What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

What Do We Do In 2017???

C

CDBridgesRV7A

Active Member
Good Day Folks,

My wife was kind enough to send me my issues of Kitplane in the mail the other day. It gave me something to read here in the desert :) I came across the article on the proposed elimination of leaded fuel by 2017. The author, who happens to be the editor of the magazine, makes some very valid points.

While most of the engines that RV builders use will be able to use the 94UL fuel (vice 100LL) the price will be astronomical ($8-$12 per gallon). Not too mention the loss in HP from using a lower octane fuel. (Did I read this correctly?)

For those of us who are just beginning to build (I haven't even ordered yet as I don't come home for another 5 months :( ) what does that do for us? If the FAA is adament about no leaded fuel by 2017 then what kind of engine choice should we be looking at? I would really hate to buy an engine and then have to replace it 4 years down the road because there is no fuel for it.

I was originally looking at putting an IO360 180hp or 200hp engine on my RV7A. (would like a 210hp but the added price and weight doesn't justify the 2-4 kts increase in speed).

Should I be looking for a different engine? Do you guys & gals think the FAA will stick to their 2017 timeframe? ( this debate was ongoing 11 years ago when I got my license).

Cheers

Chris
 
Chris, the uncertain future of 100LL has been a dark cloud hanging over our heads for many years now. It's unclear when and how it will actually play out in the end, and arguably the uncertainty is as harmful as any outcome.

Best you can do is hedge your bets by selecting an engine that could readily operate on any or most of the proposed replacement fuels, and preferably on auto fuel as well. This is true of most of the 360-class Lycomings, but beware that different variants will have different minimum octane rating requirements depending on compression ratio and other configuration options. Definitely do your homework. Another option is to go with an auto engine conversion or a diesel, but (I'm sure someone will flame me for the following statement, but...) going with anything but a Lycoming-style engine that the airplane was designed for is a whole other can of worms. It can be done, yes, but it entails a whole other set of problems. If this is something you're considering, again, do your homework (and you will probably decide against it).

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the elimination of lead and the 2017 deadline is being imposed by the EPA, not FAA.
 
In 2017 I will be sipping Ensure and flying Microsoft flight Sim, that is, if I can remember where the computer is.
 
Any idea whether a IO 360 A1A 200hp angle valve will run on the latter..? I know 100LL is it's recommended fuel..
 
IMHO... 100LL will be around for many years to come. There will need to be a suitable replacement out and well tested before you see 100LL disappear. :)
 
N395V said:
In 2017 I will be sipping Ensure and flying Microsoft flight Sim, that is, if I can remember where the computer is.
Click to expand...

Come up with another plan :)...Microsoft fired/re-assigned their entire flight sim team and the product is now dead unless they decide to resurrect it.
 
Perhaps I should go...

LifeofReiley said:
IMHO... 100LL will be around for many years to come. There will need to be a suitable replacement out and well tested before you see 100LL disappear. :)
Click to expand...

...to the "lead factory" and pick up a few gallons when I'm in Liverpool next Feb?

lead-factory.jpg


Since it's grams per gallon, I shouldn't need too much...:D
 
Make your best choice for right now!

All you can be sure of is what you have and what you can get right now. I would go for that 210 hp engine and get the best out of life rather than rationalizing the wisdom of something you don't really want to settle for. The possible loss in 7 years is unfortunate perhaps but the certain loss right now by your own decision is a disaster that can never be recovered. These decisions are precious and the one you made to build a plane says a lot about your desire and dedication to excellence - never compromise unless it is a sacrifice for someone else that is important to you.

Me? well if I'm lucky enough to be here in 2017, I will be eligible for the flying octogenarians and I won't be sitting around saying "Oh, I wish I would have done such and such when I had the chance." I made enough of those short sighted decisions when I was in my 20s.

Bob Axsom
Race #71
 
Parallel valve IO-360 with 8.5:1 compression can run unleaded premium mogas. Just plumb the fuel system in a proper manner to help thwart/offset the increased tendency of mogas to vapor locking. Might also be smart to build in as many countermeasures as you can to help deal with ethanol-contaminated mogas.

