Jkkinz

Jkkinz

Well Known Member
I just got a chance to read my new AOPA magazine last night. They had an article that I think most of you will find of interest, especially if you are looking for an engine like me.

It appears from the article that we aren't the only ones that are concerned about the availability of 100LL. Both AOPA and the engine manufacturers are looking to find a suitable replacement for 100LL.

This will give you an idea on what Lycoming and Continental are looking at.

Quote:

"The two dominant piston engine manufacturers, Continental and Lycoming, are pursuing a broad array of strategies for an unleaded future. Both are exploring electronic controls that would allow their current and future engines to run on unleaded fuel, as well as new, purpose-built diesel engines designed exclusively for aircraft."

?There are a number of forces that will influence the future availability of avgas?and we want our customers to have as many options as possible,? said Ian Walsh, Lycoming?s executive vice president and general manager. ?At some point in the next 10 years, there has to be an approved, affordable, unleaded avgas. One-hundred low lead is going to be around for a certain period of time, but eventually it?s going to dwindle away?and its price is going to move as a result.?

"Walsh said Lycoming will push to ensure any new, unleaded aviation fuel is compatible with existing engines. But the company also has been working for years on a diesel broadly based on its existing engine designs. And sophisticated electronic controls could allow future engines to use a variety of fuels."

There is lots more in the article...hope you can access it
 
It is an important topic but ...

AOPA has been crying wolf for several years and the supply remains. During Dan Goldin's time as the Administrator of NASA, money was provided to engine companies to develop aircraft propulsion systems. I'm sure information was learned from the studies but nothing revolutionary has come of the effort as viewed by the user. There does not appear to be the creative genius and development motivation needed for a breakthrough. Money is not the answer - necessity may be. As a builder, I think you have to put your head down and make system decisions based on what is available now and push on through if you seriously want to complete and fly your RV. There are so many system interactions that major items like the engine can't be left undecided for long after the basic airframe is done and system installations begin.

Bob Axsom
 
I don't see much new here. Everyone is willing to work towards using a new fuel, but nobody has said "Ok, this is the fuel we are going to use". Plenty of followers, no leaders. In the meantime, the clock is ticking on 100LL.

TODR
 
30 years ago

Bob Axsom said:
AOPA has been crying wolf for several years and the supply remains.
Click to expand...

Actually in one of Paul Poberezny's columns in Sport Aviation in 1978, two of the major topics were FAA user fees and 100LL going away.
 
I've been using 92 Octane unleaded for a couple of years now. This spring I switched my IO-540 to 100% 92 octane where I was mixing it 50/50 with 100ll. Engine runs just fine.
 
The new EPA standard for lead may force the issue and 100LL may change to something like 100 Very Low Lead or go away completely sooner than it would have without the EPA intervention.

An aviation version of unleaded and a standard for it exist but you can only get the gas in parts of Europe. Octane isn't high enough for the engines with the highest compression ratios but would be suitable for all O-320's & 360's in stock compression ratios. Don't know about the 540's.
 
There are solutions cooking, so to speak.

Swift Enterprises is still getting press, and this article has comments from AOPA:

?What we?ve heard sounds very interesting, but there are a lot of open questions,? said Chris Dancy, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which has been briefed by Swift on the new fuel. ?An alternative that has the potential to lower prices?who knows if it will, that?s one of the questions?is something we?re interested in exploring.?
 
Swift may or may not be the solution.

The AOPA article also points out that 30% of the fleet uses 70% of the fuel that requires the high octane of 100LL. I am probably in that 30% since my compression is 9.5:1
 
Yep, I'm at 10:1. I'm an "all of the above" sort when it comes to pursuing alternatives. I'd be ok with using pure ethanol and accept the shorter range, but only if it were widely distributed.

Distribution is one reason I'm hopeful Swift will succeed - because it can be inserted seamlessly into the existing distribution channel. I think their cost estimates are too optimistic - and once you add distribution and taxes it will cost about the same or even slightly more than current 100LL. That would be ok for the extra 10% range.
 
100 Unlead available TODAY

I ran across this on a Harley site I frequent:

http://www.sunocoinc.com/site/Consumer/RaceFuels/260GT100Locations/

Tell me again why we need 100LL?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to be forced to burn low-octane ethanol in your airplane just do nothing. But if you want a choice about whether some type of unleaded AVGAS exists in the future, get on board for ELIMINATING 100LL!

Write your congressman.
 
I keep wondering why they can't just create the same fuel they do now, minus the lead. The article states that 70% of the fleet can run fine without the lead. The 30% that cannot get STC'd for lead free "avgas" could add lead out of a bottle.
 
That Sunoco fuel is $7-8 a gallon. Yea baby. Make me burn that.

Provide a suitable alternative to 100LL then let 100LL go away.

PS..the 30% of the fleet that needs 100 octane (supposedly) uses 70% of the fuel.
 
For the RV community,

7:1 pistons

Possible fuel flow adj

Possible timing adj

Fuel system eval from fuel filler cap O-ring to injector nozzels

=

Regular pump gas with or without ethanol.

We will survive.
 
I believe that is...

jetrep said:
I keep wondering why they can't just create the same fuel they do now, minus the lead. The article states that 70% of the fleet can run fine without the lead. The 30% that cannot get STC'd for lead free "avgas" could add lead out of a bottle.
Click to expand...

....essentially the 93UL grade mentioned in the Lycoming SI.

It would work in all of the engines that were originally certified for the obsolete 91/96 fuel.

Would work in our 320s and 360s that haven't been to the hot rod shop for mods...:)
 
Last edited:
Not even that

asav8tor said:
For the RV community,

7:1 pistons

Possible fuel flow adj

Possible timing adj

Fuel system eval from fuel filler cap O-ring to injector nozzels

=

Regular pump gas with or without ethanol.

We will survive.
Click to expand...


8.5:1 pistons

Standard fuel flow seems to work just fine

Standard timing works fine too.

Basically as long as the seals and O rings in the fuel system are Ethanol compatible (flourosilicone I believe) then E10 works just fine.


Now water coming out of solution at low temps..well i have no evidence one way or the other to show if this is a real issue or not.

The cap O ring looks to be Viton (its brown) which (so I'm told) is not great for E10 but so far seems to be OK..I did change the fuel drain o rings to flourosilicone (blue)

Frank
 
az_gila said:
....essentially the 93UL grade mentioned in the Lycoming SI.

It would work in all of the engines that were originally certified for the obsolete 91/96 fuel.

Would work in our 320s and 360s that haven't been to the hot rod shop for mods...:)
Click to expand...

I confirmed with Lycoming that the IO-540 will run on 93 Octane also. Since I can only get 92 Octane I have run it 100% for a year now.
 
What sort of problems can occur at higher c/r? My h2ad is 9:1. Will I be able to use a combination of 92 and 100LL as an alternative?

My father (who was into 50's era chrysler engines) suggested that switching to unleaded would require hardened valve seats. Are most lycomings aready set with these?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.