Avgas Survey...please take this!

[carusoam]

RJ,

It sounds cheap and available at first, then the reality of evaporation, alcohol content, actual availability, and detonation leads us back to LL and side discussions of LOP...

How did I do?

Best regards,

-a-

[aviatoreb]

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!

 

GAMU G100UL is awesome.  I would run it starting tomorrow if I could get it.  Seems like it is years off for regulations and business obstacle reasons.  Such a shame.

[aaronk25]

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-

Cause the higher the RVP the more likley the fuel will vaporize into the atmosphere and the more likley it will vaporize when being "sucked" into the engine. 100ll is 6.5 if memory serves me right.

Also a 5 year old could test fuel for ethonal. Draw a on a test tube add water to the line them fill tube remainder of the way and if the water like moves there is ethonal. 10 sec and easy.

No ethonal Mogas is readily available up here in the midwest as enough people have complained that the ethonal is bad for small engine carbs ECT.

All of the marinas and farmers up here already get no ethonal fuel delivered to there tanks.

Sure I'd prefer not to have ethonal in the fuel because it can absorbe water, but I don't see Dar engines quiting. When's the last time your car engine quit while driving down the road and I bet you don't sump you tank at ever fill up?

[M016576]

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

For once, I agree with you.

[carusoam]

Aaron,

Farmers don't want alcohol in their fuel either?

Alcohol comes from processing corn, a farm product.

I thought farmers wanted this.

Back to the discussion on oilsands, shale oil and other North American resources...

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

Aaron, Farmers don't want alcohol in their fuel either? Alcohol comes from processing corn, a farm product. I thought farmers wanted this. Back to the discussion on oilsands, shale oil and other North American resources... Best regards, -a-

Farms primarily run on Diesel. Having been associated with a 3000 acre grain farm, farmers (as long as you are not a farmer needing to buy grain for livestock) love the money high corn prices can bring.

[sreid]

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-

I bet he used iPad or iPhone. They auto correct Mogas to Mogadishu!

[yvesg]

I bet he used iPad or iPhone. They auto correct Mogas to Mogadishu!

I thought aaron had a few too many before typing this... ethonal, Mogadishiu... now I understand lolll.

Yves

[Parker_Woodruff]

As I understand it, the Feds have given grants to organizations such as the one making Swiftfuel.

We are making ethanol tainted gas for no good reason. Both E10 and E85.

Don't put it past the Feds to subsidize and wait for another product that might not be a good idea.

[aviatoreb]

There is a gas station in town that sells high octane no-ethanol car gas.  Is that the same thing as mogas or is mogas a special treatment?

 

Anyway if I were flying behind an o320, I would be awfully tempted by that $4.30 per gallon stuff.

[Dale]

Done. Thanks for posting.

[DaV8or]

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.

 

A while back I did some reading on why it is that we don't have knock sensors for our engines. The answer is, because they are air cooled, they create a lot of "noise" at the frequency that detonation occurs. It makes it difficult to accurately detect detonation. I guess water cooled engines are much easier.

 

I agree that the vapor lock issue could be solved, the question is, are there enough Mooney owners willing to pay for the solution. It would not be cheap because in addition to the buying of the FAA blessed parts and all the labor costs involving FAA blessed mechanics, the involvement with the FAA during development and certification and the high liability anyone marketing this solution would be taking on, will mean the STC and kit will be pretty pricey.

[John Pleisse]

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

 

Again, AvConsumer has some sort of motivation. As Mooney owners they should be open and forthright. Looks like free market forces are working. 

 

http://www.airworthyautogas.com/airworthy-autogas

 

They had another presser in ":Flying" last month.

[DaV8or]

Turbines are a non starter. No one has been able to figure out how to make them cheaper (currently about $500,000 for the RR) and they are serious gas hogs at the altitudes we fly at. I for one couldn't handle the fuel bill to run a turbine. Related to that, the range for our planes would go way down. Check out the RR converted Cessna 210s sometime, you'll see what I mean. Poor payload and short legs.

