Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: UNLEADED AVGAS Announcement

  1. #1
    Utah-Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Heber City, UT
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like

    UNLEADED AVGAS Announcement

    Should be huge news out of Oshkosh today that will be a big bonus and he says that there will not be a monopoly


  2. #2
    sjohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for the post. Here's an AOPA article for those of us that dislike watching talking heads:
    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...aded-avgas-stc
    Last edited by sjohnson; 07-27-2021 at 05:20 PM.
    There are three simple rules for making consistently smooth landings. Unfortunately no one knows what they are.

  3. #3
    Ubiquitous
    Guest
    Everyone understands that this is complete bull-hockey, right?

    History...

    73 octane, the fuel O-145s and A-40, 50, 65s were certified under contained 0.0 part per anything tetraethyl lead.

    TEL was an additive to retard ignition-- creating so-called no-knock fuels.

    80/87 had 0.10 parts per million TEL.

    For reference 87 "UNLEADED" octane auto gas has 0.14 ppm, and 100LL aviation gas 1.4 ppm TEL.

    Don't believe me? Check Wikipedia for starters-- there are better sources but this isn't an unknown.

    So we bribe uncle to use fuel the plane was certified to use instead of an inappropriate one... Well, at least it's cheap, a dollar per horsepower.
    Last edited by Ubiquitous; 07-27-2021 at 03:46 PM.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    1,110
    Post Thanks / Like
    No matter what, the owner would need to purchase an STC for the engine and another STC for the engine, then get their IA to file 337s installing those STCs.

    Like was stated above, we would have been better if back in the 70s they kept 80/87 and 100/130. The total lead used would have been less as the majority of ga airplanes could still use 80/87.

    The fuel companies just didnít want to stock two different fuels. If they didnít want to carry multiple fuels then, I canít see them offering multiple fuels now.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    sjohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Whatever the manner of achieving unleaded avgas, regulators will eventually demand it. Aviation is lumped in with 'nonroad engines', which also includes locomotives and marine engines. Fuel combustion includes fixed sources.

    Nonroad engines are the largest remaining source of airborne lead.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 7.png 
Views:	133 
Size:	80.3 KB 
ID:	56930  
    There are three simple rules for making consistently smooth landings. Unfortunately no one knows what they are.
    Likes Nodak33 liked this post

  6. #6
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    11,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sjohnson View Post
    Thanks for the post. Here's an AOPA article for those of us that dislike watching talking heads:
    https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...aded-avgas-stc
    Such a deal! Now we will get the opportunity to buy some more STCs for the privilege of paying 60-85 cents more for a gallon of av-gas which is already expensive. I can see it now when pulling up to the gas pumps. "Do you want the no lead gas for $6 bucks a gallon or do you want the $5 fuel for your 15 gallon per hour airplane?" This will really promote general aviation.
    N1PA
    Likes tcraft128 liked this post

  7. #7
    Utah-Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Heber City, UT
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    Such a deal! Now we will get the opportunity to buy some more STCs for the privilege of paying 60-85 cents more for a gallon of av-gas which is already expensive. I can see it now when pulling up to the gas pumps. "Do you want the no lead gas for $6 bucks a gallon or do you want the $5 fuel for your 15 gallon per hour airplane?" This will really promote general aviation.
    EXACTLY why I am a MoGas fan
    Bearhawk Companion QB Builder
    Revo Sunglasses Ambassador
    https://www.instagram.com/jay_townsend_utah/
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ0...tBJLdV8HB_jSIA
    Likes DENNY liked this post

  8. #8
    cubdrvr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    YKN(mother city of the dakotas)
    Posts
    1,261
    Post Thanks / Like
    Am I missing sumpthin' ? Gov't mandated but need an STC? How will that work at the pumps?
    "Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar"

  9. #9
    sjohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    785
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by cubdrvr View Post
    Am I missing sumpthin' ? Gov't mandated but need an STC? How will that work at the pumps?
    Not government mandated.....yet.
    There are three simple rules for making consistently smooth landings. Unfortunately no one knows what they are.

  10. #10
    cubdrvr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    YKN(mother city of the dakotas)
    Posts
    1,261
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sjohnson View Post
    Not government mandated.....yet.
    Yes, but who will get an STC to pay more for fuel that they can't get?
    "Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar"

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    183
    Post Thanks / Like
    Braly said GAMI expects to begin selling STCs in the first half of 2022 but hasn’t set a price. The price of the fuel itself also hasn’t been determined.

