bd32322 Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Just thought I'll poll the forum on what they know about how the major engine manufacturers are going to address the issue of switching away from 100LL for the existing fleet... If we are going to switch that is ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 This is not what you're looking for, exactly, but I'm hopeful because of it, so... I have the IO-390 upgrade. I keep telling myself that Lycoming wouldn't design and sell this without some sort of plan. I'll pause here for the laughter to die down. As I understand it, the upgrade was designed and sold during a time when it was obvious 100LL was going away. So, one of three things must be true: Lycoming doesn't care. If 100LL goes away, they make $$$ selling new engines to desperate owners. Lycoming didn't know. Seems unlikely, but maybe they simply weren't aware 100LL was going away. Lycoming knows, and has a plan. This option is what I'm hanging my hopes on. We'll see, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbridges Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 you would think (haha) that there are way too many GA planes out there using 100LL that some type of compatible fuel would have to be developed before 100LL is pulled off the market. Surely the solution wouldn't be to make expensive modifications to each aircraft that uses it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMan Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Prism: http://www.gami.com/prism/prism.php 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 EB, "Certification is expected soon." It just depends on what the dinition of "is" is.. I think that electronic ignition has a lot to offer. Can the GAMI people deliver on such a task? Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 EB, "Certification is expected soon." It just depends on what the dinition of "is" is.. I think that electronic ignition has a lot to offer. Can the GAMI people deliver on such a task? Best regards, -a- "Is" isn't what it used to be.... :-) I have a belief that Gami has a greater chance in delivering on its vaperware than DeltaHawk has on delivering on its vaperware. Seems simple. We need either, 1) Keep the flow of 100LL rolling indefinitely or 2) A drop in replacement fuel for 100LL. Swichblade grass or some other biofuel?.... 3) Some technology to modify our current engines to allow for 94UL? Electronic timing would do that - such as Prism by Gami. Hopfully STC'ed to go on our current engine. 4) A completely different engine technology such as diesel, hopefully STC'ed to replace our current engines. #2-#4 require some STC work. Barring #1 my favorite on the list is #3. In fact I wish we had #3 anyway since it also promises a more fuel efficient version of my very same TSIO520 - it is like LOP on steroids, each cylinder running an ideal fuel/air ration adjusted between each and every stroke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple8s Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 I cant find it now they may have went out of business, but, about 8 or 9 years ago there was a company called " Affordable Turbine Power Inc" they were out of PA not sure what town but they had a turboshaft power plant for experimental aircraft. It would produce up to 240 hp and weight was much less than a recip power plant of the same hp. The little turbine burned jet, kerosene, or #2 diesel. from what i remember the unit was completely computer controlled. The price was about 30 grand. Its clear that the price was too low or they would still be around but my point is this, if businesses werent so exposed to bogus lawsuits, very high taxes, TONS of government regulation maybe there would be more choices for consumers. I know we do need litigation to help keep companies in line so they dont just makes loads of junk that get people killed but there has to be a balance and I wonder if we have gone too far in the direction of stiffling business and ingenuity. There IS an answer to the tetraethyl lead issue, I just hope the end of GA isnt the answer we are handed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple8s Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 Here's a video of the test plane they had it installed in. They must have went out of business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted March 10, 2013 Report Share Posted March 10, 2013 It looks like a doable idea (cheap turbine... two words I never thought I'd use in the same sentence), if you choose a different kind of aviation: http://www.jetcatusa.com/ Strap a dozen of these on each wing, run some fuel lines, bada bing, bada bang... turbine powered mooney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 It looks like a doable idea (cheap turbine... two words I never thought I'd use in the same sentence), if you choose a different kind of aviation: http://www.jetcatusa.com/ Strap a dozen of these on each wing, run some fuel lines, bada bing, bada bang... turbine powered mooney. http://www.jetcatusa.com/spt5.html Looks good. 55lbs of thrust so isn't that 10 or so make a PT6? And 10 engine redundancy is not too shabby. Check out the turbine rpm range: 55,000 to 165,000rpms. Wow. But the maintenance interval (for a hobby toy mind you - not for FAA aviation use) is 25hrs. Hmmmm.... They are $5k each so 10 of them is in the piston engine range. More about ATP: http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=296369214&targetid=profile I wonder why it went under. Could it be too much regulations? Or could it be just supply and demand? While 30k is a good deal for a turbine engine maybe in the experimental market that is too much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964-M20E Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 I do not know but a 240 shaft HP turbine derated to 200HP for our J and pre J Mooney's would be great especially with a much smaller cowling that would make the Lo-Presti cowl look like a 4x8' piece of plywood and good performance in the teens as a bonus. Now if we could only get it for 30k firewall forward. Well maybe too many hurricanes here on Bourbon street clouding my thought processes. Of course there is still Delta Hawk but their current FW forward price is around $60k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 I cant find it now they may have went out of business, but, about 8 or 9 years ago there was a company called " Affordable Turbine Power Inc" they were out of PA not sure what town but they had a turboshaft power plant for experimental aircraft. It would produce up to 240 hp and weight was much less than a recip power plant of the same hp. The little turbine burned jet, kerosene, or #2 diesel. from what i remember the unit was completely computer controlled. The price was about 30 grand. Its clear that the price was too low or they would still be around but my point is this, if businesses werent so exposed to bogus lawsuits, very high taxes, TONS of government regulation maybe there would be more choices for consumers. I know we do need litigation to help keep companies in line so they dont just makes loads of junk that get people killed but there has to be a balance and I wonder if we have gone too far in the direction of stiffling business and ingenuity. There IS an answer to the tetraethyl lead issue, I just hope the end of GA isnt the answer we are handed. I was curious so I did some google-poking around. Affordable Turbine Power Inc seems to have earned many complaints from folks on grounds that they took deposits, spent that money, but no deliveries were made and no refunds made. http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?p=19574 and there are other complaint similar to this one. In this case at least, there may be more to the story than it is the governments fault that we do not have this turbine. Now here is a wonderful comprehensive over view of all things experimental turbine from the good folks at EAA, including about promised turbine cars 50 years ago: http://www.eaa.ca/experimenter/articles/2010-01_turbines.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetdriven Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 The biggest problem I see in small turbines is the terrible efficiency, we are talking 20-25 GPH to produce 200 HP at the crank, and the idle fuel flow on the ground is the same as cruise. The only way to make it even come close to paying off is to cruise at 25K all the time. Then, turbine powered aircraft have no yellow arc, they must withstand the 60 FPS gust load at redine, which means that the top of green arc is now the redline. I know, I know, that is bad. The diesels all harp about fuel efficiency, but the 230 HP diesels burn 13 GPH to make that number, same as a piston 100LL engine, and they run 80-100 inches of MP to make that. Thats a .39 or so BSFC, same as a piston 100LL engine. Plus the intercoolers, complicated high pressure fuel injection, minimum inflight MP limits, some have gear drives, some have liquid cooling. The Thielert engine (Now called Centurion) has an AD to remove the gearbox and ship for overhaul every 300 hours at a cost of 7K-16k. Every 300 hours. Thats 53$ an hour in gearbox cost. Then the 80 grand or 100 grand cost to retrofit an existing plane. I just dont see a viable alternative to the Lycosuarus or Continental piston engine in this category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 I just dont see a viable alternative to the Lycosuarus or Continental piston engine in this category. Pie in the sky at the moment, but if batteries (significantly) improved, electric. But yeah... today? Nope. This thread makes my wallet sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N201MKTurbo Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 The only thing that will make 100LL go away will be the enviornmentelists regulating it out of existance, which they seem hell bent on doing. As for TEL, it is a simple molacule and can't be that hard to make, if the existing supplier goes out of business and there is still a demand for the stuff somebody will make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 It is a very interesting historical article, http://www.eaa.ca/experimenter/articles/2010-01_turbines.asp written by someone in the turbine engine industry since the 1950s. Of course this supports Byrons statement of the inefficiency of a small turbine. I found very interesting the historical notes on the turbine powered Chrysler car. Okay - no turbine. How about Wankel? Why aren't Wankels more prevalent in aviation. Mazda has certainly shown that they can be reliable car engines at least. Seriously though, Gami's Prism seems the most reasonable improvement to our Lycosuarus and Continental piston engine to bring them to modern standards to burn unleaded fuels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bd32322 Posted March 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 http://www.mistral-engines.com/ I was looking at these aviation wankel engines when thinking of building an experimental, the company is pursuing certification with the FAA now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1964-M20E Posted March 11, 2013 Report Share Posted March 11, 2013 There is always the EFII system. As I said in the past If I could I'd try this on my engine in a heart beat. Well maybe two heart beats and some installation time. This would most liekly allow us to use lower octane unleaded fuel. The EFII system is a complete electronic engine management system for light aircraft engines. The EFII system can be used in any Experimental category aircraft using one of these engines. The EFII system is very similar to what you would find on any modern automobile engine. It is a computer controlled electronic fuel injection and electronic ignition system. The system is controlled by an ECU (the computer) and incorporates a fully mapped fuel curve and ignition timing curve. The electronic fuel injection portion of the system utilizes an electronic fuel injector valve that is installed into each intake tube, just under the engine cylinder and a throttle body that replaces the typical carburetor or mechanical injector butterfly assembly. The electronic ignition portion of the system utilizes high energy inductive ignition coils instead of magnetos to produce a very strong and efficient spark to each plug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N201MKTurbo Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 I'm afraid the cart will be dragging the horse on this one. Nobody will spend the money to upgrade their engines until it is the only option to operate their otherwise worthless aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sreid Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 The only thing that will make 100LL go away will be the enviornmentelists regulating it out of existance, which they seem hell bent on doing. As for TEL, it is a simple molacule and can't be that hard to make, if the existing supplier goes out of business and there is still a demand for the stuff somebody will make it. Not if it's so highly regulated that you can't make a dime. Like the coal fired power plants that are shutting down. There are definitely people willing to pay for electricity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaV8or Posted March 12, 2013 Report Share Posted March 12, 2013 The diesels all harp about fuel efficiency, but the 230 HP diesels burn 13 GPH to make that number, same as a piston 100LL engine, and they run 80-100 inches of MP to make that. Thats a .39 or so BSFC, same as a piston 100LL engine. Plus the intercoolers, complicated high pressure fuel injection, minimum inflight MP limits, some have gear drives, some have liquid cooling. The Thielert engine (Now called Centurion) has an AD to remove the gearbox and ship for overhaul every 300 hours at a cost of 7K-16k. Every 300 hours. Thats 53$ an hour in gearbox cost. Then the 80 grand or 100 grand cost to retrofit an existing plane. I just dont see a viable alternative to the Lycosuarus or Continental piston engine in this category. It's about the end of 100LL, not so much about efficiency. Lycomings and Continentals don't burn Jet A. Jet A as a replacement for 100LL isn't bad because it's existence at the airport into the future is secure and it is likely to be cheaper than any boutique gasoline, or gasoline replacement we are likely to get for our existing engines. The engine swap cost is the killer. We're already scrapping planes at a fair rate and pilots are hanging it up. The disappearance of 100LL will just be the last nail in the coffin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M016576 Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 I'm afraid the cart will be dragging the horse on this one. Nobody will spend the money to upgrade their engines until it is the only option to operate their otherwise worthless aircraft. Valid point. But also consider this: how many airports or ( In my case) fields offer 91 octane unleaded... It's kind of a PITA to operate of of mofuel, even with the STC's for other aircraft: that doesn't make it a popular option. If we start to see mogas at 3.50 a gallon at all our fields, and a $5000-$10000 electronic ignition timing upgrade comes along..., which would you pick- an aspen, or the mogas friendly engine sparing electronic ignition upgrade? I know which one I'd pick..., Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N201MKTurbo Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 What is all this crazy talk about scrapping airplanes? A high strung engine like an IO-360 could easily be made to run on 95UL, just retard the timing or replace the pistons with lower compression pistons. Now you have a perfectly good 190 HP Mooney. May need to replace the exhaust valve seats, but still not scrapping the airplane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Lower HP=lower MGTOW. You won't discard the bird, but you won't appreciate the intervention either. Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.