McMooney

If i had the money i'd take a shot at converting one of the new turbo diesels for experimental use. chevy lz0 inline 6, bit heavy but power band is exactly at current engine / prop numbers, no psru necc. well you'd probably need some sort of unit to handle prop alignement and maybe heavy bearings to take prop loads.

there should be a class on database subscriptions. I recently paid $$ for a sub to find out the recommended safe taxi and something else add on are completely useless on a gnc355

nitrous injector would be nice also, little bit of help when i take my flatland plane out to mountain territory

hmm, looking at the video think they could make it simpler, no need for a computer just calibrated temp / pressure switch should work. be nice if i could just cheap vodka for the fluid, instead of messing with methanol

on the hottest days 110 degs my engine doesn't go above 380, so if i could limit myself to say 2700rpm 25/26 inches approx 170-180hp which is about what a m20c makes, yeah i'd be fine. i take off in 1500ft instead of 1000, i can make that trade if i don't have other options. once i get above a few thousand feet it becomes a non issue anyway. I have no problem with adi, as long as it doesn't cost me a fortune to install and i'm not using gallons of fluid every flight. If it's as miserly as the def usage in my diesel, heck yeah.

I was sooo scared to click, but i did 8)

where do they have testing 100R or Lydon won't work

wow lycoming themselves have approved ul94 seems doubly strange i'd work on a higher octane fuel for the same aircraft,.

show me a document that says specifically these engines won't work, only thing i've ever read was rhigh powered engines may not work with the alternate 100s. strange the 8.5 engine will work at ul94 but theres no way the 8.7 will work at 100/??? esp for products that are meant to be used by a significant portion of the fleet. could be true but doesn't smell exactly right

would you mind elaborating?

question, what are these high compression egines that aren't compatible, i doubt it's my 200 hp mooney

I understand 94ul in an io-550 timed at 22 btdc detonates when run at peak egt and 73% power, but, isn't this the place we are explicitly instructed to not run the engines ?

I do agree, but 50 years is a long time, at what point in the last 50 years did ga not know this was coming. i think i read an article the other day from something like 1978 ? what are we going to do when the leaded plant blows up? I'd bet 100$ they wouldn't put it back in service. obv, market forces alone have not been enough to push the issue, what to do? for sure, I WANT TO FLY, i'll be standing right next to you in the picket line but i'm very much a pragmatic person, ice skating up hill is difficult. we have gami, ul94 and soon 100r, sounds about as good as it's going to get.

I don't understand why everyone keeps blaming california, it's been 50 years, they marked a line in the sand. unfortunately, we are a minority of minorities, more cars passed your airport yesterday then all ga planes still flying. i'm just trying to say it's coming and isn't going to wait for our antiques to keep up

i wish i had more information, my understanding of the detonation issues, is that at the absolute worst conditions 500deg cht, worse mixture possible the engine detonates when producing max hp. why couldn't I just avoid operating in detonation possible conditions? so ex with my io-360-a1a, couldn't i just avoid running the thing above say 28in mp when its 110degs outside ?

you guys can be mad but honestly i hope 100ll Is gone in the next 3 years, hate crap that drags on forever. if they had bit the bullet 50 years ago we wouldn't be worried about it now. oh my paints falling off anwyay hehe

I'm thinking auto polish would be a better choice, more choice and probably better tested against modern finishes

looking at my poh, it seems mooney at the time tested against 91/96 octane fuel, don't remember exactly what the poh says but ti was 90 something. as in never put fuel lower than 90 something octaine. just thinking what minimum changes would we need to make to just run on ul94 ?

I see no reason the fuel should be more expensive than 100ll, except for profit taking by whoever makes it. the fuel would be easier to blend, handle, transport and store, it would have uses other than aviation, ex. ( racing, auto, marine ) heck if you make enough of it could possibly ship it via pipelines.

it's the mooney curse, i have to put my flaps down and buy a step stool so people avoid my flaps. heck i had to buy seat covers cause everyone wants to step on the seats when getting in and out

I have an idea, i know some of you are uhmm deep pocketed connected folks, someone get the new administration to let us move our Ancient antique birds to an experimental status so we can maintain them without the FAA's interference. frick can't even make simple back springs, gears, other stuff due to their rules

if the cost to switch to a diesel was the same as an overhaul that would probably work but unfortunately, it'll probably be priced so high it'll only make sense of rthings like brand new cirrus/mooneys etc..

the writing has been on the wall for 50 years, they could've made the damn things use pump gas by now but here we are, still stuck at 0 waiting on miracles. 100ll will go away someday, no idea when but it'll go and we'll be standing here holding our fuel caps 8) remembering the days we could fly. honestly, considering the volume, i can't see how avgas isn't already considered anything but an annoyance to refiners/blenders/shippers

so now i have the opposite problem i had before, if gami becomes unviable and we're left with just swift, what prevents them from gouging my eyes out?

my poh says never use aviation fuel of a lower grade than 91/96, i'm guessing it can be made to run on 94ul.