    So, pay a bunch for the STCs and pay a bunch for the fuel. And, it weighs more than avgas. Lovely.
    Thanks 8GCBC thanked for this post

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    Knoxville, Tn.
    Posts
    256
    Post Thanks / Like
    All for a nonexistent public health issue. Lead poisoning from environmental lead has never made one person sick. Direct exposure, very rarely. Once the wheels of government begin to turn, they never stop.
    Thanks Bowie, FdxLou thanked for this post
    Likes skywagon8a, jprax, Brandsman, 68Papa, Brownie liked this post

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks AKjurnees, 8GCBC thanked for this post
    Likes AKjurnees, Gordon Misch, 8GCBC liked this post

  14. #14
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    21,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    The FAA bureaucrats kept throwing more hoops at GAMI so they went an easier route via STC. Sweden has had a substitute for many years.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Thanks Airguide thanked for this post
    Likes Brownie liked this post

  15. #15
    Utah-Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Heber City, UT
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Another benefit of Experimental IF the new fuel becomes mandated. Not that I know anything about this stuff, but not sure how the entire legacy engine fleet could be mandated to buy an STC.

    It just seems to me that new aircraft engines should start joining the 21st century technology.

    I am deep in the woods planning a build, sadly my engine of choice (Rotax 915) can not be used on the Bearhawk Companion for weight and balance reasons. The 915 is 113 pounds lighter than the -360 variants, produces more power at my elevation and DA’s and can use MoGas. I just find it amazing that we are stuck in the 1950’s in so many ways

  16. #16
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    11,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah-Jay View Post
    I am deep in the woods planning a build, sadly my engine of choice (Rotax 915) can not be used on the Bearhawk Companion for weight and balance reasons. The 915 is 113 pounds lighter than the -360 variants, produces more power at my elevation and DA’s and can use MoGas.
    SO? Do a weight and balance computation, build a longer engine mount and extend the cowl to match. What's the big deal?
    N1PA
    Likes RVBottomly, hotrod180 liked this post

  17. #17
    Utah-Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Heber City, UT
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    SO? Do a weight and balance computation, build a longer engine mount and extend the cowl to match. What's the big deal?
    That was my initial thought, but the designer said it was a no go on an engine that light. I think IF you did extend the engine mount it would be crazy long, FUGLY, and impossible to see forward at all

  18. #18
    brown bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    emporia ks
    Posts
    596
    Post Thanks / Like
    You would need to move the engine in the neighborhood of 30 inches ! and then we would need to think about how much lighter the prop is ??
    Likes Utah-Jay liked this post

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2021
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah-Jay View Post
    It just seems to me that new aircraft engines should start joining the 21st century technology.

    I am deep in the woods planning a build, sadly my engine of choice (Rotax 915) can not be used on the Bearhawk Companion for weight and balance reasons. The 915 is 113 pounds lighter than the -360 variants, produces more power at my elevation and DAís and can use MoGas. I just find it amazing that we are stuck in the 1950ís in so many ways
    I agree whole heartedly about the incomprehensible affinity for antique engines in aviation. Folks will buy a plastic airplane but only if it has an engine designed before WWII. I just don't understand.

    That being said...

    Use the Rotax and weld a counterweight on the engine mount. It will have the secondary benefit of somewhat damping engine vibration too. Win - win. That is IF weight isn't an issue. Just an idea.
    Likes Utah-Jay liked this post

  20. #20
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    21,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    So a Total 915 firewall forward is 113 lbs lighter than an O-360 firewall forward? 180 hp vs?
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers
    Thanks JeffP thanked for this post
    Likes Utah-Jay liked this post

  21. #21

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    SE Montana
    Posts
    403
    Post Thanks / Like
    Instead of building a long engine mount, you could always just way overbuild it at a more standard length, then use 16ga steel for your engine cowl... That oughta just about make it equal weight, lol.

