Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

Steamflyer said:
That's for maximum continuous power. So would have to reduce MP above that and presumably climb slower. But a manageable situation.
Click to expand...

I am no longer in COPA. But when I was a member, memory says it was a power reduction across the board. This affected runway lengths, take off power. Not just a reduction in continuous power at altitude which had large effects on climb performance especially for turbo aircraft which are the vast majority of SR22s sold, but the complete flight regimen.

But I am no longer a member, and I am too lazy to check (so I am going on memory) about the engine models (there are two engine models. One pre SR22T and after the SR22T was introduced (the SR22T model brought in a lower compression 7.5 I think; engine which is what theoretically allows it to use 94UL. Scuttlebutt at the time suggested this was to future proof the plane against 100LL dyeing).

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...
per Lyondell Basell

The company says the agency has done detonation testing of its UL100E fuel in six models of Continental IO-550 engines to identify “the optimal timing advance for UL100E in the IO-550-A, -B, -C, -D, -E, -F, and -L series of engines.”

Lyondell/Basell declined to elaborate on the detonation testing, but it has been open about the possibility that some large-bore engines may need paperwork or even mechanical changes to be authorized for its use. “Generally, to prevent detonation, the ignition timing (the moment the spark starts the fuel to burn in the cylinder) can be retarded.
 
tspear said:
I am no longer in COPA. But when I was a member, memory says it was a power reduction across the board. This affected runway lengths, take off power. Not just a reduction in continuous power at altitude which had large effects on climb performance especially for turbo aircraft which are the vast majority of SR22s sold, but the complete flight regimen.

But I am no longer a member, and I am too lazy to check (so I am going on memory) about the engine models (there are two engine models. One pre SR22T and after the SR22T was introduced (the SR22T model brought in a lower compression 7.5 I think; engine which is what theoretically allows it to use 94UL. Scuttlebutt at the time suggested this was to future proof the plane against 100LL dyeing).

Tim
Click to expand...
That’s from the TCDS for the TSIO-550K. That’s in the SR22T which if memory serves came after the SR22TC which was turbo’d with an STC Tornado Alley kit. The latter would have had the higher compression engine in it.
 
Steamflyer said:
That's for maximum continuous power. So would have to reduce MP above that and presumably climb slower. But a manageable situation.
Click to expand...
OK, someone just paid $1.4M for a SR22(T). Now, you're telling them that they can't use all of the power that they paid for? You may think it's "manageable", but the guy who wrote that check isn't likely to agree.
 
Anyone buying a $1.4 million dollar plane today may be unaware that they are taking a gamble. Their assessment of the situation or personal hopes will have no bearing on its outcome. I'm on this sidelines for anything that can't burn 80 octane. I'll let it play out while my money is in my pocket. I'm fine letting someone else take the risk. 100 octane burners won't suddenly become more valuable if there's a breakthrough in unleaded avgas, but the possibility exists that they will become much less valuable in the next few years without a solid solution to the fuel change. Hope for the best, but prepare for the alternative.
 
StraightnLevel said:
OK, someone just paid $1.4M for a SR22(T). Now, you're telling them that they can't use all of the power that they paid for? You may think it's "manageable", but the guy who wrote that check isn't likely to agree.
Click to expand...
You forgot the second half of note 11.

maximum recommended cruise power and speed is 6000 meters (19680 feet)
 
Racerx said:
You forgot the second half of note 11.

maximum recommended cruise power and speed is 6000 meters (19680 feet)
Click to expand...
Beats not being able to use it at all. Climbs full power to about 10k’ and then at some reduced power to 12-17k where you might cruise. On 94UL. That’s going to be the most future proof today. Tomorrow might be a different story.
 
tspear said:
Curious why you state that. From what I follow, Lydonell (I think was the name) racing is moving along in the process.
Click to expand...

...Because they said so themselves. See post 203; source interview for that post's quote can be easily found via google fu.

Materials compatibility testing is a red herring here. That's part of the PAFI/EAGLE process. But the notion that proceeding with materials testing is indicative of having met, or having the potential to meet, the status quo of 100LL for all engines, is a fundamental misread of what the EAGLE mandate actually is.

As to swift as a "player" in any of this? it is my read of the situation that they know the exact same thing Lyondell already admitted to, regarding any ETBE offering. But because swift is the brokie in the race, they're not going to move an inch until they see what the FAA does with Lyondel'ls parallel, ETBE based brew.

The way they're behaving, it looks like the FAA will eventually grant Lyon/VP the approval seal, and that will be the way this thing will go. Swift will then try to hop on that ATSM bandwagon and see if they can remora off the expense VP trailblazed with the regulator. Absent that effort, Swift 100R is and continues to be, just 94UL with a longer number on the label.

My theory of the case is Lyondell is prepping up to position their fuel as they have already implied: to meet some of the high compression installations without need for modifications (that's really good news for the folks in that subgroup). More importantly, telling the rest of the high-comp crowd that their FAA blessed fuel will require paper downrate and/or mechanical modifications in order to not detonate for them.

