photo don't belong here and I will remove them. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Agree, thanks for the good job. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

AOPA statement on "one-tenth of 1 percent" emissions is not about lead

I had removed the statement "AOPA indicated that piston-powered aircraft produce "one-tenth of 1 percent" of national lead emissions and that they are 0.55% of all transportation emissions." because the figures applied to greenhouse gasses, not lead emissions. It was reverted, so I'm adding documentation here. Firstly there's numerous sources that note that avgas (which is ONLY used by piston-powered aircraft) is responsible for over half of all lead emissions. e.g. from the National Institute of Health, http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/121-a54/ (see table). Or From Scientific American:

"smaller, piston-engine planes use enough leaded aviation fuel (nicknamed “avgas”) to account for half of the lead pollution in American skies, making it a real air quality issue." (source)

It's quite impossible that AOPA would be trying to spin 50% as 0.1%. But most importantly, the actual quote comes from AOPA, and the full context makes it clear they are not talking about lead, but about greenhouse gas emissions.

"AOPA filed formal comments in response to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notice concerning greenhouse gas emissions, pointing out that piston powered aircraft account for approximately one-tenth of 1 percent of total emissions. AOPA added that the figure could fall further as technological changes make GA increasingly environmentally friendly." (source)

Hence I am re-deleting that sentence. Oberono (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No further actions on my behalf. Allow me to point out, though, that while some piston-powered planes (and it is an ever decreasing part of the park, both MoGas and diesel are taking over, however slowly as yet in the USA) do use avgas, avgas is also used by certain categories of racing/rally cars - it is in the article somewhere. I have no idea about volumes, though. But piston-powered aircraft are NOT the ONLY users, and not ALL piston-powered planes use avgas. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The bit about racing cars is at the end, next to a "citation needed" tag :) A brief search turns up various hobbyists, and people asking if they could use it because they can get it cheap or free. But I'd modify the "only" to "almost entirely". The amount of lead pollution from avgas is still very small though (from a historical perspective), see: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-irrefutable-proof-we-are-all-being-sprayed-with-poison-lead-in-avgas.3822/ Oberono (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Avgas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest US unleaded news -- 94 UL. Possible updates to swift fuel 100SF or 102UL(?)

94UL is now sold at some airports


The swift fuels website now talks about a 102ul fuel it is currently working to bring to market. the description "0.5 to 0.8 pounds per gallon heavier than 100LL, yet it achieves a 7 to 15% increased range" sounds like the 100SF, which was certified as 102 octane fuel. A paragraph should be added to note this. Perhaps Later, the heading should be changed, and a note of the old name for the fuel should be made.

--SV Resolution(Talk) 02:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Avgas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

=91/96UL is positively wrong

This page is full of speculations and has factual errors. The "fuel issue" is confusing as it is, there is no need to add to the confusion. Avgas UL91 (is the correct naming) is specified in ASTM D7547, see for instance http://www.warteraviation.com/ul-91/ or http://www.total.co.uk/aviation/generalaviation/avgasul91.html who are the only ones producing this fuel today. Avgas 91/96UL is NOT the same as Avgas UL91. Avgas 91/96 UL is produced by Hjelmco Oil in Sweden. Avgas 91/96 UL confirms to Avgas 91/98 as specified in ASTM D910, see http://www.hjelmco.com/pages.asp?r_id=13395. According to Hjelmco, Avgas 91/96 UL exceeds ASTM D7547 (whatever that means because it does not confirm to the standard, it confirms to Avgas 91/98 specc'ed in ASTM D910 and has no lead). Avgas 91/96 UL has been used in Sweden for 30 years, but practically nowhere else. The use of Avgas UL91 in aircraft is detailed by EASA in http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2011-01R2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvingenB (talk • contribs) 09:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Avgas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Russia and its (former) satellites

The An-2 is still much in use, especially for paradropping, and several aerodromes stock the specific fuel that it requires. It would be nice to see a mention, if someone has the knowledge and references. Jan olieslagers (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avgas/Archive_1&oldid=1108198654"