  22. #22
    Utah-Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Heber City, UT
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    So a Total 915 firewall forward is 113 lbs lighter than an O-360 firewall forward? 180 hp vs?
    My understanding is a 180hp -360 engine is in the 300# range, the 915 141hp is 187#

  23. #23
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    21,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah-Jay View Post
    My understanding is a 180hp -360 engine is in the 300# range, the 915 141hp is 187#
    Radiator, piping, water and all?
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  24. #24
    Utah-Jay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Location
    Heber City, UT
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Radiator, piping, water and all?
    The Rotax engine weighs 187 from my understanding

    Edited to add:
    Mark Goldberg of AviPro who sells the BH kits said the 915 would not be possible on the BH Companion (2 seater side by side configuration) due to weight and balance (CG envelope) as it would be way too aft

  25. #25
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    11,434
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah-Jay View Post
    The Rotax engine weighs 187 from my understanding

    Edited to add:
    Mark Goldberg of AviPro who sells the BH kits said the 915 would not be possible on the BH Companion (2 seater side by side configuration) due to weight and balance (CG envelope) as it would be way too aft
    Don't forget the battery weight. Where is it now mounted? Place it next to the engine.
    N1PA

  26. #26
    Bearhawk Builder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    In the woods
    Posts
    845
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jay, The four place engine mount is 6 inches longer so….
    Likes Utah-Jay liked this post

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Radiator, piping, water and all?
    Steve, most of what Iíve seen are wet installations of 200-210 pounds for the 915. Itís about 75-85 pounds lighter when installed vs the Titan O-340. 915 dynoís at 145hp to 15,000ft. The Sling TSi made it to FL290 with it.
    Likes Utah-Jay, soyAnarchisto liked this post

  28. #28
    WhiskeyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Boxford MA
    Posts
    968
    Post Thanks / Like

    Rotax vs. Lycoming

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post
    Radiator, piping, water and all?
    I think what isn't mentioned here is that the Rotax uses a much smaller prop which will result in much lower performance on a larger airplane. For example, a 220 Stearman hauls its heavy weight briskly into the air with a 108 inch McCauley steel prop. Put a shorter wood prop on it and it's a dog. Put a tiny prop on a Rotax powered Bearhawk, and I have serious doubts. Another example was the old OX-5 powered planes like the Waco 10 and, Lincoln Page and Brunner Winkle Bird. 90HP and carrying 3 people. They turned 1300 revs on a good day, according to my grandfather, but that long prop pulled them into the sky. I don't know of any Rotax powered planes that have big props. Great on a Rans, but it's a light machine, appropriate to the prop length and high revving engine.

    As for the lead issue, .. please tell me where the Mayo Clinic report says anything at all about AvGas being a source of lead poisoning? Did they forget, or is it actually a non-issue. 100LL, yeah we all laughed when "high lead" LL100 came out. Only 4 times the lead of 80 octane. So full of lead they had to design new spark plugs for C-150's. Somebody had to come up with an answer to the California granola set, so good for GAMI. That said, you can bet they'll keep scratching and digging to shut us down. today I got a notice form SNG Barret, makers of parts for vintage Jaguars. The newly formed Alliance for Historic and Classic Vehicles is fighting against restrictions in Europe on operating and restoring old cars. That is coming our way as well, so we need to prepare. GAMI's work is a step in the right direction.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-08-01 at 6.29.17 AM.png 
Views:	74 
Size:	478.5 KB 
ID:	56995
    Likes KevinJ liked this post

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Norden is using an 80” 4 blade E-Props fixed pitch yielding 771 pounds of thrust with the 915 iS. Sure you won’t have the torque of the Titan but you’ll still win the power to weight ratio and performance above 5,000ft. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5DACAE12-75C0-48BE-B76B-23EE0E4BF8D8.jpeg 
Views:	82 
Size:	201.8 KB 
ID:	57001

  30. #30
    hotrod180's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Port Townsend, WA
    Posts
    3,644
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Utah-Jay View Post
    ...... I think IF you did extend the engine mount it would be crazy long, FUGLY, and impossible to see forward at all
    Check out a Pilatus PC6 Porter sometime.
    Long nose, & different looking, but what a performer.
    AeroComp did something similar with their turboprop experimental design(s) years ago.
    Cessna Skywagon-- accept no substitute!
    Likes skywagon8a liked this post

  31. #31
    WhiskeyMike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West Boxford MA
    Posts
    968
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jetcat11 View Post
    The Norden is using an 80Ē 4 blade E-Props fixed pitch yielding 771 pounds of thrust with the 915 iS. Sure you wonít have the torque of the Titan but youíll still win the power to weight ratio and performance above 5,000ft. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	5DACAE12-75C0-48BE-B76B-23EE0E4BF8D8.jpeg 
Views:	82 
Size:	201.8 KB 
ID:	57001
    Looks great. This old dog is always open to new tricks. Still as we say at home... I'll see it when I believe it.
    Likes soyAnarchisto liked this post

