Don't like the smell of Gasoline?.......

[MotorRotor]

Originally Posted by sparx-

To me the benefits of running SEF94 are reflected in its cost. It does not smell and performs better than pump gas. It has better throttle response. Tunes easier. Seems to burn more efficiently. Kept my engine cooler under heavy loads. It is just an all around better fuel.

I have stated before, if you are just out there flying mild, you will likely not see the performance increases. But if you are looking for a performance boost when really pushing an engine, this stuff will do it.

As for the cost. Well, it is a matter of finding someone to sell it to you at the right price. You are going to pay a lot if you try and buy it in quart containers. You need to find someone selling it in 5 gallon containers. Seems the price range for 5 gallons is $50-80. Even at $80, I personally would still be buying it.

I agree.

But if you are someone who does not push their heli as you do, if you are someone who just does minor aerobatics like loops, rolls, stall turns, with maybe a bit of inverted now and then and/or that mostly does autos, then top performance out of your power plant may not be all that important.

As for the smell, ditto if your wife does not travel with you all the time and/or neither of you mind the smell.

But for many of us, the extra power and lack of gasoline smell are big plusses that are worth a bit of extra cost.

Of note is that with the cost of some of these better oils, adding their cost at a 25:1 ratio will add a significant cost to that gallon of gasoline. So in many cases the cost differential may not be as prohibitive as some may initially think.

[rbort]

But if you are someone who does not push their heli as you do, if you are someone who just does minor aerobatics like loops, rolls, stall turns, with maybe a bit of inverted now and then and/or that mostly does autos, then top performance out of your power plant may not be all that important

Well when I was in FL my friend got some SEF for us to try out. I tried it in both my 1005 and my Spectra back to back with regular gas on the same day to try and get some stats on it.

Here is what I came up with after two tries each gas type averaged out:

Spectra-g on GAS:

1760 full power climbout average
243F temp measured average

Spectra-g on SEF:

1765 full power climbout average
231F temp measured average

1005 on GAS:

1740 full power climbout average
212F temp measured average

1005 on SEF:

1725 full power climbout average
227F temp measured average

So the Spectra performed a little better on SEF, while the 1005 was a little better on gas. But the difference is negligable so my conclusion was as stated above, your best bang for the buck is the smell factor.

There was a couple of little oddities with the way it ran, engine coughed here and there but I just flew threw it to get the tests done. On the other hand my friend had more issues that he got frustrated trying to solve, and went back to gas and everything went fine for him then. I'm not saying his issues were not fixable, but he just felt that things were worse for him as at first he thought it needed to be leaner then later he thought it needed to be richer and finally just gave up and went back to standard gas and everything smoothed out for him.

Hey I'm not trying to stop anybody from using it, makes no difference to me. If you like it, use it for sure. I tried it myself and decided it wasn't worth it for me especially at 1 gallon per week burn rate.

-=>Raja.

[James Kovach]

I wold not expect you to see any difference in a full collective climb. That is not pushing the engine. Also, your style of flying will not expose the benefits of the fuel.

Your "data" is not conclusive either. Does better in one but not the other. How does that tell you anything.

We get it though, you don't want to use the fuel

[Intrepid175]

Originally Posted by sparx-

I wold not expect you to see any difference in a full collective climb. That is not pushing the engine. Also, your style of flying will not expose the benefits of the fuel.

Your "data" is not conclusive either. Does better in one but not the other. How does that tell you anything.

We get it though, you don't want to use the fuel

Well, if you're pulling enough collective to take the engine to full power and hold it there, I don't see the difference between that and doing some kind of aggressive 3D maneuvers that also holds the engine at full power. Full power is full power either way. The engine will either pull the load consistently or it won't.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the SEF is straight gasoline, not the gas/ethenol mix we generally get out of the local gas pump. Gasoline has more energy for a given quantity than ethenol does. That why our cars generally get better fuel economy on straight gas than on the gas/ethenol blend. At least that's what I keep reading in the auto forums. If that's the case, I'd expect the model to run better on the SEF, everything else being equal, than on pump gas but I'd also bet that most of us, myself included, aren't really going to be able to tell the difference.

I do agree that Raja's data is far from conclusive but I do agree with his opinions here. To each their own though as neither side is going to convince the other. The important thing is that we're happy with our decisions, we enjoy the hobby, and we..........

Fly Safe!
Steve R.

[rbort]

Well, if you're pulling enough collective to take the engine to full power and hold it there, I don't see the difference between that and doing some kind of aggressive 3D maneuvers that also holds the engine at full power. Full power is full power either way. The engine will either pull the load consistently or it won't.

