Swift 94 fuel fails trial at UND

[N201MKTurbo]

As I said once before, the oil company filled the 100LL tank at the airport with premium unleaded. The sad part was I was the first one to notice it. Doesn’t anybody actually look at the fuel in the sampler? I drained out all but 5 gallons and flew to the next airport to get fuel (01V to KFTG (KCFO)).

It ran just like it always did.

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

As I said once before, the oil company filled the 100LL tank at the airport with premium unleaded. The sad part was I was the first one to notice it. Doesn’t anybody actually look at the fuel in the sampler? I drained out all but 5 gallons and flew to the next airport to get fuel (01V to KFTG (KCFO)).

It ran just like it always did.

I can’t imagine how that happened as of course they are different trucks etc.

100LL has I’m sure orders of magnitude more detonation resistance than car gas, yet every now and again someone detonated a cylinder to death burning 100 LL

While I believe you can run off of car gas, I believe special attention and better than factory instrumentation is needed and very possibly some performance reductions, and even then you likely don’t have as much safety margin.

I ran out of gas in my Jeep once, had a gallon of Coleman fuel, dumped that in the tank. Whatever that stuff is, Naptha maybe worked but must have had an Octane rating of about 10, the Jeep rattled badly with just about any load on it.

Mazda has developed a gasoline / spark ignition Diesel. I would assume it could run very high compression on very low Octane fuel?

[Fly Boomer]

12 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I ran out of gas in my Jeep once, had a gallon of Coleman fuel, dumped that in the tank.’Whatever that stuff is, Naptha maybe worked but must have had an Octane rating of about 10, the Jeep rattled badly with just about any load on it.

I'm a little surprised by this.  I guess I always thought that Coleman fuel was very highly refined.  Whatever it is, I'm sure it's the cheapest hydrocarbon that will run a camp stove or lantern.

[A64Pilot]

We used to run Amaco white gas in Stoves and lanterns when I was a kid, also in the Mercury 100 HP “Tower of Power” outboard, an inline 6 cyl with I swear 6 carburators.

Those that remember it remember that it was a water clear unleaded 100+ Octane fuel, unleaded. 

‘How did they do that back then?

 

[A64Pilot]

Did a little Googling, car gas Octane in the 60’s averaged about 94 for Regular and as high as 104 for Premium.

Down in my neck of the woods I think Sunoco had the highest Octane in their Ethyl. Called that of course from TetraEthyl lead.

If I recall correctly the pump had a dial on it that you could dial up the Octane, I don’t know how that worked, maybe blended two fuels?

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, Fly Boomer said:

I'm a little surprised by this.  I guess I always thought that Coleman fuel was very highly refined.  Whatever it is, I'm sure it's the cheapest hydrocarbon that will run a camp stove or lantern.

According to Google its Naptha, and its Octane is 50ish. What I saw was between 53-57.

It seems Naptha is one of the first things to come off in the distillation process. I think it is very clean burning and Octane for stove and lantern fuel is irrelevant but you want hot which alcohol is not and clean burning so the generator doesn’t clog.

All my old Coleman stuff has the silver painted tanks which means it’s OK for unleaded car gas but I always burned camp fuel. I have a few micro stoves from my Army days that are multi fuel and will burn kerosene so therefore Jet fuel for whatever that’s worth, kerosene doesn’t burn nearly as clean and sort of stinks too.

Jet-A has an Octane of around 15, and if you mis fuel with that it will of course detonate your engine to death

[A64Pilot]

You know this got me thinking, when I road raced motorcycles I would buy 105 Octane unleaded race gas at the track.

I was just racing an old Suzuki GS-500 in clubman class but I had put it on a dyno and bumped timing until I got the most HP I could at 1000 RPM less than redline, no idea what it was and the 105 was just insurance.

You can get up to 108 Octane UNLEADED race gas, to go higher requires lead

Back when I was drag racing Z-1 turbos we ran what was called “Fast Gas” and I remember hearing 158 Octane, but that can’t be true can it?

