Talk:Avgas: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:18, 13 February 2017

Swiftfuel was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 May 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Avgas. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about aviation fuels and related matters. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about aviation fuels and related matters at the Reference desk.

Aviation: Engines C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft engine task force.

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

..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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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]

← 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree, thanks for the good job. Jan olieslagers (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: 18 January 2022).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ "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)
^ "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.

[Burns1995-1] "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.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 15:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
+== Latest US unleaded news -- 94 UL.  Possible updates to swift fuel 100SF or 102UL(?) ==
+UL is now sold at some airports
+* https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/september/13/swift-fuels-94ul-put-to-the-test
+* https://swiftfuels.com/fuel/unleaded-ul94-avgas/
+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.
+--[[User:SV Resolution|SV Resolution]]([[User_Talk:SV Resolution|Talk]]) 02:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)