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    95
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiskeyMike View Post
    Looks great. This old dog is always open to new tricks. Still as we say at home... I'll see it when I believe it.
    Haha seeing is believing.

    https://fb.watch/76GmfxGWD2/

    https://youtu.be/S-pLdKLJZuI

    https://youtu.be/VPqTh_hZNoI
    Likes Utah-Jay liked this post

  33. #33
    courierguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Inkom, Idaho
    Posts
    1,978
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by WhiskeyMike View Post
    I think what isn't mentioned here is that the Rotax uses a much smaller prop which will result in much lower performance on a larger airplane. For example, a 220 Stearman hauls its heavy weight briskly into the air with a 108 inch McCauley steel prop. Put a shorter wood prop on it and it's a dog. Put a tiny prop on a Rotax powered Bearhawk, and I have serious doubts. Another example was the old OX-5 powered planes like the Waco 10 and, Lincoln Page and Brunner Winkle Bird. 90HP and carrying 3 people. They turned 1300 revs on a good day, according to my grandfather, but that long prop pulled them into the sky. I don't know of any Rotax powered planes that have big props. Great on a Rans, but it's a light machine, appropriate to the prop length and high revving engine.

    As for the lead issue, .. please tell me where the Mayo Clinic report says anything at all about AvGas being a source of lead poisoning? Did they forget, or is it actually a non-issue. 100LL, yeah we all laughed when "high lead" LL100 came out. Only 4 times the lead of 80 octane. So full of lead they had to design new spark plugs for C-150's. Somebody had to come up with an answer to the California granola set, so good for GAMI. That said, you can bet they'll keep scratching and digging to shut us down. today I got a notice form SNG Barret, makers of parts for vintage Jaguars. The newly formed Alliance for Historic and Classic Vehicles is fighting against restrictions in Europe on operating and restoring old cars. That is coming our way as well, so we need to prepare. GAMI's work is a step in the right direction.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2021-08-01 at 6.29.17 AM.png 
Views:	74 
Size:	478.5 KB 
ID:	56995
    High revving engine for sure, but the reduction systems makes that a non issue. I routinely take off my down hill strip with 15-1700 rpm at the prop, and cruise it at less then 2000 prop RPM, which is a 78" Prince, a pretty big prop for a 760 pound plane.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    There is a an STC for one engine type and one airframe type and no one is producing the fuel, yet. The intent is to keep adding engine airframe combinations to the STC. It will take awhile but that should cause a market to be created that will interest a blender or refinery to produce the fuel. Current comments are 80 cents more a gallon and one to two years before we start seeing the fuel. If the government bans lead we have auto gas, swift 94 and GAMI G100UL as only options to date. STC’s were quoted at $400 each on the latest youtube interview last week on AOPA site.
    Thanks Doug Budd thanked for this post

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Down low in the hills of Vermont USA
    Posts
    1,801
    Post Thanks / Like
    The government should just provide a blanket approval for the change over. This is decades late to bring to market.
    I have been running 104 unleaded in road race cars for decades, the base fuel has always been available.
    Last edited by CharlieN; 09-20-2021 at 12:17 PM. Reason: I could
    Regards, Charlie
    Super Coupe E-AB build in process
    Thanks mixer thanked for this post
    Likes soyAnarchisto, hotrod180 liked this post

  36. #36
    soyAnarchisto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    606
    Post Thanks / Like
    I love the new zlin norden - it looks fantastic. I love that it looks like a plane should - a cub. That's always detracted me from the kitfoxes, just, rans, etc... Just give me a round tail feather so the plane looks like it should!

    I also believe that Steve Henry is running an 82" prop on his 300hp apex powered Just. If memory serves, I think he was getting more than 1,000lbs static pull. That's crazy. I don't know if it would work on a 2+2 bearhawk, but plenty of power coming out of these smaller props turning high rpms.

  37. #37
    aktango58's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    18AA
    Posts
    9,594
    Post Thanks / Like
    move the axles and wins back
    I don't know where you've been me lad, but I see you won first Prize!

Similar Threads

  1. Unleaded 100 Octane Fuel
    By SJ in forum In The News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-10-2015, 08:40 PM
  2. Shell reveals unleaded avgas,
    By bigrock in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-03-2013, 10:07 PM
  3. Garmin announcement -- 530/430 replacement
    By GeorgeMandes in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-23-2011, 10:37 PM
  4. Announcement: Friends will please refrain from asking
    By Cajun Joe in forum Member to Member
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-06-2007, 06:26 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •