Talk:Avgas/Archive 1

Archive 1

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

• Swift Enterprises Ltd, Developer of 100SF
• General Aviation Modifications, Inc, Developer of G100UL
• PHILLIPS 66® AVIATION FUELS, Supplier of 100LL
• EPA, Petition Requesting Rulemaking To Limit Lead Emissions from General Aviation Aircraft
• EPA, Lead Emissions from the Use of Leaded Aviation Gasoline in the United States, Technical Support Document
• EPA, PBT National Action Plan For Alkyl-lead
• FAA, Aviation Gasoline Status and Future Prospects, PPT

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)

Archive 1