[65MooneyPilot]

I think if I was going to change my engine and had a C,D,E, or F model, I would seriously consider switching to a Delta Hawk engine. It is only 180hp but being a  turbo diesel you should get 180hp at all altitudes. Then you don’t have to worry about fuel again until they outlaw jet fuel. I know there are maintenance teams working on an STC for the conversion now. As far as the UL conversion, it won’t be perfect but in the 10 year conversion window we will overcome the issues that come up. 

[DXB]

29 minutes ago, 65MooneyPilot said:

I think if I was going to change my engine and had a C,D,E, or F model, I would seriously consider switching to a Delta Hawk engine. It is only 180hp but being a  turbo diesel you should get 180hp at all altitudes. Then you don’t have to worry about fuel again until they outlaw jet fuel. I know there are maintenance teams working on an STC for the conversion now. As far as the UL conversion, it won’t be perfect but in the 10 year conversion window we will overcome the issues that come up. 

It's a really cool engine, but it sacrifices about 90 lb of useful load though in swapping for a 180HP lycoming O-360 I think.  ...and something tells me the STCs for vintage Mooneys are not at the top of the list.

[hammdo]

Vintage - agree. Probably Js and up - if at all. I imagine Pipers and Cessnas mostly for the first decade - at $100,000 to $110,000 per kit, not sure how many will get retrofitted…

-Don

[65MooneyPilot]

I know of a company that just bought a C model and they are just starting to work on it. It most likely will happen if they keep going. Giving up 90 lbs for me is not a big deal but of course everyone will have to make that decision. 

[toto]

1 hour ago, DXB said:

It's a really cool engine, but it sacrifices about 90 lb of useful load though in swapping for a 180HP lycoming O-360 I think.

At 7.3gph, you could leave 15 gallons in the truck and get the 90 pounds back

 

[Ragsf15e]

21 minutes ago, toto said:

At 7.3gph, you could leave 15 gallons in the truck and get the 90 pounds back

 

True, but the jet fuel weighs a little more, so if we use 9gph for 100ll at 6lbs/gallon and 7.3gph for jet at 6.7lbs/gallon we’re pretty much burning between 49-54 lbs/hour.  Even though you can make up a little of that 90lb ul loss, I don’t think you’ll make up much.

I would love to have the benefit of the turbo though!

[toto]

3 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

True, but the jet fuel weighs a little more, so if we use 9gph for 100ll at 6lbs/gallon and 7.3gph for jet at 6.7lbs/gallon we’re pretty much burning between 49-54 lbs/hour.  Even though you can make up a little of that 90lb ul loss, I don’t think you’ll make up much.

I would love to have the benefit of the turbo though!

I think I would get there in the IO-360. I’m usually burning 10.8gph at 65% ROP, so the DH would be >30% improvement, or more than 100 pounds even with the increase in weight. 

Woohoo! Now I just have to figure out how many hours I have to burn to pay for a $100k engine 

 

[McMooney]

2 hours ago, 65MooneyPilot said:

I think if I was going to change my engine and had a C,D,E, or F model, I would seriously consider switching to a Delta Hawk engine. It is only 180hp but being a  turbo diesel you should get 180hp at all altitudes. Then you don’t have to worry about fuel again until they outlaw jet fuel. I know there are maintenance teams working on an STC for the conversion now. As far as the UL conversion, it won’t be perfect but in the 10 year conversion window we will overcome the issues that come up. 

I would do this in a heartbeat if it  say 40ish k but 100k+ just doesn't make any sense

[65MooneyPilot]

I am feeling your pain but any new engine is above 50k. Then you have to adapt it to the plane. Engine mount, hoses, cowling,electrical, and instruments to name a few items. In fact the experimental world is not any cheaper except the parts are a little less. If it turns out to be a reliable,safe, and less maintenance it would be worth it long term. 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, McMooney said:

I would do this in a heartbeat if it  say 40ish k but 100k+ just doesn't make any sense

Where do you get a brand new Lycoming for $40k?

