So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:50:28 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix. Anyone
read anything more about the coming end of avgas?

Don't know about the small airplane folks, but the warbird guys are going
to be mad as hell. We have the power back on a P51 now to 45 inches on
takeoff because of the fuel restriction. Any lower and the damn airplane
will be taking off at cruise power!! :-)
Dudley henriques

Pretty soon you'll be carrying as much water as fuel, or are you
already using water injection?

That is about the only thing I can think of, at present, that would
allow going more boost.

Actually, Ethyl Alcohol, which has a poor octane rating will raise the
rating a few percent when mixed up to 10% with gas. Unfortunately it
has a lot of side effects like disolving gaskets and removing
protective coatings that make it an undesirable.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

- Diesel/Jet-A as made by Thielert
- Small turbines as made by Innodyn
- Ignition systems as made by Gami (Prism)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
the aircraft?

but what about all the
Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
the aircraft?


My point three, Prism, is just for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

wrote in message
oups.com...
That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
the aircraft?


They become worthless. The problem isn't just octane it is also vapor
pressure. The octane problem can be solved but there doesn't seem to be an
economical solution to the vapor pressure problem. The pressurized piston
twins are probably toast if TEL becomes unavailible.

Mike
MU-2

Mike Rapoport wrote:

They become worthless. The problem isn't just octane it is also vapor
pressure. The octane problem can be solved but there doesn't seem to be an
economical solution to the vapor pressure problem. The pressurized piston
twins are probably toast if TEL becomes unavailible.

There is a guy (in NC I believe) cutting the engines off (3' on each
wing) the Barons and sticking a turboprop on the nose. Working on his
second conversion now...

Higher fuel per hour burn, but flys faster and higher so it actually
burns less...

"Darrel Toepfer" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:

They become worthless. The problem isn't just octane it is also vapor
pressure. The octane problem can be solved but there doesn't seem to be
an economical solution to the vapor pressure problem. The pressurized
piston twins are probably toast if TEL becomes unavailible.

There is a guy (in NC I believe) cutting the engines off (3' on each wing)
the Barons and sticking a turboprop on the nose. Working on his second
conversion now...

Higher fuel per hour burn, but flys faster and higher so it actually burns
less...

And the engine is worth more than the airplane. Sure you can do this but
the airframe isn't going to be worth anything before you put the new engine
on (ie pressurized piston twins are toast). They arn't going to be flying
higher than pressurized twins so I doubt that you are going to be able to
save fuel in the real world.

Mike
MU-2

That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
the aircraft?

wrote:

ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in
the
UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then?

Don't see a problem there. Anything we must have, we will pay for,
until the price becomes so high.... Think addictive illegal drugs and
sex from better than your usual skank entrepreneur. I suspect the
profits of the UK company on this are enormous. It's one company
because of a low volume product and for whatever reason competitors
anywhere can't or don't wish to come in. It's UK (or could be
anywhere else) because of our EPA rules here, but not their similar
rules on exports of such products. The main problem is the EPA keeps
pushing for the big players to come up with a plan. Like a low-cost
way to modify/recertify existing engines.

Fred F.

"TaxSrv" wrote in message
Don't see a problem there. Anything we must have, we will pay for,
until the price becomes so high.... Think addictive illegal drugs and
sex from better than your usual skank entrepreneur. I suspect the
profits of the UK company on this are enormous. It's one company
because of a low volume product and for whatever reason competitors
anywhere can't or don't wish to come in. It's UK (or could be
anywhere else)

Russia is supposed to be making it and cranking up production as well.
Whether the EPA or some other lets that keep going is a poser.

because of our EPA rules here, but not their similar
rules on exports of such products. The main problem is the EPA keeps
pushing for the big players to come up with a plan. Like a low-cost
way to modify/recertify existing engines.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO