Tetra-ethyl lead

[flyersfan31]

So enough of the technical crap....

What are the odds that someone will be producing measurable batches of burny stuff to replace 100LL that will be suitable for high-compression engines like, say, the TIO540 series?

Extremely likely? Unlikely?

Any day now? Not for 10 years?

At comparable prices? BOHICA?

 

[gismo]

Time. ??
Both engines are running about the same rpm at cruise,, 3300 or so. The aircraft engine has a higher piston speed because of the longer stroke. Higher speed means a shorter time for detonation to manifest itself... Now, I can see the fact that a larger combustion area can have a harder time creating a proper flame front which can lead to 'knock',,, but time ? Maybe you know something I don't.

For the most part, the geared aircraft engines I've seen use the reduction to lower prop RPM rather than raise crank RPM although there's some of both in many applications. But I don't believe that 3300 is a normal cruising (crankshaft) RPM for most geared engines. Many have a max RPM of 3200 and a recommended cruise RPM in the 2500-2800 range.

 

[N801BH]

All you guys make good points on flame propagation but it is all theory that someone read somewhere, heard from a friend, saw scribbled on a wall, overheard about it in a bar from the cocktail waitress etc. No one has done ANY testing to prove your ideas about this product or any other No Lead substitute so all your talk is just 'hearsay'. I have throughly and personally tested my set up. I didn't hire a test pilot or fancy, high priced engineers. I just set out a well defined scope of testing parameters, explored them and documented the results. I commend you on your great ability to wear blinders though. <G>

You guys keep buying prebuilt motors for your planes and hope to be able to buy fuel when 100LL dries up. I will keep building motors and flying my planes that have overcome that obstacle.. Over and out.

Tailwings guys and gals.

Ben.
www.haaspowerair.com

 

[flyersfan31]

All you guys make good points on flame propagation but it is all theory that someone read somewhere, heard from a friend, saw scribbled on a wall, overheard about it in a bar from the cocktail waitress etc. No one has done ANY testing to prove your ideas about this product or any other No Lead substitute so all your talk is just 'hearsay'.

Do you, uh, know what Ted does every day?

 

[SCCutler]

All you guys make good points on flame propagation but it is all theory that someone read somewhere, heard from a friend, saw scribbled on a wall, overheard about it in a bar from the cocktail waitress etc. No one has done ANY testing to prove your ideas about this product or any other No Lead substitute so all your talk is just 'hearsay'. I have throughly and personally tested my set up. I didn't hire a test pilot or fancy, high priced engineers. I just set out a well defined scope of testing parameters, explored them and documented the results. I commend you on your great ability to wear blinders though. <G>

You guys keep buying prebuilt motors for your planes and hope to be able to buy fuel when 100LL dries up. I will keep building motors and flying my planes that have overcome that obstacle.. Over and out.

Tailwings guys and gals.

Ben.
www.haaspowerair.com

Ben:

I went to your website, and I can (reading between the lines) infer that you are providing parts 'n' pieces for experimental aircraft engines - looks like a V8 form factor with a very robust looking gilmer belt reduction drive - but nowhere at all, on the site, does it actually say that.

Am I just slow?

 

[N801BH]

Do you, uh, know what Ted does every day?

Yup. I have the utmost respect for him as he does know his stuff, probably more then the rest of you put together. You need to remember this discussion has been based around using the Sunoco No Lead racing fuel for aircraft engines. He has said he has not tested it.

I seem to remember a very popular aircraft with a large bore motor, I think it was 5.250 bore, That plane was speced for 115-145 only fuel.. When that dried up they switched to 100LL........... It still flys today all over the world on 100LL..... Without a problem....... So downgrading is not as big a problem some seem to think it is.

That plane.




P-51 Mustang... Next question please.

 

[N801BH]

Ben:

I went to your website, and I can (reading between the lines) infer that you are providing parts 'n' pieces for experimental aircraft engines - looks like a V8 form factor with a very robust looking gilmer belt reduction drive - but nowhere at all, on the site, does it actually say that.

Am I just slow?

No sir.. you are not slow at all. I can provide firewall forward powerplants for 'EXPERIMENTAL' planes.... You guys with Certified ones are at the mercy of god, errr FAA.. Well,that's the same thing...

Ps. If you do go back to my website , on the second page there is a link to 2 videos. The one thats 25 minutes long spells out the whole concept.

Ben.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

I seem to remember a very popular aircraft with a large bore motor, I think it was 5.250 bore, That plane was speced for 115-145 only fuel.. When that dried up they switched to 100LL........... It still flys today all over the world on 100LL..... Without a problem....... So downgrading is not as big a problem some seem to think it is.

That plane.




P-51 Mustang... Next question please.

I already explained how they did that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't do base engine design and it's been nearly 35 years since I actually ran an Octane test on a CFR engine.

 

[Ted]

Yup. I have the utmost respect for him as he does know his stuff, probably more then the rest of you put together. You need to remember this discussion has been based around using the Sunoco No Lead racing fuel for aircraft engines. He has said he has not tested it.

Actually, I haven't stated that I have or have not tested any particular fuels, and I won't. I don't think it's a secret what I do for a living to people on this forum, and therefore I think everyone here can respect the fact that I can't talk about specifics of what I may or may not do related to my job.

I seem to remember a very popular aircraft with a large bore motor, I think it was 5.250 bore, That plane was speced for 115-145 only fuel.. When that dried up they switched to 100LL........... It still flys today all over the world on 100LL..... Without a problem....... So downgrading is not as big a problem some seem to think it is.

That plane.

P-51 Mustang... Next question please.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of running the P-51s on 100LL, but I think it goes without saying that certain engines are going to have more problems than others running on a lower anti-knock fuel. Look at the fact that Lycoming 540s currently make anywhere from 235 to 350 hp, and at one time made as much as 450 hp (although 380 hp was the max for a direct drive). So, I would generally believe that an engine of a given displacement running more power is more prone to detonation. Point is, it's not all created equal, and you can't take one example to say that just because it worked for one aircraft it will necessary work for all. There are a lot of variables that need to be accounted for.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

Point is, it's not all created equal, and you can't take one example to say that just because it worked for one aircraft it will necessary work for all. There are a lot of variables that need to be accounted for.

After thinking on this, I have to disagree.

You could apply the same solution (restricting manifold pressure) to any aircraft and solve the "octane" problem. And you would get pretty much the same final result for any aircraft- an airplane that may look nice, but can no longer fulfill it's original mission.

 

[jesse]

All you guys make good points on flame propagation but it is all theory that someone read somewhere, heard from a friend, saw scribbled on a wall, overheard about it in a bar from the cocktail waitress etc. No one has done ANY testing to prove your ideas about this product or any other No Lead substitute so all your talk is just 'hearsay'. I have throughly and personally tested my set up. I didn't hire a test pilot or fancy, high priced engineers. I just set out a well defined scope of testing parameters, explored them and documented the results. I commend you on your great ability to wear blinders though. <G>

You guys keep buying prebuilt motors for your planes and hope to be able to buy fuel when 100LL dries up. I will keep building motors and flying my planes that have overcome that obstacle.. Over and out.

Tailwings guys and gals.

Ben.
www.haaspowerair.com

Not a great salesmen are you? About all you've done is convince me to never buy anything from you. You can show your knowledge and help others learn while remaining positive. It seems you haven't figured that out. Just my opinion.

 

[jesse]

After thinking on this, I have to disagree.

You could apply the same solution (restricting manifold pressure) to any aircraft and solve the "octane" problem. And you would get pretty much the same final result for any aircraft- an airplane that may look nice, but can no longer fulfill it's original mission.

There are few GA aircraft that are "overpowered" as soon as you start restricting manifold pressure you basically make them worthless. You can't start stealing power from a lot of the piston twins out there.

Not only couldn't you fulfill it's original mission - you probably couldn't meet the certification requirements without really making the airplane worthless as far as payload, etc.

 

[Tom-D]

I seem to remember a very popular aircraft with a large bore motor, I think it was 5.250 bore, That plane was speced for 115-145 only fuel.. When that dried up they switched to 100LL........... It still flys today all over the world on 100LL..... Without a problem....... So downgrading is not as big a problem some seem to think it is.

That plane.
P-51 Mustang... Next question please.

