Seriously? Another unleaded avgas thread . . . ?

[76Srat]

. . . well, not quite.  Here's my thought:  Just like you guys, I've been reading just about everything I can find on the boiling EAGLE/100LL/unleaded debate/debacle/call-it-what-you-will issue.  And I apologize if this specific idea has been thrown around in here and I just can't find it, but I've been wondering a lot if we're simply missing the point altogether here.  Instead of wringing our hands over unleaded fuel options du jour and all of the worries with supply chain, distribution, pricing, loyalties between suppliers, does-it-play-well-with-others, etc?, should we get to pondering a larger opportunity?  

With credit to the latest article on the topic in this month's "EAA Sport Aviation" magazine, I think the solution might be in not trying to proffer the best "fuel" alternative and instead proffer the best reciprocating engine alternatives.  What do I mean by this?  Well, for starters, we have to wonder if on the fuel/engine side we're sitting on an upcoming sea-change in technology, not on the fuel side, but on the engine side.  And in support of this (possibly) exciting change, should we look no further than what has happened with avionics since the day the GNS430 was born?

Cue the logical coffee spewing over computer screens at this point, and I'm not trying to stir a long-tormented hornet's nest, but since the certification process is what it is (anything but cheap), should we as the marketplace look for a cheaper/viable engine replacement program instead of just pushing the rope further uphill on fuel alternatives?  The real answer lies in the cert process and the example shown us from those who dared to tread the shark-filled void of avionics upgrades, circa late 1990s.  It was said then, as it is being said now for engines in legacy types such as our beloved Mooneys, that "uprooting the legacy steam-gauges will never catch on" in the legacy piston fleet.  We see now how short-sighted that viewpoint was then and just how great it has been since.

I agree that there are legion reasons a recip engine replacement wouldn't be viable or feasible for most, if not all legacy piston fleets.  But, long term, a viable SAF-burning alternative recip engine for IO-320/360/IO-470/520/550 fleets out there seems to me to be money far better spent toward certification than a yet-to-be-determined acceptance rate of unleaded fuel replacements.  It is less than ironic to me that in the time you have to wait for a FOH we'll likely have the debate over the very unleaded fuel we'll be forced to use in that FOH solved--this is not a sustainable logic.  Let's put that effort in to gaining the best engine replacement for a longer term, instead of wasting this decade-plus over a fuel to be burned in engines that aren't sustainable themselves.   

We now have streaming and digital music.  Is this entire debate about unleaded avgas replacement going to end up being the VHS/Betamax debate?  Fast forward 5 or 10 years from now and will this fuel debate end up on the academic editing room floor, when we really should be debating not if, but which recip alternatives should be out there? 

[A64Pilot]

The only viable, even partially affordable engine replacement that has even come close would be an STC to remove the high compression and or turbo motors and replace them with low compression carbureted ones that can burn Mogas. Every other possible engine replacement that has been even Experimentally developed cost is likely as much or more than the average Mooney sells for, I’m talking likely 100K or more once it’s completed, the cost of the engine is I’d guess only about half the total cost.

Or as I have repeatedly posted install what seems to be a $12,000 ADI system and burn either 94UL or Mogas. I do not know but bet Mogas would require some kind of airframe modification on our Mooney’s, like maybe cooling vents or another fuel pump maybe. We could implement ADI very quickly with 94UL though assuming it’s vapor pressure is the same as 100LL.

But everyone wants a magic fuel that’s just like 100 LL just without the lead. It seems that fuel just isn’t possible or it would have been done long ago, wouldn’t it?

Or I guess we could do what Brazil has been doing for decades with IO-540’s and burn pure Ethanol? Bet range would suck though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_202_Ipanema

[Pinecone]

See DeltaHawk

But people are screaming over a $1 per gallon price increase on fuel.  Imagine the yelling over an over $100,000 STC required to fly.

Basically, they have been working on alternative engines, including better AVGAS burning ones, but no one wants to spend the money.

[76Srat]

I hear you, for sure, and I am all-in on a viable fuel replacement.  And if it were just as simple as a plug and play fuel replacement, we'd already have it ubiquitous easily.  Fact is, and we all agree, it isn't easy, nor will it be ubiquitous anytime soon.  It just doesn't work that way when it comes to fuel supply and distribution, which is what I'm really getting at with this topic.  Thinking globally, an unleaded 100LL replacement likely won't move any needles and won't solve the long-term problem.  Globally-speaking, there is a huge need for more modern, viable, serviceable piston engine replacements far more than the more desirable and more (short term) feasibility of a viable fuel replacement.  

To overstate the obvious, the US GA marketplace is the largest of its kind in the world, so whatever works "best" for the US is, in popular view, the "best" solution.  I'm just curious what the business case was back in the day when the avionics wizards figured out both the regulatory side of the puzzle***, as well as the actual sales-to-market side of the puzzle.  By all respects that I can ponder, we're at the same inflection point regarding making the business case for going a bit (okay, a lot) further with the unleaded fuel replacement technology and doing it right:  let's focus on viable, outright piston engine replacement tech instead of just the fuel for it.  

