Avgas Survey...please take this!

[KSMooniac]

Here is a link to Av Consumer's aviation fuel survey:

http://questionpro.com/t/ABQbdZP4ev

 

Please take the time to go through this as it greatly affects our future viability at Mooney operators.  Currently none of our planes can work with MOGAS, even the 180 hp models, so this is important.

 

To me, it seems like they're trying to garner support for a dual-fuel solution with MOGAS as one alternative since some of the fleet can use it today.  IMO, if they try to divide the fleet and use MOGAS for some, sooner or later those of that need 100 octane will find ourselves with no fuel!  The market just isn't big enough to support multiple fuel pumps/trucks at most airports.

 

For those that haven't been following along, GAMI has created a drop-in replacement fuel (G100UL) that performs a little bit better than 100LL and can be made with existing ingredients that are in refineries today.  There is a lot of bureaucratic resistance at the FAA, as well as refinery resistance that has regional monopolies today for 100LL and high profit margins.  The lead means the distribution and transportation requirements are onerous and keeps others from competing...whereas an UL formulation should be able to open the arena to a large extent.

 

This is important...please give your input!

[jetdriven]

Its not just the market forces at work here, MOGAS has been a viable solution for aircraft for 30 years but to date I have only seen one MOGAS pump. I always asked the FBO's why, and the answer was exclusive contracts with big oil companies to sell only their 100LL on the field or else.

[Seth]

Done

[carusoam]

My home drome used to have three pump systems, two gas and one jet fuel, and a delivery truck...

For those that used mogas...

They used 100LL for take off and landing, and mogas for ops outside the red box.

If somebody does and shares the "research" to indicate that the IO550 can run on mogas when outside the "red box" at altitudes up to 12,500. I would be willing to put two fuels into my plane...

I would also want to install a reliable method of monitoring the engine for knock/ping.

Best regards,

-a-

[Mooneymite]

Done.

Going with the mogas solution will split support and leave high performance owners a minority.

[jetdriven]

I have a wonderful little 600$ device in my 93 Eagle Talon turbo, called the J&S Safeguard. It is an electronic box which is tapped into the coil trigger wires and uses a single knock sensor. It monitors for knock and when it hears it, can pull individual cylinder's timing back 20 degrees in one revolution, and then adds timing back 2 degrees per rev until it senses the threshold. It allows me to run 22 PSI of boost on pump gas and 35 PSI on 112 octane leaded race gas. 400 HP at the crank from 132 cubic inches.

 

Anyways, I think the problem with Mooneys is vapor lock and Reid vapor pressure. A real STC with a couple or three electric fuel pumps would fix it.  RV guys do it. But the J&S would allow some serious variable timing, not like the rudimentary thing offered by whats out there today.

[jetdriven]

Done.

Going with the mogas solution will split support and leave high performance owners a minority.

The high performance airplanes that absolutely have to have 100LL such as all turbocharged twins, and big bore high output singles use 75-90% of all avgas.  They may be a minority in airframes but guzzling down 30-40 GPH makes them the majority.

[Mooneymite]

The high performance airplanes that absolutely have to have 100LL such as all turbocharged twins, and big bore high output singles use 75-90% of all avgas.  They may be a minority in airframes but guzzling down 30-40 GPH makes them the majority.

You are correct.

I was thinking in terms of number of votes.

[aviatoreb]

The high performance airplanes that absolutely have to have 100LL such as all turbocharged twins, and big bore high output singles use 75-90% of all avgas.  They may be a minority in airframes but guzzling down 30-40 GPH makes them the majority.

 

Yes, that plus - a number of those airplanes are used for serious cargo, or passenger services in addition to the more single user/owner service like my own personal guzzler.  My own engine gets 125-150hrs per year.  But for example the local Cape Air Cessna 402 airplanes I do believe put on something 800+hrs per year, per engine.

[KSMooniac]

Yes, that plus - a number of those airplanes are used for serious cargo, or passenger services in addition to the more single user/owner service like my own personal guzzler.  My own engine gets 125-150hrs per year.  But for example the local Cape Air Cessna 402 airplanes I do believe put on something 800+hrs per year, per engine.

 

Exactly... and those are the sorts of planes that become useless with <100 octane mogas or other UL "solution."  There aren't any other airframes out there for that mission, so the service would either disappear or become very expensive and then disappear.  

 

We really need to unite behind one course of action that works for all users, not just high numbers of airframes that burn a small minority of the fuel.

[Bennett]

The only time I used mogas was in an airplane was for a Cessna 150 (Petersen STC) that we flew to Cabo San Lucas from the Bay Area, and back. Didn't have the range to make it from airport to airport that sold 100LL or 89 Octane fuel. Landed at rancheros and even open fields, and carried a couple of plastic gas cans to local service stations. Worked fine in that (very) low HP situation. I wanted to try mogas in my DOVA LSA, but I couldn't find Ethanol free mogas at any of the local airports near me. 

