I have 9:1's and I've run 93 non-ethanol in one tank, but only used it after leveling off for cruise. The other tank was 50/50 avgas/non-ethanol. I run the mx in both tanks now since it's just easier to premix the entire batch.
 
The H pistons will give 9-1 in either a 320 or 360. Lots of other piston options that are probably better then the H.
 
If you have a choice, 8.5:1 compression ratio is much more preferable to give sufficient detonation margin on 93UL. I have 1600 hours on my 360 running both 91 and 93 with (yes, with) ethanol in it.
 
Per the OP, regarding 0-360 with 9:1 compression (did not specify pistons), I was under the impression that the compression of 9:1 was not acceptable for Mogas 93 octane.
I have an ECI OX-360-A1A9S (9:1 compression ratio), so would love to hear otherwise regarding the use of Mogas with the 9:1 compression.
 
I have 9:1's and I've run 93 non-ethanol in one tank, but only used it after leveling off for cruise. The other tank was 50/50 avgas/non-ethanol. I run the mx in both tanks now since it's just easier to premix the entire batch.
So that would put you at roughly 96.5 octane. In cruise did you notice a difference in EGT/CHT when switching from 93 to 100LL?
 
Air Guy question re: 93 with alcohol?
Are you using 25BTDC or a curve for timing ? SDS is offering a starting point of 23 BTDC under higher MP.
 
"So that would put you at roughly 96.5 octane".

Actually I think the "M" rating (lower number) in the R+M/2 is the automotive octane measurement methodology that is closest to the "Aviation Lean" method used to determine the octane on 100LL. The "M" measurement uses higher rpm and warmer fuel to determine octane--closer to the "Aviation Lean" method on 100LL. The "R" method uses an idling unloaded engine and cooler fuel. This simply means using the "M" rating vs the "R+M/2 results in the 50% blend referenced above being several points lower than 96.5.

Would this difference matter?? Maybe not at lower power settings but at high power and low altitude it certainly might.

Cheers,
db
 
SDS is offering a starting point of 23 BTDC under higher MP
Not sure what these words mean, but with SDS you can have pretty much ANY ignition point at ANY MP. And that (ignition curve) is the key to making the engine safe from detonation. My 8.5 engine is programmed to 17 BTDC for “high” MP.
 
I am at a very similar research situation. thinking of getting the Titan O/IO 340 180 HP which has 9:1 compression. This engine will be used more for occasional back country trips and the ability to use 91 mogas would be a huge benefit. I have looked at the possibility of using the 174 HP version with the 8.5:1 pistons, but knowing that a guy can use all the HP he can get when in the mountains, I would prefer to have the few extra HP. I've read of a few guys using the occasional tank of 91 MOGAs in their Carbon Bubs with no issues, hence my research. I do keep several hundred gallons of 100LL at my private strip, so would mainly use it. The problem is when I visit distant friends at their strips and they only keep 91 MOGAS do to that's all they require in their aircraft. I'm wanting to order a new engine and this has been my reason for being on the fence per se.
 
I am at a very similar research situation. thinking of getting the Titan O/IO 340 180 HP which has 9:1 compression. This engine will be used more for occasional back country trips and the ability to use 91 mogas would be a huge benefit. I have looked at the possibility of using the 174 HP version with the 8.5:1 pistons, but knowing that a guy can use all the HP he can get when in the mountains, I would prefer to have the few extra HP. I've read of a few guys using the occasional tank of 91 MOGAs in their Carbon Bubs with no issues, hence my research. I do keep several hundred gallons of 100LL at my private strip, so would mainly use it. The problem is when I visit distant friends at their strips and they only keep 91 MOGAS do to that's all they require in their aircraft. I'm wanting to order a new engine and this has been my reason for being on the fence per se.
I have the 174 h.p. Titan in an experimental bush plane (the three letter name other than Van) that I just completed. This engine was selected so I could run mogas if desired. The 174 h.p. Is actually 8.0:1 compression and J.B. at Titan has said, although not officially recommended, customers successfully run alcohol free mogas. To date I only have 65 hours on this engine and have run a mixture of 87 alcohol free gas and 100LL and see no difference in performance or temperatures. The 87 octane is the only alcohol free gas I can get here in the high country of N. AZ. I should note that I paid much attention to building a low turbulence fuel system to minimize potential mogas vapor issues. A buddy and I built identical planes with the exception that he used the 9.0:1 Titan and I used the 8.0:1 Titan -he does have a VERY slight advantage in takeoff-we se no measurable difference in cruise.
Back to the O.P. question, I believe Mahlon Russell, formerly of Mattituck engines, posted some interesting information on octane ratings and compression ratio-should be in the archive.
Cheers,
db
 
Air Guy question re: 93 with alcohol?
Are you using 25BTDC or a curve for timing ? SDS is offering a starting point of 23 BTDC under higher MP.
I use a timing curve with SDS, with 22 degrees at high manifold pressure up to a max of 29 degrees at low manifold pressure. The 22 degrees was based on my testing with 91 octane before I had access to 93. I never repeated my detonation testing with the 93, I just stuck with the 91 curve and called it good.
 
I have been experimenting with 98RON(same as "93" in USA) non ethanol mogas this past summer here in Aus. I have a H2AD (9:1 pistons standard) in my RV6 with SDS CPI ignition on one side and a Bendix 1200 series mag on the other currently running fixed timing at 23BTDC on both for now. I have no special changes to the fuel system from the standard engine driven mechanical fuel pump and Facet electric boost pump. Like many others I run Mogas in one tank and Avgas in the other and use Avgas for Takeoff ,Taxi and Landing and always park it with Avgas in the floatbowl. I have not seen any changes to the way the engine operates when switching to mogas. The fuel economy, CHT & speed are all unchanged. The two things that have changed is the plugs are cleaner and I now have $30 more in my wallet per hour when running on mogas. Winning! Would I use Mogas full time and stop using Avgas altogether? Yes, it could be done but not without making some changes to the fuel system. Mogas is not available on Airports in my part of the World anyway so I'm happy just running it in one tank for local flying.
The current fuel prices in Aussie dollars here are $2.88ltr for Avgas and $1.99ltr for 98RON mogas.
 
Last edited:
Some good reading/information.


 
Some good reading/information.


That's good information, and accurate if you are not willing to make any hardware/mechanical changes to the fuel system.

With the right fuel system, you can run pump gas (including ethanol) all day long, I've been doing it for 1600 hours and 8 years now, summer and winter, altitudes up to FL190 - but it's not a "standard Lycoming" fuel setup, so you will have to venture off the beaten path to get there.
 
Questions for the knowledgeable ?

Airguy offered E10 pump gas requires fuel temp management and higher rail pressure than my engine driven pump and/or AFP electric pump can produce.
Assuming, seasonal / regional vapor pressure variance:
1- How high should rail pressure be to suppress bubbles ?
2- Who sells an RV compatible pump that can supply this pressure ? Apparently cars have one in the fuel tank.
3- Is bypass recirc a must at this pressure ?
4- Is this higher rail pressure acceptable to an AFP servo and splitter ?
 
Questions for the knowledgeable ?

Airguy offered E10 pump gas requires fuel temp management and higher rail pressure than my engine driven pump and/or AFP electric pump can produce.
Assuming, seasonal / regional vapor pressure variance:
1- How high should rail pressure be to suppress bubbles ?
2- Who sells an RV compatible pump that can supply this pressure ? Apparently cars have one in the fuel tank.
3- Is bypass recirc a must at this pressure ?
4- Is this higher rail pressure acceptable to an AFP servo and splitter ?
Difficult to say whats REQUIRED, considering the myriad approaches available and the fact that this is experimental, so technically nothing is REQUIRED in the first place. However, here's a quick summary and what I did over time and why. The only real trick here is to develop a "hydraulically correct" fuel system - which needs some knowledge of physics and chemistry.

I was running standard Bendix injection with electric pumps from AFP when I originally built my plane (first flight January 2016), with a Borla backpressure regulator on the fuel loop. The fuel came from the tanks with great attention to low-pressure-drop routing and fittings to the pumps (dual parallel, in the doghouse forward of the fuel selector) through an Andair full-duplex valve. From the pumps, the fuel ran to a Tee with one leg going to a Borla pressure regulator holding 30 psi backpressure and dumping the rest to the tanks through the return line on the Andair fuel valve, with the other Tee side going forward through the firewall to the Bendix servo, and standard from there in a deadhead configuration. This worked mostly OK - but was still prone to vapor lock with heat-soaked fuel on the ground especially during a hard climb with warm fuel in the tanks, and hot-starts were the usual fun dance with throttle and mixture.