Again, this isn't anything new, its just perhaps a different way to solve a lingering problem.  I'm afraid the pursuit we're after with just a replacement fuel is akin to forcing the marketplace to retain its old VCRs just so we can continue to use and play our old VHS tapes.  

Is a replacement fuel solution really a long term solution?  I'm not so sure it is.  

[76Srat]

7 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

See DeltaHawk

But people are screaming over a $1 per gallon price increase on fuel.  Imagine the yelling over an over $100,000 STC required to fly.

Basically, they have been working on alternative engines, including better AVGAS burning ones, but no one wants to spend the money.

I totally agree.  Respectfully, however, what does a full-glass, kicka$$ Garmin or Dynon panel replacement cost?  Nearly that, I'd say.  And that's what all this boils down to, the dollars.  I also argue that our regulatory agencies have to get on board and make the certification process a lot less burdensome and time consuming.  I'm all about safety and security in designs and function and the DOT/FAA systems of certification are second to none.  We should all be thankful for just how top-notch it is.  That said, and I got in to this friendly argument with my non-aviator neighbor the other day, the marketplace won't be the reason none of us are zipping around in our own little Jetson's drones, point to point, anytime soon.  It will be the regulatory agencies who can't seem to move at the speed of any marketplace whatsoever.  Hell, the FAA can't even decide if/when it wants to replace or remove its terrestrial vacuum tube driven ground-based pre-WWII radar technology.  What makes anyone think the FAA will agree to move at the speed of post-1990s development on anything in this new century? 

My cynicism aside, I argue this is a twofold problem:  it isn't just a fuel replacement solution; it is a recip engine technology replacement solution, too.  It may truly come down to the likes of DeltaHawk and others deciding to actually develop a certified replacement for our Mooneys (and others like them) or not, much akin to the decisions which led to the unbelievable panel tech we now have, thanks to those same 1990s certification efforts.  They just as easily could have decided only to make a better steam gauge back then (many did that are no longer around).  I'm very glad they decided to go a different route and the agencies supported them for it.  Hint:  it also significant tax legislation and GAMA and many others' coordinated efforts on the lobby and legislative side to make it happen.  This is what I'm talking about when it comes to the agencies easing up on the timelines and expenses OEMs and other developers have to endure just to propose something that makes it better for all of us.

***this is the asterisk explanation that I forgot to include above, btw. 

[76Srat]

adding to my post above:  maybe we should be lobbying for legislation that expands to an accelerated personal depreciation of the replacement piston engine tech, etc.  This is a way the agencies can support private industry to invest in the development and support the user/consumer to buy it.  It won't ever get "cheaper", but it certainly could become more "beneficial" to all involved.  If the user/buyer/taxpayer were incentivized as equally as the OEM/developer could be, then we'd be closer to a longer term solution.  But you're right, merely relying on pure marketplace economics will never get us out of the piston engine or piston leaded-fuel dark ages.  Plenty of policy makers want to eliminate private aviation altogether.  We need to support those that should be supporting it in creative and sustainable ways going forward, otherwise we'll only be enjoying our piston aircraft on static display posts in museums some day . . . 

[Hank]

If people aren't willing to pay an additional $1/gallon for unleaded fuel [at 100 hours, my C will require an extra $900 for this], how many do you expect to pay $100,000 or more for a new engine? What about the many, many airplanes whose total value is less than the cost of the new engine?

New engine technology may work out for newly-built airplanes, and for late-model planes already in service. But very few [if any] pre-J Mooneys are valued about $100K . . . .

[76Srat]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

If people aren't willing to pay an additional $1/gallon for unleaded fuel [at 100 hours, my C will require an extra $900 for this], how many do you expect to pay $100,000 or more for a new engine? What about the many, many airplanes whose total value is less than the cost of the new engine?

New engine technology may work out for newly-built airplanes, and for late-model planes already in service. But very few [if any] pre-J Mooneys are valued about $100K . . . .

I think your point is valid.  My point, though not very well said by me, is I think people aren't disinclined to use 100UL based solely on price per gallon.  I think they're disinclined to use it for the simple reason that it isn't readily available in as many places as 100LL.  Obviously this will change once more and more 100UL options become available.  However, I don't think the use or non-use of 100UL is due solely to it being priced higher per-gallon than standard 100LL.  On the price per gallon issue, I'll always agree with you.  

That said, and perhaps this is more about options at TBO/OH point in time, which we'll all face in one way or another (much akin to the decisions we face when replacing panels or a panel upgrade), should we be pining for more recip technology and the options that go with that, instead of hoping for ubiquitous 100UL options to pop up everywhere?  The tech and investments being made in fuel research seem to me to be a bit misplaced because we're talking about piston engine tech that is 65+ years old.  Again, this is no different than restoring or reinvesting research and development in cathode ray tube television sets, which is cool for the exercise but not viable or even remotely smart going forward.  By the time we have ubiquitous 100UL options, we could have far better and affordable piston recip upgrade options. 

