Yes this is a big one. An aircraft engine will run at 60% power or more for almost the entire flight. A car engine is typically running at far lower power levels than that.

An O-360 is a direct drive engine, the propeller is attached directly to the crankshaft. And that's the case for most light aircraft piston engines. Some (especially more modern ones) have a single speed reduction gearbox.

The only thing an aircraft piston engine does is turn a propeller through the air, and that absorbs nearly 100% of the power produced by the engine. Swinging an 80 inch diameter propeller at 2700 RPM will use a lot of power and required a lot of torque.

You raise variable pitch propellers or constant speed propellers. These are used on some piston engine aircraft (the rest use a simple fixed-pitch propeller) and all turboprop aircraft. They do vary the pitch of the blades to find the most efficient angle both in climb and at higher speeds, due to the mechanics of how a propeller works. But this doesn't really affect the fact that a ton of torque is required to turn the propeller.

The pedantry here is incredible...

Dash-8: 1258 built

ATR-42: 497 built

ATR-72: 1000 built

Beech 1900: 695 built

Saab 340: 459

Those would be all the most popular turboprop airliner types in service today, totalling 3909 aircraft built, ever. And we're talking Part 121 aircraft here, not Part 135. Though adding Part 135 would very likely add to my point.

There have been over 11,000 737s built, over 10,000 A320s, and tens of thousands of other Boeing and Airbus types. Plus 4000 CRJs. Plus 3000 Embraers of various types.

But if you want to pretend my comments aren't valid because I used the word "jet" instead of "turbine" and thus excluded a small proportion of the global airliner fleet, go right ahead.

So when talking about airliners, we're mostly talking about jet engines, which, by the way, are a subclass of turbines.

And your aircraft type had the limitation, but I would guess most modern airliners would not have 100LL as an available alternative fuel at all. Did the airplane you flew have T56 engines?

Turbines can run on all different kinds of fuels, including gasoline/avgas. It doesn't mean it will produce its rated power, or will be as reliable as when running jet fuel, but it will run. Avgas/gasoline will definitely ignite from compression alone. Remember, Avgas is leaded so it won't ignite from the heat of compression in a piston engine at its designed compression ratios.

C-130s for example have a section in the flight manual about alternate fuels. They list things like diesel, kerosene, gasoline, avgas, etc, but they're all intended for extreme circumstances (stuck somewhere without jet fuel and need to get out now) and all have maintenance requirements after using them.

That being said, I highly doubt modern commercial turbofans are certified to run these alternate fuels. But from a technical standpoint, they would most likely run.

It's not used in airliner flights because that's not the fuel the engines were designed for.

Can a jet engine run on avgas? Probably, but it's probably not allowed by the certification of the aircraft, and thus is not allowed by the regulations. Some military aircraft have allowances for short runs using alternate fuels like avgas, actual kerosene, diesel, etc, but I doubt most civilian airliners have this option at all.

Edit: Formatting

This is 100% wrong. Tetraethyllead as a fuel additive has nothing to do with protection against icing. It's all about increasing octane and reducing detonation.

Airplane engines are designed for torque at low RPM vs horsepower at high RPM, hence the very large bore sizes in aircraft engines.

My Honda Civic has a 1.5L (91 cu in) turbo inline 4, and pulls 174 hp at 6000 rpm, and 162 lb-ft of torque.

A Lycoming O-360 aircraft engine is normally aspirated with a 5.89L displacement, and produces 180 hp at 2700 rpm, but 350 lb-ft of torque.

Pretty massive difference.

I've still got two from grade 7, 32 years ago. Still remember the combinations.

My dad researched doing exactly this for 30 years. They had several treatments go to clinical trial, though I believe none of theirs have gone forward.

It's known as gene therapy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy

The same lab used a genetically modified virus to develop an oral rabies vaccine that is in wide use today.

This was dad's boss: https://nrc.canada.ca/en/stories/foundations-discovery-honouring-work-canadian-researcher-dr-frank-graham

I'll second this. I've had mine for almost 10 years. I've only replaced my pump once, and that was because I did a dumb thing, not because the pump failed. The filters can get expensive, but there are non-brand name filters on Amazon that work fine.

Oooh...I didn't know that...I still have one of the glass containers with no lid...maybe I'll try to get a new lid!

Glasslocks have worked very well for me over the last ~15 years. I've thrown out maybe three of 20 in that time, two because the lids broke, and one because the glass broke when dropped (surprise!).

We use them all the time, fridge, freezer, microwave, whatever, and the whole thing goes in the dishwasher. Very happy with them.