Exactly. Doing the full collective constant load on the engine is very repeatable and similar to a dyno test where you are running wide open and you apply the same load every time and see how it behaves with that load. If you switch engines or mufflers and do the same thing over, you're going to see actual differences in performance just like you would a motor on a test stand with a prop. One motor will spin the same prop faster than the other and one muffler will make more rpms than another. You have some numbers to go by to back up your findings.

Going to fly an engine and gaging it by doing climbing tick tocs may give you some idea, but its hard to repeat the severity of the tick tocks and collective load. You may get some sort of sense but accuracy in that is a crap shoot. It usually ends up with I like this motor better than that motor but I can't tell you by how much. Just feels better to me.

Two different ways to do things, one is more scientific and the other is more by feel, that's all.

Yes SEF is straight gasoline but its higher octane. The would be benefits in a standard compression zenoah engine from not having ethanol are negated by the higher octane value. You need a higher compression engine to benefit from SEF 94 most likely. I did run similar full power climbing tests with two different Spectras trying regular gas and Sunoco Ultra 94 fuel a couple of years back and there was a loss of 50 rpms peak on the top rotor head speed during a climbout. Repeatable test you could see that lower octane performed better in that case. This reason most likely explains why in this test case that I ran, SEF was about a wash with gas.

Just came back today a cold day but got 4 more tanks of fuel through my machines and the engines are making awesome power in this weather. Even if there was a hint of more power with SEF during a tic toc its definately not worth the 3-5 times cost premium to me. Sparx is right, I tried it and I don't want to use it.

-=>Raja.

[James Kovach]

As Raja mention, doing a full collective climb puts a constant load on the engine. I am not sure I really agree with that. With this statement that Raja made himself,

1810 (up to 500 feet), 1840 rpms with a longer climbout closer to 1000 feet. (and can probably gain more with time)

It would seem that the load is changing thru the climb. As the load lessens on the engine, it is able to increase the rotor rpm. If it was a constant load, I would expect it to hit a specific rpm and stay there until you made in change in the demand via the transmitter. The engine does not make more power thru the climb to increase the output rpm. So the only logical conclusion is that the load on the engine decreases the longer you stay in the climb. Raja, why do you figure the longer you stay in the climb, the better your max rpm is?

Doing full collective climbs does not put nearly as much load on and engine as doing other maneuvers and there are considerably more maneuvers out there than climbing Tic-Tocs that will put considerable loads on an engine. Tight Fast Hurricanes, Large Rainbows, a number of pirouetting maneuvers.... just to name a few. These maneuvers will put considerably more load on and engine than a full collective climb ever will. In all my flights, I have never gotten any engine to reach its max temp while doing full collective climbs. It takes more power demanding maneuvers to get to max temp. I monitor temps in real time.

You do not benefit from Higher Octane fuel only when you are running a high compression engine. There is more to an Octane rating than that. Here is what VP Racing says about the Octane Level.....

Do I need a fuel that is 94 octane?
Most small engines are designed to run on 87 - 92 octane fuels. However, the higher octane can help when engines are running hotter than they should. Elevated engine temps will require higher-octane fuel to prevent pre-ignition and detonation. Pre-ignition and detonation can be devastating to small engines. Example: If the needle valve on your carburetor is not adjusted properly the engine may be running lean, which could raise your engine’s operating temperatures. The engine may seem like it’s running and performing well, but the added heat is a drawback, which will create a demand for extra octane. This can occur with the changing of seasons as air density is fluctuating. If you’re not readjusting the engine’s carburetor accordingly, it’s likely that your engine will be running in a lean condition. Higher octane can assist air-cooled engines in cooling, even if dirt and build-up have formed on the engine head.

There is plenty of other good info here as well...... http://seffuels.com/learn.aspx

From that quote above, this is why you will generally see a cooler running engine when you are loading it hard. General Sport Flying and Full Collective climbs that Raja typically does is not going to see much of a benefit here. But if you are constantly loading the heck out of the engine and keeping it in the upper end of the temperature range, you will likely see that your engine will run a bit cooler and perform better. Two different styles of flying.

As I have stated before... If you have a mild flying style then odds are you will likely see no benefit from SEF fuel other than the smell. You will also benefit from it being a much cleaner and consistent fuel. Most people that are looking for these things.... Smell, Cleaner, Consistent Fuel, usually turn to Coleman. Now there is a better option at almost the same cost. Now there is a fuel specifically designed to be run in these engines that is nearly the same cost.

