82UL Fuel

82UL was developed several years ago, to be easily produced from
automotive fuel. Instead of being produce by only one or two
manufacturers as 100LL is, 82UL could be made by any oil company. This
should make it cheaper to produce. 82UL is NOT a replacement for 100LL.
It is my understanding that about 30% of the general aviation fleet
requires 100LL to prevent detonation, but the other 70% can use 82UL.
With the cost of fuel these days, if 82UL is significantly cheaper than
100LL, it's availability might save general aviation.

With the new various laws requiring ethanol in automotive fuel, it seems
it would be more important than ever that 82UL be produced for the
aviation market.

Yet after all these years 82UL has yet to show up anywhere. What does it
take to get this fuel produced and available to aviators? Does it have
to come from the demand side, by making pilots aware of it's existence,
so they can start to ask for it? Why isn't EAA doing more to see that
this fuel gets produced and made available?

Part of the problem is any replacement or augment for 100LL has to be
usable by the entire fleet. There might not be a big enough market for
a second avgas fuel (?) Phillips has said they'll continue making 100LL
indefinitely to support GA, maybe your query should be directed to them.

At least now, the refinery capacity is stained to the limit
producing auto fuel for the 99.3% of the non-aviation
market. To build a new refinery or a dozen for cars must
come first. Then, if somebody can build a new refinery for
aviation to cover 0.7% of the market...
Back in the 1950's the airlines and military used avgas in
four grades, 80-87, 91-96, 100-130, and 115-145 and jet
fuel. There was a demand for avgas in large quantities for
fighter planes P51s were still being flown by the ANG, the
USAF was flying the EC 121 and some of the cargo was not yet
in C 130s. Airlines flew DC 3 on all the short routes.

82UL won't work well in engines designed for 100-130 or
using turbochargers unless they are derated. Back in WWII
the manuals for the airplanes listed maximum MAP to be used
with different grades of fuel.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Kingfish" wrote in message
ups.com...
| Part of the problem is any replacement or augment for
100LL has to be
| usable by the entire fleet. There might not be a big
enough market for
| a second avgas fuel (?) Phillips has said they'll continue
making 100LL
| indefinitely to support GA, maybe your query should be
directed to them.
|

Back in the 1950's the airlines and military used avgas in
four grades, 80-87, 91-96, 100-130, and 115-145 and jet
fuel.

Jim, what do the number pairs stand for? What changes would have to be
made to run 93 octane mogas in my 300hp N/A Lycoming?

The lower number was the octane rating when at cruise in
lean condition and the higher number was the rating for a
full power rich mixture. 93 mogas would rate about 80-87,
so your 300 hp Lyc would have to be derated to prevent
detonation. The exact required changes depend on the
dash/model number and what changes can be made. You won't
get 300 hp, maybe 250-270.

The EAA has an STC for smaller engines with low compression
such as the 4 cyl. Lyc and Cont engines used on Cubs and
Champs. I don't think you could use the mogas in the big
engines without major changes to operating procedures and
maybe some hardware.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Kingfish" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Back in the 1950's the airlines and military used avgas
in
| four grades, 80-87, 91-96, 100-130, and 115-145 and jet
| fuel.
|
| Jim, what do the number pairs stand for? What changes
would have to be
| made to run 93 octane mogas in my 300hp N/A Lycoming?
|

The fuel's octane rating changed based on mixture setting??