Is there an additive product you can mix with mogas after the pump?

 

Check this: http://www.mossmotor...hread/9723.aspx

 

That is an automotive use... nothing like that I know available for aviation use... unlike TCP which is for using 100LL and reducing the effects of lead fouling in these lower compression engines mentioned above.

 

We can't be the only country holding on to antiquated technology because there are a few people who feel entitled to making a refinery produce a limited supply of fuel.

 

I appreciate your points Chris... but this is a very unfair assumption. It is not a matter of "feeling entitled".

 

E.g. assuming you had a C182... have you price checked what the STC'd conversion to diesel costs? Man-oh-man... I remember the fit that was pitched when owners were told they would have to upgrade to Mode C... and that for a couple thousand dollar "radio".

 

Btw... after thinking about my previous post... seems I came down hard... and I apologize... I do have great respect for you and what you have accomplished.

 

-Rob

E.g. assuming you had a C182... have you price checked what the STC'd conversion to diesel costs? Man-oh-man... I remember the fit that was pitched when owners were told they would have to upgrade to Mode C... and that for a couple thousand dollar "radio".

 

I have, unfortunately this is going to be the only other option besides going to a high octane unleaded which for some reason there is a big resistance against it. It's down to the option of choose the best poison. I feel in the long run that Diesel fuels are the way to go. Easier to refine from oil and there are many different ways to produce it from bio sources.

unfortunately this is going to be the only other option besides going to a high octane unleaded

 

Then I think I can safely say "that isn't going to happen"... unless mandated... then that would effectively kill General Aviation in this country. Almost like trying to get all the guns confiscated if the 2nd Amendment was repealed.

 

Even trying to modify cylinders (valve guides, valves etc...) to make up for the lack of lubrication and who knows what to boost the octane... I think almost as bad. Quite the conundrum.

Then I think I can safely say "that isn't going to happen"... unless mandated... then that would effectively kill General Aviation in this country. Almost like trying to get all the guns confiscated if the 2nd Amendment was repealed.

 

It will be mandated. Only a matter of time. Look where our country is and those around us are. Once you get off the North American continent there is very little avgas usage. GA is not high up the list of things that people feel needs to be protected. It is viewed as one of those 1% things, which in reality it is. Very few people are as lucky as us to experience flight in a light aircraft let alone pilot our own aircraft. I agree we need to protect GA but we need to be more flexible in the future of a replacement fuel selection.

 

Even trying to modify cylinders (valve guides, valves etc...) to make up for the lack of lubrication and who knows what to boost the octane... I think almost as bad. Quite the conundrum.

 

The automotive industry did it and with their experience for many decades now can be brought over to GA engines.

 

The last change to the actual block of the engine was done in the late 40's with the introduction of the boxer engines we still use today. Any updates to it since then? Essentially, no. Besides some tweaks it still is the same air-cooled, horizontally opposed engine with fixed magneto timing. There have been some small improvements by adding ECU/FADEC and electronic timing. We only see these on a few certified aircraft and the majority on experimental aircraft. This will help the main reason there is lead in the fuel and that is for the knocking or detonation problems.

 

The lubrication is the least of the worries that can be easily fixed by designing new internals.

GA is not high up the list of things that people feel needs to be protected. It is viewed as one of those 1% things,

 

Which is unfortunate, because I believe GA plays a valuable role in our economy. And an invaluable part of Alaska's...

 

The last change to the actual block of the engine was done in the late 40's with the introduction of the boxer engines we still use today. Any updates to it since then? Essentially, no.

 

This quote ought to give a hint as to why this quote...

 

The lubrication is the least of the worries that can be easily fixed by designing new internals.

 

are contradictory in nature.

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion, just an observation. I got my A&P over thirty years ago, and even at that time our instructors described the air cooled boxer engine as antiquated. They felt that the cost of certifying any new designs for such a small market was stifling development. Seems that is still true.

I got my A&P over thirty years ago, and even at that time our instructors described the air cooled boxer engine as antiquated. They felt that the cost of certifying any new designs for such a small market was stifling development. Seems that is still true.

 

+1 there...

 

+20 yrs for me and yes same thing (my maintenance professors stressed the same thing from time to time). Look at the Mooney PFM... even tho it was gas, that's an example of what is going on.