I don't see the outrage in any of that.Some people on here got it in their heads that EAGLE entitled them to 1:1 stasis from 100LL. It doesn't. It also doesn't mean they're grounded. Two things can be true at the same time.
 
hindsight2020 said:
...Because they said so themselves. See post 203; source interview for that post's quote can be easily found via google fu.

Materials compatibility testing is a red herring here. That's part of the PAFI/EAGLE process. But the notion that proceeding with materials testing is indicative of having met, or having the potential to meet, the status quo of 100LL for all engines, is a fundamental misread of what the EAGLE mandate actually is.

As to swift as a "player" in any of this? it is my read of the situation that they know the exact same thing Lyondell already admitted to, regarding any ETBE offering. But because swift is the brokie in the race, they're not going to move an inch until they see what the FAA does with Lyondel'ls parallel, ETBE based brew.

The way they're behaving, it looks like the FAA will eventually grant Lyon/VP the approval seal, and that will be the way this thing will go. Swift will then try to hop on that ATSM bandwagon and see if they can remora off the expense VP trailblazed with the regulator. Absent that effort, Swift 100R is and continues to be, just 94UL with a longer number on the label.

My theory of the case is Lyondell is prepping up to position their fuel as they have already implied: to meet some of the high compression installations without need for modifications (that's really good news for the folks in that subgroup). More importantly, telling the rest of the high-comp crowd that their FAA blessed fuel will require paper downrate and/or mechanical modifications in order to not detonate for them.

I don't see the outrage in any of that.Some people on here got it in their heads that EAGLE entitled them to 1:1 stasis from 100LL. It doesn't. It also doesn't mean they're grounded. Two things can be true at the same time.
Click to expand...
I hate upvoting this. But that's my present view as well.
 
Perfect has become the enemy of good enough here.

There are several solutions for most (at least many) engines. But there is inertia to keep the status quo until the single fuel for everybody can deploy. Ultimately I’d guess some planes will be bricked, there doesn’t seem to be interest at most FBO’s to have 100ll and say 94ul available at same time, for now at least. Around here…
 
So, a thought as far as the detonation concern with some of these fuels...

Seeing as how electronic ignition with automatic timing advance already exists for a lot of these engines/air frames would it be feasible to add a knock sensor? Then one could set the default timing to something safe and let the electronic ignition advance it with the knock sensor in place to detect any detonation and back the timing off as needed. I could see the electronic ignition mitigating if not outright eliminating the performance losses we're concerned about.
 
cowman said:
So, a thought as far as the detonation concern with some of these fuels...

Seeing as how electronic ignition with automatic timing advance already exists for a lot of these engines/air frames would it be feasible to add a knock sensor? Then one could set the default timing to something safe and let the electronic ignition advance it with the knock sensor in place to detect any detonation and back the timing off as needed. I could see the electronic ignition mitigating if not outright eliminating the performance losses we're concerned about.
Click to expand...
Supposedly...aircraft engines are too "noisy" for knock sensors to work. The huge displacement and low speed apparently make it hard to distinguish knocking from regular power pulses. Supposedly. Seems like it would be solvable, but the bigger issue is that detonation in such a big slow turning engine can be catastrophic VERY fast. On top of that, do you want the computer to pull timing (ie, HP) unexpectedly at the highest load/power setting.... like when you are trying to clear some trees?
 
Jim K said:
Supposedly...aircraft engines are too "noisy" for knock sensors to work. The huge displacement and low speed apparently make it hard to distinguish knocking from regular power pulses. Supposedly. Seems like it would be solvable, but the bigger issue is that detonation in such a big slow turning engine can be catastrophic VERY fast. On top of that, do you want the computer to pull timing (ie, HP) unexpectedly at the highest load/power setting.... like when you are trying to clear some trees?
Click to expand...
Given that the signal from a knock is very short in duration, compared to a power stroke, I can't see that there would be much of a problem discriminating between them, with today's tech. In the olden days (think the final air-cooled Porsches), yeah. But processing power is cheap, and audio discrimination is mere software (or firmware).
 
Jim K said:
Supposedly...aircraft engines are too "noisy" for knock sensors to work. The huge displacement and low speed apparently make it hard to distinguish knocking from regular power pulses. Supposedly. Seems like it would be solvable, but the bigger issue is that detonation in such a big slow turning engine can be catastrophic VERY fast. On top of that, do you want the computer to pull timing (ie, HP) unexpectedly at the highest load/power setting.... like when you are trying to clear some trees?
Click to expand...
I mean, what I want is to give up nothing... throw someone a few extra cents/gallon to keep making TEL and change nothing. I'm just looking at what compromises might work to keep these planes flying... I'd prefer this to just having static timing backed off permanently and dealing with the power reduction all the time.

I guess the other factor that I have no idea about is how much difference a few degrees of timing will make on takeoff distance. If it was say 10% longer it wouldn't make a practical difference for most of us I'd guess.... of course there are surely some guys operating out of very short fields and STOL guys who would probably take issue with that statement.
 
