Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

tspear said:
material incompatibility also affect ethanol
Click to expand...
AGE-85 solved this issue in the 90s.

Read the 13 YEAR LONG Baylor / FAA study where engines were flown on 100% ethanol with zero issues after rejetting to account for the need for more ethanol than avgas (engine was running lean in tests, then was rejetted and no further issues).

There is an STC to convert 152s to run 100% ethanol. Its a done deal. But there is no 'new money' in running ethanol as its already made. There is no VC money payout like there is with a completely new brew like UL100 etc.

The only reason there is an issue is the FAA and special interest.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Please see this post: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/2-stroke-expectations.152825/post-3693946

To save people looking for it, here is a screenshot. E85 has most of the issues of ethanol. Please scroll up and down from the link above as there are other issues with ethanol as well (water miscibility, effects on fuel systems, and so forth).

View attachment 153306
Pfarber never did disclose the flight school or other information requested in that thread.
Click to expand...

The STC is easily searchable and you can freely contact Baylor Aviation as the principals of the STC still work there.

Don't make YOUR LAZINESS my problem. I already have the emails, name, and STC number.

YOu didn't even read the study did you? Just threw stuff into the air and somehow tried to blame me for your laziness.
 
tspear said:
We have enough engineers on here, I have read/heard a few times that multi-fuel vehicles (e.g. E85 and mogas) are less efficient with E85 only because they are not tuned for it. In Brazil with alcohol, they run much higher compressions as a result they effectively extract close to equal power.
1. Is this correct?
2. This would require a complete replacement of all engines in the fleet....

Tim
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that it’s not just about the engines; the aircraft fuel systems also have to be considered. For example, although Lyc 360s and 320s can use mogas, many low-wing planes cannot due to vapor lock issues.

So far, GAMI-gas seems like the only solution, though a less than ideal one.
 
pfarber said:
AGE-85 solved this issue in the 90s.

Read the 13 YEAR LONG Baylor / FAA study where engines were flown on 100% ethanol with zero issues after rejetting to account for the need for more ethanol than avgas (engine was running lean in tests, then was rejetted and no further issues).

There is an STC to convert 152s to run 100% ethanol. Its a done deal. But there is no 'new money' in running ethanol as its already made. There is no VC money payout like there is with a completely new brew like UL100 etc.

The only reason there is an issue is the FAA and special interest.
Click to expand...
Here we go again...

1783806670857.png
 
pfarber said:
The STC is easily searchable and you can freely contact Baylor Aviation as the principals of the STC still work there.

Don't make YOUR LAZINESS my problem. I already have the emails, name, and STC number.

YOu didn't even read the study did you? Just threw stuff into the air and somehow tried to blame me for your laziness.
Click to expand...
Same S*** different year

I did read the paper and STC. You refer to a mythical email and a mythical flight school in the other thread. You never showed what statements I posted in the other thread were untrue. (https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/2-stroke-expectations.152825/post-3693946 )
 
I honestly can't see how anyone advocates for GAMI, the stuff destroyed planes in a few mos after using. the internet guy shows even the fumes of the stuff damages planes, you guys have fun with that, i'd rather be stuck with ul94 or something
 
Stipulating that you can modify an engine to deliver the same power on ethanol, you still have to deal with the higher fuel consumption and reduced range. And corrosion due to ethanol's miscibility with water.

Both of those issues may not matter to a flight school whose planes don't go far and don't sit, but it's very different for the average owner.
 
MackMooney said:
I honestly can't see how anyone advocates for GAMI, the stuff destroyed planes in a few mos after using. the internet guy shows even the fumes of the stuff damages planes, you guys have fun with that, i'd rather be stuck with ul94 or something
Click to expand...

Get ready for “or something” then because UL94 ain’t gonna be the answer. 100 octane is the threshold.
 
You cannot use straight 100% ethanol as fuel. It would be taxed to death as consumable liquor. It must be denatured. Denaturing requires additives to the ethanol. The US government specifies precisely how to denature fuel alcohol.

