cessna 182/cirrus sr20 - for the motherland of Russia
The typo is too nice to go unrewarded: lower octave is in the department of Ребров, Иван and more such... Sorry I can't help with the obvious real question, though.
Moderator
no?
Without speaking for Lycoming, which I do not, overhaul intervals are much more based upon fatigue and wear of internal engine parts, than factors associated with the fuel burned. As long as the engine is not subjected to the strains of detonation, or physical contamination, or the effects of unacceptable temperatures, there's not much that a different gasoline is going to do to affect engine live.
My O-200 happily went 1700 hrs beyond it's recommended overhaul interval on condition, which mostly using Mogas. When I finally overhauled it, it was still in excellent shape, and had not really needed to come apart. I know of Lycomings with similar success.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some ambiguity on this but the IO540 I have cannot apparently work off lower than 100 octane.
Lyco have recently published a guidance note which basically says that real avgas is being made at the very bottom end of the required octane range (which kind of makes sense, commercially) and this "low octane" fuel is OK for all Lyco engines.
There is another publication which has just come out which suggests 96 octane is also OK for my IO540-C4, but AIUI such a fuel does not currently exist in Europe. There is a 96-something being talked about/introduced but there is some doubt whether it qualifies. There was a lot of stuff posted on flyer but I didn't follow it in detail.
The 91 octane fuel is certainly not OK for an IO540 - except possibly a low compression version (200-220HP?).
Paradoxically, turbo engines may get away with more because in some cases they have a lower comp ratio. For example the TB21 TIO540 engine has a lower CR than the TB20 IO540 engine (which the TB21 pays for with a lower MPG, much of the time).
As regards opinions on the diesel retrofits, there is a massive variation between speaking to owners privately, and publicly. Privately, most of them wish they had never done it. The FTOs who bought into the diesel Diamonds say the same privately, but publicly they all "love it" because if they go public with their dirty laundry they will get chopped off on factory support. I am aware of some spectacular cases of this, where the public FTO story is massively different from the reality. One FTO I know (not UK) says they have almost zero downtime and great support from Diamond; in reality I know from insiders and students they have about 50% of their fleet grounded at any one time and reckon they could run a fleet of TBM700s for the money they have lost or wasted. It is a truly sad story; a huge missed opportunity, but unsuprising in retrospect given the way so many GA businesses are operated. Some argue that people getting shafted is the cost of innovation but I don't buy that.
I would have bought a DA42TDi which would have been great for European touring but it will be at least five years of trouble free existence before anybody who has sense will spend the money. Unless Diamond offer some amazing "uptime" warranty.
Lyco have recently published a guidance note which basically says that real avgas is being made at the very bottom end of the required octane range (which kind of makes sense, commercially) and this "low octane" fuel is OK for all Lyco engines.
There is another publication which has just come out which suggests 96 octane is also OK for my IO540-C4, but AIUI such a fuel does not currently exist in Europe. There is a 96-something being talked about/introduced but there is some doubt whether it qualifies. There was a lot of stuff posted on flyer but I didn't follow it in detail.
The 91 octane fuel is certainly not OK for an IO540 - except possibly a low compression version (200-220HP?).
Paradoxically, turbo engines may get away with more because in some cases they have a lower comp ratio. For example the TB21 TIO540 engine has a lower CR than the TB20 IO540 engine (which the TB21 pays for with a lower MPG, much of the time).
As regards opinions on the diesel retrofits, there is a massive variation between speaking to owners privately, and publicly. Privately, most of them wish they had never done it. The FTOs who bought into the diesel Diamonds say the same privately, but publicly they all "love it" because if they go public with their dirty laundry they will get chopped off on factory support. I am aware of some spectacular cases of this, where the public FTO story is massively different from the reality. One FTO I know (not UK) says they have almost zero downtime and great support from Diamond; in reality I know from insiders and students they have about 50% of their fleet grounded at any one time and reckon they could run a fleet of TBM700s for the money they have lost or wasted. It is a truly sad story; a huge missed opportunity, but unsuprising in retrospect given the way so many GA businesses are operated. Some argue that people getting shafted is the cost of innovation but I don't buy that.