Which is unfortunate, because I believe GA plays a valuable role in our economy. And an invaluable part of Alaska's

 

I agree with you there. I wish everyone that was voting on something that would hurt GA would be required to watch the documentary One Six Right. It is a great documentary that shows aviation is more than rich people flying around and that we as pilots are also trying to co-exist with the public. If anyone wants to watch it, it is on Hulu Plus http://www.hulu.com/...q=one six right

 

Not sure how my two quotes are contradictory. A complete redevelopment of an engine will take into account the new fuel being used and therefore the different lubrication properties required. The biggest thing to focus on is moving on from where we are now. The Rotax engines are a step in the right direction for small aircraft. Now there needs something for the fast or heavy lifting airplanes and that is the diesel engine.

 

They felt that the cost of certifying any new designs for such a small market was stifling development. Seems that is still true.

 

Hopefully in the future there will be an easier way to get new technologies certified. The FAA is the biggest stumbling block on getting all these improvements on an airframe.

Which is unfortunate, because I believe GA plays a valuable role in our economy. And an invaluable part of Alaska's...

 

True - but I suggest the car industry plays a more valuable role - yet that had to convert to unleaded..

_{Horizontally opposed aircraft engines are not antiquated. How many of the "modern" automobile engines could run for thousands of hours at 75% of max power?}

 

_{And if that sounds impressive, then how many can run those same hours at 100% power?}

 

_{Auto engines are designed to "cruise" at 25% power.}

 

_Ken

Horizontally opposed aircraft engines are not antiquated.

 

Sorry... brain farted on that word Ken.

 

Not keeping pace with "modern technology" was the lament.

 

True - but I suggest the car industry plays a more valuable role - yet that had to convert to unleaded..

 

The automotive industry does not have to pay millions in certification costs or be concerned (for the most part) about multi-million dollar lawsuits.

 

Plus the little thingy "economies of scale" plays quite the role in all this.

 

So Chris... it might be "easy" to design and manufacture from a technological standpoint... but not from a practical standpoint... the contradiction I was referring to.

 

-Rob

So Chris... it might be "easy" to design and manufacture from a technological standpoint... but not from a practical standpoint... the contradiction I was referring to.

 

Ok, I'll let you tell Cessna they have a losing idea.

 

http://textron.vo.llnwd.net/o25/CES/cessna_aircraft_docs/single_engine/skylane/TurboSkylaneJT-Aonesheet5.pdf

Horizontally opposed aircraft engines are not antiquated.

 

An engine designed only 40 years after the very first internal combustion engine was made is the definition of antiquated. No variable valves, electronic ignition, or engine management. It has all the same exact workings as a lawn mower. I don't see people bragging about how advanced their lawnmower engines are.

 

And if that sounds impressive, then how many can run those same hours at 100% power?

 

The popular O-360 has a compression ratio of only 8.5:1 producing only 180HP out of a huge displacement with pretty large tolerances. How many times do you fill up the oil in your car between oil changes? What about your airplane? Cars now are almost double that compression ratio and produce the same power out of an engine that has 3 times less displacement.

 

With some small improvements with valve timing, electronic ignition and a basic ECU engines could easily run off of unleaded.

_{Horizontally opposed aircraft engines are not antiquated. How many of the "modern" automobile engines could run for thousands of hours at 75% of max power?}

 

_{And if that sounds impressive, then how many can run those same hours at 100% power?}

 

_{Auto engines are designed to "cruise" at 25% power.}

 

_Ken

 

I agree. They are simple engines, but they happen to be an ideal design. And it's not nostalgic.The thing is you want an engine that generates power at low rpm...most of all. GA aero engines now have fuel injection and electronic ignition and options for mogas. More than that you really start to add complexity and new opportunities for failures you don't need. I appreciate auto conversions aren’t a fair example…but they make a poor substitute. I like what Superior has done, upgrading say a Lycoming. There’s a good list of promised brand name next gen aero engines; somehow they never get off the ground. When a next gen engine really comes around I'm sure I'll love it too...but it's a sticky problem.

 

 

...even this looks familiar, it's half o-style Continental (picture is 10 years old btw)

Ok, I'll let you tell Cessna they have a losing idea.

 

No... I just don't want my hedge fund manager investing in Cessna because he sees the JT-A Skylane as some sort of revolutionary "Wunder Produkt". :P

 

The difference in cost alone (between diesel and gas versions) is going to be a major stumbling block. Then... who is going to do the maintenance? I saw just two shops in the U.S.

 

Look how slowly the conversion is going in the auto industry to switch from one fuel to another. It should provide a good macro view of what will take place save the unique hindrances specific to the Aviation Industry.

 

Losing $$$ idea? Quite possibly yes. Most likely Cessna is betting on overseas sales. I think the idea... and the fact they are attempting to bring something new to the market is just fantastic. But it remains to be seen if there is a (sustainable) market for it.