Now, if you are really pushing your engine hard. Flying heavy loaded maneuver constantly thru a flight, then you are going to see some benefits from this fuel. I have seen my engine temps come down. I have see the engine respond much faster to large throttle changes. I have seen the engine recover much quicker from a loaded situation. All these things are a great benefit when you are pushing the 3D abilities of yourself and these engines. To me, it is worth the price.

[rbort]

As Raja mention, doing a full collective climb puts a constant load on the engine. I am not sure I really agree with that. With this statement that Raja made himself,


Quote:
1810 (up to 500 feet), 1840 rpms with a longer climbout closer to 1000 feet. (and can probably gain more with time)

It would seem that the load is changing thru the climb. As the load lessens on the engine, it is able to increase the rotor rpm. If it was a constant load, I would expect it to hit a specific rpm and stay there until you made in change in the demand via the transmitter. The engine does not make more power thru the climb to increase the output rpm. So the only logical conclusion is that the load on the engine decreases the longer you stay in the climb. Raja, why do you figure the longer you stay in the climb, the better your max rpm is?

Here you don't understand the technique behind this so here goes. When you do a full power climbout, you have to start at a slower headspeed than peak. I start around 1680 and start the climb, get to full collective. Now the governor is going to hold the engine at 1680, so I turn it off with the radio and the throttle is released to full on the carb (100% throttle in my TX at full stick). Now you have to wait for the heli to wind up, go 200 feet up and its 1740, go to 500 and its 1810, go some more and eventually it will peak out and you will know it because you stop hearing the engine winding up when it reaches its full potential. That's the limit, but it cannot be tested in a short blip climbout that is 200 feet or so.

On the other side of the coin, if you're flying at 2100 head speed, this won't work. Because you know your engine can't maintain it, and any full collective climbout you do will register 2000 as you reach full collective and it records it (in the case of a gv-1 for example), and then every entry after that is lower, 1900, 1750, 1650 until your motor dies out and eventually settles to what it can hold. You can check it with a sky tach, but with a gv-1 its much more accurate to let it build up to the peak than bog it down with momentum to start and see where it goes to. The bottom line is, short climbouts to check max power are useless, the best way is to go for altitude and no be afraid to climb for a while until you hear the motor stop building speed, at that point you need to hit throttle hold first while you're at full collective, then drop collective and come back at full negative pitch (for a faster landing) and at those test altitudes it will still take like 10 seconds to get down. Once down push both data +/- on the gv-1 to reset max rpm to 0 and repeat this at least two more times to verify the readings.

That's the procedure I use, you should try it sometime when you're testing different motors, you will learn something from it that you didn't know before.

Doing full collective climbs does not put nearly as much load on and engine as doing other maneuvers and there are considerably more maneuvers out there than climbing Tic-Tocs that will put considerable loads on an engine. Tight Fast Hurricanes, Large Rainbows, a number of pirouetting maneuvers.... just to name a few. These maneuvers will put considerably more load on and engine than a full collective climb ever will. In all my flights, I have never gotten any engine to reach its max temp while doing full collective climbs. It takes more power demanding maneuvers to get to max temp. I monitor temps in real time.

All these things will put load on the engine but you have no reference point, so when I ask you how does this motor perform compared to that motor you don't know details, you just know it feels better but by how much, well, you say alot, but what is alot. Alot on one motor can be less than alot on another. Yes sure you can bog the motor more with collective and cyclic combined and heat it up more, but when testing one motor versus another a steady consitant and reproducable test is better than a stick bang test in my opinion. From what I have seen, the motor which wins the top head speed on a given pitch in a climbout is ALSO the motor that bogs less during 3D stuff. I tested the toxic 231 versus the Hanson 26 at my field before IRCHA and the Hanson motor pulled about 100 rpms more in the full power climbout. At IRCHA, that same motor flew 10mph faster than the 231, it all relates back to top end power.

When these people say this:

Do I need a fuel that is 94 octane?
Most small engines are designed to run on 87 - 92 octane fuels. However, the higher octane can help when engines are running hotter than they should. Elevated engine temps will require higher-octane fuel to prevent pre-ignition and detonation. Pre-ignition and detonation can be devastating to small engines. Example: If the needle valve on your carburetor is not adjusted properly the engine may be running lean, which could raise your engine’s operating temperatures. The engine may seem like it’s running and performing well, but the added heat is a drawback, which will create a demand for extra octane. This can occur with the changing of seasons as air density is fluctuating. If you’re not readjusting the engine’s carburetor accordingly, it’s likely that your engine will be running in a lean condition. Higher octane can assist air-cooled engines in cooling, even if dirt and build-up have formed on the engine head.