[hammdo]

That $100,000 or $110,000 is a complete conversion kit with just about everything needed to convert - not just the engine. Of course, there will probably be some items left to still do…

-Don

[Pinecone]

On 12/16/2023 at 2:13 PM, EricJ said:

There was also 115/145 which was a really, really cool purple color.    I was hoping they'd make the new unleaded stuff the same color, as I don't think 115/145 has been made for a long time, but, alas, it's some other less inspiring color.

 

A batch was made every year for the Reno Air Races.

Interestingly, G100UL has a rich rating over 145, something like 160.

[N201MKTurbo]

8 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

A batch was made every year for the Reno Air Races.

Interestingly, G100UL has a rich rating over 145, something like 160.

After dealing with missile fuel for a while, I'm pretty sure if you order the minimum amount, the oil refinery will make you anything you want. It ain't cheap and the minimum amount is typically 10,000 gallons.

[Mcstealth]

On 12/17/2023 at 7:32 PM, A64Pilot said:

You know this got me thinking, when I road raced motorcycles I would buy 105 Octane unleaded race gas at the track.

I was just racing an old Suzuki GS-500 in clubman class.

Same here, but I bought the 99 octane from VP because I couldn't justify the price difference for the gains. GS-550-ES 

[Pinecone]

Octane only tells you the resistance of the fuel to detonation.  Technically, over 100 ratings are Performance Numbers, not Octane, since pure iso-octane is the definition of 100 octane.

Aviation fuels are rated with two numbers, rich and lean.  The testing parameters are different.  MOGAS is rated with two numbers also, RON and MON.  In the past, the number on the pump was RON, but that does not give you all the needed information.  In the early 70s, the US switch to Pump Octane Number or Anti Knock Index (AKI).  This is the average between RON and MON.  The differences are in the test conditions of things like mixture, CHT, IAT, oil temp, etc.   The AVGAS lean number is almost the same at the MOGAS MON.   And most MOGAS is about a 10 point spread between RON and MON.  Most of the rest of the world still only posts RON.  So European 97 or 98 fuel is the same as our 92 or 93 AKI premium.

So 87 MOGAS is about 82 MON, which is a bit higher than the 80 rating for 80/87 which is why many low compression engines can run pump MOGAS.   Higher compression, normally aspirated aircraft engines may be rated for 91/96 AVGAS.  But 93 MOGAS has an MON of around 88, or well below the 91 rating.  So pump MOGAS does not work.  Turbo charged engines typically require 100LL or 100/130 AVGAS.  100LL is a lower lead 100/130. But LL100/130 is an unwieldy term.

G200UL is the same base alkylate as 100LL, but uses aromatics to boost the octane.  

 

[A64Pilot]

On 12/21/2023 at 9:24 AM, Mcstealth said:

Same here, but I bought the 99 octane from VP because I couldn't justify the price difference for the gains. GS-550-ES 

You raced Clubman too?

[Fritz1]

Late to the party, remember leaded auto fuel disappearing in Europe in the late 80s, some car and motorcycles had valve problems, most did not. I thought about putting a Bravo cylinder on the shelf last year so that I may never need it but had a gut feeling that especially turbo engines may need different exhaust valve seats when the lead disappears.

Anybody any experience with unleaded aviation fuel in turbo engines??

My hunch is that there will be cylinder replacements, new exhaust valve seats, all kinds of redesigns to use the unleaded aviation fuel in turbo engines.

In the meantime there will be a trend to add a smaller amount of additives to the UL aviation fuel to mitigate the exhaust valve problems until appropriate cylinders are available, blends with avgas, right??

Where is 

Tetraethyl Lead

Entylene Bromide

for sale right now?? Is it true that all the TEL used in Avgas comes from a plant in the UK or is there a plant in the US?

To my best understanding 100 gal Avgas has about 3 ounces of these additives, what are the exact numbers?? do these additives mix easily, meaning could you add them yourself to 100UL aviation fuel as long as the additives are legally available, kinda carry a jug of current avgas additives until a permanent solution for turbo engines is found??

 

 

 

 

[Pinecone]

GAMI has done a lot of testing on TN and Turbocharged engines.