Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

The demise of AvGas

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

scouttwo(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 9:48 pm Post subject: The demise of AvGas

I've heard that the availability is soon to be at risk here in the States.



The editor of Kitplanes magazine has proposed 100 octane unleaded for all 

motor use.



Better fuel means higher compression in autos etc. and, i think, removes the 

need for seasonal blends of mogas, which is purportedly half the cost of 

production.



This would power most? certified piston with nominal changes.



We should do it now before our Dear Leader prices AvGas out of existence 

because we are burning lead over an aquifer or some such thing.



Imho, 16th amendment is a commie plot to wage class warfare and was never 

genuinely ratified.



"The law that never was" is a book from the eighties with proof.



The 17th amendment was also a bad idea. the 18th amen ... never mind, we 

fixed that one.



Then there's the women's vote ... it's fine, just kidding.



I must go now and pay tribute to the Dear Leader, Barry the Marxist.



Nic, a145 cbr1000 - 140 bhp(at)8000rpm



do not archive, for I am but a dreamer



Go Fairtax !!!

frans(at)privatepilots.nl
Guest

Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject: The demise of AvGas

On 04/19/2011 07:44 AM, scouttwo wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 I've heard that the availability is soon to be at risk here in the States.


	


You bet it is. (For this reason alone I would never invest in an engine

designed to run on AvGas.)



 	  Quote: 	
		   The editor of Kitplanes magazine has proposed 100 octane unleaded for

 all motor use.


	


Skip this step; go straight to Diesel or propane. Talking about "higher

compression". In Europe octane 98 was once popular, but most gas engines

run on octane 95 these days. Here in the Netherlands about 1/3th of the

gas cars has been converted to run on propane (LPG), which has a natural

octane rating of 104, and is the cleanest fuel available. Another third

of the cars run on Diesel, allowing compression rates in the 20's. Now

we are talking about "higher compression". 



 	  Quote: 	
		   We should do it now before our Dear Leader prices AvGas out of existence

 because we are burning lead over an aquifer or some such thing.


	


There is indeed something unethical about spraying toxic lead over

someone else's property just for your own fun. Lead is banned for cars

for a good reason... so why selectively give some people the right to

use gas with a high lead content?



I would welcome a ban on AvGas. It will expedite the development of more

modern gas- and Diesel engines for aviation use.



Frans

nigel_graham(at)m-tecque.
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 12:26 am Post subject: The demise of AvGas

On 19/04/2011 07:32, Frans Veldman wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   .....snip......

 ..... go straight to Diesel or propane. Here in the Netherlands about 1/3th of the

 gas cars has been converted to run on propane (LPG)


	


........and just how much does a propane tank weigh and what would that 

do for the Europa's C of G and performance?  



Nigel

Remi Guerner

Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 284

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:20 am Post subject: Re: The demise of AvGas

Hi Frans,

Regarding octane numbers, be careful to compare apples to apples.

AVGAS 100LL has a MON (Motor Octane Number)of 100. 

A different scale is used for MOGAS. In Europe, our unleaded 98 Mogas is 98 RON (Research Octane Number)  which is equivalent to 87-88 MON. Unleaded 95 Mogas is 95 RON which is equivalent to 85 MON.

So the best unleaded MOGAS has an octane number which is way below AVGAS's. This why existing MOGAS cannot be used on the typical air cooled aircraft engines except for the lowest compression ones.  

Developing a 100 MON unleaded aviation fuel is certainly possible, but due to low volume and more stringent specifications it will for sure be a lot more expensive than any Mogas. So I share your opinion not to invest in an engine designed to run on AVGAS only.    

Regards

Remi

frans(at)privatepilots.nl
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 1:53 am Post subject: The demise of AvGas

On 04/19/2011 10:23 AM, Nigel Graham wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  > ..... go straight to Diesel or propane. Here in the Netherlands about

> 1/3th of the

> gas cars has been converted to run on propane (LPG)

 .........and just how much does a propane tank weigh and what would that

 do for the Europa's C of G and performance?  

Someone was proposing to raise the octane levels for cars. So my reply

was not aimed at airplanes.

But now you ask for it... These days there are light weight plastic

propane tanks, in other shapes than cylindrical. And I bet the Rotax

engine is very easy to adapt for propane use. Performance could actually

increase over gas if the compression ratio (or boost pressure!) would be

increased and the ignition timing would be advanced. Limiting factor for

the Rotax is detonation, and propane has a much higher resistance

against detonation.

The main problem would be refueling. Or you could set it up, just like

with cars, so it can accept both fuel types.

Frans

rlborger(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:40 am Post subject: The demise of AvGas

Nigel,

In all seriousness, an LP tank can be constructed from composite materials and, thus, be kept quite light.  The issue with an LP thank is more form factor than weight.  It must be cylindro-spherical in shape making locating it within an airframe more an issue.  LP is also quite energy dense, even more than diesel, so it could be much smaller, lower volume, than a normal AvGas tank.  Same with LNG, another option in the same category.

Frans,

You may be correct that there will be composite LP (or LNG) tanks of more random sizes.  I have not seen them over here yet.  Now all we need is to talk our FBOs into storing another fuel type and figure out how to meter it so you don't over fill.  But that's all technical stuff and can probably be worked out.  I doubt you will see switch fuel aviation engines.  Too much complication with multiple carbs, plumbing, multiple fuel tanks, etc.  

Diesel engines, if it weren't for their weight issues, would be great as aero engines.  Gobs of torque at low to moderate RPM lets you swing a big fat air mover at efficient RPM without complications like PSRUs.   

AvGas, as 100LL, isn't going away real soon.  There just isn't a suitable replacement at this time and this fact has been recognized by the EPA and other organizations.  100LL WILL go away  at some point in the future, but that point has not been set and, hopefully, won't be set till there is a suitable replacement.  There are a few contenders for the title of 100LL replacement but only one appears to be making headway in the effort.  100SF (100 Swift Fuel) appears to be in the lead at the present time.  It is in the production pilot plant stage of evaluation.  More information can be obtained through the Wikipedia (search avgas) and at http://www.swiftenterprises.net/ if you are interested.

Bob

On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:23, Nigel Graham wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 On 19/04/2011 07:32, Frans Veldman wrote:

> .....snip......

> ..... go straight to Diesel or propane. Here in the Netherlands about 1/3th of the

> gas cars has been converted to run on propane (LPG)

 .........and just how much does a propane tank weigh and what would that do for the Europa's C of G and performance?  

 Nigel

rampil

Joined: 04 May 2007
Posts: 870

Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:17 am Post subject: Re: The demise of AvGas

Hey Scout,



Please chill a little!



I am not a fan of the current US administration at all. The Dems have 

done nothing but seriously hurt my industry and livelihood.



That said, politics is not very welcome here, particularly poisonous

commentary.  



Furthermore, you're a little late to the party.  The EPA, FAA, AOPA,

and EAA have all said that killing AvGas is not on the table at all until

an agreeable substitute is found for the full fleet.  This is not an easy

task for the chemical engineers and will take years, then years of testing

until everyone is happy.  If Swift actually pans out, maybe it will only

be a decade.

_________________
Ira N224XS

nigel_graham(at)m-tecque.
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:47 am Post subject: The demise of AvGas

Bob,

My comment was a rather facetious throw-away, but as so often happens on 

this forum, it sparked an interesting and well informed debate.

I had not considered the new generation of extremely lightweight 

high-pressure wound-carbon composite tanks used for diving and 

fire-fighting breathing apparatus.

If I think more seriously about applying LPG to aviation, there are a 

number of drawbacks. LPG has a lower calorific value than AvGas 

(producing about 45,000 kJ/Kg), meaning that you would have to burn 

about 15% more to achieve the same work and that equates to a reduced 

range or the need for a larger capacity tank to achieve an equivalent range.

Most auto installations  have to be started on petrol (gas) before 

switching to LPG, meaning that two fuel sources with appropriate 

switching would need to be fitted.

I haven't even begun to consider how you would actually get LPG to your 

aircraft!

Talking of alternative fuels/engines, I once got very excited when I saw 

an APU turbine buried in the tail of a Chinook helicopter. This 

minuscule engine belted out around 150 HP and weighed nothing. I 

pictured it sitting in the nose of a Europa. Then I heard how much fuel 

it burnt in an hour and realised that if it ever did power a Europa, the 

endurance would be around half an hour with existing tanks.

Aviation is a pile of clever ideas finely balanced on top of 

compromises. Just when you think you have found the perfect solution, 

physics creeps up from behind and bites you on the bum!

Nigel

On 19/04/2011 15:36, Robert Borger wrote:

 	  Quote: 	

 Nigel,

 In all seriousness, an LP tank can be constructed from composite materials and, thus, be kept quite light.  The issue with an LP thank is more form factor than weight.  It must be cylindro-spherical in shape making locating it within an airframe more an issue.  LP is also quite energy dense, even more than diesel, so it could be much smaller, lower volume, than a normal AvGas tank.  Same with LNG, another option in the same category.

 Frans,

 You may be correct that there will be composite LP (or LNG) tanks of more random sizes.  I have not seen them over here yet.  Now all we need is to talk our FBOs into storing another fuel type and figure out how to meter it so you don't over fill.  But that's all technical stuff and can probably be worked out.  I doubt you will see switch fuel aviation engines.  Too much complication with multiple carbs, plumbing, multiple fuel tanks, etc.