Make it a -M engine with horizontal front facing cold air induction (e.g. ECI) and get a couple more HP out of it too with the added benefit of better detonation resistance from the induction air not being heated up by flowing thru a hot oil sump.

Use a Hartzel blended airfoil CS prop and it'll be plenty fast.
 
Race Fuels

I've often wondered about automotive racing fuels. They have stuff that's well over 100 octane and unleaded. I have no idea how much those fuels would cost though.

I'm not overly worried about the replacement for 100LL. All the commercial operators of Navajos and cessna 421s will need something that's around 100 octane. So an RV engine with 10:1 compression should be fine on the same fuel a Navajo runs on.
 
My understanding is that the EPA is not mandating anything and any replacement must be around 100 octane. I am not worried about all the hype over this issue.
 
Last edited:
What about the RV-10!?

Can the Lyc IO-540 (around which the RV-10 was designed) use anything other than 100LL?
 
Perhaps lead addatives will still be around then??
Automotive racing fuels are expensive.. VP 105 octane that i used in my race bike.. Was 5.25 a gallon 20 years ago!!

I think this would be a great time for people working on alternative engines to really step up.. the V8s and V6 engines would cross over extremely well to the new fuel mandates.. As well as diesle engine technology.
Im not a huge fan of Rotary engines.. just personal experience has always left me walking home from a rotary. And tiny 4 cylinders just seem to dang small.. for the weight gain why not do a V6?

Engines like the Adept V6 being developed in South Africa is a VERY exciting engine package... Not sure if it needs lead or not.
The LS1 that I help to install on the Ravin had a lot of little bugs that needed to be ironed out.. as most automotive engines that are put on airplanes it had issues with the folks trying to use the GM computer.. Its not in a car anymore, there for lots of systems are not needed. The automotive racing world has millions of parts and products to make an engine perform under any condition.. I think its time the airplane world looked more closely at what the hot rodders have been doing since the 50s.

Aviation engine technology has been pretty much stagnant for 50 years!!
Its time to move aircraft in to the 21st century! Aviation WAS the technology leader during most of the 20th century, lets bring that back!!
 
I think so.

ppilotmike said:
Can the Lyc IO-540 (around which the RV-10 was designed) use anything other than 100LL?
Click to expand...

You may want to check with an engine supplier, but I don't see why it couldn't use other fuels. The I/O-540 is basically a I/O-360 with two more cylinders. Just take the same precautions the 4 cylinder RVs do.
The reason I mentioned the Navajo and Cessna 421 in a previous post is because, with turbos, they run much higher manifold pressure and require a high octane rating. They run 30" to 40" in normal operation.

I don't see why they can't offer 100LL for those that require it. For those that don't, offer 94UL or 91UL [whatever they decide to call it]. In the "golden age of aviation", there was 80/87, 100LL, 100/130 and 115/145.
 
A "Dual fuel" solution is not viable. My airport has ONE fuel tank.

Auto engines won't fly with most folks. I have ZERO interest in them in aircraft.
 
The problem with automotive engines is that they weren't designed to operate the same way as an a/c engine. 100% operation for several minutes followed by 55-75% for hours at a time would be like flooring your car in first gear to 80 mph, then driving down the interstate in 2nd or 3rd gear for a few hundred miles. How long do you think it's going to last?
 
I understand that.. but look at all of the improvements done to automotive engines over the last 50 years. There have been some improvements to aircraft engines as well, but not nearly at the same rate as thier ground loving counterparts.

If automotive engines are getting 200,000 miles routinely (as is the case with my current Dodge 318, the Ford 302 before that, and the gm 350 before that!) mostly at highway speeds since i live an hour from the shop, I dont see why operating a new V8 or V6 at 75% power would be a problem IF its installed propperly. Its not pulling near the weight of a truck and cargo, its not sitting on a hot highway for hours on end in stop and go traffic, and its pulling a trailer, running ac, etc etc.. I would think there is less load on an aircraft engine than a car.

