VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.


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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-23-2021, 02:28 PM
TXFlyGuy TXFlyGuy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Jazz Town, USA, TX
Posts: 539
Default

Thank goodness for the experimental world!

I am burning both 100LL and 93UL. E0 and E10. As we have the MoTeC ECU (the Gold-Standard per resident forum expert Ross Farnham), I can easily burn either fuel.

Certainly many here can do the same. So why get our panties in a wad over the FAA dragging it's feet on this?

I have had friends literally pass away, waiting on the new fuel that will never happen.
__________________
Annual dues paid - 7-23-21
Future RV8 Owner
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-23-2021, 03:22 PM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 5,504
Default

It is an extremely high bar for entry, to be able to have a drop-in fuel that checks all the boxes for all engines. I for one do not expect to live long enough to see that happen.

What I expect WILL happen is that new fuels will come to the market, outside of PAFI, and engines will be designed/built/purchased that will eat that fuel happily and will begin to gain market share. The others can continue to run 100LL for as long as it's available. Eventually they will be orphaned, and there will be much wailing and gnashing of the teeth and people running about with sackcloth and ashes, but that will be the end of it.

There is no simple or easy way to make the transition. It requires not only a new fuel, but new engine design to burn it. The "turbonormalized" versus turbocharged example given above is a perfect example. One will work fine, the other may not. Some airplanes will have to be re-engined if 100LL finally goes away, there's no choice.
__________________
Greg Niehues - SEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2021 dues paid
N16GN flying 850 hrs and counting; IO360, SDS, WWRV200, Dynon HDX, IFD440, G5
Built an off-plan RV9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-23-2021, 04:36 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,068
Default

Clostermann, good points you make here.

When 115/145 was phased out, operators of mainly ex military radials had to switch to 100/130 and they often had to reduce MAP to do that safely. HP was reduced somewhat. Ditto when 100LL replaced 100/130.

It could be done with the new unleaded avgas if it can't meet similar detonation margins as 100LL but would require POH re-writes again. This seems like not where the FAA wants to head and STCs may happen first before a full, fleet wide drop in fuel is a reality (if it ever happens at all). Some of the candidates have already said as much.

In the Experimental world we see a fair number of people using programmable ignition systems which allow automatic ignition retard with high MAP and re-advancing timing as MAP is reduced. This maintains detonation margins as a slight expense in TO power at sea level.

BTW, The Big Show is my favorite book of all time.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 449.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ



Last edited by rv6ejguy : 07-23-2021 at 08:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-23-2021, 07:35 PM
PilotjohnS PilotjohnS is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Southwest
Posts: 1,685
Default MY Fear

My fear is that what ever unleaded fuel comes out with the STC for the most planes it will still be an uphill battle. The big twins burn lots of gas and that income will be hard to sunset. And I don’t see airports having two avgas fuels available like in the old days.

I really want an unleaded fuel to succeed but my piddly little 36 gals won’t generate the profit margin for most FBOs.
__________________
John S

WARNING! Information presented in this post is my opinion. All users of info have sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for their use.

Dues paid 2021, worth every penny

RV9A- Status:
90% done, 90% left to go
Firewall Forward 5% in work
Fiberglass 0%, thought i was building in metal?
www.pilotjohnsrv9.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-23-2021, 09:00 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,068
Default

An interesting tidbit published in late 2019:

"Swift Fuel’s Unleaded UL94 Avgas is sold nationwide - priced competitively with 100LL and is expected to remain low subject to oil market volatility. Over 110,000 aircraft are already FAA-authorized to use the UL94 Avgas as a “drop-in ready” fuel. Swift UL94 is compliant with all ASTM D7547 avgas specifications and D4814 auto gasoline specifications, making it a highly versatile premium gasoline product in the global marketplace. Note that UL94 avgas is not a full replacement for 100LL for higher compression engines, therefore, only those aircraft with engine requiring 94 motor-octane avgas or lower are compatible – which still represents 65% of the US piston fleet. For more information about UL94, FAA certifications, and the latest listing of airports with Swift Fuels UL94 available, please visit: www.swiftfuels.com"

Searching around a bit, I found several mentions that the Swift avgas was priced well below 100LL.

Also, I was never aware of the German connection with Swift in the USA: https://swiftfuel.eu/who-we-are/

Note the recent news here and the RV connection: https://swiftfuel.eu/news
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 449.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ


Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-24-2021, 04:56 AM
TXFlyGuy TXFlyGuy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Jazz Town, USA, TX
Posts: 539
Default

So exactly how much is this renewable 100R fuel going to cost? The same as 100LL fuel?

And how many years will it take for the FAA (lethargic at best) to certify this fuel?

We all know the answers, and this is why 93UL is a good and viable solution. Distribution is not a problem either, as it's available at every corner gas station.

Just ensure you purchase "Top Tier" grade fuel.

Yes, I have a collection of 5 gallon gas cans and a portable fuel pump.

Just like when I owned a C-172, and burned auto fuel in it. Best decision I ever made.

Now, top off those tanks and fly safe!
__________________
Annual dues paid - 7-23-21
Future RV8 Owner
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-24-2021, 05:43 AM
Carl Froehlich's Avatar
Carl Froehlich Carl Froehlich is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
Posts: 3,135
Default

I suspect the final answer will be along the lines of Swift 94UL. While I can burn 93 ethanol free pump gas I find vapor issues a problem. Swift 94UL is nothing more than 100LL without the lead, so such issues are not present.

Considering the recent comments from the regulatory czars, engines will need to change. Direct injection on my Chevrolet truck standard engine (11.5 to 1 pistons) lets me burns 87 octane pump gas. Why can’t Lycoming do the same?

Carl
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-24-2021, 06:04 AM
David Z David Z is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
Posts: 739
Default

Automotive engines are liquid cooled, therefore much tighter temperature control. Fuel and ignition is also closed loop computer controlled; knock sensors, the whole works. Those engines will destroy themselves if temperature, fuel mixture and tignition timing go places that airplane engines do.
__________________
RV8
Empennage Passed Pre-close Inspection
Wings mostly done
Fuselage at the "porcupine stage"
83126
Dash 8 day job is financing the RV8
Donation till September 2022
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-24-2021, 06:14 AM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 2,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Froehlich View Post
I suspect the final answer will be along the lines of Swift 94UL. While I can burn 93 ethanol free pump gas I find vapor issues a problem. Swift 94UL is nothing more than 100LL without the lead, so such issues are not present.

Considering the recent comments from the regulatory czars, engines will need to change. Direct injection on my Chevrolet truck standard engine (11.5 to 1 pistons) lets me burns 87 octane pump gas. Why can’t Lycoming do the same?

Carl
Liability?
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
N464RL

Dues+ Paid 2020,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-24-2021, 07:55 AM
Carl Froehlich's Avatar
Carl Froehlich Carl Froehlich is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dogwood Airpark (VA42)
Posts: 3,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman1988 View Post
Liability?
Here is example of how our elected officials (read agency political appointees) can drive evolutionarily change. In addition to regulating out lead from 100LL, they should provide statutory liability relief, creating incentive for Lycoming and anyone else to create such engines. In other words provide solutions in addition to barriers.

We can always dream…..
Carl
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 05:13 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.