When Old Aeroplanes Can No Longer Be Flown

Tempest – there is a Focus and Saab engine which is specifically designed to run on bio fuel and has been inproduction for two years plus.

You know there is more oil out there than we have currently used up to this point in time and then some. I was told by a chap in the oil exploration business whom I travelled on the train with every day that some of the early oil fields only had 5% or less of the reserves removed due to the poor technology in use at the time. He said it is entirely feasible to return to many old capped oil wells and with modern methods extracted double or 3 times the original amount of oil. It’s all a matter of cost and technology. Any notion that we will run out of oil globally is not true.

What is barmy is that we waste oil in Power Stations when there are other viable fuels about whereas for transportation needs it fits the bill better than nearly every other method, and should be reserved for that need. On the matter of fuel for Warbirds I think that someone will be able to negotiate a one off run each year with sponsorship with one of the oil companies. They are always looking to save some tax!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry I should use the term “parked” which you may have come across whilst working for your former employer. 🙂

My mate Moller has a few flying cars which he says could be ready “soon”. Fancy one? 😉

Not yet my former employer BR. But happily counting down the days with an ever expanding grin on my face.

Im looking forward to the day I can say (like yourself) I escaped. 😀

Yep ask Moller to put me down for one please. Any idea on the colour and trim options yet? 😉

Sorry I should use the term “parked” which you may have come across whilst working for your former employer. 🙂

My mate Moller has a few flying cars which he says could be ready “soon”. Fancy one? 😉

Weaning the world off fossil fuel will take some time and if supply ran out before that could take place, we would all go back 200 years to steam power. So not only would aircraft from any era be grounded, so would our cars etc.

The likelihood will be that 100LL AVGAS is withdrawn on environmental grounds, this being especially likely given now few commercial operators rely on it within Europe and so objections will be in the minority. Most small, normally-aspirated aero piston engines are capable of running without lead too, with the exception of a large portion of GA consumption is consumed by a disproportionate amount of larger engines.

Therefore we may go the way of Sweden. If you want to read about unleaded AVGAS from Sweden and their AVGAS product for warbirds, then read on here

Grounded cars? Were do you get these flying car contraptions you talk of from Blue Robin? I want one. :diablo:

Weaning the world off fossil fuel will take some time and if supply ran out before that could take place, we would all go back 200 years to steam power. So not only would aircraft from any era be grounded, so would our cars etc.

The likelihood will be that 100LL AVGAS is withdrawn on environmental grounds, this being especially likely given now few commercial operators rely on it within Europe and so objections will be in the minority. Most small, normally-aspirated aero piston engines are capable of running without lead too, with the exception of a large portion of GA consumption is consumed by a disproportionate amount of larger engines.

Therefore we may go the way of Sweden. If you want to read about unleaded AVGAS from Sweden and their AVGAS product for warbirds, then read on here

I’m not really fretting over historic aviation, rather than wondering what will be the consequences of the future scarcity/unavailability of oil. No-one really knows when it will run out due recent vastly to increased use. And when that situation arises, what happens then?

We,for instance, make ethanol from the leftovers from the timber industry…which would normally be left to rot and release it’s CO² anyway. So; nil there. Eh..? No. Someplaces,yes,but not everywhere. We use the forests, the Yanks use corn that would normally,as I understand, become animal feed and come out as CO² and Methane.

But,as you say,the sun has a hand in the heat game. It was warmer in Greenland around year 1000 than it is now. That cannot be blamed on the industry/cars/aviation… Sometimes scientists are so narrowminded they can see through the eye of a sewing needle with both eyes simultanously.. like “gravitational forces between heavenly bodies makes earthquakes everywhere in the solar system…just not on Planet Earth,here it’s just connected to tectonic forces and nothing else. The Moon does nothing,nada,zilch. The quadrillion-ton-heavy ocean rises,but those forces doing that doesn’t touch the land”…riiiight… :diablo:

You raise a valid point about using waste products but I tried to keep the reply simple. Recycling, fuel economy, reducing pollution should all be perused with vigour of course, but as an alternate fuel and a way of reducing the “green-house” effect bio fuels are completely ineffective. No one has published the difference between an engine running on diesel and on bio fuel and shown the comparison charts. If they did the results would not make for good reading. And as all engines are certified running on a very specific fuel which bears no relation to bio fuel I shudder to think what the emissions are like. And fuel economy suffers as the calorific value and specific weights are so different. When they learn how to break down the cellulose waste that is real agricultural or forestry waste without energy input then bio fuel may be produced in sufficient economic quantities that would justify development special engines to take full advantage of the fuel.

And before anyone yells bio fuel think about this. How much CO2 is produced to produce the bio fuel just to power the machines that produce the bio fuel that allows celebrities to publically ease their consciences and moronic councils and govt departments justify additional jobs.

We,for instance, make ethanol from the leftovers from the timber industry…which would normally be left to rot and release it’s CO² anyway. So; nil there.

And all this at the expense of the world’s best agricultural land.

Eh..? No. Someplaces,yes,but not everywhere. We use the forests, the Yanks use corn that would normally,as I understand, become animal feed and come out as CO² and Methane.