How many hours of run time would it take to cover 200,000 miles i wonder...

Im not making the argument for or against automotive engines in airplanes.. just saying that it could be a viable alternative for more people in the future.
 
PainterJohn said:
I understand that.. but look at all of the improvements done to automotive engines over the last 50 years. There have been some improvements to aircraft engines as well, but not nearly at the same rate as thier ground loving counterparts.

If automotive engines are getting 200,000 miles routinely (as is the case with my current Dodge 318, the Ford 302 before that, and the gm 350 before that!) mostly at highway speeds since i live an hour from the shop, I dont see why operating a new V8 or V6 at 75% power would be a problem IF its installed propperly. Its not pulling near the weight of a truck and cargo, its not sitting on a hot highway for hours on end in stop and go traffic, and its pulling a trailer, running ac, etc etc.. I would think there is less load on an aircraft engine than a car.

How many hours of run time would it take to cover 200,000 miles i wonder...

Im not making the argument for or against automotive engines in airplanes.. just saying that it could be a viable alternative for more people in the future.
Click to expand...


The main reason there hasn't been a fundamental "leap" in aircraft engines is because they got it right. For the power/weight/reliability there really isn't much else to be had that's a better alternative. When you start talking about electronic ignition and FADEC, I think that will be the next leap as it will allow much more agressive LOP operations and better engine managment which will greatly improve longevity. As well not driving the magnetos or other accessories free's up available power and improves economy. But as far as being on PAR with an automotive engine, how expensive do you think auto engines would be if placed on the same TBO schedule as a/c engines? Auto engines can be driven to failure. Try that in your airplane, you may only get one chance at it.

I don't know the number but I imagine if you look at the BSFC numbers between an auto engine and traditional a/c piston engine, you'll see the difference.

People have been trying to make auto engines work for years. It's never been done on a grand scale and I have to assume there's a reason for that. I would imagine if Cirrus could bolt a chevy V8 in rather than a $120K TSIO-550, they would have.

Oh, and 200,000 mile / 150 knots (average RV TAS) = 1333 hours. A well cared for lycoming will go twice that with ease.
 
Last edited:
They didnt get it "right" they got it Certified by the government.. So what? Is that the be all and end all of development? Nope! Although it does work extremely well. Does that mean we should never look to anything better? What if we were all still building and flying RV3s? That would be kinda boring.
Great airplane, but some folks want a bit more.. so Van came up with 7 other models
If a new IO-540 costs around 60K and a new LS1 costs around 6K you could replace the engine 10 times before you spent the same money on the -540.
Granted engine failure in an aircraft can be catostrophic.. but it also happens with a/c engines. And a rebuild kit for a GM V8 can be less than 500 bucks!! Try that with a certified lycoming!

Yes the current aircraft engines are tried and proven.. but what happens when the all knowing all seeing gubment decides they are not effecient enough to remain in production, or are causing some squirel in Romania to sufocate while hibernating and outlaws them?
Will aviation come to a screaching hault? No! Aviators and builders, tinkerers and enthusiasts will already have the problem solved! Forward thinking people, experimental aircraft builders and other gearheads are already working on the next generation of aviation powerplants right now (albeit some are more promising than others).

It would be short sighted to ignore the developments in other combustion engine technologies simply because they were bolted to a transmission rather than a propeller.

And Cirrus should be the folks to try it.. since they needed the parachute to get the thing certified WITH the a/c engine :)
 
PainterJohn said:
It would be short sighted to ignore the developments in other combustion engine technologies simply because they were bolted to a transmission rather than a propeller.

And Cirrus should be the folks to try it.. since they needed the parachute to get the thing certified WITH the a/c engine :)
Click to expand...

Those who wish to use an auto engine can. I won't buy a plane with one in it.

