TSIO360

[Airways]

Suppose TCM was up for it: could they redesign the TSIO360-series so it would be able to handle UL91 or UL98 ?  Without derating the engine, of course…

I’m thinking redesigned cylinders, valves,…  Most probably a new engine designator too.

I know that G100UL is coming, but it’ll probably take another 20 years before it arrives in Europe 

[carusoam]

yes…

 

Expect the redesign to need a change to the compression ratio…

Kind of like being between a rock and a hard place…

The compression ratio gives us great HP….  At the cost of being closer to detonation….

100LL allows the fuel to be more detonation proof… going lower octane puts us closer to detonation…

 

Seems like the engine redesign is going to need to take this into account…

Lead was used to lubricate and cushion valves…. Modern materials and manufacturing techniques have eliminated the need for lead from this point of view…

The IO550 is approved to burn 100LL and 100… but, where do I find 100?

 

MS has at least one TCM guy on the member list… haven’t seen them in quite a while…

Best regards,

-a-

Edited January 30, 2022 by carusoam

[toto]

24 minutes ago, Airways said:

I know that G100UL is coming, but it’ll probably take another 20 years before it arrives in Europe 

I’ve been off on a spelunking expedition in Google since I saw your post. I haven’t followed European approvals for G100UL (which is the only UL avgas I’ve been really excited about ever), but it’s an interesting question. Apparently the secret sauce for GAMI (aromatics) is a bit controversial in Europe, though maybe less so than TEL..

Anyway, here’s a couple of random interesting links fwiw ..

https://www.iaopa.eu/contentServlet/iaopa-europe-enews-august-2021---special-edition (IAOPA update on UL fuels)

https://www.hjelmco.com/upl/files/41143.pdf (business school paper with a 2010 date - apparently it’s been updated)

[Airways]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

The compression ratio gives us great HP….  At the cost of being closer to detonation….

Strangely enough the Lyc IO540 has some 8.7:1 compression ratio whilst the TSIO360 is 7:1, yet the IO540 is approved for UL91.  So it’s turbocharging that is the problem ?  Are there mechanical tricks up the sleeve that can reduce the risk of detonation from that side ?  

[milotron]

The turbo heats up the intake charge considerably, increasing the possibility of detonation.

I have been wondering the same, as to how my TSIO360 would fair on UL91 or 94 and what the resulting margin for detonation might be. How conservative are these tests?  

[carusoam]

34 minutes ago, Airways said:

Strangely enough the Lyc IO540 has some 8.7:1 compression ratio whilst the TSIO360 is 7:1, yet the IO540 is approved for UL91.  So it’s turbocharging that is the problem ?  Are there mechanical tricks up the sleeve that can reduce the risk of detonation from that side ?  

Keep in mind how total compression ratio is accounted for…

The mechanical compression ratio of the pistons… plus an additional amount for the TC’s output…

Then add how much the TC’d engine is actually working… very high output over long periods of time….

The TC’d engines lowered the mechanical CR a bit…

Even the TN’d IO550 uses a lower CR than the NA version….

+1 for intercoolers, and knowing/controlling the temp going into the engine…

Best regards,

-a-

[N201MKTurbo]

The compression ratio cannot be changed by a turbocharger. What a turbo can do is increase the cylinder pressure. Detonation happens at some combination of cylinder pressure and temperature. Detonation is also affected by mixture.

Anything done to accommodate lower octane fuel will reduce the power output of the engine. Those things include retarding the timing, or reducing the boost in a turbocharged engine or the compression ratio in a normally aspirated engine or turbo normalized engine. 
 

The only way to regain that lost power would be to increase the RPM limit, but this is usually a limitation on the propeller. 
 

Any change of the engine power output would require redoing all the performance charts for the plane. This would be a big effort for whoever does it.

BTW, there is no electronic magic that will change any of this.

