That UL fuel that's "available now" [3] is available now in Sweden only and doesn't work for the 10% of engines that require 100 octane f...
That UL fuel that's "available now" [3] is available now in Sweden only and doesn't work for the 10% of engines that require 100 octane fuel, those 10% of engines likely consuming >50% of the avgas sold. If it was a matter of spending some reasonable (say mid 5 figure per airplane) sum of money to burn a readily available UL fuel, I'd do it. I literally can't do that. There is no current path to certification for me to run that 91/96UL here in the US. It's a technical problem (maintaining adequate detonation margins on a high/hot takeoffs), a regulatory problem (getting the airframe and engine certified for the fuel), and a market problem (getting that fuel sold at airports here in the US). You have to solve the first to get to the second. I believe there are several viable compounds/blends now in testing and we're on to the second phase: getting one or more of them certified by the FAA. Only once that's done is it viable to talk about banning or curbing TEL use. If there's one clear winning fuel, the adoption by the industry will be swift (no pun intended, as SWIFT is one of the contenders, though I don't believe a leading contender). I don't read any of those three AOPA links as AOPA trying to "delay unleaded fuel" in any way, shape, or form. One is an objection to an increase of tax on avgas (certainly one of the things I/we pay AOPA to lobby against), and the other two are presentations describing the technical reasons avgas contains lead now and the status of initiatives underway to create an alternative, unleaded fuel.
Posted by sokoloff on Jul 28, 2015, 7:40 PM
Tags
Related issues
- The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
- The biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
- (My comment is about detached houses).
- The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
- > steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
- Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.5,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (Other)
The biggest problem with having an LLM do this, from what I've observed of at least frontier models, is that the way they are trained...
NewThe biggest problem with MOND is that it was hand-crafted with additional parameters simply to fit the data.
(My comment is about detached houses).
The biggest problem with this is that I can't run my company's own internal benchmarks against this API, because they will be trained int...
> steer Claude away from over-engineering parts of the system in response to hypothetical concerns.
Why is there no comparison with FLUX 3 Image?
> our Git monorepo was developing an annoying problem Sentences like this are so common from people using monorepos that I am convinced ...
Why is there no contact form?
That UL fuel that's "available now" [3] is available now in Sweden only and doesn't work for the 10% of engines that require 100 octane f...
That UL fuel that's "available now" [3] is available now in Sweden only and doesn't work for the 10% of engines that require 100 octane fuel, those 10% of engines likely consuming >50% of the avgas sold. If it was a matter of spending some reasonable (say mid 5 figure per airplane) sum of money to burn a readily available UL fuel, I'd do it. I literally can't do that. There is no current path to certification for me to run that 91/96UL here in the US. It's a technical problem (maintaining adequate detonation margins on a high/hot takeoffs), a regulatory problem (getting the airframe and engine certified for the fuel), and a market problem (getting that fuel sold at airports here in the US). You have to solve the first to get to the second. I believe there are several viable compounds/blends now in testing and we're on to the second phase: getting one or more of them certified by the FAA. Only once that's done is it viable to talk about banning or curbing TEL use. If there's one clear winning fuel, the adoption by the industry will be swift (no pun intended, as SWIFT is one of the contenders, though I don't believe a leading contender). I don't read any of those three AOPA links as AOPA trying to "delay unleaded fuel" in any way, shape, or form. One is an objection to an increase of tax on avgas (certainly one of the things I/we pay AOPA to lobby against), and the other two are presentations describing the technical reasons avgas contains lead now and the status of initiatives underway to create an alternative, unleaded fuel.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.