 Diesel engines, if it weren't for their weight issues, would be great as aero engines.  Gobs of torque at low to moderate RPM lets you swing a big fat air mover at efficient RPM without complications like PSRUs.

 AvGas, as 100LL, isn't going away real soon.  There just isn't a suitable replacement at this time and this fact has been recognized by the EPA and other organizations.  100LL WILL go away  at some point in the future, but that point has not been set and, hopefully, won't be set till there is a suitable replacement.  There are a few contenders for the title of 100LL replacement but only one appears to be making headway in the effort.  100SF (100 Swift Fuel) appears to be in the lead at the present time.  It is in the production pilot plant stage of evaluation.  More information can be obtained through the Wikipedia (search avgas) and at http://www.swiftenterprises.net/ if you are interested.

 Bob

 On Apr 19, 2011, at 3:23, Nigel Graham wrote:

> 

>

> On 19/04/2011 07:32, Frans Veldman wrote:

>> .....snip......

>> ..... go straight to Diesel or propane. Here in the Netherlands about 1/3th of the

>> gas cars has been converted to run on propane (LPG)

> .........and just how much does a propane tank weigh and what would that do for the Europa's C of G and performance?  

>

> Nigel

grahamsingleton(at)btinte
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:25 am Post subject: The demise of AvGas

and many of us have the teeth marks to prove it ?

Graham

From: Nigel Graham <nigel_graham(at)m-tecque.co.uk>

To: europa-list(at)matronics.com

Sent: Wednesday, 20 April, 2011 10:44:12

Subject: Re: The demise of AvGas

Aviation is a pile of clever ideas finely balanced on top of 

compromises. Just when you think you have found the perfect solution, 

physics creeps up from behind  and bites you on the bum!

Nigel

 [quote][b]

rlborger(at)mac.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:36 am Post subject: The demise of AvGas

Graham,



Amen!



 Bob Borger



 



Do not archive...

 

On Apr 20, 2011, at 6:18, GRAHAM SINGLETON wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  and many of us have the teeth marks to prove it ?



Graham

From: Nigel Graham <nigel_graham(at)m-tecque.co.uk (nigel_graham(at)m-tecque.co.uk)>

To: europa-list(at)matronics.com (europa-list(at)matronics.com)

Sent: Wednesday, 20 April, 2011 10:44:12

Subject: Re: The demise of AvGas



Aviation is a pile of clever ideas finely balanced on top of 

compromises. Just when you think you have found the perfect solution, 

physics creeps up from behind and bites you on the bum!



Nigel

rparigoris

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 792

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 9:42 am Post subject: Re: The demise of AvGas

Here are some thoughts on using Propane in a Europa:

**Remember you need to use liquid propane going to the motor. Somehow you need to have a way of heating the liquid propane where it has a phase change to vapor and is trying to get to approx -42F

**In the USA it is hard to find 100% Propane all the time. The boiling point of propane is lower than the boiling point of Butane, thus for a given temperature Butane has a higher vapor pressure. In the winter, (and sometimes in the summer if it is old fill up) you buy a mixture of Propane and Butane. Butane has less BTUs per gallon than Propane. OK so you now want to know just how much power loss there is going to be (and decreased range) compared to 100% Propane with the fuel you are using. You need to keep the vapor pressure high enough to allow full power and low enough to prevent the tank blow off valve from venting. You can warm tanks in the winter with electric heater, or you can inject Nitrogen. The problem with Nitrogen (or Argon or other inert gasses, I think perhaps CO2 will work) is if you don't use all the fuel up, if it gets hot out, the valve may vent.

**In aluminium and Stainless tanks you need to over size them by ~ 25% to allow for the expansion of the liquid fuel. Thus you need a physical tank size of 25 gallons to carry 20 gallons

**I am a Hot Air Balloonist and build my own burners and tanks. For some time 10 gallon aluminium tanks (capacity is 12.5 gallons) were very common. There were some 15 gallon tanks but boy were they expensive. I used to garbage pick forkllift tanks which hold ~ 7.5 gallons (capacity ~ 10 gallons) and cut the bottom off one and the top off the other and weld them back together. One problem with many tanks were that they used too thin a wall in the dip tube and they would crack and fail. I would just extend the dip tube and make it more robust. Voila! 15 gallon tank for cheap. Anyway tankage kills you. With a 10 gallon Worthington cylinder it weighs over 30 pounds! Anyway keep in mind the tanks have to be over sized to allow for expansion.

