W

w cary

I'm New Here
Has anyone info on the feasability of the mogas stc? Are there mods required to eliminate thermal or vapor lock issues? Cost of an STC? This eng. is in my RV6 w/ 350 hrs smoh.
Bill
KC
 
Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) does not apply to experimental aircraft.
Experimental aircraft do not have a Type Certificate, so there's nothing to supplement. It is up to the owner/operator of an experimental aircraft to determine what is appropriate. It is generally good practice to follow STC guidlines and operating procedures.
 
You can pretty much just use mogas in your low-compression O-360 if you want. Just make sure the mogas doens't have ethenol in it first. (Most does now.)
 
Av gas vs Auto fuel vs MO gas

w cary said:
Has anyone info on the feasibility of the mogas stc? Are there mods required to eliminate thermal or vapor lock issues? Cost of an STC? This eng. is in my RV6 w/ 350 hrs smoh.
Bill KC
Click to expand...
I'll give you the CON of auto fuel. I am sure some will tell you about there positive experience. I'm no expert on the subject but I looked into it for my Plane. KC for the O360 you have to use premium, the O360 is not a low compression engine. The O360 is considered a moderately high compression engine at 8.5 to 1. It needs 91 octane, that would be premium gas. Mogas at airports I believe is not high enough. It is OK for 80/87 octane engines. So you are out of luck with your 91 octane engine. However if you can get suitable premium auto fuel into your plane, yea it might work with a lot of caveats, but how do you get premium auto gas in your plane?

The biggest problem is variation in quality of auto fuels and additives and enhanced fuels that can damage our engine or even make it loose power (ie vapor lock). Also RV's have tight cowls, which is not good for running auto gas that is prone to vapor lock with lower vapor pressure than Avgas. You can take precautions. The question you will have to ask yourself at the end is the cost savings, may be $4/hr, worth the risk and hassle.

By auto fuel I mean fuel you buy at the local car gas-station. You have to haul it to your plane in your vehicle. So there you are with a trunk of 5 gal jugs that you are toting over the wing a poring into the tank (and on the wing).

Finding un-altered auto fuels without additives, like ethanol is getting impossible. The idea of handling fuel, transporting and storing it, is also not my idea of fun or even safety. You will have to test you fuel to assure it does not have too much alcohol in it. Also its not possible to really buy auto gas on a cross country. I would avoid do-it-your-self auto-fuel like the plague myself.

Mogas is no good for the O360. The O360 is designed for 91 octane. Mogas is typ 80/87 I believe. The O235 is also a higher compression engine needing 91 octane.

Mogas, short for motor gasoline, is auto gas you can buy directly from a pump right at the airport. You can find it at some airports but not all or even many. When you can find it the price difference is small verses 100LL. It is a volume thing. They just sell more 100LL. It is about 40-60 cents more for 100LL, but it's available at 100% of the airports with fuel. Mogas is limited, even if you could use it. There may be a new UL91 (unleaded) fuel we can pump at the airport coming down the road some day (may be never?). Right now all we have is Avgas 100LL and low oct mogas at few airports and not really that cheap either.


Remember RV's are tightly cowled (hot). A vapor return line from the carb fuel line back to the tank is recommended. A "T" right at the carb and incoming fuel line has a small return line with a restrictor. This allows air bubbles to return to the gas tank or a place where it can mix back with cool fuel. You can (should) also extensively insulate and shield all fuel lines, gascolator, fuel pump and carb. Air-blast tubes and shields may be a good idea.

Remember the STC for factory planes is not only for the engine but the installation. There are some factory planes that can not get STC's, even after much effort. The reason is vapor lock from tight hot cowls. I took the hint myself. I think the Mooney is one that does poorly on Autogas and is not approved.

Personally no thanks to auto fuel. Go out and really shop price on premium auto gas or Mogas (assuming you could use it). Now shop price on 100 LL. Look local and cross country. You'll find the price difference is not that great.
You will also find Mogas availability can be poor even if you could use it. The savings is not worth the risk and hassle to me.

As far as getting car gas from the corner station, it has problems. There are laws, both highway and airport, about doing your own fueling. I just hate fueling from Jugs or Cans. Getting a big tank or 55 gal barrel drum and pump in the back of a pickup does not appeal to me. There's no way the airport will allow you to have a gas barrel in your hanger if they know about it. Also the gas station may have something to say about you backing your truck up with a big barrel drum to fill. I don't know, I never did it.