It sounds to me that they are targeting the statement towards ignorant home owners who know nothing about setting needles or small engines. They maintain nothing, they don't even winterize their engines in the small equipment. Walk over to your neighbor and ask him about how he tunes his weedeater, he will look at you cross eyed like you got horns growing out of your head. To them those are things that are non-existant, there is an adjustment, like where they would say?

We on the other hand are professionals when it comes to small engines and all know how to tune our engines and maintain them. Don't need the extra octane because our motors are running lean. Think about what they are saying when you read it again, its a selling point for people who don't know anything and want that fuel that will make their unmaintained weedeaters run longer with no maintenance.

OK on the rest of your post, and by all means use it

-=>Raja.

[James Kovach]

I fully understand the technique, I just do not agree with its use. I feel the GV-1 is an inadequate tool for this "testing".

Raja, would you post a data set from one of your tests please?

[rbort]

Just do a search either here or on RR and you'll find a post for example when I was doing the muffler testing.

Just came back from plank hunting, going to make a post about that

-=>Raja.

[James Kovach]

I don't want to see results. I would like to see each run before averaged.

[rbort]

I think you don't believe that its repeatable. Why don't you go try it yourself like I tried SEF and made up my own mind. This way you'll believe in it better than anything I can tell you.

-=>Raja.

[James Kovach]

Why the reluctance to share your information? If you did 10 runs and took an average, post the 10 values. Is it some sort of secret?


FYI... I have spoke to four other people that have tried SEF now and all of them seen substantial performance increases. So I guess you can say 5 out of 6 Heli pilots say SEF rules :-) .

[reimorei]

And what about AVGAS (Aviation Gas)? Will it work better than pump gas?
Here in Brazil my choices narrow to 87 oct pump gas, 91 oct premium pump gas or Avgas.

[James Kovach]

Raja? You have something to hide. Was it super duper top secret testing or something.

Actually, don't trouble yourself, at this point I doubt you would post your actual data.

[rbort]

please let us know for:

For 87 octane, you got W rpms
For 94 Octane, you got X rpms
For 99 Octane, you got Y rpms
and for SEF 94, you got Z rpms.

No rush whenever you can find a good day to do it, that will be great.

And you said:

I am sorry, but I am not going to waste my time doing FCCO "testing". I have told you before that those results mean absolutely nothing to me. If you want to see those numbers, buy a quart and do your FCCO "testing".

So I'll come back at your request here and say why don't you do your own testing to find the data. I couldn't get a straight answer from you about SEF, so I did my own tests to make up my own mind. If the numbers mean nothing to you, then just forget it, simple as that.

-=>Raja.

[James Kovach]

You want me to understand your results, then how you derive them is important.

You want your "tests" to be considered valid, then you need to publish all pertinent data.

You want a "test" to be considered more than just an opinion, then you again need to publish data.

So I'll come back at your request here and say why don't you do your own testing to find the data.

Because it is not my data that is being called into question.

I couldn't get a straight answer from you about SEF, so I did my own tests to make up my own mind.

Here is what I came up with after two tries each gas type averaged out:

A whole two tries.... thanks for the in-depth testing.




Again, your reluctance causes one to think you have something to hide or a hidden agenda and makes one wonder if we can trust that you would give your actual findings.


It is not my reluctance to do your "tests" that is in question here.

[rbort]

Anyone with common sense knows that there isn't a hidden adgenda on my part for using pump gas. After all, million and millions of people buy it. If there is anyone that has a hidden adgenda anywhere here, it might be for you pushing SEF gas. The average person pays alot higher than $10 bucks a gallon that you got SEF for. What's in it for you? Did you become a dealer?

-=>Raja.

[James Kovach]

If I was a dealer, then I would have paid the same price as your buddy Larry did as he is a dealer. I did not. And Larry knows that, which means you do as well, as i was shocked at the dealer cost.

My asking for a full disclosure on your testing has nothing to do with gas vs SEF. You say your method is valid and I just do not understand. So I asked for the info so I can understand.

But since you asked about my agenda with SEF, I gladly tell you. I want to see Gassers perform at the highest level possible, SEF is just another piece of the puzzle to get there.

Got data?

[Pinecone]

BTW there are now several ethanol treatments for gasoline on the market.

The local small engine dealer/service place (mainly Stihl) swears by StarBrite (check boating supply places).

And Ihave seen a product from StaBil the gasoline stabilizer people.

These products supposedly eliminate the issues with the ethanol in the pump gas.

[reimorei]

What's the point in buying these expensive SEF gas if the greatest advantage of going gasser is cheap fuel?? Better stay with nitro if fuel costs are not that big advantage.