SHELL 100LL REPLACEMENT

[John Pleisse]

Decent news....... actually, this might be Jurassic. Some needed proof of viability.

 

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Shell-Announces-Unleaded-100-Octane-Fuel221070-1.html?ET=avweb:e2688:257864a:&st=email

[Aviator]

I Am pleased to see a major company like Shell involved and seemingly well along in the process.  Wish there was some big bore Continental involvement.

 

At least it appears there will be a supply of 100 octane in the forseeable future.

[rbridges]

I Am pleased to see a major company like Shell involved and seemingly well along in the process.  Wish there was some big bore Continental involvement.

 

At least it appears there will be a supply of 100 octane in the forseeable future.

 

that's for sure.  I guess I can cancel my diesel motor purchase.  

[Mooneymite]

The disconcerting thing about these announcements is the seldom mentioned certification process for a replacement fuel.

 

It's great that Shell has developed this fuel and that it's been tested in Lycomings, but before it is a viable alternative for us, it has to be tested/certificated in our airplanes since ours were not originally certified for this fuel.  Who will be paying for this?  Probably, we will in some way, or another.

 

Even if Petersen, or some other party does the required testing and offers STC's (at a cost), it's going to take time....and money.

[Danb]

We needed some good aviation. News

[N201MKTurbo]

To heck with big bore Continentals. Our IO360 Lycomings are about as high strung as engines get at 50 HP per cylinder and relatively high compression.

[N201MKTurbo]

The disconcerting thing about these announcements is the seldom mentioned certification process for a replacement fuel.

 

It's great that Shell has developed this fuel and that it's been tested in Lycomings, but before it is a viable alternative for us, it has to be tested/certificated in our airplanes since ours were not originally certified for this fuel.  Who will be paying for this?  Probably, we will in some way, or another.

 

Even if Petersen, or some other party does the required testing and offers STC's (at a cost), it's going to take time....and money.

 

I think the idea is that these fuels will be drop in replacements that won't need re-certification.

[KSMooniac]

I think the idea is that these fuels will be drop in replacements that won't need re-certification.

 

I concur.  There is just no way they'll require individual STC's for each airframe and engine combination.  The new fuels will either meet the current specs (unlikely) or a new spec will be created to control the ingredients and performance of the fuel, and it will be shown to be drop-in compatible with everything out there.  That means no mixing issues with 100LL, no attacking of fuel sealant, no vapor pressure issues, etc.  

[aaronk25]

Ya know what I think would be great. A Cessna 337 or a beech twin with 2 derated corvette engines. A Cessna push pull would eliminate the need to deal with a critical engine put emergency.

Best of both worlds MOGAS AND redundancy.

How about lycoming and continental get off there ass and make a liquid cooled engine that doesn't need 100ll.

[Mooneymite]

I think the idea is that these fuels will be drop in replacements that won't need re-certification.

 

I certainly hope you are correct.

 

However, if you look at the type certificates for most GA aircraft, specific fuel is mentioned.  If Shell cannot make the case that it is "identical", it won't be legal.

 

Like I said, "I HOPE" you are correct, but I'm afraid each airframe will have to receive an STC, just as has to be done with MOGAS.  Octane, reid vapor pressure and a host of other factors have to be considered.  To take the lead out and keep the octane up, Shell had to make changes to the blend....and that's where the problem may be.

 

As Shell says:

 

"...we can confirm that it's remarkably close to Avgas 100LL from a performance perspective. "

 

but is this "close enough" to satisfy the type certificate?

[aviatoreb]

 

"...we can confirm that it's remarkably close to Avgas 100LL from a performance perspective. "

 

but is this "close enough" to satisfy the type certificate?

 

That is down to the FAA decide if they choose to interpret the type certificates of the airframes which call for specific fuels to call these new no lead 100 octane fuels to be legally equivalent - or if they choose to require that each and every airframe get an STC.

 

Certainly if anyone is going to afford an expensive fleet wide certification process, then it would be a Shell.

 

My sentimental favorite in this process is Gami's fuel.  Then the swift fuel.  But I would root for Shell as well since I want to keep my airplane running in years to come.  If this comes to pass, and I am now optimistic, then it will be good for the engines not to get mucked-up with lead.