**WATER IN FUEL IS BAD! When you change phase from liquid to vapor, things get cold. The best scenario is the restriction is at the heat exchanger and is warm. That said if you have any restriction before, it will get below freezing in a hurry. If there is moisture in the fuel it will freeze. Best way is to inject under high pressure some Methanol to be sure. PITA. Of course you could drain tank, open it and pour in. You also want to be able to get inside tank and clean it out from time to time. You can't believe the debris that collects.

**I have refueled many hundreds of gallons by simple transfer method. All you need to do is connect a full tank to an empty tank, liquid to liquid line and open the vent on the empty tank. In 5 or 10 minutes 10 gallons is transfered. You can speed the process by raising the full tank above the empty tank and heating the full tank or pressurizing it with some inert gas. So if you were to garbage pick some old fork lift tanks, they are a nice size to carry the stuff around with. BTW if you garbage pick several forklift tanks and gang them together in parallel, they make a nice compressor tank! If you garbage pick a refrigerator (or two or three) compressor/s they work well for pumping up the tanks. Yes there is the hassle of transporting a lot of propane in your vehicle and the fact dumping propane into the atmosphere does not do the the ozone layer any good.

**Did you ever see Cozy or Long Easy baggage pods? Anyway seems like an ideal thing to wind your own propane tanks in a nice aerodynamic shape. I would bet that you the wing could support more if some of the weight is not at the root?

Anyway here's a pic:

http://www.europaowners.org/forums/gallery2.php?g2_itemId=82116

**I was planning a long distance flight for a while back and decided to use Kerosene as the fuel of choice. Tankage can be unbelievable light. Just hang 1 gallon plastic milk containers from the balloon and discard them when used up. Idea was to pour into one of my 15 gallon garbage picked tanks and pressurize with either propane and use a burner similar to a current hot air balloon burner, or use the monstrosity I made which was a leaf blower connected with a flex shaft to a home oil burner pump. It went to preheating coils and jets. Worked great except it had a motor running that would be annoying after a while. The other problem is burned Kerosene kills balloon fabric, so that needs to be in the equation.

Anyway even if you discard lightweight tanks after they are spent, compared to kerosene or gasoline net is less BTUs for more weight. That said it is far far far better than if you compared to the very best electric system out there.



Why doesn't someone lend their unfinished project to Mythbusters along with this post??



I say it is plausible!



I guess you could use an oil heat exchanger, but water may be easier.



Might be nice to add 16 to 18" extra span to each wing where you attach the pods with a full length CF spar? If you want to make a new wing with internal tanks, be sure to allow for easy cleaning and inspection.



Can you say BLEVI?

(Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnsAV1ph2CU



Ron Parigoris

frans(at)privatepilots.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:47 pm Post subject: The demise of AvGas

On 04/20/2011 11:44 AM, Nigel Graham wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   If I think more seriously about applying LPG to aviation, there are a

 number of drawbacks. LPG has a lower calorific value than AvGas

 (producing about 45,000 kJ/Kg), meaning that you would have to burn

 about 15% more to achieve the same work and that equates to a reduced

 range or the need for a larger capacity tank to achieve an equivalent

 range.


	


Not completely right if you take into account that you can have a higher

compression ratio, so taking out more power, and that LPG by its very

nature has no atomization problems and blends extremely well with

oxygen, also enhancing efficiency.



 	  Quote: 	
		   Most auto installations  have to be started on petrol (gas) before

 switching to LPG,


	


Not right. Almost all cars start perfect on LPG.



 	  Quote: 	
		   I haven't even begun to consider how you would actually get LPG to your

 aircraft!


	


With a removable tank?



It could be done. I bet the Rotax would run quite good on LPG without

any modifications, except for a small extension on the carbs to feed the

LPG in.



Frans

frans(at)privatepilots.nl
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:56 pm Post subject: The demise of AvGas

On 04/20/2011 07:42 PM, rparigoris wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   **Remember you need to use liquid propane going to the motor. Somehow

 you need to have a way of heating the liquid propane where it has a

 phase change to vapor and is trying to get to approx -42F **


	


In the Netherlands we have a few million cars driving on LPG. All these

problems have been solved long time ago. The pressure regulator has

water connections and is connected to the cooling system, this takes

care of vaporizing the fuel.



 	  Quote: 	
		   You can warm tanks in the winter with electric heater, or

 you can inject Nitrogen.


	


No need for all this: just use a mixture of propane and butane.



I have been driving the whole winter without using any gas, just LPG.

Even for starting in temperatures below freezing. No problem.



Frans

gregoryf.flyboy(at)comcas
Guest

Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:16 pm Post subject: The demise of AvGas

No problem.  Just do all that stuff right before you are headed out of the

shop for the day.    Remember to take your pat alligator with you! 



Greg



--

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Europa-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum