|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
I am not aware of any modification required. Phillips is also working on new fuel. Swift is available now and a limited location as part of their due diligence for the FAA. It is typically less money than 100LL but this formula that is being distributed now may not be the final replacement blend. Oshkosh had some forums and info about the new fuels but I didn't really pay much attention to it this year.
__________________
Herb R Harney 1968 337C Flying the same Skymaster for 47 years 
|
|
#2
08-07-18, 04:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think it's also worth noting that the Cirrus SR20 is powered by the TCM IO-360-ES. Highly unlikely that there would be a fuel change that grounds the SR20 fleet.
Apart from the fuel pump and prop governor it's basically the same engine as our Skymasters....
__________________
_________ John K 1977 337G CNC3 Last edited by kilr4d : 08-07-18 at 04:23 PM.
|
|
#3
08-07-18, 08:30 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Herb R Harney 1968 337C Flying the same Skymaster for 47 years
|
|
#5
08-08-18, 04:11 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
To aid in the information flow, the FAA presentation at AirVenture 2017:
https://www.faa.gov/about/initiative.../PAFI_2017.pdf
|
|
#6
08-17-18, 10:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Unleaded woes and confusion
https://www.avweb.com/eletter/archiv...t=email#231381
Scroll down and find the layman's version of the current issues with the unleaded fuel replacement program. Sounds like things got a little sticky at the presentations in Oshkosh. Now the FAA says they are out of money and the original two companies that had been selected have to let more participants into the private party. What a mess.........
__________________
Herb R Harney 1968 337C Flying the same Skymaster for 47 years
|
|
#7
08-18-18, 02:53 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Am I missing something?
All combustion engines suck in fuel and air, misting the fuel to get the right ratio, light it off with a spark then blow the expanded hot gasses out the exhaust.
Everything else is merely a refinement of that formula. My son has a highly modified race car. Oversize the turbo. Put a fat 3 in exhaust so it can breathe easier. Some larger injectors, and fuel pump. Reprogram the ECU on a dyno, and all is well. 350 HP out of basically a 120 hp engine. So it would seem to avoid detonation, one could change the timing on our farm-tractor aircraft engines to accommodate lower octane fuel. While they may not put out exactly the same HP as before, no detonation issues. Maybe you only get 180HP out of a 210 hp engine? Maybe you can't go to 30k anymore. So you de-rate the whole aircraft performance to what the engines CAN put out. Better than writing off the whole asset. The experimental guys basically have to do it. While their engine performance is known, the capabilities of the aircraft have to be found out empirically given whatever engine is on it. So like that, just go the other way. Yeah, yeah, I know, FAA would never allow that. Blah blah blah.. BUT, subtract the bureaucratic impediments, and the physics seem undeniable. An aircraft declared experimental is not bound. What am I missing?
__________________
David Wartofsky Potomac Airfield 10300 Glen Way Fort Washington, MD 20744
|
Hybrid Mode