Have you ever flown a V-1710 or the Griffen on 115/145/ and 100LL and have first hand comparison ?

I have run the 3350 Wright, on 115/145, and 100/130 and know the de-rating that requires, and when on 100ll the 3350 can not exceed 50-Hq. when on 115/145 we can run 65Hq that's a difference of about 500' per min climb rate.

the T-28 operators that I know who run 100LL are also restricted on the MAP they can run.

 

[flyersfan31]

Not a great salesmen are you? About all you've done is convince me to never buy anything from you. You can show your knowledge and help others learn while remaining positive. It seems you haven't figured that out. Just my opinion.

 

[N801BH]

Not a great salesmen are you? About all you've done is convince me to never buy anything from you. You can show your knowledge and help others learn while remaining positive. It seems you haven't figured that out. Just my opinion.

Sometimes you need to 'stir the pot' to get reactions from passive people. I see I was successful too. Passive people can't and won't build experimental planes as they take alot of self control and personal dedication to get something finished. Out of hundreds and maybe 1000 or more people who are signed onto this list I can count on one hand the ones who have completed a kit plane and flown it. Care to comment on why that is.

As for you not wanting to buy something from me.... well there is a 99.999999999999% chance your experimental wont get finished, or even started either so I don't lose any sleep over a lost sale that will never exist. Just my humble opinion.

Ben ' fixin to get banned from POA' Haas.

 

[dmccormack]

Sometimes you need to 'stir the pot' to get reactions from passive people. I see I was successful too. Passive people can't and won't build experimental planes as they take alot of self control and personal dedication to get something finished. Out of hundreds and maybe 1000 or more people who are signed onto this list I can count on one hand the ones who have completed a kit plane and flown it. Care to comment on why that is.

As for you not wanting to buy something from me.... well there is a 99.999999999999% chance your experimental wont get finished, or even started either so I don't lose any sleep over a lost sale that will never exist. Just my humble opinion.

Ben ' fixin to get banned from POA' Haas.

Building an airplane doesn't appeal to me right now for several reasons:

• I like to fly any chance I get
• No place to work on such a task
• Minimal free time
• Insufficient expertise
• I know myself and I might cut a corner if it made flying it two weeks sooner a possibility

 

[N801BH]

Building an airplane doesn't appeal to me right now for several reasons:

• I like to fly any chance I get
• No place to work on such a task
• Minimal free time
• Insufficient expertise
• I know myself and I might cut a corner if it made flying it two weeks sooner a possibility

I hope the rest of the answers are as honest and straighforward as yours. I am betting they will not be though,

Tailwinds.
Ben' soon to be gone" Haas

 

[dmccormack]

With an overpowered fighter like a P-51 the resulting loss of power doesn't create many problems in it's civilian role but a similar reduction would affect the certification of many GA airplanes.

I don't understand why an airplane's design would require operating at the margins...?

 

[Dan Thomas]

Sometimes you need to 'stir the pot' to get reactions from passive people. I see I was successful too. Passive people can't and won't build experimental planes as they take alot of self control and personal dedication to get something finished. Out of hundreds and maybe 1000 or more people who are signed onto this list I can count on one hand the ones who have completed a kit plane and flown it. Care to comment on why that is.

As for you not wanting to buy something from me.... well there is a 99.999999999999% chance your experimental wont get finished, or even started either so I don't lose any sleep over a lost sale that will never exist. Just my humble opinion.

Ben ' fixin to get banned from POA' Haas.

The percentage is 90% unfinished. It's a sad figure, and some of that is due to lack of motivation or perseverance, but many of us also recognize the dangers in large expensive projects. One of the saddest homebuilts I ever encountered was a beautiful airplane at a fly-in that had the typical EAA placard on it describing its type and performance and so forth, and on the "Cost to Build" line he had "my family." He had spent so much time and money on the thing that his wife took the kids and left him for someone who would look after them properly. When a family walks out an airplane suddenly becomes what it really is: just a machine.