The head a-hole at Swift just can't resist taking shots at GAMI in their press releases, can they? That just sticks in my craw.
G100UL is NOT intermixable with 100R due to the presence of solvents reported to damage or disturb aircraft / fuel system components; G100UL also lacks formal ASTM specification approval at this time.
Click to expand...
I'm sure I won't have to wait long for the pedants to chime in that technically their statements are factually correct, but we all know what it means.
 
baboss said:
The head a-hole at Swift just can't resist taking shots at GAMI in their press releases, can they? That just sticks in my craw.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with your reaction--I noticed that snipe right away. As you said, it may be factually correct, but GAMI hasn't confessed to the issues that Swift mentioned. Also, the FAA did approve G100UL fuel, so there's that.
 
cowman said:
I mean, what I want is to give up nothing... throw someone a few extra cents/gallon to keep making TEL and change nothing. I'm just looking at what compromises might work to keep these planes flying... I'd prefer this to just having static timing backed off permanently and dealing with the power reduction all the time.

I guess the other factor that I have no idea about is how much difference a few degrees of timing will make on takeoff distance. If it was say 10% longer it wouldn't make a practical difference for most of us I'd guess.... of course there are surely some guys operating out of very short fields and STOL guys who would probably take issue with that statement.
Click to expand...
Someone mentioned water/methanol injection as solution. I didn't know enough about it, but it sounded like a 1gal tank would last through several takeoffs, and you'd only need it at maximum power.

Our NA engines don't often see 100% power either due to DA. I heard... somewhere... that it might be as simple as limiting us to 95% power, which would only be an issue in winter anyway. That doesn't help the turbo guys though.
 
Knock sensors would be feasible. I have them on two 2-cylinder motorcycles. What makes it unlikely in my estimation is that you not only need the sensors, but a completely new ignition system with variable timing to make use of them. Perhaps even new cylinders with threaded bosses for mounting. Nothing complex about it, but innovation is very problematic in the aviation powerplant world.
 
Racerx said:
Only pa32 is the 260 HP Six. So it looks like they're leaving out the engines that need 100 octane
Click to expand...
The list looks very much like the list of approvals for UL94. I wonder if any new engines were added. The angle-valve Lycomings still appear to be absent. By golly though, you Menasco Pirate operators are safe. No more filling the tanks with lamp oil.
 
If GAMI had admitted issues, owned them, and taken the high road, yeah, Chris d'A would look bad with that press release. As it is, they're both in the mud so I don't even mind the press release as-is. What's the opposite of game-recognize-game? scalawag-recognize-scalawag? that's what that callout is.
 
737steve said:
The list looks very much like the list of approvals for UL94. I wonder if any new engines were added. The angle-valve Lycomings still appear to be absent. By golly though, you Menasco Pirate operators are safe. No more filling the tanks with lamp oil.
Click to expand...
isn't the io-360-a in the m20j a 200hp lycoming angle valve engine ?
 
schmookeeg said:
I swung to this point of view after the 421’s insurance settlement for 600K was made public and specifically names gamifuel as the cause of loss.
Click to expand...
I personally am not worried about it until there is a specific endorsement added to the insurance policy that excludes coverage for use of it. I find it highly unlikely that there would otherwise be a basis to exclude coverage for a loss allegedly caused in whole or in part by the use of a fuel that is legal under applicable FAA and EPA regulations. Of course, I have not read your insurance policy, nor am I licensed to practice law in your state. So, I can't offer any actual coverage opinion.
 
PPC1052 said:
I personally am not worried about it until there is a specific endorsement added to the insurance policy that excludes coverage for use of it. I find it highly unlikely that there would otherwise be a basis to exclude coverage for a loss allegedly caused in whole or in part by the use of a fuel that is legal under applicable FAA and EPA regulations. Of course, I have not read your insurance policy, nor am I licensed to practice law in your state. So, I can't offer any actual coverage opinion.
Click to expand...
Thank you for those enlightening disclaimers. :P
 
Here is the engine list for Swift 100R that are about to under go testing:
  • Continental IO-550D
  • Continental TSIO-520-VB
  • Continental O-470-U
  • Continental W670-6N
  • Lycoming IO-540-K1A5
  • Lycoming TIO-540-J2B
  • Lycoming TIO-540-AJ1A
www.piperflyer.com

Swift Fuels- Testing 100R with High-Performance Aircraft Engines

Swift Fuels partner with FAA Technical Center to test 100R unleaded avgas in seven high-performance piston engines.
www.piperflyer.com www.piperflyer.com

Tim
 
MackMooney said:
the heck with 540s wheres my io-360-a1a grrrrrr
Click to expand...
Those are just the representative engines the FAA facility has to test that gives a good representative sample
 
What’s interesting to me is that they use actual expensive airplane engines for the testing rather than an Octane Number mule motor.

What is or are the objective pass-fail criteria (other than parts not coming out of the exhaust or case, lol).
 
737steve said:
Nothing complex about it, but innovation is very problematic in the aviation powerplant world.
Click to expand...
Quoted for emphasis.

Every time you hear about a needless aviation regulation, imagine what might happen if the same came from the "Federal Automobile Administration". Our parking lots would look like Havana in the 90's -- which is to say America in the 50's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top