91/96 UL Fuel
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere in Europe
peterh337 - hopefully nobody would get a nasty shock by being threatened with a (big) bill. All I was advocating was for people to check with their CAMO (or your LAA Inspector if your aircraft is on that system) before switching to UL91: it prevents people getting it wrong - which does happen. And sadly there are some unscrupulous people out there who might be slightly less pragmatic about the actions to be taken if someone accidentally used UL91 in an unapproved engine. It's a good idea to double check, is all I'm saying.
As to different oils: I concur with others - there are plenty of alternatives and no, I don't work for Shell!
As to different oils: I concur with others - there are plenty of alternatives and no, I don't work for Shell!
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
AIUI, 91UL is just avgas without the lead, so the only risk is engine detonation, and tests done by GAMI suggests that in real life you need to work an engine awfully hard (with CHTs ~ 550F) for this to happen.
There is no risk to fuel system components.
The Swedish 96UL is more useful stuff and almost all Europe based GA pistons can run on it, but it isn't sold outside Sweden AFAIK.
The various "100UL" propositions involve additives which any refinery can put in but they bring varying risks to fuel system components. And since most planes currently flying are orphans in terms of manufacturer support, this is a tricky area.
There is no risk to fuel system components.
The Swedish 96UL is more useful stuff and almost all Europe based GA pistons can run on it, but it isn't sold outside Sweden AFAIK.
The various "100UL" propositions involve additives which any refinery can put in but they bring varying risks to fuel system components. And since most planes currently flying are orphans in terms of manufacturer support, this is a tricky area.
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Stuttgart, Germany
At the Aero show in Friedrichshafen, I talked to an engineer from Lycoming who used to travel the world for engine failure investigation. I questioned him on detonation and he said that they have only seen it when several things went wrong at the same time. One contributor is very high CHTs as peterh337 mentioned and apparently even worse is incorrect magneto timing.
I tried to find out how large the detonation margin is and while trying to be not specific (lawyers...), I understood that even for the non/not yet certified engines, it is virtually impossible to experience detonation with UL91.
His recipe was simple: make sure the magneto timing is right and do not lean above 75% HP. Below 75%, lean as you like.
Having no kerosene/diesel story, it is not a surprise that Lycoming is actively promoting UL91 and the like.
I tried to find out how large the detonation margin is and while trying to be not specific (lawyers...), I understood that even for the non/not yet certified engines, it is virtually impossible to experience detonation with UL91.
His recipe was simple: make sure the magneto timing is right and do not lean above 75% HP. Below 75%, lean as you like.
Having no kerosene/diesel story, it is not a surprise that Lycoming is actively promoting UL91 and the like.
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Based on all that I've read, the above does not suprise me at all.
In any normal ops, one gets nowhere near the CHTs required for detonation.
I can however imagine there are people out there who do manage it, due to stupid operating practices (like climbing at Vx all the way to cruise level) combined with having no engine instruments.
The highest CHT I have ever seen on mine was 430F and that was departing from Turkey at +35C, after a long wait on the ground with the engine running, and having to climb fairly steeply as well. And the TB20 does suffer from less than great engine cooling. Normally one doesn't exceed 400F; ~360F in cruise.
The strange thing is that TOTAL seem to be charging almost the same for 91UL as for 100LL. I expect they are hoping to push down 100LL volumes and once enough airfields stop stocking it, they can then screw the market.
In any normal ops, one gets nowhere near the CHTs required for detonation.
I can however imagine there are people out there who do manage it, due to stupid operating practices (like climbing at Vx all the way to cruise level) combined with having no engine instruments.
The highest CHT I have ever seen on mine was 430F and that was departing from Turkey at +35C, after a long wait on the ground with the engine running, and having to climb fairly steeply as well. And the TB20 does suffer from less than great engine cooling. Normally one doesn't exceed 400F; ~360F in cruise.
The strange thing is that TOTAL seem to be charging almost the same for 91UL as for 100LL. I expect they are hoping to push down 100LL volumes and once enough airfields stop stocking it, they can then screw the market.
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Stuttgart, Germany
The strange thing is that TOTAL seem to be charging almost the same for 91UL as for 100LL. I expect they are hoping to push down 100LL volumes and once enough airfields stop stocking it, they can then screw the market.
So 91UL is similar to 100LL and therefore about as costly/inexpensive to produce as 100LL.
Last edited by achimha; 25th April 2012 at 19:31.
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
From: Stuttgart, Germany
In that case, why don't Lyco just approve 91UL for all their engines?
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Wouldn't it be funny if it turned out that actually none of the Lyco/Conti engines needed 100LL after all?
GAMI tested the worst of them all (some TSIO-550) and had a lot of problems making it detonate, being able to do it only with CHTs of 550F+. They have written this up somewhere...
GAMI tested the worst of them all (some TSIO-550) and had a lot of problems making it detonate, being able to do it only with CHTs of 550F+. They have written this up somewhere...