I would have bought a DA42TDi which would have been great for European touring but it will be at least five years of trouble free existence before anybody who has sense will spend the money. Unless Diamond offer some amazing "uptime" warranty.
Last edited by peterh337; 15th Jan 2012 at 17:01.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In your scenario, I would go with the 182. It's a great a/c to fly, robust and with a decent payload. Another positive aspect is that you can get it in and out of pretty much any strip imaginable. May well be a factor on your business trips. The high wing also makes it a good sightseeing platform. What is it not (well, at least not normally) is an ab-initio trainer.
Another option, as someone has mentioned above, would be a C206/207. Gives you six seats and, if needed, cargo capabilities due to the 'barn door' in the back.
Another option, as someone has mentioned above, would be a C206/207. Gives you six seats and, if needed, cargo capabilities due to the 'barn door' in the back.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Russia
Age: 39
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Jan Olieslagers - indeed, i sure type "octave" more often then "octane" 
i'm a bass player and that's my fave pedal
@peterh337 - thank you for your informed opinion. probably diesels are yet to deserve to be truly "awesome" as only a few owners speak of them now.
the only 92 octane engine i found on the internet is from a russian website - Aero-Shop:. you can see there:
Lyc-IO540L
Lycoming IO-540 235 h.p. 92
Lyc-IO540
Lycoming IO-540 260 h.p. 100LL
i'm not sure however that this "L" modification is russian-moded. although i do know that quite a lot of aircrafts here fly on higher octave car gasoline (95, 97). it's possible to get 100LL but it comes at around $2,5/liter (or $9,4/gallon). 95 costs about $3-4/gallon. i can see why people want to cut costs.
is there any serious not-old plane on the market that flies on lower octane?
i'm a bass player and that's my fave pedal@peterh337 - thank you for your informed opinion. probably diesels are yet to deserve to be truly "awesome" as only a few owners speak of them now.
the only 92 octane engine i found on the internet is from a russian website - Aero-Shop:. you can see there:
Lyc-IO540L
Lycoming IO-540 235 h.p. 92
Lyc-IO540
Lycoming IO-540 260 h.p. 100LL
i'm not sure however that this "L" modification is russian-moded. although i do know that quite a lot of aircrafts here fly on higher octave car gasoline (95, 97). it's possible to get 100LL but it comes at around $2,5/liter (or $9,4/gallon). 95 costs about $3-4/gallon. i can see why people want to cut costs.
is there any serious not-old plane on the market that flies on lower octane?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reality, I bet, is that most 100LL-only engines will run fine on 96 or even 91, so long as you avoid high CHTs i.e. keep them way below the 500F limit.
I say this because GAMI did a bench test on a TSIO-550 to see how much it took to make it detonate and it turned out to be some pretty extreme conditions, which included a 500F CHT at max power. Nobody should ever get anywhere near 500F CHT especially at max power, if they know how to thermally manage the engine.
Also, there are octane enhancing additives, which are illegal here but in Russia....
I say this because GAMI did a bench test on a TSIO-550 to see how much it took to make it detonate and it turned out to be some pretty extreme conditions, which included a 500F CHT at max power. Nobody should ever get anywhere near 500F CHT especially at max power, if they know how to thermally manage the engine.
Also, there are octane enhancing additives, which are illegal here but in Russia....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Russia
Age: 39
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i scrolled lower on this russian website - it says that these engines are "custom moded" for this russian company (they sell planes and parts). it's unclear whether these modes are factory-made, the way it says in the sentence is actually quite evasive. from one point you might even understand it in the way that it's done by lycoming themselves. the difference in price between 100ll and 92 is $1k markup.
addition: i was probably a bit wrong in previous posts. the most popular airplane fuel here is kerosine. is it close to 100LL?
addition: i was probably a bit wrong in previous posts. the most popular airplane fuel here is kerosine. is it close to 100LL?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kerosine = Jet-A. It most definitely is very different from Avgas 100LL.
The only way (in current aviation practice) to burn Jet-A is in a turbine or in a piston engine that is based on the Diesel design (high compression ratio, direct injection, self ignition). And incidentally, the Thielert/Centurion engine I talked about earlier can use both Jet-A and regular car diesel fuel. Don't know about the SMA engine though.
