MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Aviation chatter - For ALL Pilots and Aviation Enthusiasts

Moderator: Moderators

pharma
Tripped over wheel chock
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:12 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by pharma » Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:01 pm

HELP , HELP , HELP!!! NO STC FOR THIS ONE. WHY??????
George
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by George » Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:52 pm

Speak to Horace Blok on here. Think it has to do with Vapour lock.
User avatar
Whirly
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 11721
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 3:25 pm
Closest Airfield: Ermelo
Location: Mpumalanga
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 115 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Whirly » Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:56 pm

George wrote:Speak to Horace Blok on here. Think it has to do with Vapour lock.
Not only that, I have an aeroplane where the engine is approved.....................but not in that aeroplane as they have not (and I am told they will not) done any test flights on, and it's an O-360. So sometimes the engine might be approved but not the specific aeroplane. :(

Whirly.
Every dog needs a home and every home needs a dog (or two or three).
Hannelie
Priming
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:38 pm
Location: Wakkerstroom
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Hannelie » Fri Oct 08, 2010 1:19 pm

Do not forget the talk on fuels tomorrow at Rand Airport by Adrian Mc Hardy from LYcoming

Starts at 10h00
Hangar 14
User avatar
Calle_Hedberg
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3723
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 3:37 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Wherever the wind & prop takes me...
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Calle_Hedberg » Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:28 pm

Hi,

The lecture by Adrian McHardy from Lycoming was very interesting, with news on the technical front as well as what I would regard as "policy" positions from Lycoming. Here are some of the highlights from my perspective (I assume most readers are familiar with the background, including the instruction by the US Environmental Protection Agency that lead in aviation fuel must be gone by 2015):

1.
Recent investigations into automotive fuel in South Africa indicates that 95 octane mogas has a Research Octane Number (RON) of 95 and a Motor Octane Number (MON) of 85. The average of the two is what's now called Anti Knock Index (AKI) number, which for SA is around 90 (there was some discussion around whether 95 octane sold in the coastal areas has a slighly higher AKI of 92).

2.
Lycoming issued Service Instruction 1070Q in July 2010 (see http://www.lycoming.textron.com/support ... I1070Q.pdf for details), which outlines the minimum mogas specs for the 360 engines BUT LYCOMING WILL ISSUE SIMILAR SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE THE END OF 2010 FOR ALL THEIR CARBURETTED AND FUEL-INJECTED NORMALLY ASPIRATED ENGINES (4 OR 6 CYLINDERS) UP TO 260HP / 8.5:1 COMPRESSION. Lycoming tests had proven that these engines run fine on mogas not matter what type of fuel injection they have (Bendix is no problem!), but the litigious nature of US society resulted in Lycoming opting for somewhat higher requirements that what's technically required (i.e. larger safety margin).

The two key requirements for using Mogas in Lycoming engines 260hp or less are: An AKI number of at least 93, and a maximum vapor pressure limit of 9.0 psi (the latter relates to vapour lock).

3.
Adrian pointed out that convincing fuel suppliers to deliver "98 octane" (RON) - which would be equivalent to an AKI of 93 - might not be as difficult as one might think because manufacturers of high-end auto engines in most cases have similar octane requirements. So an alliance between General Aviation and main car manufacturers would presumably have significant clout. And if it is correct that the AKI of "95 octane" fuels sold along the coast already have an AKI of 92, then the adjustment should be minor.

4.
For high end turbo-charged engines that typically serves the commercial and high-end private segments of GA, it seems Lycoming's strategy is related to their new IE2 technology (fully automated engine management, solid state ignition systems, etc) which is able to run on almost any type of petrol. Adrian mentioned an example where they poured the content of various lawnmowers etc into the tank, and the 350hp IE2 engine immediately adjusted the relevant engine parameters and continued to run without a hitch. The IE2 technology is near certification, and will be gradually introduced into the rest of the engine series.

The only groups that look to be left out in the cold are classic aircraft, old radials, warbirds and similar - Lycoming has no solution for them.

5.
On the "policy" side, he stated very clearly that Lycoming was dedicated to work towards an OPEN STANDARD for avgas replacement - or to say it differently, Lycoming is not keen on adopting or supporting any of the proprietary/patented solutions that are being touted (Swiftfuel, GAMI fuel, etc).

6.
He also signalled that Lycoming is likely to support the so called 94UL (94 octane unleaded) standard for high-end engines. That standard has already received support from Continental, but is under heavy criticism from e.g. the GAMI crowd.

While I personally and in principle agree with Lycoming about an Open Standard (aviation fuel is expensive enough without having to fork out more to various patent holders, and opting for proprietary solutions might easily result in a fragmented market in the US and no market in Africa). That said, we should also be aware that Lycoming's strategy of recommending new IE2 engine technology for power users indirectly means they expect to sell more engines. Just like Gami and/or the Swiftfuel investors hope to make a killing if their patented formula is chosen...

