Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

The future of aviation and the environment

Hello everyone ! I am new here, I would like to know what you all think about the future of aviation and all the environnement issues ? Do you that it could have an negative impact on aviation, like, reducing private flying etc ?
Does aviation have a future ?
Thanks

Astrioorion wrote:

Does aviation have a future ?

Yes, of course. Some years ago (to lazy to use google at this late hour…) the first airliner flew in Australia with fuel made of algae grown in hydrocultures. Too expensive as long as oil is in cheap and plentiful supply but one of many possible sources for “green” fuel. Next the fuel consumption of aircraft (especially airliners) can almost be halved by returning to propellers instead of jets. Either turboprops or ducted fans which were developed already in the 1980-1990ies. The travel time will slightly be higher but passengers would certainly prefer the cost benefit. And then there are plenty of other options to power aircraft with environmentally friendly fuel.

Astrioorion wrote:

Do you that it could have an negative impact on aviation, like, reducing private flying etc ?

The majority of private flying in my part of the world (in terms of hours spent doing it) must be gliding and paragliding. These have no environmental issues at all and will continue just like always. For powered flying there is the electric propulsion (with electricity produced at the airfield through solar generators on the hangar roof in the best case) which we will see coming in the very near future for the training environment. Which may also benefit from better and cheaper simulators that will reduce the training on the real aircraft to the absolute minimum. I would think that 10 hours of actual flying should be sufficient.
Powered flying over larger distances (where battery powered electrical drives will be inadequate) will have to switch to green fuel – either biodiesel which is already available today – or some form of hybrid drive or combustion cell generated electricity. This will drive the cost up initially due to necessary investments. With a clever strategy (like flying electrical planes with self generated electricity) could result in almost cost free flying.

EDDS - Stuttgart

What_next already gave a pretty comprehensive answer. I agree that private aviation will switch to green methods of propulsion once these are established and affordable. The switch is technologically easier than for commercial aviation because it is easier to build small and light electricity powered planes than large ones.
Electric planes as testbeds are already flying. They inevitably have a short range but that makes them no less suitable for training and and typical “burger runs” than conventional aircraft. The kind of long-range touring done by many EuroGA members as well as business GA will probably remain the turf of conventional aircraft for some time, because these operations are more difficult to power any other way than with conventional fuel due to the energy density required. If one day we can fit purpose built fusion reactors into every vehicle this may change, but then we already have reached a nearly StarWars Level of technology…

Generally, I think the combination​ of eco friendly propulsion, GPS approaches, remote controlled towers and further reduction in aircraft noise production could actually be beneficial for general aviation as there will be less reasons to close an airport any time of the day (lower noise pollution, less staff required) and every airfield in the world can have an instrument approach at little to no additional cost.

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany

Astrioorion wrote:

Does aviation have a future ?

Yes.

A motorglider in the hands of a glider pilot is extremely efficient for touring. A motorglider in the hands of a SEP pilot (flying it as a SEP) is not that efficient. There are several electric motorgliders available, but they are not cheap, and most of them cannot be flown without glider license. Even with a SEP you can at least half the fuel consumption on certain days, if you take advantage of the air, thermals and waves instead of constantly fighting it.

The things that destroy more efficient flying is:

  • IFR (and IFR-like VFR on autopilot) – flying in straight lines at the same altitude kills all possibilities of using the air to your advantage.
  • Time is money – Time in the air cost money, you want to minimize it.
  • Schedules – you have to be at the destination on time. You cannot simply “fool around”
  • Aircraft – a SEP is not built for this kind of flying. You need a more motorglider like thing (low drag, high L:D)
  • Training – a PPL pilot has no clue whatsoever about using the air to his advantage
  • Airspace – Lack of free airspace, too much controlled airspace.

Nevertheless, today you can get yourself an electric motorglider and travel across, not the world maybe, but at least use it for as efficient a travel as you can. A piston engine powered motorglider, or a TMG will also do, much cheaper and more practical for everyday use.

Last Edited by LeSving at 20 May 10:43
The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

A piston engine powered motorglider, or a TMG will also do, much cheaper and more practical for everyday use.

A two-seater touring motor glider with a small diesel engine will consume less petrol than a motorbike at twice the speed, considering it can travel from A to B in a straight line while any road vehicle needs to zig-zag and will be held up by traffic and speed restrictions. So as long as motorcycling is still possible, we must not fear for aviation!