One of the immediate issues that became apparent was vapor bubbles forming from heated fuel in the FWF area boiling where the pressure was lower. Coming out of the servo the pressure drops from the 30 psi inlet to about 6 psi or even less on the output side between the servo and the fuel divider, and even lower (only a few ounces of pressure at idle) in the divider lines to each injector. In June of 2016, still in Phase 1 at about 36 hours, I put a second layer of firesleeve on all FWF lines to help prevent heat migration to the fuel, changed out the injector orifice restrictors from the standard .024" to a smaller .022" orifice to raise the pressure in the individual cylinder injectors lines (to help stop boiling), put a 4-pound spring in the flow divider to raise the servo-to-divider fuel line pressure, and raised the Borla backpressure regulator from the initial 30 psi to 45 psi. This was required as a side-effect of installing the smaller orifice on the injectors - the small orifice helped raise fuel pressure at idle to stop boiling, but that also meant that it had a high pressure drop at full power fuel flow, which required more feed pressure to overcome, hence the increase from 30 to 45 on the input to the servo. This helped my vapor lock issues quite a bit during hard climbs with warm fuel, but did not completely eliminate them - and hotstart issues were still present as the fuel would heatsoak and boil, flooding the manifold with fuel on shutdown.

In April 2017 with about 144 hours on the airplane, I installed the AFP purge valve between the servo and the divider block, right up against the divider block, with the return line coming back through the firewall and dumping into the downstream leg of the Borla regulator in the fuel returning to the tank. This was an attempt to fix the hot-start issues, and worked pretty well - shutdowns were now done by pulling the purge valve open and leaving it that way. On startup, leave the valve open and turn on the fuel pump immediately on entering the cockpit, let it run while getting seatbelts on and avionics powered up, and by the time I was ready to crank it had been pushing cool fuel from the tanks FWF through the servo up to the divider and through the purge valve back to the tanks for 45 seconds or a minute. This flow rate is not large with the Bendix system when the engine is not running, but there is some present, and it helped move the hot fuel out and put cool(er) fuel in it's place for a startup - and that worked pretty well. Hotstarts were tamed and life was mostly good.

August 2018 at 293 hours, I lost one of the dual fuel pumps, pulled the original AFP pumps out and replaced them with the new dual-pump module being offered from SDS (very nice). This required a new fab of the doghouse but was worth the effort. This system continued to work well but I was growing weary of the hotstart routine and use of the AFP purge valve, I knew there had to be a better way and I was looking for it.

During my January 2020 annual at 563 hours, I raped out the current fuel system and installed full SDS from Ross Farnham. I kept the 45psi input pressure on the Borla regulator, but reconfigured the FWF fuel system and eliminated the FT-60 fuel flow transducer since the SDS sends out flow pulses to the EMS to serve the same purpose. Now my fuel goes forward from the pump module through the firewall, still double-firesleeved everywhere FWF, direct to a manifold on the top of the engine with the 4 cylinder flowlines to each electronic injector, and then exits the manifold back to the cold side of the firewall to the input of the Borla regulator which holds 45 psi of backpressure on it and dumps the rest to the tanks via the Andair full-duplex valve. I have my ignition map pushing as low as 22 degrees BTDC on 30" manifold pressure all the way to 25 degrees below 24" manifold pressure, and move that to 29 degrees for LOP operation below 24" manifold pressure. I also installed a common automotive oxygen sensor and controller in the exhaust to full-time monitor my AFR, and it is reported in the cockpit through the SDS programmer so I can see my "right-now" AFR at all times in flight.

This current configuration has completely cured all vaporlock instances and all hotstart nonsense. Once you get the SDS programmed and mapped correctly (it comes with a basemap that is very close, doesn't need much tweaking) it simply starts like your car - doesn't care about hot or cold, or sea level versus Leadville, Colorado - it just works. I've operated from +116F on the ground in summer in Texas to -12F in the winter in North Dakota, and at cruise altitudes between 14,000' and FL190 pretty regularly, and I've even had it up to FL210 twice, all running 91E10 until summer 2022 when the local Walmarts changed over and started offering 93E10 which I switched over to. I now have 8 years and 1620 hours on the airplane.

It should be noted in fairness that the EFII32 product offered by Robert Paisley offers pretty much the same level of performance as the SDS system developed by Ross Farnham - mostly because it was a direct rebranded copy of the SDS system until Ross and Robert split up their partnership. I prefer the SDS system not due to any particular hardware or software preferences (though SDS has a better injector setup, with a lot of technical reasons to justify my position), but entirely due to the customer support and technical assistance available from Ross. He was right there for me on every phone call and every issue through the course of my journey. His level of support can only be compared to that of Allan Nimmo or Tom Swearingen or Rhonda Barrett - top shelf.

Anyway, not telling anyone else how to do it - just telling what I did...
 
Last edited:
"So that would put you at roughly 96.5 octane".

Actually I think the "M" rating (lower number) in the R+M/2 is the automotive octane measurement methodology that is closest to the "Aviation Lean" method used to determine the octane on 100LL. The "M" measurement uses higher rpm and warmer fuel to determine octane--closer to the "Aviation Lean" method on 100LL. The "R" method uses an idling unloaded engine and cooler fuel. This simply means using the "M" rating vs the "R+M/2 results in the 50% blend referenced above being several points lower than 96.5.

Would this difference matter?? Maybe not at lower power settings but at high power and low altitude it certainly might.

Cheers,
db
R+M / 2
Research + Motor / 2
The chemists calculate what the fuel blend should be
AND they put it in a calibrated single cylinder Motor in the refinery's test laboratory as 'proof of concept'...
... then divide the results by 2, so they average the two.

As it was explained by my sister, 35 year lab worker Exxon/Mobil Baton Rouge, LA

... now I may have misunderstood, just what I 'think' I remember.
 
I haven't assemble the engine yet; I'm just considering 9:1.
If you haven't built the engine yet Just put in 8.5-1 and you can burn Costco premium. I do. I do have SDS fuel and ignition also. And be done with it. But I do not burn regular for sure.
Why give your self problems. You will never feel any power difference going to 9-1 anyway.
My luck varies FIXIT
 
Thanks to Airguy for excellent detailed education !
My original objective was to use my AFP injection w/ programable ignition timing to burn pump gas.
Airguy and Don at AFP can be summarized as follows:
1- You cannot simply raise the pressure on the servo and splitter to 45PSI to suppress vaporization. These components interact to pressure in an unacceptable manner.
2- The heated fuel actually vaporizes in the line between the splitter and the nozzle. You must be able to deliver the fuel to the injector nozzle at high pressure, which the legacy system cannot do.
3- Cooling the fuel with recirculation under all circumstances is a basic fundamental advantage to all scenarios.
Therefore, a higher pressure pump is not a silver bullet. The pressure must be maintained all the way to the injector nozzle, (think fuel rail on cars and diesels}, with electronically controlled, variable delivery rate.
 
Maybe somebody already asked this...

Why?
If one is going to all that trouble building a high compression engine, why not feed it with 100LL and get all the power one can out of it? Av gas is not that expensive in our RV's due to our generally lower fuel flow rates, and shorter trip times, as compared to spam cans.
 
Maybe somebody already asked this...

Why?
If one is going to all that trouble building a high compression engine, why not feed it with 100LL and get all the power one can out of it? Av gas is not that expensive in our RV's due to our generally lower fuel flow rates, and shorter trip times, as compared to spam cans.
For the same reason you are building/flying an RV instead of just buying a Bonanza or a Mooney. They aren't really that expensive either, are they?

Because we can, that's why.
 
#1- no lead in plugs and oil to consider. Dipstick has clear oil for at least 25 hour
#2- I am not in a hurry. I fly 2000 to 2300 RPM @ approximately 7 GPH
#3- HP is not important, RV’s have way more than I need

My reference point is my 3B with carbureter that used 90 no alc recreation mogas.
 
Last edited:
#1- no lead in plugs and oil to consider. Dipstick has clear oil for at least 25 hour
#2- I am not in a hurry. I fly 2000 to 2300 RPM @ approximately 7 GPH
#3- HP is not important, RV’s have way more than I need

My reference point is my 3B with carbureter that used 90 no alc recreation mogas.
Larry, we fly similar missions. No lead in oil is good, I cant wait for G100UL. But for me, I have no viable unleaded option at this time. Kudos to those who do.