To every 100 gallons of alcohol add:
2 gallons or more of gasoline; automotive gasoline; rubber hydrocarbon solvent; kerosene; deodorized kerosene; methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK); mixed isomers of nitropropane; natural gasoline; heptane; ethyl tertiary butyl ether (ETBE); raffinate; naphtha; high octane denaturant blend; straight run gasoline; or any combination of these; or
2 gallons of isopropyl alcohol plus 1/8 oz. denatonium benzoate; or
5 gallons or more of toluene
Click to expand...

Depending on which formula is used, the additives would have to be tested and cleared for use in aviation fuel.

Interesting is this sop to farmers which increases the cost of ethanol:
The distilled spirits may not be derived from petroleum, natural gas, or coal and the distilled spirits must be rendered unfit for beverage use before withdrawal (including exportation) from an AFP.
Click to expand...
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Please see my post #157, where I compare the energy content of ethanol and gasoline on a per-gallon basis. It is in the screen shot. The alcohols are partially oxidized, and each ethanol molecule contains 2 carbons. this translates to less energy per molecule than gasoline that contains anywhere from 5 through 8 or 9 carbons. Ethanol has a higher-octane rating than a hydrocarbon fuel allowing higher compression.

There are probably some compromises needed to run multi-fuel that affect efficiency- such as designing the engine to run on the lowest octane fuel as you may be alluding to. However, ethanol doesn't have the same energy density as gasoline.
Click to expand...

Almost forty years ago I spent three months in Brazil, alternating between sitting on a beach and hanging out in Rio.
As I recall, the alcohol based cars where preferred because the cost was often lower; and the alcohol cars were much more efficient.
So I decided to ask ChatGPT :D

The situation has changed. Now because of regulations, all gas sold is E27 or higher. Pretty much all vehicles sold are now flex fuel and can run on E100 all the way down to E27.
The E27 gives enough ethanol to enable the engineers to increase the compression ratio almost to the level required for a pure ethanol only solution. The result is that there is very little advantage anymore. Going back forty years ago, ethanol often had compression ratios around 14:1 while gas was around 8:1 in Brazil. This difference made the lower energy density of ethanol less of an issue due to thermal efficiency.

Fascinating to read. No idea on the accuracy.

BWTHDIK?

Tim
 
MackMooney said:
I honestly can't see how anyone advocates for GAMI, the stuff destroyed planes in a few mos after using. the internet guy shows even the fumes of the stuff damages planes, you guys have fun with that, i'd rather be stuck with ul94 or something
Click to expand...
The majority of fuel is burned in engines that cannot run 94 or MoGas. Obsoleting every C4xx, Malibu, SR22 and post-1956 Bonanza is not an acceptable path forward.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
The majority of fuel is burned in emgines that cannot run 94 or MoGas. Obsoleting every C4xx, Malibu, SR22 and post-1956 Bonanza is not an acceptable path forward.
Click to expand...
actually, some sr22s can burn < 100LL

after watching the internet guys testing, i def wouldn't want to try gami in my adhesive bound aircraft, cirrus/diamond/experimental hell grumman tigers, atleast till an independent lab states differently

we still have 100r and ul100e in the running so not stressing yet.
 
Fueling aircraft with partial hydrocarbon-alcohol mixtures will add new dimensions to winter flying. Fuel mix temperature reductions below 32 degF will at some point precipitate solid ice crystals from dissolved water, plugging any mesh type fuel screens. I had it happen to me in a '67 172 on a bitterly cold MN winter day. It had taken about 1 hr of previous flight before there was enough fuel blockage to cause complete engine failure on takeoff at KFCM. I never left the airport boundary nor got above ~300 ft as I tear dropped to land down wind in the opposite direction.

This was by far the closest I ever came to buying a farm in 55 years of flying. There are some aspects of alcohol-based fuels that need additional discovery and analysis.......!
 
There were a couple of unicorn Bonanzas with the IO-470K engine that can be STCd for mogas. F33 and E33 from the 1968-1970 time frame if I remember correctly. I've had email alerts set for those, but no action so far. Pretty desirable planes these days. Debonairs also were 80 octane machines, though a great number have been re-engined with something bigger.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Same S*** different year

I did read the paper and STC. You refer to a mythical email and a mythical flight school in the other thread. You never showed what statements I posted in the other thread were untrue. (https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/2-stroke-expectations.152825/post-3693946 )
Click to expand...
Email/call the school.

Your laziness is not my problem. If I did post the email, I would edit the impart parts just because I can.

DO. YOUR. OWN. RESEARCH.

Even an AI chatbot will get you close.

Do. YOUR. OWN. RESEARCH.

The STC is 20+ years old. The school using the STC is from 2 years ago... DUH OF COURSE THE SCHOOL WON'T BE IN THE PAPER.

Dear Lord I can't believe I have to make the obvious, obvious. Maybe I need to auction off some 'common sense' on e-bay. You'all need to buy a clue
 
pfarber said:
you still expect me to do your research? I gave the name of the study, you can call the STC holders or email Baylor.

Its not hard, I did it. Your laziness is not my problem.

Seriously.. its the first googlel hit 'baylor faa ethanol'
Click to expand...
I did my research. Looked up the citations you gave us the last two times you brought this up.

Why don't you show why my points were wrong? Are you too lazy to show how water and ethanol aren't totally miscible? Are you too lazy to show that ethanol has the same energy content per gallon as gasoline? Are you too lazy to show how the corrosion issues from ethanol mentioned by others aren't an issue?

pfarber said:
Email/call the school.

Your laziness is not my problem. If I did post the email, I would edit the impart parts just because I can.

DO. YOUR. OWN. RESEARCH.

Even an AI chatbot will get you close.

Do. YOUR. OWN. RESEARCH.

The STC is 20+ years old. The school using the STC is from 2 years ago... DUH OF COURSE THE SCHOOL WON'T BE IN THE PAPER.

Dear Lord I can't believe I have to make the obvious, obvious. Maybe I need to auction off some 'common sense' on e-bay. You'all need to buy a clue
Click to expand...
Sorry...not my job. YOU made the assertion, YOU make the citations. I know how it works- link below is to one of my papers. And AI chatbots aren't research. They are full of unverified information. They have their place but aren't a good reference resource.

You never mentioned which school is using the STC- you can't be so lazy as not to mention it, since you know who it is. Your reticence to share the information supports my hypothesis that it doesn't exist.

 
pfarber said:
DO. YOUR. OWN. RESEARCH.
Click to expand...
I was moderately interested, so I did some Googling and found about a half dozen different documents about ethanol use in aircraft published by Baylor personnel from Masters students to professors, with and without affiliation to Baylor's Renewable Aviation Fuels Development Center, none of which seemed to be the "study" you are referring to. At least, none seem to back up the claims you've been making.

Some little clue, like a document title, or an author, or better yet a URL to the specific document you keep alluding to, might allow me to follow in your footsteps. But so far, I've found bupkis. I don't care to go on any more of an Easter egg hunt to try to figure out what in the hell document you're going on about.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." You're definitely not going to get this horse to drink by hiding the water and demand he go and find it himself. I've got plenty of beer in the fridge....
 
Last edited:
Jim_R said:
I was moderately interested, so I did some Googling and found about a half dozen different documents about ethanol use in aircraft published by Baylor personnel from Masters students to professors, with and without affiliation to Baylor's Renewable Aviation Fuels Development Center, none of which seemed to be the "study" you are referring to. At least, none seem to back up the claims you've been making.