 

Diesels aren't a very good solution either. Nobody wants to swallow the $70,000+ price tag. That's what it is currently costing to do a Austro, or SMA conversion in other airframes. Mooney would be no different. I think even Deltahawk quotes something like this and they're subsidized by the government with military contracts.

 

No, we need a single fuel replacement for the entire fleet. What that fuel is, is open for debate. A two fuel solution just makes matters worse. It forces struggling FBOs to install, maintain and certify yet another fuel storage and pumping system. It raises operating costs on the commercial operators using the AVGAS because the fuel is now even lower volume and the refiners will raise the price. In fact, in may make some of them question the validity of making AVGAS at all. As it is, there are very few refiners that want to make it now.

 

What we need is for the alphabet groups to get united, pressure the government by means of the press to have a 100LL replacement competition. May the best fuel win. Testing should be done by the government AND a third party, independent laboratory. All comers should be welcome. The winner should be judged not only on performance of the fuel, but also the practicality of actually making and delivering it.

 

It seems that for now, the whole replacement process has been shelved. I don't know why. I think we need to face facts and face the future and get cracking on it even if the EPA has no time table.

[Robert C.]

I still think diesel's the answer.

 

I really don't know enough about engines and fuel to have an expert opinion, but based on what i have read about diesels I would agree. Much simpler engines, Jet A is cheaper than LL, etc. 

 

What am I missing?

 

Robert

 

PS: not dealing with fleet conversion questions and all that, just the technical merits. 

[KSMooniac]

I think diesels have promise, but the biggest problem that has yet to be solved is the sheer weight of a diesel installation.  The fuel is heavier too.  In our class of airplanes the weight is the biggest hurdle.  

 

I think the Delta Hawk has a lot of potential but doesn't appear to be quite ready yet.  

[aaronk25]

I saw the delta hawk at osh and spoke in detail with one of the principal investors and was very impressed! The installation was 10-15lbs heavier than a IO360 and would be a great option, however only plans that were discussed were for experimentals.

Nice thing about diesel is although its heavier the 30-35% more btu's per gallon allow a operator to carry less fuel and more bags and butts!

[DaV8or]

I really don't know enough about engines and fuel to have an expert opinion, but based on what i have read about diesels I would agree. Much simpler engines, Jet A is cheaper than LL, etc. 

 

What am I missing?

 

Robert

 

PS: not dealing with fleet conversion questions and all that, just the technical merits. 

 

Primarily weight and vibration issues. They are heavier and the vibration problems require some fancy solutions to keep from wrecking the prop and the engine mounts. These problems can and have been solved, but at the expense of weight, cost and complexity. The only thing simpler about a diesel is the ignition system, the rest is actually more complex.

[DaV8or]

...however only plans that were discussed were for experimentals.

 

...and they have been holding that policy now for years and years. It appears they either don't feel confident in taking on FAA certification, or they don't believe that there really is demand for conversions of certified planes.

[KSMooniac]

As long as there is 100LL in this country, there won't be a market for diesel conversion packages.  The conversion price is 2x+ the cost of a FWF overhaul and you would have to fly a long, long time to make up the delta on cheaper Jet A.  If 100LL goes away, or gets to $10/gal everywhere, then it might become more compelling...

 

...and then there is just that little problem of having to go through an STC program for each airframe which would likely cost a few hundred grand for each STC.

[1964-M20E]

I like the Delta hawk engine and would be willing to lose 20HP and take a 180HP version now (well when ready for a rebuild) if the cost were comparable to a rebuild.  I’d take the 20hp loss since it is turbo and supercharged and I’d have the 180hp at all altitudes so in the end I could go faster than I presently do at altitude.

