That was a turbo aztec, they use to have a "Turbo" decal as part of the trim...the aftermath resulted in an AD to remove the decal to prevent confusion.

 

Diamond DA42 NG flies on biofuel

(AOPA Online 7/01/10 T.A. Horne) Diamond Aircraft Industries and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space (EADS) have teamed to fly a Diamond DA42 NG on algae-derived biofuel. The DA42 NG, which is equipped with a pair of Jet-A-burning Austro Engine AE300 engines, was recently flown at the ILA 2010 airshow in Berlin using the new fuel. The result, Diamond and EADS say, was performance equal to that experienced using Jet-A fuel—but a reduction in fuel burn of approximately 1.5 liters (about 1.6 quarts) per hour. Only minor modifications and adjustments had to be made to the DA42’s engines in order for the airplane to use the biofuel during the demonstration flights. EADS, even though it is not directly involved in fuel production, has been pursuing research for a suitable alternative to fossil fuels...

Diesel owners offered an upgrade

(AOPA Online, 6/01/10, A.K. Marsh) If you already own a Centurion diesel (jet fuel) 1.7 piston engine and want to upgrade to the 2.0, Centurion Aircraft Engines has a deal for you. Owners can get money back for unused flight hours if they upgrade to the next-generation Centurion 2.0 by Aug. 31. After receiving a supplemental type certificate for the installation of 155-hp Centurion 2.0s engines in the Cessna 172, the company launched this current campaign, the upgrade program for pilots with Centurion 1.7 engines. All types of aircraft with Centurion 1.7 engines can be equipped with the Centurion 2.0 engine. This applies to Cessna 172, Piper PA28, Robin DR400, and Diamond DA40 and DA42 aircraft. Since the Centurion 2.0 delivers 135 horsepower and has the same weight and size dimensions at the Centurion 1.7, it has the same supplemental type certificate...

Comment: Sounds good. But who owns one of these?

Firsthand look at one potential 100LL replacement

(AOPA ePilot, 7/08/10) AOPA President Craig Fuller and senior members of the association’s government affairs staff traveled to Ada, Okla., July 7 for a demonstration of one of the possible solutions in the search for an unleaded aviation gasoline. Joining them at General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (GAMI) was Cessna Aircraft Company President and CEO Jack Pelton. “The dilemma of how to remove lead from avgas without affecting safety of flight has vexed our industry for years,” said Fuller. “So it is important that AOPA, as part of a general aviation avgas coalition, look at all potential solutions. That’s why we’re at GAMI again—to get an update on how their work on a fuel alternative is progressing.” (Learn more about GAMI's fuel, G100UL, in "Look, Ma, no lead.") AOPA and the other members of the coalition—the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA), and the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA)—are working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and the FAA to develop and implement a comprehensive process for evaluating all aspects of potential solutions, from refining to actual performance in aircraft engines...

 

I seem to remember John Deakin (who has forgotten more about octane, detonation, and so forth, than most of us dumb throttle pushers will ever know) writing a column at AvWeb about leaded aviation fuel; here it is: Lead in the Hogwash. In short: Captain Deakin argues for 95NL. (Mind you, this is from 2002. I'm sure that things have changed a little since then.)

(As an aside: From a safety perspective (and as someone who used to pump aviation fuel...) I firmly believe that ONE and precisely ONE aviation fuel should be used in aviation reciprocating engines. Nightmares enough about misfueling with two types of fuel on the airport...)

To me, the constant bellyaching about lead in aviation fuel is a lot like the bellyaching ('discussion and implementation' if you prefer) about NextGen: we've been hearing about it for n > 20 years, and it's not ready yet. (That said, I would consider its extinction to be relatively imminent; for whatever reason, apparently now is the time?)

I currently operate an airplane that is type certificated for 80/87, 100LL or 100/130. No modifications on timing are required (as I recall: I don't switch fuels, since the only fuel I can by here in California is 100LL) for the engines to develop rated takeoff/METO power, although I would want to consult my maintenance manual and a familiar A&P before switching fuels out of habit. If you're curious, the engines in question are Lycoming GO-480-F1A6s, 275HP.

This. I'm reminded of the colloquialism for the PRT on the R-3350 Turbo Compound fitted to the Lockheed Constellation: "Parts Recovery Turbine".

I'm not enamored with that...and I wonder what the FAA will think.

 

He had a stroke a year or two ago, and is done flying now. Awesome guy.

Hopefully, he'll get back to writing.

 

Hope so

 

Senate GA Caucus co-chair speaks out on avgas

(AOPA ePublishing, 07/14/10) A premature regulation of lead emissions from aviation fuel could have negative effects on the piston general aviation fleet across the nation. But GA-dependent communities in Alaska especially have a lot at stake, Senate General Aviation Caucus Co-Chair Mark Begich (D-Alaska) told the Environmental Protection Agency July 8. The impacts of a phaseout of lead from avgas would be magnified in Alaska, Begich wrote in a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Begich explained the potential impact of regulations on avgas, called for the FAA to invest resources in developing an unleaded alternative to 100LL, and asked the agency for an additional extension to the comment period on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking so that Alaskans would have more time to review the document and comment.“The EPA should not phase out or eliminate 100LL until a suitable replacement is found,” Begich wrote. “A suitable substitute fuel should be affordable and should not require costly or impractical engine or airframe modifications to the in-use piston engine fleet.” (see story online)

Avgas lead producer allays supply concerns

The only producer of tetraethyl lead for avgas this month reaffirmed its commitment to continue to manufacture and supply the additive for the aviation industry. The Environmental Protection Agency took an early regulatory step this spring that could ultimately result in emissions standards mandating general aviation’s transition to unleaded avgas. The step has prompted some concerns that lead producer Innospec might stop production of tetraethyl lead before the industry is ready to transition to an unleaded fuel; the company issued an information update to allay those concerns...

 

I love it.... only when the EPA stirs the pot a bit do the folks react. Otherwise, they'd be just happy as could be with leaded gas.

The same was true of cars when the government introduced CAFE fuel mileage numbers, and 5 mph bumpers, seat belts, and just about anything else. The sky was always falling.

And then it didn't.

 

EPA: There, no more lead for cars. Avgas, you're next, better come up with an alternative.

Aviation: (*twiddles thumbs for 20 years*)

EPA: ok, no more lead in Avgas

Aviation: ZOMG!! WE NEED MORE TIME!!!!

 

"I didn't do my homework!"

 

LAMA Supporting Ethanol-Free Gasoline.

Flightglobal.com (7/29, Croft) reported, "The Light Aircraft Manufacturers Association (LAMA) is promoting an industry programme to create a premium ethanol-free gasoline for the general aviation community. Called 'eZero', the programme is designed to create sources for ethanol-free gas at airports."

Durban company [ADEPT Airmotive] flies high on biofuel

[Note: this is a repeat from May of this year, but I thought it deserved repeating]

(5/17/10, Sapa) A Durban company has unveiled a light aircraft engine which can operate on biofuel or liquid petroleum gas. “Our technology benchmarks South Africa against the finest aviation engineering in the world,” said Andre Schoeman, chairman of ADEPT Airmotive, the company that developed the engine. The liquid-cooled engine, with advanced electronic engine management, was launched at Virginia Airport in Durban. It was fitted to a South African designed SA Ravin 500 light aircraft. The department of science and technology invested R10.5 million to fund ADEPT Airmotive to a pre-production stage. “Through investment in local research and development, it is fair to say that ADEPT is providing the catalyst for a genuinely world class general aviation manufacturing industry,” said Schoeman. He said the engine produced 320 horsepower, and boasted the lowest lead, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide emissions and noise levels. United Kingdom based AgustaWestland Helicopters also provided financial support to ADEPT's certification process through the European Aviation and Safety Agency.



Will no-lead avgas cost $10 a gallon?

(8/17, A.K. Marsh, AOPA Pilot) I debated awhile before posting this due to an obvious conflict of interest between the author of DieselAir newsletter who just wrote about the future of avgas, and his past consulting work. Andre R. Teissier-duCros was a consultant to an Atlanta company called DieselAir Aircraft formed to equip Cessna 182 aircraft with the SMA line of diesel engines, but the company no longer exists, according to former CEO Leonard Harris. Teissier-duCros is also publisher of the DieselAir newsletter. That said, I checked his background and decided his expertise is worth considering. The bottom line of his survey is this: a lead-free, ethanol-free alternative to 100LL will be available in five to eight years, but it will cost $10 a gallon. That price, the prediction goes, dramatically reduces the general aviation fleet. Manufacturers will begin equipping piston-engine aircraft with diesel engines–especially for fleet sales to flight schools. Many aircraft owners will switch to mogas, and the light sport aircraft equipped with Rotax engines actually prefer mogas. Those that can afford the $10-per-gallon price will continue to fly with the more expensive but environmentally friendly fuel, but will eventually convert to diesel engines when one is available for their make and model. Is that the truth, or a dream found in a PowerPoint presentation on the floor of the SMA board room? Teissier-duCros says it comes from his worldwide survey of opinion...