Ibra

Week-end trip from Rouen (LFOP) to Saumur (LFOD), the hardest bit was climb to 2000ft as it was windy (storm Amy), however, we know the worst was behind and we were flying toward nicer weather. On return the windsock has given up indicating !

Short flights to Chantilly racecourse and Reims-en-Champagne (LFQA) for visit of Vranken Pommery champagne caves

Such days are a pain: you go “vmc-on-top” to find the sun, then you find another layer above ! You have more guarantees when paying for “UV session”

That is very true, people and government seem alarmed these days with pollution, however, there is literally nothing new under the sun ! I recall reading the most polluted day in history of Paris was in 1900, the solution was switching to ICE cars (politician are exactly the same: making laws on the fly, showing they are doing something, taxes and bans here and there…). https://earth.org/data_visualization/air-pollution-in-paris/ Around the year 1900, Parisians knew they had a serious pollution problem. No, not smog and particulate matter, they said, but the dung from over 80,000 horses carrying people and loads around the city everyday. Officials decided to test moving horse-drawn vehicles to the verge of the Champs-Elysees causeway, while motorized vehicles would be given the center. The contrast between the manure-laden and rubber-smoothed aisles left people convinced (translated from a French article in the “Figaro”): “It is easy to see that, from a hygienic standpoint, automobiles whose exhaust is rapidly absorbed by the air, are preferable to equestrian carriages.” https://www.lefigaro.fr/histoire/archives/2016/07/01/26010-20160701ARTFIG00300-en-1900-le-pic-de-pollution-a-paris-est-du-aux-moteurs-a-crottin.php#:~:text=En 1900%2C on compte près,%2C de «parfums pernicieux».

We still need to see those Rotax that match 200hp-310hp bands, say IO360 or TSIO550, Rotax made lot of competition and innovation 80hp-160hp band, however, they still short in 200hp-310hp band, they tried V6Cyl AeroEngine but no luck https://www.kitplanes.com/crystal-balling-what-will-rotax-do-next/ The problem now for GA is that they have a lot of money to make in multi-rotors or drones markets, so they will become another dinosaur in 80hp-180hp band. The Rotax market is the same as UL94 market (or UL91 or Mogas in Europe) with 80hp-160hp engines, these already have unleaded fuel solution even with Lyco or Conti, when it comes to detonation? There is a big added value from Rotax in 80hp-160hp band: being able to crunch 80-87 MON Mogas Autofuel with 10% ethanol and full of aromatics without vapour lock. However, they have not made any major discoveries to replace "100MON engines". They also have own detonation problems when running turbos on SP95, SP98, UL91, UL94, 100LL with octane rating from 80MOM to 100MON, their last service letters made lot of advisories on MP/RPM operating envelopes and choice of fuels... UL91 in Turbo Bristell, https://www.bristell.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ADxC-73-SB-042_A-Fuel-Grade-UL91-avoidance.pdf MAP limits for SP95 and SP98 auto-fuels, https://share.google/zArSzOfzxGHFd7Ovt I am sure they have smart people to innovate but getting into the "real 100 octane market" is not a walk in the park: my understanding, they are going for twin engines market with 2×160hp rather than 310hp single engine market while consolidating their position in 80hp-160hp, especially with drone applications (zero incentive to try anything else).

Follow the brick

Yes it's a refined design already I am sure it can be refined more (not a lot) with EIS or FADEC and some operators may take it, however, only they can get lot of maintenance credit in exchange...

Like many things in aviation, in new application? MAYBE, in "retrofitting"? lilely NO At overhaul, this may get some traction but there is not much interest neither? I recall, Lycoming makes 2000 engines and overhauls 2000 engines every year, even if all these gets fitted, it will take 100 years to recycle the whole fleet It's hard to compare with automotive industry, due to economies of scale: the car engine builders spends more when building factory that produces car engines than what Lycoming makes in engine revenues for 5 decades ! As @N201MKTurbo said it's a stale design for 90 years already, the new EIS or FADEC may get some traction if FAA throws a "big bone" to some operators when it comes to maintenance, overhauls, TBOs...

Of course, Swift is responsible for submitting tests for ASTM to get their rubber stamps and approvals. Strictly speaking Swift does not even "test" their own fuels. For detonation, they send their 100R to Lycoming, Lycoming run detonation testing on their facilities, they issue some paper to Swift, then Swift sends that paper to FAA or ASTM, then FAA or ASTM will do a rubber stamp.... Anytime one talks about ASTM or FAA testing, they refer to the process to get approval (this does not imply that FAA or ASTM runs independent testing on their side, they may do in some cases where the FAA conducts their own "independent testing", however, in most cases, the FAA or ASTM will rely on participant to submit testing work, then they "independently review and approve")