But,as you say,the sun has a hand in the heat game. It was warmer in Greenland around year 1000 than it is now. That cannot be blamed on the industry/cars/aviation… Sometimes scientists are so narrowminded they can see through the eye of a sewing needle with both eyes simultanously.. like “gravitational forces between heavenly bodies makes earthquakes everywhere in the solar system…just not on Planet Earth,here it’s just connected to tectonic forces and nothing else. The Moon does nothing,nada,zilch. The quadrillion-ton-heavy ocean rises,but those forces doing that doesn’t touch the land”…riiiight… :diablo:

Look guys, all you have to do is write to your MP and ask some simple but searching questions. Read these links http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html and http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/ and if any of you out there with even a modicum of University science still believe that CO2 is the issue then there is no hope for our education system. You should understand that the whole climate change thing is something we cannot control as change is the normal state of affairs and is being driven by the SUN as it always has been and always will be.

The question I ask is where are the tables of scientific data that back up the climatologists claims about CO2. I have been searching for 12 months now and no one will produce the numbers because the link with CO2 does not exist and the whole thing is based on flawed computer models. Not only those but all the assumptions about the effects of a warming are completely off the wall and not based on any form of fact.

And as someone who worked for the world’s largest manufacturer of diesel engines for 15 year on and off I can tell you all the alternative fuel business again is non scientific nonsense. There was a compelling case for running city buses and city delivery Trucks on gas or maybe duel fuel to control localised pollution levels, particularly NOx and particulates in city areas, but diesel technology has progressed so fast recently that it is easily the best fuel we have at present.

And before anyone yells bio fuel think about this. How much CO2 is produced to produce the bio fuel just to power the machines that produce the bio fuel that allows celebrities to publically ease their consciences and moronic councils and govt departments justify additional jobs. And all this at the expense of the world’s best agricultural land. What’s more the current crop of diesel engines that so much development had gone into to improve fuel economy and cut pollution, do not perform to the same levels on bio fuel, and maintenance issues are not being accurately reported either so operational costs are rising . So you have been warned. So the net effect is actually worse. Muddled non scientific baseless thinking I think sums it up. But of course you are not allowed to say this as you will be accused of ecological vandalism.
This will all come out in the wash in the next few years and especially in light of the extremely cold weather being experienced in the southern hemisphere, so I wouldn’t fret over historic aviation

There is a further problem that the ethanol based fuels are quoted at an octane rating of 82 whereas the boosted engines need at least 100 or higher if possible.

Sounds like a very lean Ethanol mixture or something.. The (R+M)/2-rating of Ethanol ( C2H5OH) is 100… Research octane is 108,Motor octane is 92. Is that 82-rating then it’s lean mixture octane as rated for aircraft? Just trying to come to grips with the differences.. 🙂

The word “airplane” doesn’t appear in the linked article and the emphasis appears to be on greener automobiles–arguably an area where green technology could have the greatest positive impact.

I think warbirds/antique aircraft only represent a small niche in aviation and wouldn’t necessarily be a target for green proponents. I’ve seen some articles on new diesel engines for GA aircraft (a potential for bio-fuel use) so I think modern aircraft would be more affected by new legislation. A ban on the production of petrol fuel (or an eventual halt in production of 100LL from refiners) would be a bigger problem and perhaps it would be good time to explore the viability of ethanol or butanol fuels for warbirds.

Do what the drag racers do and add a little nitro. Alcohol is actually much less hard on parts than even gasoline. It burns with less of a “bang” (if thats not too technical!).

There is a further problem that the ethanol based fuels are quoted at an octane rating of 82 whereas the boosted engines need at least 100 or higher if possible. The Swedes have an 82UL rated fuel don’t they which might help to get rid of the lead content.

The Brazilians use an etnanol based fuel in their crop-sprayers but I don’t see a racing Sea Fury at Reno being happy on that.

The main problem for the Fury would be that the racing engine might not like another 500- 600 hp on top of it’s current state. The tuning window for any engine becomes huge on alcohol compared to gas. But,you’d need to carry about 30% more fuel for the same range (which you can cover faster if the engine likes (and survives) another 10-12 psi boost on top of it’s “combat” setting)…

The best thing we can do is to stop buying cheaply produced Indian and Chinese goods. Even if we did get to being carbon neutral in the UK they’d just build another 20 coal-fired power stations and belch out their own emissions. However the question of which fuel we use is going to be a problem. The Brazilians use an etnanol based fuel in their crop-sprayers but I don’t see a racing Sea Fury at Reno being happy on that. Sonex have proposed an electric-powered VLA and that will be interesting to see how it develops. I wonder what Liberal MP Lembit Opik thinks of his Party leader with his well known interest in aviation (and Cheeky Girls!).

It may simply come down to good PR. I heard recently from someone who should know (but have not checked the figures) that the total CO2 emissions from general aviation in the UK in a year (including airshows) was comparable to a single day of London traffic. Just having got off a bus which seemed to be in jammed-solid traffic between Cannon Street and Oxford Street I can quite believe it. It contributes so little to the UK’s carbon output in relation to the pleasure (and business) it brings that any kind of curb would be ridiculous political posturing of the worst sort. Maybe vintage enthusiasts need to start lobbying the right people and gaining support rather than being content to take a kicking from the more ignorant and bandwagon-hopping quarters of the environmental lobby.

There’s a perception held by all truly stupid people that aviation is for the rich and famous, which also doesn’t help.

The proposal looks like more laughably simple minded green band wagon jumping. The whole global warming/CO2 fad will be long forgotten by then.

I suspect that any party running this line will introduce a ban on production of fossil fueled vehicles, not stopping those already out there being used.

Don’t get too bogged down on the Lib Dem proposal. The link was there to stimulate discussion for thoughts on the future.