Comments on: Alternative Fuel in the Aviation Industry

By: Amiani

Amiani — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:43:02 +0000

I think its time the aviation industry gave back to mother nature part of the returns… going green is but a start… BIG UP!

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:24:31 +0000

Sorry, but the above remark is wrong: Jet fuel (JetA) is more like Diesel or kerosene, not at all like gasoline. It has no octane rating, it has a cetane rating – basically the opposite of octane. You want diesel and Jet A to ignite spontaneously under heat and pressure which is exactly the opposite to high octane gasoline.

Avgas (aviation gasoline) used to have much higher octane ratings, up to 130 in the old days. That stuff is no longer available and the Avgas you can get from your local airport is essentially no different as far as octane goes from the stuff at your local gas
station.

More octane does not mean more HP – it simply means you can run higher compression ratios without the risk of detonation. Fueling up your car with high octane gas makes zero difference to its power, unless you also raise the compression ratio.

Just wanted to explode that myth….

By: Jon Brown

Jon Brown — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:55:31 +0000

That is a good observation Kenneth. Unfortunately the aviation indsustry does not use typical gasoline. The gasoline most typically used by the public is 87 octance (for regular gasoline), Jet fuel has over 2 times the octane rating. That is why most people would fill up their muscle cars with jet fuel back in the 60s and 70s. More octane equals more horsepower.

By: Kenneth B. Smith

Kenneth B. Smith — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:01:06 +0000

Everything I have read says that ethanol and methanol can be used as jet fuel, but butanol would be a better choice. The vapor pressure, flash point and temperature at altitude would be some of the deciding factors.

Alcohol will get comparable mileage to gasoline when compression is 12 / 1 or 14 to 1 in a recip engine. It also has better performance in a jet at 30,000 feet or higher with less pollution than jp-4.

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:15:06 +0000

Boeing is actively supporting biofuels along with the airlines for many reasons. Stabilization of supply and cost being the priority. However, the environmental benefit is icing on the cake.

By: Rick Lanese

Rick Lanese — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:09:03 +0000

I agree with Ray The Money Man. The aviation industry definitely has a better chance of pushing this forward than the auto industry, especially with the problems the auto industry has. Thats why they call him Ray The Money Man!. Thanks a bunch, Rick L.

By: chris

chris — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:59:47 +0000

This is good, at least someone is doing good by it.

By: Eujal Nathan

Eujal Nathan — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:20:51 +0000

I think concentration should be give to both aviation as well as the vehicles on the ground. Accepting the fact that pollution because of aviation is much higher. Even then a common source of alternative should be found since vehicles for land transports are growing in same phase like the aviation industry by knowing the fact aviation industry constitutes only 1/9 th of the total air pollution. I believe the gases which causes global warming including chloro-fluro carbons and carbon monoxide are released more from ground. Scientists should be aware of this fact!.

By: Ray The Money Man

Ray The Money Man — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 19:39:34 +0000

Sounds like the Aviation industry has the advantage of forced standardization which may move in ahead faster than the auto industry.

Great post!