They did leave it for 3.5 years now in aircraft tanks, this seems to tick all of the boxes, they think composition could remain the same for 5 years inside aircraft tanks, however, they need more data and time to support such claim... For aircraft, they have to show that anyway if it's an industry standard or stc'ed fuel, I think the requirement is something like 2 years when ASTM and 6 months when STC for "stability and oxidation" testing in aircraft. ASTM also test for "stability and testing" in trucks, containers and pumps, I think this is where 5 years matters more? if I am not flying aircraft for 6 months, I would have other worries than draining fuel. Not sure if this is guaranteed when fuels are mixed? most of the proposals seems to aim for ability to mix with 100LL and remain stable (however, they shy away from ability to mix with other 100UL fuels). I would be interested in shelf life of VPRacing 100E fuel as it may have unstable composition and may have high risk of oxidation and unstability (car fuels specs and variants are guaranteed for 3 months or 6 months, they won't last for say 2 years or 5 years unless one adds lot of additives and stabilisers)

No idea but they already have unleaded car racing fuels with high octane that rely on "oxygenation", for a long time now... For aviation certification, if they stick with this route they will have tough time passing PAFI tests or ASTM tests regarding fuel stability and oxidation (how long it stays in tank) as well as pressure and vapour lock limits (pump, pipes) It would be interesting to know what "they have for us", maybe their fuel will need some additives depending on the intended usage (turbos, temperature, high altitude)? flying or storage? "Winter Avgas vs Summer Avgas with mandatory calendar change"

Me too, I think the current STC candidates (100R or G100UL) are not "drop-in": they either need extra work on airframe (joints, pipes, sealant, paint...) or more work on engine (variable timing, de-rated cruise, extra rop...). By design, one can argue that "STC route" will overfit on specific engines and specific airframes, the ones that were tested until things "looked ok" to FAA, however, they may cause lot of problems elsewhere when such fuel goes into the wild with all variability in fleet, airframes and engine, as well as how they are operated. VPRacing is going with 100E, this is the real "drop-in" if it ever gets PAFI performance pass while staying within ASTM control parameters, however, they have much slower progress and they may never come out of it one day. Even when one looks at 100LL, it has it's own problems (or noise): it can also cause leaks on airframes, we see more broken cylinders or valves on some engines, operators have more problems than others. Even if FAA or PAFI says a new 100UL fuel is equivalent to 100LL, it will be really hard to show equivalence in "real world" as the various operators tends to be impacted differently, someone used to flying with 100LL at CHT redline with 499F CHT may feel 100R is not good, while someone who keep CHT under 380F will find it to be ok. Similarly, someone with 45 years original sealant vs someone with new tank reseal job, may have different feelings about G100UL

Indeed, that’s 20h of heavy streaming per month Unless one flies 300h per year, they won’t reach that…

We already did.. In one had, the 100R is already "blessed" by Lycoming in IO36, they had no objection to FAA STC for 100R in C172S In the other hand, G100UL in IO360 is not approved by Lycoming, they have "strong" objection to FAA STC for G100UL in C172S Maybe the difference between Lycoming approval for 100R vs objection for G100UL has to do with Swift involvement in ASTM? As for 550s, yes Swift seems way behind the curve compared to GAMI, they have challenges with these, they may get something from FAA subject to operational limitation or ignition changes. For "550s", an ASTM drop-in fuel could be very hard to achieve one has to work on formulations within some tight controlled parameters. This may take 18 months or even more: Let's be honest some engines break cylinders and valves every 800h on 100LL, I doubt they will make it past TBO on 100R...

It was removed for a while now: all “in motion” plans (roaming, priority…), the only restriction on speed is 550mph… Now, I think they wanted to split airlines from anything bellow. Previously, it was splitting turboprops from anything bellow (240kts). Initially, it was splitting cars or walking from anything else (10mph, 100mph limit) and before that they had none. The only restrictions now for “in motion” plans are data (50Gb) and geographical (international waters, countries…) Of course, it’s hard to know “what is next”

Haha, not much choice on takeoff... For landing, it has to be "power for speed" ("pitch for speed" is the only choice in gliders ), then, one day I had to "unlearn" as some airline guy wanted to see "pitch for glide" (like his coupled auto-pilote) and "power for speed" (like his auto-throttle) I the preference between Gear-Flap-Flap or Flap-Gear-Flap seems to depend on airframe specs as well as operator training background. Personally, I am all for "Gear first" in M20J, however, I used "Flaps first" twice when some examiner (who checks students on multi engine or Arrow) wanted to see Flaps, Gear, Flaps as part of "skill-test or check-ride pass standard" Are there any single engine retracts with draggy 40deg flap and under-powered engine? most ASEL with 40deg flaps seems to be fixed gear... "STOL + Complex/RG" don't mix very well (unless it's DC3: stol retract with 40deg flaps)

Yes few aircraft have “extra transient drag” from gear retraction, so have more emphasis on flaps-gear-flaps sequence