As far as Cirrus, the parachute may have had something to do with stall, spins or some other issue. Most likely it had nada to do with the engine.
 
Last edited:
I know it had nothing to do with the engine.. If i recall it had to do with spin recovery, id heard that the average pilot could not recover from a spin, and therefore it needed a parachute to be certified.. And yet its selling for a half million. Just strikes me as odd.
 
Sig600 said:
The main reason there hasn't been a fundamental "leap" in aircraft engines is because they got it right. For the power/weight/reliability there really isn't much else to be had that's a better alternative. When you start talking about electronic ignition and FADEC, I think that will be the next leap as it will allow much more agressive LOP operations and better engine managment which will greatly improve longevity. As well not driving the magnetos or other accessories free's up available power and improves economy. But as far as being on PAR with an automotive engine, how expensive do you think auto engines would be if placed on the same TBO schedule as a/c engines? Auto engines can be driven to failure. Try that in your airplane, you may only get one chance at it.

I don't know the number but I imagine if you look at the BSFC numbers between an auto engine and traditional a/c piston engine, you'll see the difference.

People have been trying to make auto engines work for years. It's never been done on a grand scale and I have to assume there's a reason for that. I would imagine if Cirrus could bolt a chevy V8 in rather than a $120K TSIO-550, they would have.

Oh, and 200,000 mile / 150 knots (average RV TAS) = 1333 hours. A well cared for lycoming will go twice that with ease.
Click to expand...
I find this a rather amusing post. First you state they "Got it Right", then your next statement addresses the idea that things like electronic ignition and FADEC systems could be the next "leap" that will allow better management and more longevity.

If it was "right" the first time why would any of these things you bring up improve on the already "right" engine?

Anything that man creates will always have room for improvement. Another MAN will come along and think of something totally different than the first MAN ever even considered. Before you know it the original item is altered and improved upon. That new iteration then is accepted as the "best and greatest", until another MAN comes along and thinks of something else that no one else had ever considered before. The cycle then continues ever forward.

Most things we all think of as sure fire show stoppers that prevent something from occurring end up being only our own biases and fears manifested as restrictions and requirements. Then we use these restrictions and requirments to convince ourselves that any changes to the status quo are unacceptable and must be avoided if we are to keep things operating the way they currently operate.

We convince ourselves the status quo is the only acceptable way to do things and any change from that will only have a negative impact on the things we wish to do.
 
RVbySDI said:
I find this a rather amusing post. First you state they "Got it Right", then your next statement addresses the idea that things like electronic ignition and FADEC systems could be the next "leap" that will allow better management and more longevity.

If it was "right" the first time why would any of these things you bring up improve on the already "right" engine?
Click to expand...


If FADEC and electronic ignition had been around 50 years ago, they probably would've implemented it. Technology can improve what we have, but the basic theory remains the same. Mechanical magnetos and fixed timing can't adjust to optimally run the engine across a wide range the same way a computer can, thus technology has made it better. Same goes for turbine engines. The only "leap" in turbine technology has been with high bypass turbo fans as well as FADEC, but the princibles all still remain the same. How long has the PT-6 been around, seen any "quantum leap" with that in 30 years?

As far as piston engines go for GA, I stand by the fact that auto engines were made for cars. Brief moments of operation at 50-75% power, the rest of their life is either spent at idle or under 20% total output. The materials and manufacturing to get in the ball park of a/c engine output and longevity would vastly increase not only the development cost but manufacturing. Look at the eggenfeller. Sure there are a few examples running around, but can you still buy the kit? Are they still in business? Too many engineering challenges to make it work. Rotax was able to adopt and evolve snow mobile engines, but again that's a motor that was built to run wide open for long periods of time. As much as I love the chevy LS family of V8's (and I've built a few of them), try running one wide open for a few hours and see what happens. I'll drive behind one all day long, fly behind one? No way. GA's history is littered with the graves of "great ideas" trying to implement automotive engines for aviation, none have worked. Both experimental and certified. If anything has a chance my money is on diesel, but I think that's another 10-15 years from cracking that nut on wide spread, economic viability.