We'll never get there unless we can foresee the next set of trees way ahead instead of trying to figure out how to harvest the virtually extinct species of trees we've been using for decades with little to no tech advantages.

 

[varlajo]

What do people put into their IO-360s in Europe? 

[toto]

3 hours ago, varlajo said:

What do people put into their IO-360s in Europe? 

100LL avgas 

[toto]

9 hours ago, 76Srat said:

. . . well, not quite.  Here's my thought:  Just like you guys, I've been reading just about everything I can find on the boiling EAGLE/100LL/unleaded debate/debacle/call-it-what-you-will issue.  And I apologize if this specific idea has been thrown around in here and I just can't find it, but I've been wondering a lot if we're simply missing the point altogether here.  Instead of wringing our hands over unleaded fuel options du jour and all of the worries with supply chain, distribution, pricing, loyalties between suppliers, does-it-play-well-with-others, etc?, should we get to pondering a larger opportunity?  

With credit to the latest article on the topic in this month's "EAA Sport Aviation" magazine, I think the solution might be in not trying to proffer the best "fuel" alternative and instead proffer the best reciprocating engine alternatives.  What do I mean by this?  Well, for starters, we have to wonder if on the fuel/engine side we're sitting on an upcoming sea-change in technology, not on the fuel side, but on the engine side.  And in support of this (possibly) exciting change, should we look no further than what has happened with avionics since the day the GNS430 was born?

Cue the logical coffee spewing over computer screens at this point, and I'm not trying to stir a long-tormented hornet's nest, but since the certification process is what it is (anything but cheap), should we as the marketplace look for a cheaper/viable engine replacement program instead of just pushing the rope further uphill on fuel alternatives?  The real answer lies in the cert process and the example shown us from those who dared to tread the shark-filled void of avionics upgrades, circa late 1990s.  It was said then, as it is being said now for engines in legacy types such as our beloved Mooneys, that "uprooting the legacy steam-gauges will never catch on" in the legacy piston fleet.  We see now how short-sighted that viewpoint was then and just how great it has been since.

I agree that there are legion reasons a recip engine replacement wouldn't be viable or feasible for most, if not all legacy piston fleets.  But, long term, a viable SAF-burning alternative recip engine for IO-320/360/IO-470/520/550 fleets out there seems to me to be money far better spent toward certification than a yet-to-be-determined acceptance rate of unleaded fuel replacements.  It is less than ironic to me that in the time you have to wait for a FOH we'll likely have the debate over the very unleaded fuel we'll be forced to use in that FOH solved--this is not a sustainable logic.  Let's put that effort in to gaining the best engine replacement for a longer term, instead of wasting this decade-plus over a fuel to be burned in engines that aren't sustainable themselves.   

We now have streaming and digital music.  Is this entire debate about unleaded avgas replacement going to end up being the VHS/Betamax debate?  Fast forward 5 or 10 years from now and will this fuel debate end up on the academic editing room floor, when we really should be debating not if, but which recip alternatives should be out there? 

I mean, if we want an alternative engine for an post-100LL world and it’s not a DeltaHawk, it feels like it’s not going to be a piston engine.

These guys have a vaporware turbine that seems kind of awesome:

https://turb.aero/how-to-buy/certificated-engines

From my perspective, the announcement of the G100UL STC was a watershed for the future of piston GA. We’ll figure out some kind of ceramic coating that it won’t eat, and we’ll have a few more decades of reciprocating engines until our Jetsons cars arrive. 

[N201MKTurbo]

I don’t think we need to do anything as drastic as replace our engines. All of our engines can be made to burn 94UL, which is 100LL without the lead. This could be done without doing anything except changing the timing at high power settings. It would likely turn our 200 HP engines into 190 HP engines. But the engine would still be able to produce the some power and reject the same amount of heat as it does now. So at any flight regime where your 200HP engine was making less than 190HP, there is no reason it cannot still do it. Think about it, when does your engine actually make full rated power? On takeoffs from sea level airports. By the time you get to about 4000 feet you are below the 190 HP with WOT and redline RPM. So, your performance will be a little less below 4000 feet. Most people throttle back or reduce their RPMs soon after takeoff, so they are already below the 190 HP. 
 

I would think a SureFly firmware change could make this scenario work. It could retard the timing at sea level down to say 15 degrees or so, and crank it back up at higher altitudes. There would be no loss of cruise performance and only a slight loss of performance below 4000 feet. Above that it would performe the same as it does today.

[McMooney]

if i'm remembering correctly, it may even be simpler then that,  just don't go full throttle at sea level at 110 degs and you should be ok