Last Edited by what_next at 20 May 10:52
EDDS - Stuttgart

And also – to have significant (positive) impact on the environment, the biggest impact comes from reducing the impact of what many are doing by a lot (e.g., halving CO2 or NO exmissions of people driving cars or heating their homes). Then comes changing the impact form what many are doing by a little (e.g, reducing speed limits), and what few are doing by a lot (e.g., reducing airline flying emissions).

Improving what very few are doing by a little makes no difference.

In addition to that, aviation is one of the hardest areas to remove liquid fuels because of its weight sensitivity.

If there are restrictions on private flying in small aircraft for environmental reasons, they are most likely driven by politics or “fairness” consideration (aka envy), not any significant positive impact on the environment.

Having said that – there are some things that could be done and should be done much faster, such as the introduction of a lead-free 100 octane fuel. At this point, there are little technical hurdles left, and the obstacles are mainly bureaucratic.

Last Edited by Cobalt at 20 May 13:24
Biggin Hill

what_next wrote:

So as long as motorcycling is still possible, we must not fear for aviation!

I would say, so long as motorcycling is still possible without Noise Certificate, we must not fear for our airplanes with.

Cobalt wrote:

Improving what very few are doing by a little makes no difference.

Yes, few pilots and their airplanes are still being harassed by politicians in order not to have to take action against the majority of motorcyclists and motorists.

Cobalt wrote:

– there are some things that could be done and should be done much faster, such as the introduction of a lead-free 100 octane fuel.

AFAIK there are still engines in our planes which do need fuel mixed with lead.

Berlin, Germany

Thank a lot for your reply !

what_next wrote:

A two-seater touring motor glider with a small diesel engine

Funny thing. I’ve been looking for a new boat. A simpler, faster and lighter (smaller). This means an outboard engine. When looking at marine outboard engines, this cannot be done without bumping into Evinrude and their two stroke E-TEC engines. Evinrude only makes two stroke engines, even though the whole industry has since long changed to 4 stroke. It turns out their two stroke E-TEC engines is better in all respects (better fuel consumption, better emissions, better torque, better acceleration). They have pretty much reinvented the two stroke engine. The key is their direct fuel injection using so called stratified injection on lower power. VW use the same technique on their 4 stroke FSI engines. In essence, it makes the engine behave very much like a diesel. It can run “LOPer than LOP” so to speak (with excess air in the combustion chamber), and it can do this on low power without throttling the air as you normally would do on a gasoline engine, not on a diesel (although I’m not sure how this actually works, and what the effect is, an a two stroke). The 2 stroke engine is of course also much simpler and lighter than a 4 stroke, much fewer moving parts

Evinrude is now a part of BRP, and BRP have already transferred the E-TEC technology to Rotax snowmobile engines. Their E-TEC outboard engines are from a 2 cylinder 15 HP to 300 HP V6. Any one of the 3.4 and 6 cylinder engines could in principle be used on aircraft. They would be much lighter and simpler than the average Lycoming, with better fuel economy and higher reliability. Compared with a diesel, it would weigh close to nothing. IMO it is really odd that this technology isn’t used in aircraft. Maybe some day Rotax will revitalize their two stroke aero engines also, who knows?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

As others have pointed out, piston powered GA and the environment have only one real world connection – politics based on largely imaginary factors. Airliners burn a huge amount of fuel so maybe there’s a vague real world connection there, but I doubt it.

@LeSving, Mazda does the same direct injection plus (somehow) unthrottled operation at partial power. The quasi stratified charge trick plus high rpm warm up allows them to separate the catalyst from the engine, which In turn allows an exhaust header and tuned exhaust.

If anybody knows how the unthrottled partial power gasoline engine works (I believe Mazda calls their version the Mazda Miller Cycle) I’d be interested to know. The only thing that comes to mind is vastly advanced ignition timing to allow the ultra lean charge to burn.

I spent the day working on my O-320, very therapeutic. I changed rubber parts that were decades old although still serviceable. Also pulled the valve covers for the first time ever in my ownership, checked valve lift, inspected for corrosion and everything looks fine after 46 years in service with no overhaul. No visible particles in the oil filter and compression 78/80 on all four. I don’t want any of the above tech on my aircraft. A little fuel burn (at $4.15 a gallon, taxed) is of no consequence to me in relation to the added maintenance cost that I’d see over the long life of a plane. My annual and repairs this year will be about $300 including parts.

I would however be interested in a new direct injection two stroke motorcycle

Last Edited by Silvaire at 21 May 01:06
109 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top