[Cruiser]

President Obama signed the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 last week, perhaps this will be the first "fast track" approval test of the new law.

[aviatoreb]

President Obama signed the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 last week, perhaps this will be the first "fast track" approval test of the new law.

 

I was thinking the same question. Seems to me as if fuel would be outside the spec of the law, but maybe it fits the letter of the law.  That would be good if it is.  

[John Pleisse]

President Obama signed the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 last week, perhaps this will be the first "fast track" approval test of the new law.

I was thinking the same question. Seems to me as if fuel would be outside the spec of the law, but maybe it fits the letter of the law.  That would be good if it is.  

 

Now Gentlemen, this would involve the EPA........ doubt it.  

[N601RX]

There is a very long thread on Beechtalk about the pains GAMI has been going through trying to get certification. George has provided updates to the thread several times, I believe one of the last ones I read he said they were going have to get a "Blanket" STC to cover all the models.  They have done a considerable amount of testing, much of it with FAA pilots and engineers in the plane.

[John Pleisse]

Hasn't most of GAMI's data been derived from big bore Continentals? The opposite of Shell using Lycomings? GAMI, even with better data, doesn't have the corporate power, lobbying apparatus and deep pockets Shell or others do. In this event, I see GAMI being bought out by a bigger player who will outspend them.

[DS1980]

To heck with big bore Continentals. Our IO360 Lycomings are about as high strung as engines get at 50 HP per cylinder and relatively high compression.

High strung? An aircraft engine is about as low stress engine as one can get. I guess if comparing it to a box of macaroni and cheese, yes, it's high strung.

[pinerunner]

That is down to the FAA decide if they choose to interpret the type certificates of the airframes which call for specific fuels to call these new no lead 100 octane fuels to be legally equivalent - or if they choose to require that each and every airframe get an STC.

 

Certainly if anyone is going to afford an expensive fleet wide certification process, then it would be a Shell.

 

My sentimental favorite in this process is Gami's fuel.  Then the swift fuel.  But I would root for Shell as well since I want to keep my airplane running in years to come.  If this comes to pass, and I am now optimistic, then it will be good for the engines not to get mucked-up with lead.

I really hope GAMI and Swift don't get shafted in this process.  

[flyingvee201]

I wonder if this has any correlation to China's announcement of easing general aviation rules and airspace in their country?

[N201MKTurbo]

High strung? An aircraft engine is about as low stress engine as one can get. I guess if comparing it to a box of macaroni and cheese, yes, it's high strung.

 

How can you say that. Your average car or motorcycle engine rated at that kind of power would grenade in short order if asked to make 100 percent power for more then a few seconds. 

 

I have a motorcycle that is rated at 160 hp and 1300 CCs. The only time it will continuously make 100 percent power would be WOT, at red line at sea-level. The only way to do that on the bike would be to run at 180 MPH on the PCH. How long do you think it would last? Do you think it would do a six hour leg? Do you think it would make 2000 hours doing that? Our Lycoming is rated to do just that.

 

Most car engines spend most of their time at less the 20% power. Even a sports car or bike running like a bat out of hell only gets to more then 80% power for a few milliseconds at a time just before you shift.

 

Automotive engines have had a terrible record in aviation conversions.

[aviatoreb]

I really hope GAMI and Swift don't get shafted in this process.  

 

Yeah - I think they will. Gami in particular seems to have had a fuel for a few years that exceeds the mark but a never ending moving certification mark.  Then comes shell - and I have a feeling they can simply spend a lot of money on lobbyist and move right into the universal certification as soon as they decide to spend lots of money to make it happen.

[DS1980]

How can you say that. Your average car or motorcycle engine rated at that kind of power would grenade in short order if asked to make 100 percent power for more then a few seconds. 

 

I have a motorcycle that is rated at 160 hp and 1300 CCs. The only time it will continuously make 100 percent power would be WOT, at red line at sea-level. The only way to do that on the bike would be to run at 180 MPH on the PCH. How long do you think it would last? Do you think it would do a six hour leg? Do you think it would make 2000 hours doing that? Our Lycoming is rated to do just that.

