A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Question about auto gas STC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old June 3rd 04, 02:45 AM
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"zatatime" wrote in message
...
While that's true you couldn't make a much worse choice than a Grumman.



My point was to open the poster up to the idea that a different
airplane may better suit his needs. While I'm not a big fan of most
Grummans I know people who love them so I offered it as one of two
alternatives. Maybe I should have said something like...Insert
alternative manufacturer here...instead of being specific.


A Grumman has its place. But it ain't trying to get off the ground at an
8000' DA.


  #23  
Old June 3rd 04, 03:30 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

I'm not 100% sure about the Big Bear area, but in most parts of
California the FAA prohibits the use of autogas. Autogas in Ca usually
(depending on the county) contains MTBE which is prohibited by the FAA
because it eats fuel lines.


--------------- begin quote -------------------

On December 14, 1992, EAA received clarification from the FAA that: "Automobile
gasoline blended with MTBE is approved for use in aircraft that are approved for use
of automobile gasoline STC's." EAA, Petersen Aviation and others have worked with the
FAA to have MTBE "approved" based on the common industry knowledge that it has been
in automobile gasoline for years. The FAA's determination that gasoline blended with
MTBE can be used safely in aircraft (that are STC approved) was based, in part, on
FAA tests, research and review of service difficulty reports. No material
compatibility or performance problems were found. The FAA also approved the use of
automobile gasoline that contains ETBE on December 1, 1995. This approval was based
on flight test, ground tests and material compatibility test performed by EAA, FAA
and Petersen Aviation.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.
  #24  
Old June 3rd 04, 02:14 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

1. Can I continue to use AVgas instead of auto fuel?

Yes, but:

a) Your engine will run cleaner, better and longer on unleaded car gas

and

b) By burning auto fuel you will save enough over the life of the engine to
buy another new engine.

The Mogas STC is the best value in flying. You'd be crazy not to use it if
you've got it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #25  
Old June 3rd 04, 03:49 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay Honeck wrote:
: 1. Can I continue to use AVgas instead of auto fuel?

: Yes, but:

: a) Your engine will run cleaner, better and longer on unleaded car gas

: and

: b) By burning auto fuel you will save enough over the life of the engine to
: buy another new engine.

: The Mogas STC is the best value in flying. You'd be crazy not to use it if
: you've got it.

*Particularly* on a low-compression engine. The Cont O-200/O-300's in the
older Cessnas are much happier on cargas. Same thing for the low-compression Lyc.
O-320's and O-540s. The high-compression engines (like my 180 hp O-360) are a little
bit more marginal... not from an engine life, but from a detonation margin. The
Peterson STC specifies 91 AKI (R+M/2), but the aviation lean rating (91 of the 91/96
of this engine's type certificated fuel) is closer to the Motor octane rating of the
AKI. Since 91 AKI cargas might have a Motor rating of 86 or so, it's a bit marginal.
I run 93 AKI and keep at least 15% 100LL in the takeoff tank for the octane boost of
the TEL. The effects of TEL are quite nonlinear (i.e. a little gives you a lot, but a
lot doesn't give much more). That said, I've got about 200 hours of cargas on my
plane and it's so far happier (as am I having saved over $1500 so far).

-Cory



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

  #26  
Old June 3rd 04, 08:58 PM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

I'm not 100% sure about the Big Bear area, but in most parts of
California the FAA prohibits the use of autogas. Autogas in Ca usually
(depending on the county) contains MTBE which is prohibited by the FAA
because it eats fuel lines.


--------------- begin quote -------------------

On December 14, 1992, EAA received clarification from the FAA that: "Automobile
gasoline blended with MTBE is approved for use in aircraft that are approved for use
of automobile gasoline STC's." EAA, Petersen Aviation and others have worked with the
FAA to have MTBE "approved" based on the common industry knowledge that it has been
in automobile gasoline for years. The FAA's determination that gasoline blended with
MTBE can be used safely in aircraft (that are STC approved) was based, in part, on
FAA tests, research and review of service difficulty reports. No material
compatibility or performance problems were found. The FAA also approved the use of
automobile gasoline that contains ETBE on December 1, 1995. This approval was based
on flight test, ground tests and material compatibility test performed by EAA, FAA
and Petersen Aviation.


That's interesting. I called the EAA a year ago when I was looking at
buying another Aeronca and was told otherwise. I guess you can't
necessarily trust the guy on the phone.
  #27  
Old June 3rd 04, 08:59 PM
Robert M. Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:ivFvc.36969$3x.36311@attbi_s54...
1. Can I continue to use AVgas instead of auto fuel?


Yes, but:

a) Your engine will run cleaner, better and longer on unleaded car gas

and

b) By burning auto fuel you will save enough over the life of the engine to
buy another new engine.

The Mogas STC is the best value in flying. You'd be crazy not to use it if
you've got it.


We had create luck with autogas in the Chief. Kept the engine clean.
The lower octane really makes things run nicer too. 100LL would crud
up the works pretty fast. This is especially bad for those planes that
don't have a mixture control.
  #28  
Old June 3rd 04, 09:52 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

We had create luck with autogas in the Chief. Kept the engine clean.
The lower octane really makes things run nicer too. 100LL would crud
up the works pretty fast. This is especially bad for those planes that
don't have a mixture control.


I paid $3.30 a gallon for Avgas in Ankeny today!

I paid $1.92 for mogas in Iowa City yesterday.

The math is self-evident -- mogas is the way to go!

BTW: What planes don't have mixture controls? (Beside turbines and jets?)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #29  
Old June 3rd 04, 10:07 PM
Aaron Coolidge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay Honeck wrote:
: I paid $3.30 a gallon for Avgas in Ankeny today!

: I paid $1.92 for mogas in Iowa City yesterday.

: The math is self-evident -- mogas is the way to go!

I paid $2.29 for 93 octane premium unleaded in Mansfield the other day.
I paid $2.60 for 100LL in Columbia County, NY (1B1) the other day.
For me, the math is self evident, but the other way! (Break even with STC
costs @ 10000 gallons or 1000 hours!)

: BTW: What planes don't have mixture controls? (Beside turbines and jets?)
A lot of older, pre WW2 airplanes with small engines, less than 85 HP.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)


  #30  
Old June 3rd 04, 11:21 PM
MikeM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

I paid $2.29 for 93 octane premium unleaded in Mansfield the other day.
I paid $2.60 for 100LL in Columbia County, NY (1B1) the other day.
For me, the math is self evident, but the other way! (Break even with STC
costs @ 10000 gallons or 1000 hours!)


Something is wrong with your math.

@ $0.31 price difference per gallon, it would only take 741 gallons to
pay for the $230 STC (O470, 230HP, $1 per HP).

My price difference between 100LL and 86 Octane autogas has typically been
$0.75 to $1 per gallon. I figure that between overhauls of my engine (~2000
hours, buring 12 gph), I saved a minimum of 12 * 2000 * 0.75 = $18,000,
which is what the last overhaul cost...

MikeM



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Handheld battery question RobsSanta General Aviation 8 September 19th 04 03:07 PM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
Auto conversions & gear boxes Dave Covert Home Built 56 April 1st 04 06:19 PM
Auto Alternator on an O-320-E2D Ebby Home Built 8 November 26th 03 02:46 PM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 01:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.