Regards
calle
Flying troll...
User avatar
GL
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9189
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 93 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by GL » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:06 pm

I'm dissapointed. I have been researching some of McHardys staements and they are just wrong. Most significantly, the EPA does not propose to ban lead in Avgas by 2015.
The Environmental Protection Agency last week reassured aviation officials that its recent advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on the use of lead in aviation gasoline was meant as a means to collect additional information, and says the agency has not established or proposed any deadline for banning the use of lead in avgas. EPA made those assurances in a July 27 letter to Robert Hackman, vice president of regulatory affairs for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
Our body is made to move, and our mind is made to connect with other people.
– Sjur Nesheim, Norwegian mountaineer

The essentials to happiness:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• something to hope for

Guy Leitch
User avatar
Horace Blok
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3245
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:55 am
Closest Airfield: FAMO
Location: GBR - Great Brak River
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 32 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Horace Blok » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:08 pm

Hi Pharma - in what aircraft is it installed?

I asked Todd to look at this thread of yours. He tried to log in but with no joy.
Bendix injection failed our flight tests on several occasions. This is why it’s not approved.
He also adds:
vapor lock is a fuel system (airframe) issue, not an engine issue. Therefore whoever deals with airframe approval to use the gas they now propose, will be responsible for seeing to it that the thing won’t vapor lock.

Plus the autogas that Lycoming is endorsing is virtually non-existent.
Also asked another far more competent boffin than myself and this is what he typed (reinforcing Todd's assertion):
That is quite possible as it is generally the overall performance of the fuel system that is critical for the STC's. The fuel system starts at the fuel tank, through pump suction line , pump, pump discharge all the way to the carb or injector. The engine, frankly doesn't give too much a damn about volatility, after all better vaporisation gives better combustion. A poorly designed fuel suction system to the fuel pump, however, will make that setup more susceptible to vapor lock due to what we in the industry refer to as lack of NPSH (Net Positive Suction Head, this takes vapor pressure into consideration), which affects all pumped systems adversely when vapor pressures are too high for the particular pumped system. Some pumped systems can be be beefed up to improve the NPSH situation but others cannot due to silly things like pump elevation relative to fuel source, fuel line routing, fuel line sizing, fuel line length, pressure (alternatively Head) loss in the fuel line, fitting losses etc etc. There are a myriad factors that influence this and I think Todd has done what he could where the situation was recoverable (hence some of his STC's require mods to the fuel suction systems) and others (in particular, non pumped gravity flow systems) require only a sticker that they are OK. Those, where the mods were going to be too involved and complex or did not show promise of ultimately leading to a satisfactory solution he did not persue further. I would also be very reluctant to use Mogas on such marginal systems where Todd did not bother to do the STC.
Thanks TA for your help - as always 1st class gen.
These users liked the author Horace Blok for the post:
Koenie Otto
Hartog
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
⏺ Respect for ourselves guides our morals; respect for others guides our manners.

▶️ Life isn't a dress rehearsal.

➡️ Try to learn from the mistakes of others - you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
User avatar
Calle_Hedberg
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3723
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 3:37 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Wherever the wind & prop takes me...
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Calle_Hedberg » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:15 pm

GL wrote:I'm dissapointed. I have been researching some of McHardys staements and they are just wrong. Most significantly, the EPA does not propose to ban lead in Avgas by 2015.
The Environmental Protection Agency last week reassured aviation officials that its recent advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on the use of lead in aviation gasoline was meant as a means to collect additional information, and says the agency has not established or proposed any deadline for banning the use of lead in avgas. EPA made those assurances in a July 27 letter to Robert Hackman, vice president of regulatory affairs for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
Guy,

Interesting, even if I wouldn't be too concerned about that particular aspect. Lead might be gone in 2015 or 2017 or whatever - the point is that sooner or later it will be gone, and in the meantime Africa is battling with limited avgas availability already.

But you say "some of McHardy's statements" - have you found any of the more key statements about Lycoming's views and plans, or about the octane situation in SA, to be wrong?

Regards
calle
Flying troll...
User avatar
Mauler
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 10050
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:52 pm
Closest Airfield: Vans
Location: Tarlton
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Mauler » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:48 pm

Plus the autogas that Lycoming is endorsing is virtually non-existent.
Quite so. The autogas Lycoming is endorsing is really a 91/96 or 94UL avgas. :roll:

Is here any flicker of interest from the oil companies? Is there some kind of buy-in into 94UL between Lycoming and big oil maybe?
User avatar
GL
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9189
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 93 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by GL » Mon Oct 11, 2010 8:59 pm

chedberg wrote:
But you say "some of McHardy's statements" - have you found any of the more key statements about Lycoming's views and plans, or about the octane situation in SA, to be wrong?