 

Most car engines spend most of their time at less the 20% power. Even a sports car or bike running like a bat out of hell only gets to more then 80% power for a few milliseconds at a time just before you shift.

 

Automotive engines have had a terrible record in aviation conversions.

Because 100% power is relative. Asking a 360 CID engine to produce 200 HP just isn't asking a lot. I get the fact that it's doing it at low RPMs, but it just isn't impressive. Making them less impressive are the recent problems some of our more experienced members are having. The fact that a lot of us were taught to run them at ROP settings that are the most abusive, and we aren't dead is testament to the low power, low compression engines we fly behind.

 

I have said before that the comparison to auto engines is lacking, and i still believe it. But take a look at Edelbrock's Power Package for a small block Chevy. What power does it produce at 2700? About 180 HP, and this is an engine that's going to spend a lot of it's life at 5000 RPM. Will it make it to 2000 hours turning 2700? Yes. What about turning 5000 RPM? Nope, but neither would a Lycoming turning 5K. I agree that auto engines have a terrible track record in aviation. The same way an orange makes a terrible apple.

 

Here is a recent excerpt from a conversation I had with Ross in a thread titled "High Power N/A ops LOP vs. Full Rich":

 

"I learned to fly in Vernal UT and Craig CO, so both high altitude airports. My instructor was very seasoned and was retired from flying money from bank to bank, in a twin, at high altitude. I asked him how many hours he had and he said very casually "Well, I stopped counting at 35,000." I also asked him how many times he had to set his airplane in the dirt. He had one precautionary landing in a sage brush field that turned out to be nothing. One! In 35,000 hours! 70,000 engine hours! Guess where he taught me to run the engine? 50 ROP, just as he did for 35,000 hours. How did I, and most importantly, he, get away with running engines so harshly for so long with hardly any consequences? The engines we fly are low stress and overbuilt. A contributing factor-flying out of high density airports.Thank goodness they are forgiving for a ham fisted classic Austin Mini driver as myself."

 

Our aircraft engines are ancient, unimpressive and too dang expensive for what we get.

 

Now, what was this thread about. Oh yea, GO SHELL!

[KSMooniac]

Because 100% power is relative. Asking a 360 CID engine to produce 200 HP just isn't asking a lot. I get the fact that it's doing it at low RPMs, but it just isn't impressive. Making them less impressive are the recent problems some of our more experienced members are having. The fact that a lot of us were taught to run them at ROP settings that are the most abusive, and we aren't dead is testament to the low power, low compression engines we fly behind.

 

I have said before that the comparison to auto engines is lacking, and i still believe it. But take a look at Edelbrock's Power Package for a small block Chevy. What power does it produce at 2700? About 180 HP, and this is an engine that's going to spend a lot of it's life at 5000 RPM. Will it make it to 2000 hours turning 2700? Yes. What about turning 5000 RPM? Nope, but neither would a Lycoming turning 5K. I agree that auto engines have a terrible track record in aviation. The same way an orange makes a terrible apple.

 

 

What is the installed weight of the Edelbrock SBC ready to run?  I betcha it weighs a helluva lot more than an IO-360.  Apples and oranges, certainly.  What is the BSFC of the SBC at 180-200 HP?

[DS1980]

Of course it weighs more. What would a 410 HP Lycoming weigh? More than the Chevy.

What would be the BSFC for an IO-360 capable of 410 HP? Higher than the Chevy.

 

 Again, auto engine comparison is irrelevant, and I wasn't the one to bring it up.

My point was that our engines are low stress. How would you explain 70,000 engines hours running at 50 ROP without an engine problem?

[N201MKTurbo]

I realize we are way off topic, but you started it. When I said that the Lycoming was high strung, I was referring to other aircraft engines. There are not many engines out there that make more HP/Cubic inch.

 

IO-360 200 HP = .55   HP/in

IO-550 310 HP = .56   HP/in

 

Pretty much the same....

 

o-320 160 HP = .50 HP/in

 

Napier Saber 3500 HP = 1.56 HP/in

 

Now there is an engine!