MoGas?

[RJBrown]

Quote: scottfromiowa

1. Paying excessively higher fuel prices for 100Low Lead...IF I don't need it.

[scottfromiowa]

I get it.  I UNDERSTAND.  However understanding and liking are a whole different animal.

[N201MKTurbo]

I hear a lot of talk about how electronic ignition controls will allow an engine make rated power on lower octane fuel. This is just not true. They may be able to get the most power out of an engine running lower octane fuel, but electronic spark advance cannot change the knock characteristics of the fuel engine combination. If we can get fuel with a guaranteed octane number there will still be a fixed spark advance setting that will give you the most amount of power without detonation.

 

With variable timing you will never know with any certainty how much power your engine is making.

 

Does anybody have any numbers on how much an IO-360 would need to be de-rated to use 94UL?

 

Don’t expect 94UL to be any cheaper then 100LL the manufacture, testing and delivery would be almost the same.

[GeorgePerry]

Personally I'm going to keep pumping 100LL into my IO-360 until a viable >200hp diesel replacment engine is availilble and STC approaved.  That should only take 5 or 10 more years. 

[carusoam]

Check out the link from John Paul Townsend at GAMI....

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEyYFsn2tjg

If I understand correctly....

[1] GAMI states that the new fuel will contain more power per gallon than 100LL  (no statement of density comparison)

[2] They show it flying in an SR22 with turbo charged engine (I believe to be Continental TSIO-550).  Pretty harsh environment...

[3] Very nice instrumented engine test stand.

Also get a read on AOPApilot cover story...There are some details about Continental TSIO 550 - K  that is 94UL friendly...

94UL is stated to be 100LL with the LL removed. 

The turbo charger that is used in the SR22 comes from GAMI (Turbo Alley).

 

(I'm not done reading yet.....Just more fuel for the fire of this thread)

Best regards,

-a-

[rdv]

Excellent discussion. Thanks to everyone for your thoughts. This is obviously a fairly contentious issue and will presumably be for some time. It will be interesting to see what the future has in store for aircraft gas.

[meddesign]

I just got an AOPA E-Mail on getting the lead out.  Here is the most recent report, with more data than I can easily digest.  It would appear there are un-leaded solutions and hopefully the powers that be will choose the best solution manufacturing wise, distribution  wise and therefore cost wise so we can continue to economically fly our birds.  If any of you guys are experts maybe it will be an interesting 300 page read.

Don B

http://www.aopa.org/epilot/redir.cfm?adid=19225

[meddesign]

Blend 151 with no metals or ethanol added a MON of 104.38   For example


Don B PE

[Gilt]

Check out autofuelstc.com 

1. 
   
2. 
   

   Q.Why isn't the Mooney M-20-C (or Piper Comanche) approved?

   
   
   
3. 
   

   
   A. The Mooney and Comanche both experienced vapor lock problems when they were tested. We solved the vapor lock problem, but could not overcome pneumatic lock. Pneumatic lock takes place when the fuel boils as it enters the carb. The engine then dies due to an overrich mixture. This is just the opposite of a vapor lock where the engine quits or runs poorly due to a lean mixture. The better an airplane performs, the more difficult it is to get it through the flight test program.