I am sure there are variations, like the choice of power for speed? or pitch for speed? * "Point and power" when it's blasting * "Pitch for speed" when it's sluggish Some pilots do both without thinking For flaps & gear, in Mooney, I teach people to go slowly on power, sensible pitch, gear, flap: it works well this way. In school, we get students in Arrow to raise drag flap, then gear, then clean flaps: Flaps retract to 25º, positive rate, Gear Up What I find interesting, the Arrow gear is way more draggy than Mooney gear... Anyway, the recommendation from FAA in absence of POH info is still flaps-gear-flaps sequence: https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/10_afh_ch9.pdf

With one caveat, The standard for teaching and testing tend to be immediate 100% power then flaps-gear-flaps, this seems to be tailored for some types with draggy flaps and underpowered engines. I think one needs to show this on check-rides, if the examiner want to see it that way Other examiners only care about getting back in one piece without safety compromised: Ok, as long as one has good reason to deviate from POH or understands any implications on performance. Outside such check-rides, I see nothing “wrong” or “illegal” in say M20J with: 50% power gear up, re-trim, 100% power, then flaps. It’s mostly for convenience…

One can “legally” opt to land and takeoff without flaps, if they wanted. So I fail to see why order (or deviation) from POH matters? As far as I know there is nothing legally binding in Mooney POH (or any other CS23/FAR23 aircraft) regarding the use of flaps, they are always treated “as required by pilot”. For part91, only limitations in TCDS and Section2. matters… If someone go and write “operator book”, the FAA won’t approve it unless it complies with all sections of POH (or they have a waiver from FAA or aircraft manufacturer), this stuff is very relevant for say part121 airline or part141 school: if they will have flaps failure on approach, they call it “abnormal landing” and do the paperwork after, if they have flaps failure before takeoff, they look at CDL/MEL and decide if it’s “abnormal takeoff” covered by their “operator book” or call engineers. If pilot is not flying by the book, someone will throw the book at him

VPRacing/LyondellBasell are a relatively new and small player in Avgas, they are mainly into "formula", however, they went for PAFI/ASTM, which is the "slow & together" As for their 100E, they passed most of serious testing in TSIO550K, and now they are working through ASTM While 100LL may go away the big players like Shell, Total...who drive ASTM will be around for a while (they have SAF, JetA, Mogas)

I have done some of these, it's not practical (many places have tons of rules on noise). Sometimes it's what one needs to do in places where options ahead are limited with built up areas ahead, the majority of these places down here already require 45deg turn right after departure from runway axis as "normal noise departure"... Flying tight pattern with steep angle (less power) is also helpful, although, this skill is not longer in fashion as pilots are taught from day 1 to fly "wide B52 bomber patterns" on "PAPI/VASI using 3deg glide" with "stable approach". Anyway, tight departure and tight pattern helps when flying VFR: one day as one will need it, as we say, it's good to invest in own luck rather than waiting for surprise ! Then there is IFR flying: prescribed SID or ILS paths or low vectoring, especially IMC, not much choices than keeping straight wing level, on sensible speed, and hope for the best...

I remember reading the UK TEL company Innospec wanted to get out of TEL market by 2030 I am sure someone else can fill the void, the question how much they will charge? https://avweb.com/air-shows-events/at-some-point-producing-the-lead-in-leaded-avgas-can-become-too-expensive-to-be-worth-it/ TEL price contribution to 100LL is in order of 0.1€/L (it was 0.04€/L 5 years ago), even if they double the price, it is still under 5c per USG of 100LL

Sunday was a great day to visit Microlights MULM expo (LSA machines) in France, I am very impressed by the new shinny "250 ULM/LSA": they can fly at FL250 or 250ft agl doing 250kts speeds, unfortunately at 250k€ they are still beyond my budget, I can get an Ovation or Encore for that price Return flight was done IFR over Paris, we wanted to overfly Disney, our flat and see Melun airshow from 7000ft but ATC want us at 5000ft before being vectored away: two Pitts were using all the airspace in their RAT at the way to 5500ft !! Kid waiting for the "mini-train" Route over Disney in East of Paris, Disney, On ILS for Toussus (LFPN)

Thanks, I watched that part (starts at 40:00), as expected UND were abusing their engines…even with 100LL they would have the exact same problem (they did not even run 50% vs 50% of fleet on 100L vs UL94) Definitely not aromatics as Lycoming suggested, I did run the same Archer with same engine on UL91 (Avgas available in Europe, basically 100LL without TEL and no aromatics) and many times using SP98 auto-fuel (full of aromatics, sort of EN228/AKI93 with even lower MON 87 octane rating), however, I flew richer than 100ROP and I swear, I never ever let CHT slip above 380F, that Archer still fly using Mogas with no issues ! Swift claimed no one else had valve recession problems using UL94 in the last 10 years, except UND (they have engines replaced regularly on warranty anyway even with 100LL )