Dan

 

[gismo]

I hope the rest of the answers are as honest and straighforward as yours. I am betting they will not be though,

Tailwinds.
Ben' soon to be gone" Haas

My reasons are similar:

• I enjoy flying more than building airplanes
• My free time is limited
• I know I lack the patience and perseverance needed
• There aren't a lot of homebuilt designs that offer what I need

I have assisted several friends (and a relative) with homebuilt airplane construction and both admire and envy their ability to work doggedly for several years on one. I also was once a part owner of a homebuilt (purchased not constructed) that I helped rebuild significant parts of, but between the limited scope of the effort and spreading the work over a group of 8 pilots this was nowhere near the challenge of building any airplane by myself. For me a long term project might last a whole year but even that's stretching my tolerance a bit. I am also jealous of the opportunity to include non-certified gadgetry and would love to be able to design and build things like an autopilot for my own airplane.

That said, if someone ever comes out with a viable kit that provides twin engine redundancy combined with the speed, range, and payload of my Baron I'd consider building one if I could realistically complete it in less than a year working 20 hours per week!

 

[gismo]

I don't understand why an airplane's design would require operating at the margins...?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Certification requirements are all about margins and any airplane design is a compromise between one set of margins and another. WRT fuel octane and detonation margins, the intent is to push close to the line under "worst case" conditions without crossing to the extent of an engine failure. WRT performance, many certification requirements and POH specs are directly affected by engine power. Reducing the available power to accommodate a lower octane fuel would dictate retesting with the lower power and providing revised performance data for the POH.

 

[Mooneymike]

When I think of homebuilding and homebuilders... that nutty professor from Back to the Future comes to mind. Sorry but I just had to say that. Let the whining begin.

 

[dmccormack]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Certification requirements are all about margins and any airplane design is a compromise between one set of margins and another. WRT fuel octane and detonation margins, the intent is to push close to the line under "worst case" conditions without crossing to the extent of an engine failure. WRT performance, many certification requirements and POH specs are directly affected by engine power. Reducing the available power to accommodate a lower octane fuel would dictate retesting with the lower power and providing revised performance data for the POH.

"available power" is a function of more than fuel, so what other factors could be adapted to meet the requirements of lower octane fuel?

 

[Ted]

After thinking on this, I have to disagree.

You could apply the same solution (restricting manifold pressure) to any aircraft and solve the "octane" problem. And you would get pretty much the same final result for any aircraft- an airplane that may look nice, but can no longer fulfill it's original mission.

I think we're saying the same thing, just a bit differently. My wording was probably not optimal.

Ben's implication was that you can come to a solution that still leaves the engine workable. My point is that is not true, as certain engines you could likely run on a lower octane fuel with little or no change in operating requirements, others you would not be able to do that with.

You are correct that if there's a power reduction, you're probably ending up with an airplane that can no longer perform its original mission, and thus has questionable value.

I think I've already answered why building an experimental is not a viable option for me, it's pretty much the same as Lance. But buying a pre-built experimental is an option for me, and a Lancair 320/360 is on my list. One day...

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"available power" is a function of more than fuel, so what other factors could be adapted to meet the requirements of lower octane fuel?

On your Chief, if octane were to be a problem, your practical options would be to limit the manifold pressure (throttle), retard the spark, or reduce the compression.

None of these options would be good for the performance of the aircraft.

 

[flyersfan31]

Sometimes you need to 'stir the pot' to get reactions from passive people. I see I was successful too. Passive people can't and won't build experimental planes as they take alot of self control and personal dedication to get something finished. Out of hundreds and maybe 1000 or more people who are signed onto this list I can count on one hand the ones who have completed a kit plane and flown it. Care to comment on why that is.

Wow. Great attitude.

I say homebuilders are antisocial at best, and perhaps sociopathic, withdrawing from society into their little garage or hangar beavering away on their airplane because they can't trust anyone but themselves, whilst mumbling to themselves about all those pathetic passive people.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Sometimes you need to 'stir the pot' to get reactions from passive people. I see I was successful too. Passive people can't and won't build experimental planes as they take alot of self control and personal dedication to get something finished. Out of hundreds and maybe 1000 or more people who are signed onto this list I can count on one hand the ones who have completed a kit plane and flown it. Care to comment on why that is.

As for you not wanting to buy something from me.... well there is a 99.999999999999% chance your experimental wont get finished, or even started either so I don't lose any sleep over a lost sale that will never exist. Just my humble opinion.

Ben ' fixin to get banned from POA' Haas.

Wow! Like Jesse said, you need to learn some marketing.

One of the first rules- don't PO potential customers or their friends. Their friends will almost always have more influence. If I choose to build, I'll look elsewhere for a powerplant than your company. Word of mouth is important; if someone were to ask me what I thought of your company, I wouldn't be complimentary based on the remarks you've made in the thread.

 

[gismo]

"available power" is a function of more than fuel, so what other factors could be adapted to meet the requirements of lower octane fuel?

To maintain detonation margins without changing the physical characteristics of the combustion chambers requires some combination of lower temps (induction air and/or CHT), a mixture further from a bit rich of stoichiometric, and retarded ignition timing (there are some other techniques like water injection that I'm ignoring for obvious reasons). All of those will reduce the available power. Other than increasing RPM or displacement, I don't think there's any way to produce the power available with 100LL when using a lower octane fuel if the engine needs 100 octane in the first place. Increasing RPM comes with all sorts of issues (transonic tips and their noise/drag, prop integrity, engine longevity etc) and more displacement isn't a practical option either.

 

[dmccormack]

To maintain detonation margins without changing the physical characteristics of the combustion chambers requires some combination of lower temps (induction air and/or CHT), a mixture further from a bit rich of stoichiometric, and retarded ignition timing (there are some other techniques like water injection that I'm ignoring for obvious reasons). All of those will reduce the available power. Other than increasing RPM or displacement, I don't think there's any way to produce the power available with 100LL when using a lower octane fuel if the engine needs 100 octane in the first place. Increasing RPM comes with all sorts of issues (transonic tips and their noise/drag, prop integrity, engine longevity etc) and more displacement isn't a practical option either.

(Where's the can of worms smilie?)

The trend in all other engine development is more power from less displacement with the same fuels (cars, power tools, lawn mowers, generators, etc, etc)

 

[Everskyward]

I hope the rest of the answers are as honest and straighforward as yours. I am betting they will not be though,

I wouldn't even attempt to build an airplane for the same reason that I finally hired someone to complete my basement finish which I started 15 years ago.

 

[Trapper John]

(Where's the can of worms smilie?)

The trend in all other engine development is more power from less displacement with the same fuels (cars, power tools, lawn mowers, generators, etc, etc)

Modern cars, motorcycles and the like have sophisticated engine management systems, and other goodies like variable valve timing that allow that to happen. At the glacial pace of GA engine development, we'll all be worm food before we see that kind of stuff in our aircraft.

And, after a big flap about wildly optimistic power ratings on small engines, they're now pretty much just listing displacement, and not hp lately...


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

Modern cars, motorcycles and the like have sophisticated engine management systems, and other goodies like variable valve timing that allow that to happen. At the glacial pace of GA engine development, we'll all be worm food before we see that kind of stuff in our aircraft.

And, after a big flap about wildly optimistic power ratings on small engines, they're now pretty much just listing displacement, and not hp lately...


Trapper John

True, but overinflated power claims isn't new.

A conservative approach is understandable in the airplane market -- after all, the products have a much longer expected useful life.

But it seems artificially constrained.

 

[Trapper John]

A conservative approach is understandable in the airplane market -- after all, the products have a much longer expected useful life.

But it seems artificially constrained.

I suppose it's a combination of things. 10 million or so cars sell a year, but maybe only a few thousand piston airplanes/engines, so market size is probably a biggie, along with the brain damage factor of getting FAA approval, etc.

The only "single lever" piston GA plane I can think of is the Mooneys with the Porsche engine, and that one didn't set the world on fire, for whatever reason. There's the "Lasar" ignition that can be retrofitted to smaller displacement engines, but it's just spark control and is kind of expensive for what you get, IMO.


Trapper John

 

[dmccormack]

I suppose it's a combination of things. 10 million or so cars sell a year, but maybe only a few thousand piston airplanes/engines, so market size is probably a biggie, along with the brain damage factor of getting FAA approval, etc.

Trapper John

Which is why I thought Honda had a good thing going -- but decided to pursue the VLJ market.

Honda is fairly conservative, yet would seem to be a good source for GA innovation.

 

[N801BH]

Wow! Like Jesse said, you need to learn some marketing.

One of the first rules- don't PO potential customers or their friends. Their friends will almost always have more influence. If I choose to build, I'll look elsewhere for a powerplant than your company. Word of mouth is important; if someone were to ask me what I thought of your company, I wouldn't be complimentary based on the remarks you've made in the thread.

I respect your comments and need to respond. I am an up front guy, I DON'T sugarcoat anything. My marketing concept is ,I state all the advantages of my ideas and I also admit its flaws. All the data I spoke about is 100% correct.
Popular marketing used today is to promise the world, get a signed commitment and then deliver the least amount possible just shy of getting sued.. That ain't me. This all started when I suggested a brand of no lead fuel to use as an alternative to 100LL. Without exception that fact was beat down. No tests where done on this fuel to prove whether it would work or not. It was just my suggestion it might be a option. I even said that maybe Sunoco could reformulate it to raise the octane level a bit. I do apologize to Ted as I asked if he did any testing and since he didn't respond I took that as NO. My mistake. I don't need to market anything to anyone on POA as I am busier then I ever wanted to be so feel free to tell all your friends to stay away. I could use the break,.

What's the ol saying ?

You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people all the time............................

Life goes on.

Ps. I am still amazed I have not gotten the boot from the moderators yet for my unpopular views.

Cheers.
Ben.

 

[gismo]

(Where's the can of worms smilie?)

The trend in all other engine development is more power from less displacement with the same fuels (cars, power tools, lawn mowers, generators, etc, etc)

I'm not saying you can't design an engine that would produce the same power on 94UL that existing engines get on 100LL. And octane is still an issue with automobiles with may requiring more than 87 "pump octane" for full performance. In a car it's no big deal if the ECU dials back the spark (and boost if turbo'd) to allow reilable operation on lower octane than the design intended but that's just not a very good option for aircraft engines.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The only "single lever" piston GA plane I can think of is the Mooneys with the Porsche engine, and that one didn't set the world on fire, for whatever reason. There's the "Lasar" ignition that can be retrofitted to smaller displacement engines, but it's just spark control and is kind of expensive for what you get, IMO.

At least one maker of diesel aircraft engines (Thielert) had a single lever control - this also solves the octane / lead problem when installed.

 

[dmccormack]

At least one maker of diesel aircraft engines (Thielert) had a single lever control - this also solves the octane / lead problem when installed.

..didn't solve the whole staying solvent thing, though...

 

[gismo]

I respect your comments and need to respond. I am an up front guy, I DON'T sugercoat anything. My marketing concept is ,I state all the advantages of my ideas and I also admit its flaws. All the data I spoke about is 100% correct.
Popular marketing used today is to promise the world, get a signed commitment and then deliver the least amount possible just shy of getting sued.. That ain't me. This all started when I suggested a brand of no lead fuel to use as an alternative to 100LL. Without exception that fact was beat down. No tests where done on this fuel to prove whether it would work or not. It was just my suggestion it might be a option. I even said that maybe Sunoco could reformulate it to raise the octane level a bit. I do apologize to Ted as I asked if he did any testing and since he didn't respond I took that as NO. My mistake. I don't need to market anything to anyone on POA as I am busier then I ever wanted to be so feel free to tell all your friends to stay away. I could use the break,.

What's the ol saying ?

You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all the people all the time............................

Life goes on.

Ps. I am still amazed I have not gotten the boot from the moderators yet for my unpopular views.

Cheers.
Ben.

Unpopular view are well tolerated here (at least by the moderators). Certain types of "unfriendly" behavior OTOH can be grounds for banishment. While your posts have been a little strong I can't say you've come close to crossing the line that leads to getting the boot.

And FWIW, at least by my reading your posts WRT Sunoco racing fuel came across more along the lines of "it will work, you don't know what you're talking about if you don't believe me" than "I'm suggesting that it might be an option" but that could just be me. I hope we can both agree that none of us know all there is to know on that subject.

 

[Trapper John]

At least one maker of diesel aircraft engines (Thielert) had a single lever control - this also solves the octane / lead problem when installed.

Did the Thielerts control the prop from the single lever? I've never seen one in person.


Trapper John