 

However, as I have said before the FAA needs to lead follow or get out of the way and right now they are squarely sitting on top of this and many other things out there.  At the end of the day I should be able to strap any 250HP or less engine on the front of my plane and fly it without the FAA sticking it’s nose into my business.  Yes I’d be responsible for ensuring flight safety not Mooney, Cessna, Piper or the engine manufacturer.  The manufacturer’s job is to produce a reliable and dependable power plant and engine mount to match the weight and dimensions needed to fit on the front of the plane.

[DaV8or]

I like the Delta hawk engine and would be willing to lose 20HP and take a 180HP version now (well when ready for a rebuild) if the cost were comparable to a rebuild. 

 

This is partly why there have been no new engines for decades. Owners in the existing legacy fleet aren't willing to pay more than it costs to rebuild their engine, or at best, what it costs to replace with a new, replacement engine. Engine developers know this and give up on the idea of even trying because it is ridiculous to think that you could develop a brand new engine from scratch, get it certified and then sell it at the cost of a rebuild... and some would even insist that to mean a field overhaul!

 

Please, nobody bring up car engine comparisons, that's the aviation equivalent to raising Hitler in a political discussion.

[DS1980]

Please, nobody bring up car engine comparisons, that's the aviation equivalent to raising Hitler in a political discussion.

The diesel engine in the Diamond Twin is a Mercedes-Benz with stock internal components, only the accessories are changed. What about William Wynne's Corvair engine? Or the VW conversions (Great Plains, Revmaster, Aero-Vee)? The Wankel rotary is an awesome platform for an airplane engine.

 

Would you fly any airplane with a Rotax? That's a snowmobile engine.

 

The future of aviation is in the home-built market with "alternative" engines. The manufacturers have priced themselves out of being competitive (Mooney). Try to name a few certified airplanes that hold a candle to Vans. Granted, Vans recommend Lycoming, and that is part of their success, but it won't be like that forever.  The reason I am a Mooniac is because they are one of the few factory airplanes that are still relevant. Plus, the tail isn't on backwards.

 

There's more than one way to correctly fly an airplane in all aspects of flight. Just like there are many engines that have the potential to power aircraft. 100LL is going away. If the pace of innovation is any indication, Lycoming and Continental may not be able to keep up.

 

So now to complete the discussion. So......Hitler..........what a freak of nature that guy was.

[jetdriven]

The diesel engine in the Diamond Twin is a Mercedes-Benz with stock internal components, only the accessories are changed. What about William Wynne's Corvair engine? Or the VW conversions (Great Plains, Revmaster, Aero-Vee)? The Wankel rotary is an awesome platform for an airplane engine.

 

Would you fly any airplane with a Rotax? That's a snowmobile engine.

There's more than one way to correctly fly an airplane in all aspects of flight. Just like there are many engines that have the potential to power aircraft. 100LL is going away. If the pace of innovation is any indication, Lycoming and Continental may not be able to keep up.

 

 

To date no automobile conversion has been able to take any titles in the 200-400 HP segment, or really any segment for that matter. The Subaru has made some inroads, but the engines, after taking into account the cost and marginally more fuel usage, cost the same as an equivalent Lycoming with far more complexity and a spotty reliability record.  RV's with these engines sell for much less than a Lycoming airplane.

 

AeroVees and Jabirus show some promise in the Sonex but the Jabiru is expensive.

 

Wankels have terrible fuel specifics. A few guys tried them in Long EZs and a few crashed. Out of favor now.

 

The Rotax is one standout, but it is now 30 grand for one, and its only ~100hp,  might as well get a 200HP certified airplane engine for that.

[DaV8or]

The future of aviation is in the home-built market with "alternative" engines.

 

I don't know about the future. I don't have a crystal ball, but I will say that the past has shown that this combination has not been favorable to the pilot and passenger's health. "Just stick a XXXX in there and it'll be awesome!" hasn't worked out all that well so far. In the future? Who knows? You could be right. Maybe they'll work out the head aches and make a reliable replacement for the Lyconasauraus, but I bet it will cost just the same.