I noticed this morning that Swift Fuels has issued a press release about some guys flying from California to Germany using only their UL94 fuel. I’m not sure this is all that much of a technical milestone, but interesting that they took the trouble to do it, and used an early Bonanza. There must be a back story…
Well, the very old Bonanzas have been designed (and approved) to run on low-octane (87) fuel anyway. Therefore, I’d say it comes as no surprise that it runs fine on a 94 octane fuel…
Lots of Bonanzas have done the NATL in the years past, to do so on UL94 is a nice marketing gag to rise awareness to this fuel I suppose.
I would not mind getting more UL94 and 91 available, for most engines it is a much better fuel than 100LL. Should do away with spark plug fouling too.
Would love to get the fuel here in Southern Germany.
They apparently cannot make it work at market going rates (here).
Pity, but no airfield or club will replace MOGAS or add a UL94 pump, if it cost more than 100LL.
Good marketing, but with little effect if they cannot make use of it, i.e. cannot deliver…
ch.ess wrote:
Would love to get the fuel here in Southern Germany.
I’ve never seen it for sale in the US either, but somewhere very far away it is for sale 
They established a German subsidiary and I have been in touch with them and a (somehow related) Dutch company…
No success.
Operating the engine without lead seems to be preferable, but there are only a few places where I can buy UL91 (and mostly happen not to be enroute, typically)
Roskilde – EKRK – has a UL91 stand since July 1st. So far the only one in Denmark. I have not found a map of lead-free avgas availability in Europe anywhere; that would be useful.
According to EASA CS-STAN, every engine approved for UL91 will also run on UL94 (it is the same specification) and on Hjelmco 91/96. Oddly, however, according to Lycoming, some engines will run on UL91, but not on Hjelmco fuel – but this argues that UL91 is a joint effort between Lycoming and French oil company Total intended to compete with Hjelmco, and that could explain what would otherwise be an inconsistency.
As for the 1950-model Bonanza, the original engine would be a Continental E-185-8 with a compression ratio of 1:7,0. It seems that all aviation engines with a low compression ratio like that would run (very well) on low-octane lead-free avgas like the UL91, as long as normal multigrade engine oil is used.
huv wrote:
Oddly, however, according to Lycoming, some engines will run on UL91, but not on Hjelmco fuel – but this argues that UL91 is a joint effort between Lycoming and French oil company Total intended to compete with Hjelmco, and that could explain what would otherwise be an inconsistency.
I doubt that’s the reason as again according to Lycoming there are also some engines that will run on 91/96UL, but not on UL91!
Airborne_Again wrote:
also some engines that will run on 91/96UL, but not on UL91
I figured that could be for technical reasons. There does not seem to be any technical reason the other way.
Surely UL91=91UL? Or was that a joke?