RVbySDI said:
Most things we all think of as sure fire show stoppers that prevent something from occurring end up being only our own biases and fears manifested as restrictions and requirements. Then we use these restrictions and requirments to convince ourselves that any changes to the status quo are unacceptable and must be avoided if we are to keep things operating the way they currently operate.

We convince ourselves the status quo is the only acceptable way to do things and any change from that will only have a negative impact on the things we wish to do.
Click to expand...

Very true, and I won't argue it. Hence why things like computer technology have evolved so rapidly in the last 20 years. However when you start talking about great idea's like aviation power plants, you're talking about people risking their lives for good ideas. Unless you want to try and get your new power plant idea to a 99% reliable solution before flight in order to sell it to the masses, in which case you're talking about hordes of money. Aviation is a fickle venture, as the risk taking in a new venture involves peoples personal safety. Like the old adage goes, never fly the A model of anything. There are a few advenurists out there that will take on a new idea, and invest their time and money in it (eggenfeller), but I'd venture to say that 99% of the pilot population out there dosen't want to be the guinea pig for anything... and therein lies the rub.
 
Last edited:
My solution was......

2 years ago, when the time came to order an engine for my 7A, I opted for a Mattituck IO 360, 180 hp. It seemed like an easy choice. That engine will accept premium auto fuel. That's why I didn't get the 185 or 200 hp. I liked the idea of having the option, should things get bad... Worth losing 7-8 knots in top speed, at least in my opinion. So far I am very happy with the engine, and it may even be a good selling point should I decide to sell the plane. Just my line of thoughts.
 
Automotive and aircraft engines have entirely different tasks. They are poorley interchangeable. Porsche spent millions attempting to break into the aviation market with the Porsche Mooney. Maintenance issues and a much shorter TBO highlighted that newer isn't alway better. Mooneys with the original Porsche engines are worth less than the comparably equiped aviation engine aircraft.
That said, there are components and materials technologies developed in the automotive market. The hundreds of millions of dollars from that industry have developed technologies that have improved the aircraft engines we use today. Newer materials for the rings and bearings, cylinder wall coatings, better lubricants, electronic fuel injection management and many other technologies have been brought to our engines and made them better. It's unlikely that anyone is likely to spend the money it would take to develop a "breakthrough" engine for such a small market. That seems to be what you are all hoping for judging from the dissatisfaction with the smaller advances with which we have been given.
Unless good luck smiles upon us!;)
 
The demise of 100LL isn't a direct problem for the RV crowd running 8.5:1 compression engines. Even if they just took the lead out of 100LL, we (the 0-320/360/540 crowd) would do just fine with the resulting fuel.

The problem is that there are plenty of piston aircraft that can't use 100LL minus the lead. They are either turbocharged or use higher compression ratios.

Where that hurts us is that your local FBO probably can't afford to carry two versions of avgas. So the question is - who takes the bullet? Us, in paying a huge price for a 100 octane no-lead fuel, or the other guys who have to ground their airplanes if ~94 octane is all that's available.
 
PainterJohn said:
I know it had nothing to do with the engine.. If i recall it had to do with spin recovery, id heard that the average pilot could not recover from a spin, and therefore it needed a parachute to be certified.. And yet its selling for a half million. Just strikes me as odd.
Click to expand...

Read about it The parachute was in the plans to begin with.

BTW---- I wouldn't think of buying an RV with an auto conversion either.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
David Z said:
I've often wondered about automotive racing fuels. They have stuff that's well over 100 octane and unleaded. I have no idea how much those fuels would cost though.

I'm not overly worried about the replacement for 100LL. All the commercial operators of Navajos and cessna 421s will need something that's around 100 octane. So an RV engine with 10:1 compression should be fine on the same fuel a Navajo runs on.
Click to expand...

you can buy a 55 gal drum of 120 octane unleaded/ethanol free racing fuel for around $7.50/gal. Say what?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top