Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

100UL (merged thread)

hmng wrote:

Now let’s see what EASA does. Would they be able to declare G100UL a direct replacement? Mandate its use over environmental concerns?

I would think EASA has a huge incentive to do so, given the aversion to lead is even stronger here than in the US. But the distribution chain will take some time to set up. I’m personally trying to source some UL91 to use in the meantime, because it’s cheaper and better for the environment and for my engine.

EHRD, Netherlands

Do you mean the nitrous button as use in dragster racing?
I’m not sure I’d be too kean on that in a light aircraft🙂

France

Do you mean the nitrous button as use in dragster racing?

That’s the one, you press when he says “go-around”

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

RON and MON of both 116

Isn’t that a misprint? I though that MON is always less than RON.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Apparently not with 7% m-toluidine. As you can see in that linked document, there are other fuel/mixes where MON is higher than RON. I would guess this is simply a result of the way tests are done (a standardized one cylinder low rpm engine). A rather arbitrary but standardized test. Which by the way is very different from the way aeroengines are tested (full power rich, and then leaned), which probably gives oddly high RON numbers compared with “auto-RON”?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Paul B got several new and very interesting videos. For instance, this new fuel is for all practical purposes identical to a fuel developed in the 1940s in one of the interviews a “fuel guru” explains this, and what this fuel consists of.

Obviously the “necessity” of TEL is more of a red herring. It’s simply there because it has not been banned. It’s probably also the cheapest mean to make high octane fuel.

I wonder how this will pan out. Only a small fraction really needs all this octane, and if that fuel ends up costing 20-50% more than Mogas or 91/94 UL (or 100LL) then what?

What’s needed to get this fuel “approved” in Europe?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

The interview:



The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

From the last IAOPA newsletter:

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I’m thinking that with a commercially available unleaded 100+ octane fuel, 100LL is gone sooner rather than later. It’s just a matter of a (virtual) pen stroke or two, and 100% politics. Then there is the market and alternatives. The number of aircraft actually needing 100+ octane is decreasing compared with aircraft that runs well on less octane. There is also the matter that when high octane fuel (no lead) is available, this creates opportunities for more performance. A high octane 915 for instance, but this will be only a small niche, perhaps way too small for Rotax to even think about? On the other hand, I can’t imagine hordes lining up for this new fuel, when their engine runs well on cheaper alternatives, and by the looks of it, much cheaper. The “secret” ingredients for the fuel is only produced in Europe AFAIK, and this is not likely to change anytime soon. This could perhaps make a positive tint on it for the EU?

In the end I think this is a huge step backward for society as a whole and for GA. There are only two fuels that are sustainable in the long run. That is diesel and ethanol. It’s only a matter of time before other fuels will become too expensive in comparison. Of those two, diesel (paraffin of some kind) is by far the preferred solution. The first company able to make a small, light and powerful purpose built diesel aero engine will be the winner of all this.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

LeSving wrote:

In the end I think this is a huge step backward for society as a whole and for GA.

Not sure I agree – no one is going to throw away their gasoline ICE, but if it stops spraying lead, that has to be an improvement for everyone.

LeSving wrote:

The first company able to make a small, light and powerful purpose built diesel aero engine will be the winner of all this.

Considering the huge market in the coming “drone wars” as seen in the Ukraine, I’ll bet there are some people working on this. While there are a few people that only want to run a gasoline engine no matter what the advantages, most people will choose the best engine on the market – gasoline, diesel, or electric. As soon as this light, powerful, small, reliable, and inexpensive diesel engine shows up, people will buy it.

Fly more.
LSGY, Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top