Some little clue, like a document title, or an author, or better yet a URL to the specific document you keep alluding to, might allow me to follow in your footsteps. But so far, I've found bupkis. I don't care to go on any more of an Easter egg hunt to try to figure out what in the hell document you're going on about.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." You're definitely not going to get this horse to drink by hiding the water and demand he go and find it himself. I've got plenty of beer in the fridge....
Click to expand...
He's been spouting this nonsense for a couple of years now....you found everything that is out there.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Which ones, exactly? Which IO-550 is approved for anything other than 100LL?
Click to expand...
io-550k
strangely enough, i see every engine on there is lower compression than mine, sigh

below is interesting, makes me hopeful for limitations that may be applied if 100r or ul100e isn't enough -- see io-550k and note 11

interesting: https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=06e6...GlmaWNhdGUlMjBEYXRhJTIwU2hlZXQtTWFzdGVyLlBERg
 
Last edited:
MackMooney said:
actually, some sr22s can burn < 100LL

after watching the internet guys testing, i def wouldn't want to try gami in my adhesive bound aircraft, cirrus/diamond/experimental hell grumman tigers, atleast till an independent lab states differently

we still have 100r and ul100e in the running so not stressing yet.
Click to expand...

Which ones? Do NOT look at the engine TCDS, look at the airplane TCDS.
The engine TCDS which allows for 94UL does so at reduced power if memory serves.

Tim
 
MackMooney said:
io-550k
strangely enough, i see every engine on there is lower compression than mine, sigh

below is interesting, makes me hopeful for limitations that may be applied if 100r or ul100e isn't enough -- see io-550k and note 11

interesting: https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=06e62547c132d739d3f5b86b2245cfe62579b5239abdb22230cba6823fbea77fJmltdHM9MTc4MzgxNDQwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=18485b23-85a6-64ee-0066-4e7a840d6552&psq=Engine%20Type%20Certificate%20Data%20Sheet-Master.PDF+E5SO&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9kYXRhLm50c2IuZ292L0RvY2tldC9Eb2N1bWVudC9kb2NCTE9CP0lEPTQwMjE3MzAxJkZpbGVFeHRlbnNpb249LlBERiZGaWxlTmFtZT1FbmdpbmUlMjBUeXBlJTIwQ2VydGlmaWNhdGUlMjBEYXRhJTIwU2hlZXQtTWFzdGVyLlBERg
Click to expand...
Which Cirrus uses the TSIO-550K? How many of the existing fleet use this engine and approve use of 94 UL in the POH?
How many SR22T owners are going to be happy with a 9,840 ft altitude limitation?
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
The majority of fuel is burned in engines that cannot run 94 or MoGas. Obsoleting every C4xx, Malibu, SR22 and post-1956 Bonanza is not an acceptable path forward.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that is still true. A couple of years ago I was curious about what percentage of light GA flying hours was for training. What I did to research this was to grab aircraft counts by type from Flightaware. This is a list from a Tuesday afternoon listing all the types that had at least 10 aircraft aloft. Lack of 100 octane fuel will hit Cirrus aircraft the most.

914 C172 Cessna Skyhawk
442 P28A Piper Cherokee
158 C182 Cessna Skylane
82 C152 Cessna 152
80 C150 Cessna Commuter
74 SR22 Cirrus SR-22
69 DA40 Diamond Star
64 SR20 Cirrus SR-20
59 S22T Cirrus SR22 Turbo
46 M20P Mooney M-20
41 BE36 Beechcraft Bonanza (36)
31 P28R Piper Cherokee Arrow
29 BE35 Beechcraft 35 Bonanza
28 PA32 Piper Saratoga
23 BE33 Beechcraft Bonanza (33)
23 DV20 Diamond DV-20 Katana
23 M20T Mooney M-20 Turbo
23 T206 Cessna T206 Turbo Stationair
19 PA44 Piper PA-44 Seminole
18 C82S CESSNA T182 Turbo Skylane
16 RV12 Van's RV-12
14 AA5 Grumman AA-5 Tiger
14 C210 Cessna Centurion
14 P32R Piper Saratoga/Lance
14 PA18 Piper L-21 Super Cub
13 C170 Cessna 170
13 C310 Cessna 310
13 C82R Cessna Skylane RG
13 T210 Cessna T210 Turbo Centurion
12 BT36 Beechcraft Bonanza (36) Turbo
12 C206 Cessna 206 Stationair
12 DA42 Diamond Twin Star
12 PA24 Piper PA-24 Comanche
11 C177 Cessna Cardinal
11 P28B Piper Dakota / Pathfinder
11 C402 Cessna 402
10 C180 Cessna Skywagon 180
10 PA27 Piper Aztec
 
Last edited:
172andyou said:
Then fact check it before posting.
Click to expand...
lmao, how would I check for accuracy?
1. I am not an engineer
2. I do not know the regulatory environment in Brazil, I do not live there.
3. I do not know the market dynamics in Brazil

The list goes on.

Tim
 
If Congress extends the deadline then I am sure China would make and sell us the lead additive for 100LL if the price is right.
 
bonefishpete said:
If Congress extends the deadline then I am sure China would make and sell us the lead additive for 100LL if the price is right.
Click to expand...
Yup and for the right price I'm sure they could bring it up to the required standards. Probably the easiest route financially and logistically although maybe not so much politically.

The one thing you can definitely see from reading through all this is there are many totally viable options. But things need to start moving in a clear direction in the next year or two so that the fuel, whatever it ends up being, is available when it needs to be. I think once that becomes clear the money and necessary logistics will start falling into place but right now it's just a mess and nobody wants to bet on the losing horse.
 
China is in many ways willing to do things for a price; even more than the USA. In addition, China does have the technical capability to make TEL. China even has the capability to make it at the purity levels and quality the FAA will demand.
However, the it will not happen overnight. To get to the same level of quality will likely take a long time, and will require massive oversight to ensure the quality does not lapse and no shortcuts are taken.
All this while there are political tensions between the two countries; and we are doing everything we can to **** them off. We have raised their cost to do business by billions of dollars a year. And the profit margin here from the current supplier is measured in 7 digits?

Somehow, the math does not seem to pencil out in counting on China to the rescue of pilots/owners.

Tim
 
StraightnLevel said:
The majority of fuel is burned in engines that cannot run 94 or MoGas. Obsoleting every C4xx, Malibu, SR22 and post-1956 Bonanza is not an acceptable path forward.
Click to expand...
No need to catastrophize. There already are options for those players:

1) Overhaul your fuel system materials to tolerate paint thinner as octane booster for no reduction in peak power.
2) Tolerate a power downrating by paperwork or mechanical timing downgrade (or cylinder swaps if able), as the ETBE offering is already admitted to not be able to make 100/130 spec.
3) Ragequit.

Status quo 1:1 100LL spec replacement is a pipedream though given where things stand at EAGLE.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Status quo 1:1 100LL spec replacement is a pipedream though given where things stand at EAGLE.
Click to expand...

Curious why you state that. From what I follow, Lydonell (I think was the name) racing is moving along in the process. They are deep into the material compatibility already. I do not recall any power restrictions from the engine testing.
Same for Switch 100R.

From the very little I understand, I think it was these two who have a very similar approach.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Curious why you state that. From what I follow, Lydonell (I think was the name) racing is moving along in the process. They are deep into the material compatibility already. I do not recall any power restrictions from the engine testing.
Same for Switch 100R.

From the very little I understand, I think it was these two who have a very similar approach.

Tim
Click to expand...
Thinking about 100r and ul100e. I wouldn't be surprised if lyondell licensed this from swift. Actually would make a lot of sense
 
MackMooney said:
Thinking about 100r and ul100e. I wouldn't be surprised if lyondell licensed this from swift. Actually would make a lot of sense
Click to expand...
No reason for Lyondell to go to Swift, they partnered with VP Racing who makes high octane fuels for racing cars. Plus Lyondell is a real chemical company and has plenty of R&D capability.
tspear said:
Curious why you state that. From what I follow, Lydonell (I think was the name) racing is moving along in the process. They are deep into the material compatibility already. I do not recall any power restrictions from the engine testing.
Same for Switch 100R.

From the very little I understand, I think it was these two who have a very similar approach.

Tim
Click to expand...
They have a similar chemical approach, but I believe Lyondell/VP Racing are the only ones participating in EAGLE. Swift is going down the STC path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top