[kortopates]

Anything other than 100LL or 100UL is non starter in these engines and virtually all the high performance engines. The lower octane Swift 91UL is mostly only going to relieve the training aircraft fleets requirements. Personally I've always felt it was a mistake to even manufacture it since very few fields have the infrastructure to support dispensing multiple octane levels of Avgas. But it seems to be an experiment policiticans want to support.
Incidentally the TSIO-360 use a 7.4:1 CR, the Lyc IO-540 used on the Bravo uses a 8.0:1 but most of the higher power Lyc IO-540 300HP and 350HP use an even lower CR of 7.3:1 
I am very optimistic about the Gami 100UL, its just going to take some time and its really the only real practical solution to the problem - engine modifications and de-ratings are non starters becuse of the airframe requirments. Its not that simple even if you could just derate the engine. Besides you don't really want to fly an underpowered Mooney anyway and folks surely won't pay great amout of money for an STC that kills their planes performance! I know nothing of European rules on this, but how they possibly prefer to see the continued use of TEL over the aromatics of Gami 100UL.  But I get the powers to be may not care at all. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by kortopates

[1980Mooney]

3 hours ago, kortopates said:

I am very optimistic about the Gami 100UL, its just going to take some time and its really the only real practical solution to the problem - 

When there is only one practical market solution I believe that is effectively a monopoly.  When there is a monopoly then there is no incentive for anyone in the supply chain to manage costs down - not GAMI, not Swift not airports with single served FBO's.  In fact there is nothing stopping GAMI and Swift from taking a bigger cut.  

Edited January 31, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[Airways]

4 hours ago, kortopates said:

I know nothing of European rules on this, but how they possibly prefer to see the continued use of TEL over the aromatics of Gami 100UL

On the contrary, they moved in the opposite direction.  Import of TEL into the EU will be prohibited in the near future. Only in strong diluted format (say, a barrel of 100LL) it would be allowed.  This was not a problem since TEL was manufactured in the UK, which was in the EU…before Brexit.   So this means we can’t produce our own 100LL, we’ll have to import it.  Did anybody say price increase ?

 

People get the politicians they deserve but boy, what did I do wrong ? 

[toto]

7 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

When there is only one practical market solution I believe that is effectively a monopoly.  When there is a monopoly then there is no incentive for anyone in the supply chain to manage costs down - not GAMI, not Swift not airports with single served FBO's.  In fact there is nothing stopping GAMI and Swift from taking a bigger cut.  

I’m not sure what GAMI’s long term plan is, but there’s nothing stopping them from licensing G100UL to any number of different manufacturers who can compete on price and service. 

[carusoam]

On 1/31/2022 at 8:09 AM, toto said:

I’m not sure what GAMI’s long term plan is, but there’s nothing stopping them from licensing G100UL to any number of different manufacturers who can compete on price and service. 

typically a manufacturer will set up regions that their clients/sales guys can sell the product….  This is the method of keeping a company from competing against itself…..

We would probably need another company to develop a similar product like Shell100UL…

 

How long can this monopoly last?

If GUL100 takes off… it will draw interest from the other players…

 

-a-

[Airways]

Hjelmco claim that they can develop 100UL. They already produce 98UL.

[1980Mooney]

On 1/31/2022 at 7:09 AM, toto said:

I’m not sure what GAMI’s long term plan is, but there’s nothing stopping them from licensing G100UL to any number of different manufacturers who can compete on price and service. 

It is one thing to attract manufacturers/suppliers to a growing market.  It is another to attract them to a declining/flat market.  And just where is the competition? - most airports have one supplier - there is no option of pulling up to multiple pumps or having multiple trucks compete for your business.  Look at the declining sales:  Who wants to make an investment just to compete for declining sales?  Before you think those look like big numbers, that is only about 9,000 gallons per day per state.  That is about half the size of the average backyard in ground swimming pool.  You can fill that with a garden hose over the course of a day.  Volumes are so small that it will probably still have to be trucked around the country.  A large tank truck holds 11,600 gallons - that would only be 37 truck loads per day.

Automotive gasoline sales by contrast are about 900 times more than aviation gasoline sales. Said another way, in one day the amount of automotive gasoline sold is 2.5 times the amount of aviation gasoline sold in an entire year. 

We don't know the formulation of G100UL but the low volumes might not support more than one manufacturer in order to create some economies of scale.   I think we are going to be in for sticker shock.

 

[Pinecone]

On 1/31/2022 at 2:09 PM, toto said:

I’m not sure what GAMI’s long term plan is, but there’s nothing stopping them from licensing G100UL to any number of different manufacturers who can compete on price and service. 

GAMI is not an oil company.  They cannot produce G100UL, they will license people to make it.

And I have known George Braly for many years.  He is doing this for his love of aviation.  Yes, he plans on making some money also, but not to rape people.