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 » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Auto Fuel STC for PA32-260



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 5th 05, 03:51 AM
Bruce McFadden
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Auto Fuel STC for PA32-260

I'm getting really tired really fast of paying $3.30/gal for AvGas,

I'm considering buying the STC to use MoGas in my aircraft. Does anyone
have the STC and use auto gas. Do you have any comments, warnings or
anything else on the subjuct.

Thanks in advance.


Bruce McFadden Birmingham, AL
PA32-260 N5594J

  #2  
Old January 5th 05, 12:19 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bruce
I've used mogas for so many years I've forgotten when I started. Use
the supreme and you should have no problems. I don't know the tech
reasons or the difference in heat generated on the valves, but as a
precautionary measure, I kept the mixture just a little on the rich
side for power applications. Never had a single problem that could be
attributed to the use of mogas. Used it in both low horsepower, and up
to the 300hp in ag aircraft.
I HAVE heard of guys who tried to go the cheap gas route and had
premature engine failures or overhauls with valve problems. In the long
run they ended up paying a lot more for their pecuniary efforts.

  #3  
Old January 5th 05, 05:27 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've used mogas for so many years I've forgotten when I started. Use
the supreme and you should have no problems. I don't know the tech
reasons or the difference in heat generated on the valves, but as a
precautionary measure, I kept the mixture just a little on the rich
side for power applications. Never had a single problem that could be
attributed to the use of mogas. Used it in both low horsepower, and up
to the 300hp in ag aircraft.
I HAVE heard of guys who tried to go the cheap gas route and had
premature engine failures or overhauls with valve problems. In the long
run they ended up paying a lot more for their pecuniary efforts.


Using premium car gas (92 octane or higher) is completely unnecessary, if
you've got the STC.

Our old engines were designed to run perfectly on 80 octane fuel. 87 - 89
octane regular unleaded car gas is perfect for them.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #4  
Old January 5th 05, 05:52 PM
Gig Giacona
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:KrVCd.620164$wV.262033@attbi_s54...
I've used mogas for so many years I've forgotten when I started. Use
the supreme and you should have no problems. I don't know the tech
reasons or the difference in heat generated on the valves, but as a
precautionary measure, I kept the mixture just a little on the rich
side for power applications. Never had a single problem that could be
attributed to the use of mogas. Used it in both low horsepower, and up
to the 300hp in ag aircraft.
I HAVE heard of guys who tried to go the cheap gas route and had
premature engine failures or overhauls with valve problems. In the long
run they ended up paying a lot more for their pecuniary efforts.


Using premium car gas (92 octane or higher) is completely unnecessary, if
you've got the STC.

Our old engines were designed to run perfectly on 80 octane fuel. 87 -
89 octane regular unleaded car gas is perfect for them.
--


I've never really had any dealings with an mogas STC. Do they acctually do
anything to your engine or do they just change the stickers.


  #5  
Old January 5th 05, 06:14 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I've never really had any dealings with an mogas STC. Do they acctually do
anything to your engine or do they just change the stickers.


With most aircraft, it's a paperwork change -- period.

In some aircraft (some O-360 powered Cherokees, for example) you have to add
a supplemental fuel pump.

Both my Warrior and my Pathfinder came with the STC. In both cases, it was
a paperwork "upgrade"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #6  
Old January 5th 05, 09:22 PM
Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well if most aircraft piston engines will work fine on regular unleaded pump
gas then why even bother with avgas?.
And holy smokes if you guy are paying $3.30/gal in the states then up here
in Canada we are paying $12+/gal (4 liters=1 us gal) and for what?. Avgas up
here is all 100LL so the 97 octane pemium at your local Petro-Can should
work!.

Unless there is some additive or screening proccess to make the aviation
fuel cleaner or less resistant to altitude related problems I see no reason
why pump gas can't be used.

However!, one thing I am forgetting here is the bureaucratic process that
most goverments like to play, If the government is making a good dollar by
holding us hostage on one particular thing, they are not likely to give it
up!. They seem to like to play the saftey trump card and tell us it is for
our own good.


"Bruce McFadden" wrote in message
...
I'm getting really tired really fast of paying $3.30/gal for AvGas,

I'm considering buying the STC to use MoGas in my aircraft. Does anyone
have the STC and use auto gas. Do you have any comments, warnings or
anything else on the subjuct.

Thanks in advance.


Bruce McFadden Birmingham, AL
PA32-260 N5594J



  #7  
Old January 5th 05, 10:20 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Jay Honeck wrote:

Using premium car gas (92 octane or higher) is completely

unnecessary, if
you've got the STC.

Our old engines were designed to run perfectly on 80 octane fuel.

87 - 89
octane regular unleaded car gas is perfect for them.


Not exactly true. Some STCs require the use of 91 octane (or better)
autogas. There's a good reason for it, too. It all comes down to the
piston's compression ratio. Some of the older engines were designed
with a higher compression ratio and required the old 91/96 octane
avgas. The lyc. O-320 (160 hp version) and O-360 are two examples.
Your pathfinder uses the 235 hp low compression version of the the
O-540. The higher hp versions (250, 260, etc...) have a higher
compression ratio and require the use of high octane fuel.

If you use lower octane fuel in an engine designed for higher octane
fuel, you run a serious risk of detonation. This will eventually
result in bad things happening, like blowing a hole in the piston or
cracking the cylinder head.
John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180, with a high octane autofuel STC)

  #8  
Old January 5th 05, 10:29 PM
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not exactly true. Some STCs require the use of 91 octane (or better)
autogas.


Very true. You've got to read the fine print in the STC. (Although, as I
understand it, there are very few STCs that actually specify "premium" car
gas.)

Your pathfinder uses the 235 hp low compression version of the the
O-540. The higher hp versions (250, 260, etc...) have a higher
compression ratio and require the use of high octane fuel.


Right. Which makes me wonder why they don't simply come out with an STC
that specifies the use of higher octane auto gas (as in the example, above),
rather than simply not having a mogas STC for the high-compression O-540.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


  #9  
Old January 5th 05, 11:11 PM
Stefan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jay Honeck wrote:

Right. Which makes me wonder why they don't simply come out with an STC
that specifies the use of higher octane auto gas (as in the example, above),
rather than simply not having a mogas STC for the high-compression O-540.


There is more about avgas than just the name. Lower vapour pressure,
lead, generally stricter specifications, and certainly a lot more that I
don't know.

Stefan
  #10  
Old January 5th 05, 11:33 PM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Jay Honeck wrote:

Right. Which makes me wonder why they don't simply come out with an STC
that specifies the use of higher octane auto gas (as in the example, above),
rather than simply not having a mogas STC for the high-compression O-540.


Didn't we just go through a discussion (in which you took part) to the effect
that there *is* an STC for the engine? It's the airframe under discussion that
lacks an STC.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.
 




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
PA32-260 Auto Fuel STC Bruce McFadden Owning 9 January 5th 05 10:46 PM
PA32-260 on Auto Fuel Bruce McFadden Owning 0 January 5th 05 03:50 AM
Is Your Airplane Susceptible To Mis Fu eling? A Simple Test For Fuel Contamination. Nathan Young Piloting 4 June 14th 04 06:13 PM
Yo! Fuel Tank! Veeduber Home Built 15 October 25th 03 02:57 AM
Auto Fuel STC Jeff Home Built 62 September 24th 03 02:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:05 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.