VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-31-2009, 05:26 PM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 5,145
Default 100LL replacement may be here already...

This was just put up on Avweb.com today - looks like Continental is seeing the handwriting on the wall. Wonder how long before Lycoming starts the same testing to maintain their market share?

http://www.avweb.com/avwebbiz/news/C..._200048-1.html


Teledyne Continental said on Wednesday that it has just completed a round of flight and test-cell trials that suggest that 94UL may be an adequate replacement for 100LL, whose existence is threatened by continued availability of tetraethyl lead. TCM says it will push for approval of 94UL as the leading replacement for 100LL. 94UL is essentially 100LL without the TEL additive. It meets vapor pressure and other avgas specs, but without the lead, it doesn't match 100LL's octane, which is typical about 103 straight from the refinery.



But is 94 sufficient octane to avoid detonation on a hard, hot climb on a summer day? Teledyne said in a press conference that it hasn't expanded its testing into all corners of the flight envelope but four flight tests in a normally aspirated A36 Bonanza have revealed no cooling or detonation issues thus far. The company also said it doesn't think Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) will be required to make the engines run properly on 94UL.TCM has not, however, conducted a standard FAA climb-cooling test, which is the regime in which detonation usually occurs. Further, said Continental, it's not opposed to autofuel as a replacement for 100LL provided that certain standards are in place to assure consistent specs with regard to octane, vapor pressure and especially oxygenate additives such as ethanol. Although pure ethanol has been approved for limited use in modified aircraft engine in Brazil, it's considered a bad actor for aircraft use because it's strongly hydrophilic, lacks the energy content of avgas and causes corrosion in aluminum parts and degradation of soft seals and gaskets. High-octane autofuel does, however, meet basic octane requirements for normally aspirated engines. Owners who use it are finding it increasingly difficult to find autogas without ethanol blended in.

What about Continental's large-displacement turbocharged engines, such as the TSIO-520 and -550 series? Will 94UL work for them? TCM says stay tuned; it hasn't done the flight testing to confirm that. Others who have, however, have had difficulty passing the climb cooling barrier without encountering at least light detonation. TCM began its alternate fuel testing about a year ago and it plans to push for ASTM approval of 94UL as the transparent replacement for 100LL. That application will be submitted in a few weeks and could be approved as early as next fall. However, that's just the beginning of 94UL's journey to becoming a certified fuel, if it ever does. It will still require FAA certification and approval and at least a paperwork shuffle so that owners can legally use it in some airplanes. TCM's testing took place in an IO-550-B powered Bonanza, but it has done test-cell work with the 200-series engines, the O-470 and O-520 series.
__________________
Greg Niehues - SEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2020 dues paid
N16GN flying 700 hrs and counting; IO360, SDS, WWRV200, Dynon HDX, 430W
Built an off-plan RV9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-31-2009, 06:19 PM
KirkGrovesRV8 KirkGrovesRV8 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Paradise,Pa S37
Posts: 735
Default

I am still pulling for Swift Fuel
__________________
All the Best ;-)
RV-8
RV-9 once the kids are older
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-31-2009, 06:37 PM
az_gila's Avatar
az_gila az_gila is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
Question Isn't that essentially...

...the same as the certified Superior Vantage engine? Which is basically a Lycoming clone?

Data below from the FAA approved TCDS - check (Note 7) - which has the same CYA words as the Continental write up...

-------------------------------

Fuel
Aviation Gasoline

ASTM D910, Min Grade
91/98 (lead optional)

Motor Gasoline (R+M/2) (See Note 7)
ASTM D4814, Min Octane 91 (no alcohol)

NOTE 7. Experience has shown that there is a higher probability of vapor locking on aircraft, especially on those equipped with fuel injected reciprocating engines when operating with high volatility fuels such as motor gasoline. Aircraft fuel system designs for the powerplant installation of these engines may need to incorporate special design features or enhanced cooling to accommodate operation with high volatility fuels such as motor gasoline. The aircraft fuel system hot weather testing requirements of FAR 23.961 must be successfully accomplished for each aircraft powerplant installation design of these engines (both carbureted and fuel injected) to obtain approval for operation with motor gasoline, reference AC 23.1521-1B.

