Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:05 am
#1861536
CloudHound wrote:Interestingly the CAA/DfT are conducting an aerodrome operator survey into UL91 provision and appetite for change.
riverrock wrote:Once a full alternative is available, the tax man will see an opportunity to make sure that AVGAS is just as expensive as the alternative.
TLRippon wrote:You do know 100UL is not the same as 100LL in terms of bang for your Buck. You’d need 104UL for that so no use to the high compression owners who face grounding if TEL is banned as the Eu propose
Are there any airspeed or range changes or limitations with the use of G100UL avgas?
There are no significant airspeed or range effects with the use of G100UL avgas. The slightly higher density of G100UL (~6.3 lbs/gal) vs. 100LL (~6.0 lbs/gal) is offset by slightly higher volumetric energy density. As a result, when operating at the same volumetric (GPH) fuel flow, Lean of Peak (LOP), the aircraft may be one or two knots faster.
Will G100UL avgas be approved for “Warbirds” at full rated power?
It is anticipated that G100UL will be approved for “Warbird” operation under the same limitations, if any, as are appropriate for operation with 100LL.
However, detonation testing data supports a “full rated power” application. The standard ASTM detonation test for operation at full take-off power (D909) demonstrates G100UL is superior even to the old 115/145 “purple” avgas used on DC-7s and Constellations.