 

Didn't think the survey questions were very well done, but I did complete it. 

[Awful_Charlie]

OK, so I accept the change is coming, but no-one can tell me what it is yet!  Do I want to be forced to run a fuel which is 10% more expensive, not really, but when it gets to 50% more expensive, something is going to give.  I expect to be coming up for an overhaul in the next year or two, but if I need it before 'the plan' is published, I'm in a small corner - either rebuild the lump and accept whatever I'm going to get hit with for a 100LL replacement (if it's available), or sell up!  Lycoming need to make a plan about how to cope with whatever is coming, or Mooney/Continental/Rotax/A N Other need to work on an STC for changing firewall forward to something that can cope with the new juice.  Whatever the new stuff is, it had better cope with FL250 or more, at ISA plus quite a lot, or suddenly we get the utility value ripped away from us.

Rather a depressing subject!

[carusoam]

Back to the diesel discussion...

Piston or turbine?

Best regards,

-a-

[jetdriven]

Turbines are awesome, but they cost 5 times what a piston engine costs in the 300-400 HP category plus use twice the fuel.  A non-starter.  Diesels dont seem to fare much better.  How about GAMI's G100UL?  100 motor octane rated fuel, no lead, can be made for the same price as 100LL and has been flying for 3 years on a Turbo Cirrus SR-22. And get this, it produces about 6% more HP or NMPG (you choose) and can be made with ingredients already at the refinery!

[Hector]

Survey completed!

[John Pleisse]

Mogas is not viable, particularly with additive issues and ethanol. Thank farm subsidies for that. Remember, Mogas requires a seperate STC for every type and model A/C.  Av Consumer's motivations aren't clear and the survey, yet again, seeks to quantify owner apathy and willingness to concede low-lead. Is this AvConsumer collusion with industry leaders seeking alternatives? I am unclear. Took the surevey.

 

Also, what is EPA's primary motivation? Overall lead emissions? Environmetalist law suits....Or fear of disaater at the refinemnt level? The answer to this question would help to better understand EPA overreach and it's impact on GA. Somebody needs to give Friends of The Earth flying lessions.

[carusoam]

Byron,

I tried to press the like button several times...

The IO550(g&n) require 100 octane, but not LL...

The challenge I have is, understanding or believing in the reality of the substitution. Where / when does it not work?

Brailey is a pretty sharp guy. Can/will the industry follow his lead?

6% more distance for the same money, sounds good to me. Expect heat/cooling issues are possible

People pay a lot for STCs that get 10% more. 280hp vs 310hp in Ovations at least.

Best regards,

-a-

[KSMooniac]

G100UL actually has the potential to be noticeably less expensive than 100LL.  Remove the lead, and you remove the requirements to maintain separate distribution and transportation networks which drives a lot of cost for 100LL.  More refineries could make and distribute it, so we could have more competition in the market.  Boat owners would LOVE something like this too that is free of corn, so think about all that extra volume that could be in demand...  the solution just makes too much sense for our government!

[aaronk25]

So one thing to consider that's different now than 20 years ago is the RVP of Mogadishu could be as high as 15 and now the tree huggers limit the RVP to 9 in MN in winter and I think it's limited to 7.5 in the summer. Different states vary but almost all have some sort of RVP limits imposed.

The higher the RVP the quicker the fuel can evaporate into the atmosphere. So Mogas RVP is alot closer than it use to be so I doubt inflight vapor lock is a issue anymore.

The next issue is having a high enough octane rating, however I bet and know first hand that if you have a good engine monitor you can make adjustments to keep chts inline.

I flown with a "friend" I'm a experimental airplane, lets call it and found that 91 non-oxygenated fuel runs really good LOP as long as fuel flow is keep at 9.2 or lower or the chts start to climb quicker than 100ll at high power settings which makes sense.

A little pilot education might go along way if the government allowed operation on Mogas. Also it's easy to test for ethonal.

Non-oxygenated fuel is easy to get in MN or WI.

[DS1980]

I still think diesel's the answer.

[bnicolette]

Done.

 

Thanks for posting Scott.

[201er]

I still think diesel's the answer.

Or if we'd all just fly LOP, that would leave more fuel for everyone and less lead

[Ned Gravel]

Why is the survey slanted to MOGAS? Is that the only solution the surveyors are considering? Sent from my iPad

[carusoam]

Aaron,

Can you remind me of why the relative vapor pressure in Mogadishu is relative to fuel requirements in the US?

I got lost in the bubbles...

Best regards,

-a-

[RJBrown]

Why would anyone want Mo-gas in a plane? It is bad enough having to use it in cars.