100LL Future and Engine Purchase Concerns

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by F1R

Does anybody have the accurate records for the make up of 130 Octane gasoline that was used in the 1940's when Mustangs, Spits and other merlin powered AC used it?

Here is the spec for the 150 octane stuff -

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...grade-spec.pdf

And lots of history on the introduction of 150 to replace/supplenet 130 octane fuel in WWII

Lots of links in the footnotes -

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rade-fuel.html

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by RV7A Flyer

Isn't it *still* used by the air racers?

Many of the fast guys are running auto race fuel which is higher octane and oxygenated as well.

[RV10inOz]

Just a slip of the keyboard.......... when G100UL gets out there (soon) it will perform like the old purple gas and I have seen the test reports from Dixie Labs.

Lots of good things..........but geez it takes time........

[Mudfly]

Sorry, I apologize ahead of time for this post, but I only get on this soapbox once a year.
For those interested, here's an update (June 20, 2019) on the PAFI program from the FAAs website. https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/
I attended the PAFI forum at OSH this year hosted by reps from EAA, AOPA, and FAA. Unfortunately, no announcement of any breakthrough was discussed. According to the panel members, tetraethyllead (TEL) was the "magic bullet" in the 1920s and it remains so today. They stated there is no simple fix and were actively inviting new participants with ideas to join the program. A question was asked by someone in the audience as to why eliminating AVGAS was such a big deal since, "in the big picture", it produces such a small amount of lead emissions. The panel agreed that is is a very small amount of lead however, "it's a done deal". Suits filed from environmental groups beginning in 2006 are still on the books, and while no action has been taken since around 2012, the fact remains. The panel mentioned several times "we are committed to removing lead from AVGAS". They are probably required to make that statement not knowing who is in the audience.
All that said, AVGAS probably not going away anytime soon, I understand that. However, I do find it interesting that engine manufacturers continue to build, and more importantly we continue to BUY, engines that require a fuel the FAA, EPA, and other agencies continue to state they are committed to eliminate. I wonder if a better path for the last several years may have been spending time and money (I think $35 million was the amount congress gave the PAFI program), in researching and developing engine solutions rather than a replacement fuel. During that time, airplanes would have continued to burn 100LL, and as TBO's and service life of these engines were reached it may have been possible to replace with an updated engine that doesn't require AVGAS. My vote would be for a JET A because of world-wide availability, ease of refinement and distribution, and only one pump required at the airport. Don't get me wrong here. I don't want AVGAS to go away anytime soon, I sure enjoy flying my buddies RV10 when I get the chance. However, I want a long term solution so future generations can have the opportunity to enjoy flying small airplanes like we have. I'm just not convinced a replacement fuel is the answer.

[rv6ejguy]

Several big companies continue to work on a 100LL replacement both within and outside PAFI. It takes a long time to gather test data which will satisfy the FAA. Some have not submitted anything to the FAA yet while the formulations undergo independent testing.

It will have to have similar density and other characteristics to be approved. Not so easy as it seems.

No way new engines will replace what's in the fleet now, any time soon. Not practical on so many levels, both technical and economic.

[Mudfly]

For those interested, here's the latest update from the FAA on the 100LL replacement program (PAFI).

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets...m?newsId=14754

[airguy]

Originally Posted by Mudfly

For those interested, here's the latest update from the FAA on the 100LL replacement program (PAFI).

https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets...m?newsId=14754

Looks like the program is in high-speed neutral, just as expected.

[Capt]

I don't believe we have to worry about LL fuel not being avail for quite a long time yet! The issue might be cost in the future, availability is the least of our worries. So fly fly fly

[Sue]

Maybe some of our colonial brothers from accross
the pond would chime in here. A few years ago in
Great Britain they allowed you to burn ?auto fuel ?
in several types of aircraft. One of the restrictions
was not flying above ?4000 ft. Run down to your
neighbor hood gas station fuel up and take off in
the summer months then climb up to cool off and
you would be surprised how many people encounter
ruff running engine problems that are probably the
onset of vapor lock problems.

[airguy]

Originally Posted by Sue

Maybe some of our colonial brothers from accross
the pond would chime in here. A few years ago in
Great Britain they allowed you to burn ?auto fuel ?
in several types of aircraft. One of the restrictions
was not flying above ?4000 ft. Run down to your
neighbor hood gas station fuel up and take off in
the summer months then climb up to cool off and
you would be surprised how many people encounter
ruff running engine problems that are probably the
onset of vapor lock problems.

It can certainly be done, but not as simply as some folks would think. I've been operating almost 600 hours now on 91 premium autofuel (with ethanol) at altitudes in the mid-teens quite regularly, and I've been to FL210 with it once just to see what would happen, all was good. But to be fair - I did make some mods to my fuel system to allow me to do that, it's a little more complicated than just "run down to the neighborhood gas station".