---------------------

...and Lycoming already approves 91/96UL in the O-360, which is a EU (Swedish?) fuel - Sounds similar to 94UL
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-31-2009, 08:36 PM
asav8tor asav8tor is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Seattle, wa
Posts: 679
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by az_gila View Post
...and Lycoming already approves 91/96UL in the O-360, which is a EU (Swedish?) fuel - Sounds similar to 94UL
It's been there all the time on the data plate(91/96). Why now does anyone think this is new? (not you Gil)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-31-2009, 08:59 PM
Bob Axsom Bob Axsom is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,685
Default If it doesn't go faster I'm against it

If it doesn't go faster I'm against it. Surely there is a single real scientist in this world of formally educated and self educated experimenters that can come up with a fuel that can produce more performance from the engines in the world's piston engine aircraft fleet. If you read Jimmy Dolittle's book "I Could Never be So Lucky again" you know this approach has been around for quite a while.

Bob Axsom
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-31-2009, 09:06 PM
rocketbob's Avatar
rocketbob rocketbob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 8I3
Posts: 3,564
Default ho hum :)

I figured out about 800 hours ago that 87 octane works just fine.

There is one thing about Swift fuel thats a minus... its made from sorghum, and its seasonal, so they can't get enough of it to make it in the winter months.
__________________

Please don't PM me! Email only!

Bob Japundza CFI A&PIA
N9187P PA-24-260B Comanche, flying
N678X F1 Rocket, under const.
N244BJ RV-6 "victim of SNF tornado" 1200+ hrs, rebuilding
N8155F C150 flying
N7925P PA-24-250 Comanche, restoring
Not a thing I own is stock.

Last edited by rocketbob : 03-31-2009 at 09:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-31-2009, 10:36 PM
frankh's Avatar
frankh frankh is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Posts: 3,547
Default Ho hum here too

Haven't tried 87 octane (EI's extend max timing out to 38 degrees BTDC I think) but I use 91 octane with and without ethanol.

My airplane hasn't seen 100LL for 500 hours

Discalimer..I have wingroot mounted fuel pumps only!!!

Frank
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-01-2009, 01:46 AM
az_gila's Avatar
az_gila az_gila is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
Smile No..the FAA approved...

Quote:
Originally Posted by asav8tor View Post
It's been there all the time on the data plate(91/96). Why now does anyone think this is new? (not you Gil)
...91/96 on the data plate is for leaded fuel with 2 ml/gall of TEL (lead)

Not the same as the UL stuff...

Only slightly OT

This is a picture I took last month of the source of all of the TEL on our 100LL.
It's the refinery/chemical works in Port Sunlight, Cheshire, England, taken from across the River Mersey (the one from the 60's song......)
The typical English winter weather shown is a little different from the usual Tucson weather.



If this place burns down, or blows up, most of us will be in deep flying doo-doo...
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-01-2009, 07:33 AM
jonbakerok's Avatar
jonbakerok jonbakerok is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 361
Default This is great news!

I've been saying this for years -- the solution is just remove the lead. The resulting fuel is safe for 80% of the fleet and costs a dollar less per gallon -- and will get even cheaper over time because any refinery can make it and any pipeline can carry it.

Anyone who NEEDS 100 octane can already buy unleaded 100 racing fuel just about anywhere in the country. When 100LL goes away, Lyc and Cont will certify it for the few engines that need it and the big airports will start to carry it.

And finally, the few people who think they actually need racing fuel will be the only ones who have pay for it.

I can't wait.
__________________
Jon Baker
RV6A sold, RV4 in-progress
Houston
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-01-2009, 08:32 AM
rocketbob's Avatar
rocketbob rocketbob is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 8I3
Posts: 3,564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankh View Post
Haven't tried 87 octane (EI's extend max timing out to 38 degrees BTDC I think) but I use 91 octane with and without ethanol.

My airplane hasn't seen 100LL for 500 hours

Discalimer..I have wingroot mounted fuel pumps only!!!

Frank
I have an Electroair, and have a timing meter set up to monitor it. The only time the timing falls below 25 degrees is at reduced manifold pressure settings (below 17"), and you typically don't see that until you're above 12K. At that point you're at 50% power or lower anyway, so its next to impossible to hurt the engine.
__________________

Please don't PM me! Email only!

Bob Japundza CFI A&PIA
N9187P PA-24-260B Comanche, flying
N678X F1 Rocket, under const.
N244BJ RV-6 "victim of SNF tornado" 1200+ hrs, rebuilding
N8155F C150 flying
N7925P PA-24-250 Comanche, restoring
Not a thing I own is stock.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:00 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.