As someone who finds the neatness of pareto optimality alluring, I was disappointed when his powerpoint slides said 35% of users use 65% of fuel when he had beeen saying 20/80.
Also I was never comfortable with his assertion that our 93 LFP at the pumps (which I still believe is a RON number ) is just a few points away from 95 AKI.
I think he glossed over the problems Horace has outlined with fuel systems. Cars have pumps in the tank specifically to deal with vapour pressure. So I still think that low wing planes will need pumps in the tanks. (The FAA will just love trying to certify a mod for an electronic fuel pump in the fuel tanks)

As an aside i asked about Lead Replacement Petrol (for old cars with cast iron cylinder heads, according to an earlier post by RV). I hear that LRP has managanese instead of lead -which is even worse than TEL.
Our body is made to move, and our mind is made to connect with other people.
– Sjur Nesheim, Norwegian mountaineer

The essentials to happiness:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• something to hope for

Guy Leitch
User avatar
GL
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9189
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:08 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Lost for words
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 93 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by GL » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:01 pm

Mauler wrote:
Plus the autogas that Lycoming is endorsing is virtually non-existent.
Quite so. The autogas Lycoming is endorsing is really a 91/96 or 94UL avgas. :roll:

Is here any flicker of interest from the oil companies? Is there some kind of buy-in into 94UL between Lycoming and big oil maybe?

This is the credibilty gap that i mentioned. 95 AKI UL seems like a pipe dream
Our body is made to move, and our mind is made to connect with other people.
– Sjur Nesheim, Norwegian mountaineer

The essentials to happiness:
• someone to love,
• something to do,
• something to hope for

Guy Leitch
User avatar
Mauler
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 10050
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:52 pm
Closest Airfield: Vans
Location: Tarlton
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 3 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Mauler » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:15 pm

There are other things that just don't gel. For example, why are IO-360s approved for mystery mogas, but not one IO-540? The 540 is just a 360 with two more identical cylinders tacked on has the same Benducks injection.
George
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by George » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:20 pm

Horace Blok wrote:Hi Pharma - in what aircraft is it installed?

I asked Todd to look at this thread of yours. He tried to log in but with no joy.
Bendix injection failed our flight tests on several occasions. This is why it’s not approved.
My Bendix injection did not like Mogas.... Tried a couple tanks as a test. It has NEVER (not 1ce) missed a beat with Avgas. With Mogas it gave me a couple burps and farts. Nothing serious like stopping, but I tent to swallow seat when the aengine farts, burps or other, so to save seat cushion removal costs I reverted back to Avgas. I will use Mogas in emergency, but prefer to mix with Avgas.
User avatar
Calle_Hedberg
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3723
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 3:37 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Wherever the wind & prop takes me...
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Calle_Hedberg » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:22 pm

GL wrote:Also I was never comfortable with his assertion that our 93 LFP at the pumps (which I still believe is a RON number ) is just a few points away from 95 AKI.
I think he glossed over the problems Horace has outlined with fuel systems. Cars have pumps in the tank specifically to deal with vapour pressure. So I still think that low wing planes will need pumps in the tanks. (The FAA will just love trying to certify a mod for an electronic fuel pump in the fuel tanks)
Well, Adrian did say that the octane number at the pumps in SA (the highest being 95) is actually RON, whereas it's MON would be 85 - meaning the AKI would be 90. It was only that guy from Placo who afterwards speculated whether 95 octane sold at the coast had a slightly higher AKI (92).

And yes, Lycoming seems to be going for is 94UL - which Continental also seems to favour. Maybe it's a pipe-dream, but it seems a more achievable with regards to African Aviation than some replacement specialty fuel.

On vapour lock, Wikipedia states that "Most modern engines are equipped with fuel injection, and have an electric submersible fuel pump in the fuel tank. Moving the fuel pump to the interior of the tank helps prevent vapor lock, since the entire fuel delivery system is under high pressure and the fuel pump runs cooler than if it is located in the engine compartment. This is the primary reason that vapor lock is rare in modern fuel systems. For the same reason, some carburettor engines are retrofitted with an electric fuel pump near the fuel tank. Other solutions to vapor lock are rerouting of the fuel lines away from heat generating components, installation of a fuel cooler or cool can, shielding of heat generating components near fuel lines, and insulation of fuel lines." (my emphasis).

So there might be alternative solutions to the in-tank pump, or what? Just asking....

Regards
calle
Flying troll...
User avatar
Calle_Hedberg
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3723
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 3:37 am
Closest Airfield: FACT
Location: Wherever the wind & prop takes me...
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: MOGAS IN LYCOMING 360 IO 3601B6D

Unread post by Calle_Hedberg » Mon Oct 11, 2010 9:39 pm

Mauler wrote:There are other things that just don't gel. For example, why are IO-360s approved for mystery mogas, but not one IO-540? The 540 is just a 360 with two more identical cylinders tacked on has the same Benducks injection.
Adrian said all Lycoming engines up to the 260hp/8.5:1 level will be approved for 93 AKI / 9.0 PSI mogas before the end of the year. He basically said that doing all the paper-work took a lot of time (Lycoming do have over 800 different engine models, don't they) for a relatively small team of people.

Personally I was happy to hear that, because (a) I know my IO-540 D4A5 260hp Lycoming DO run on 95 RON octane mogas (many pilots have done it for years), but STCs will be required vis a vis insurance, and (b) somebody's gotta MOVE in this area instead of just talking. So 93 AKI approval, IE2 fully electronic engine controls, new engines like the Adept 320T, the Lycoming 233, the new Continental aimed at 94UL - all steps in the right direction as I see it. Maybe some of them are pipe-dreams, but so what? not trying is failing.... :!: :!:

Regards
calle
Flying troll...

Return to “General Aviation Chatter”