The only way (in current aviation practice) to burn Jet-A is in a turbine or in a piston engine that is based on the Diesel design (high compression ratio, direct injection, self ignition). And incidentally, the Thielert/Centurion engine I talked about earlier can use both Jet-A and regular car diesel fuel. Don't know about the SMA engine though.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd have thought that the obvious choice in Russia is a Diesel (JET-A) aeroplane. All airports have JET-A (suitable for a diesel aeroplane) and the cost is probably much cheaper. How about a DA40 TDI or something?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@pbass: on which register (i.e. country) do you plan to put the aircraft on? This has a big impact on what you're allowed to do and what not.
If you purchase a pre 1976 Cessna 182, it will come with a Continental O-470 engine that is approved for 87 octane or more (the 1976+ O-470-U is not). This basically means you can fuel it up at the gas station. I presume that high ethanol content is not an issue in Russia (in Europe it's added for "ecological" reasons).
The Cessna 182 hasn't really changed over the years. Get a 70s model and have an expert redo the interior, paint the airframe and it will be virtually indistinguishable from a 2012 model. The only major change from Cessna in the last 40 years was that 4 cupholders replaced the 4 ashtrays.
As Peter said, I wouldn't go for a modern glass cockpit either because they tend to be single point of failures and your options for repair might be rather limited in Russia. With the traditional steam gauges you can easily maintain a few spares and send them via mail to Europe/USA for repair.
Still I think you'd be better off with a Diamond diesel/kerosine aircraft.
If you purchase a pre 1976 Cessna 182, it will come with a Continental O-470 engine that is approved for 87 octane or more (the 1976+ O-470-U is not). This basically means you can fuel it up at the gas station. I presume that high ethanol content is not an issue in Russia (in Europe it's added for "ecological" reasons).
The Cessna 182 hasn't really changed over the years. Get a 70s model and have an expert redo the interior, paint the airframe and it will be virtually indistinguishable from a 2012 model. The only major change from Cessna in the last 40 years was that 4 cupholders replaced the 4 ashtrays.
As Peter said, I wouldn't go for a modern glass cockpit either because they tend to be single point of failures and your options for repair might be rather limited in Russia. With the traditional steam gauges you can easily maintain a few spares and send them via mail to Europe/USA for repair.
Still I think you'd be better off with a Diamond diesel/kerosine aircraft.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Russia
Age: 39
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@achimha well, it's been commented here twice and in some other forums a couple times that there's not enough info that diesel engines are reliable. so i dont know about that.. i'm still trying to find out what do they do to legally convert io-540 to mogas here in russia. there's a company with a website taunting it, and just today heard the same rumour from a friend of mine.
how is O-470 vs IO-540 in reliability? great reviews for io-540 everywhere. continentals being bashed in lots of sources also..
btw, appreciate if anyone knows the info - how much is a new o-470 and io-540? i googled them up, it gave me results with different prices from different years (forum postings). 30k to 90k. too big of a range
thanks
how is O-470 vs IO-540 in reliability? great reviews for io-540 everywhere. continentals being bashed in lots of sources also..
btw, appreciate if anyone knows the info - how much is a new o-470 and io-540? i googled them up, it gave me results with different prices from different years (forum postings). 30k to 90k. too big of a range
thanks
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are dozens of IO-540 variants, and they vary in price widely, mainly it seems according to popularity.
Also, in the USA, there are firms which sell them at "cost plus", at prices well below Lyco prices.
I don't think there is much to choose reliability-wise between an O-540 and an IO-540, except that the latter is much less likely to stop running because it cannot get carb icing
Lyco versus Conti comparisons are similarly difficult. Both brands have their weak points, but they are different.
Also, in the USA, there are firms which sell them at "cost plus", at prices well below Lyco prices.
I don't think there is much to choose reliability-wise between an O-540 and an IO-540, except that the latter is much less likely to stop running because it cannot get carb icing
Lyco versus Conti comparisons are similarly difficult. Both brands have their weak points, but they are different.