Also You have a high risk vapor lock and damaging seals if you get gas with alcohol or ethanol. If you had and engine that could run on 80/87 octane, which you don't, Mogas would make more sense, but even than I would not mess with it. If you do a lot of cross country forget it, since you will be fueling with 100LL Avgas mostly anyway. You have to decide if the fuel savings is worth it for local flying and carrying around Jerry cans around in your truck or car is doable. Don't forget all the aircraft modification you will need to make under the cowl to the fuel system, including a vapor return line and insulation.

I know one guy who uses autogas in one tank and Avgas in the other. He starts, takes off and lands with the Avgas and cruises with the mogas. The idea is to reduce vapor lock which he was having problems with. Hey if it's ain't good enough to takeoff , climb and land with I don't want it in my plane.
 
Last edited:
If you install low compression pistons(7:1) in the O-360 you will de-rate the engine from 180 HP to around 168HP but you can then use the lower octane auto fuel from an octane stand point. The 7:1 compression ration engine is rated for 80 octane av gas not 91/96 like the 8.5:1 180 HP version.
Good Luck,
Mahlon
?The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk.?
 
gmcjetpilot said:
You have to decide if the fuel savings is worth it for local flying and carrying around Jerry cans around in your truck or car is doable. Don't forget all the aircraft modification you will need to make under the cowl to the fuel system, including a vapor return line and insulation.
Click to expand...
But, if I have the ability to have my own fuel tank at the airfield (because it is on my property) I can control what fuel I use and the ease and safety of fueling my plane becomes a non-issue. If I build my airplane with the fuel system designed to accept non-100LL fuel (because it is going away) I do not have problems with vapor lock or other issues that have been engineered out of my airplane. Yes all of those things George mentioned are things to consider, but if a builder can address all of those "things" then where is the problem?

Mahlon said:
If you install low compression pistons(7:1) in the O-360 you will de-rate the engine from 180 HP to around 168HP but you can then use the lower octane auto fuel from an octane stand point. The 7:1 compression ration engine is rated for 80 octane av gas not 91/96 like the 8.5:1 180 HP version.
Click to expand...
I appreciate Mahlon's answer here as well as in other posts. There are ways and means for doing pretty much anything that we as builders think about doing. Why not do it if you feel that doing something is going to work out best for you? We don't all live in LA, DC, NYC or any other large metropolis with a restrictive airport environment that would limit our abilities. Others have done it so why not you? Besides, even if others have not done it, that doesn't mean that it isn't a feasible idea that you could make work for you.
 
But, if I have the ability to have my own fuel tank at the airfield (because it is on my property)

Don't bet on it. Owning property does not guarantee that you can store what you want on that property. Municipalities, and regulatory agencies (The Metropolitan Airports Commission in my case), can regulate a number of issues, and of course fuel storage is one of them.

Remember also that fuel with alcohol in it will result in higher fuel consumption because it has a lower specific heat content per volume.

When I was racing, periodically a sanctioning body would specify some pump gas as a required fuel. You had to buy it at a specified gas station next to the track, and they used an electronic measuring device to compare your sample to the known sample. This was to save the racer money. What it actually did was result in blown engines, or needless disqualifications, because of the vast inconsistency. If the track bought their sample on Wednesday, and the gas station got re-supplied before the weekend, the racers who bought fuel on Saturday often had gas that did not match.

In addition, pump gas was just unsuited for race engines and tuning, it was a garbage disposal combination of different additives.

Most racers would bring their own race fuel, in sealed drums, and their own fuel measure. By adding Nitro methane, we could often make race gas match the sample. We had to cheat to be legal.

All this is said just to point out that car fuel is not consistent, or predictable.
 
Jconard said:
Don't bet on it. Owning property does not guarantee that you can store what you want on that property. Municipalities, and regulatory agencies (The Metropolitan Airports Commission in my case), can regulate a number of issues, and of course fuel storage is one of them.
Click to expand...
Well, I live in farm country where every farmer has multiple fuel tanks for diesel, gasoline, even propane. I have a propane contractor drive their truck right up to my backyard to fill up my propane tank. Fuel trucks from the local COOP deliver farm fuel all day long.

I agree with you that one can never be sure of the quality of the fuel at any gas station. However, I would also have to say that the same goes for any airport in America dispensing 100LL. Why should I trust fuel from an airport tank I have never used before any more than the gas station on any interstate in America? Yet, how much thought do any of us give to whether that fuel at the local gas station is going to blow up our car engine or not? Anyone who is honest with themselves would have to say they give no thought at all to the notion that some tankfull of gas they got at the local 7-11 will destroy their engine.
 
Why should I trust fuel from an airport tank I have never used before any more than the gas station on any interstate in America?

1. Because 100LL is a standardized national blend which cannot be altered by localities the way that auto fuel can and is.

2. Because 100LL is standard in the winter and in the summer, so there is no mixing of additives between two blends of fuel every season.

3. Because the ability to trace fuel contamination back to one pump and create huge liability is much easier.

4. Because the 100LL fuel itself is much less subject to break down over time, it is more stable.

5. Because the fuel itself is not hygroscopic, and offers some margin against all the various water issues.

6. Because the dye used in 100LL will go pale if mixed with other fuel, instantly telling you if there is contamination.

7. Because your average FBO is owned and staffed by professional with a level of knowledge and concern that goes far beyond the nose-ring manager at the local 7-Eleven.

As to the farm, I am not sure if you can put farm fuel in an airplane. I know you cannot put it in a car, in fact in many states there is a red dye, in the fuel to prevent this because that fuel is sold without highway taxes. I imagine it is also sold without aviation taxes, state-federal-or local.

Using this fuel in a car can, and has subjected people to liability under the tax code. Buying untaxed fuel to use in a vehicle subject to fuel tax seems like a good way to draw negative attention to oneself.

Oh, and most of the farmers today must get a permit for the fuel tank.
 
Tom,
There are a few reasons for the restrictions away from alcohol in the fuel. One is it can separate in storage. Other issues with evaporation and altitude properties. Fuel with ethanol also can be corrosive to aluminum fuel tanks. It can absorb water causing possible gas line freeze issues as well when cold. Maybe some of this stuff is old wives tales and maybe some is factual.
The folks in the corn regions of the country use gasahol all the time and swear by it. I think the engine would tolerate the alcohol but because of the lack of testing it isn't endorsed. Maybe as time goes on and more automotive fuel is using ethanol the EAA will test and give blessing. I don't know but I would rather be safe then sorry so we don't recommend anything with alcohol in it.
Good Luck,
Mahlon "The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at you own risk."
 
Jconard said:
1. Because 100LL is a standardized national blend which cannot be altered by localities the way that auto fuel can and is.
Click to expand...
automobile fuels have national standards that the handful of refineries that produce the stuff must adhere to also. National standards do not guarantee the quality of the fuel.

Jconard said:
2. Because 100LL is standard in the winter and in the summer, so there is no mixing of additives between two blends of fuel every season.
Click to expand...
true, but if an engine is designed to run on both blends why would this make a difference on whether one trusts the fuel or not?

Jconard said:
3. Because the ability to trace fuel contamination back to one pump and create huge liability is much easier.
Click to expand...
I can very easily trace back the fuel I purchase in my automobiles too. Not only do I frequent the same gas stations all the time but I have a paper trail of receipts for every gas purchase I make. How is this any different when talking about airport purchases or automobile gas station purchases? The same tracing capabilities exist in either environment.

Jconard said:
4. Because the 100LL fuel itself is much less subject to break down over time, it is more stable.
Click to expand...
I would believe that all fuels will lose some of their volitility over time but will agree with you on the idea that 100LL is less subject to this than the other motor fuel blends.

Jconard said:
5. Because the fuel itself is not hygroscopic, and offers some margin against all the various water issues.
Click to expand...
Why would 100LL not be hygroscopic? Or, better yet, why would it be different than 80/87 octane gasoline in this regard? 100LL is a chemical blend of hydrocarbons just as is gasoline. If this is a problem with gasoline from the local A&P why would it not be a problem with the 100LL blend as well? I would be very intersted in knowing what refining processes when creating 100LL gasoline are different than the refining processes when creating 80/87 gasoline that makes the 100LL less hygroscopic. I am more than ready to be educated on this issue.

Jconard said:
6. Because the dye used in 100LL will go pale if mixed with other fuel, instantly telling you if there is contamination.
Click to expand...
Could be, but how often do any of us actually look at the color of our fuel? What if it is not contaminated with another fuel? Does that fuel change color no matter what the contamination?

Jconard said:
7. Because your average FBO is owned and staffed by professional with a level of knowledge and concern that goes far beyond the nose-ring manager at the local 7-Eleven.
Click to expand...
If you really believe this then your favorite FBO needs to slap you on the back and take you out for a great big steak dinner to thank you for your patronage. The "kids" that I know around the airports I frequent would be tickled pink to think that all us pilots consider them "professionals" and with high levels of knowledge, especially about fuel quality. I believe I will make sure to ask the opinion of the local 16 yo kid about the formulation and viability of the fuel in the airport tanks the next time I am at the fuel pumps. I am sure he will be able to set me straight on my misguided beliefs (no offense to any 16 year olds, parents of 16 year olds, friends or other family members of 16 year olds out there trying to earn and learn by working at those FBO's out there. I hope you understand that I mean no disrespect. Rather I don't see how a 16 year old kid pumping gas for a few dollars or free airplane rides can be relied upon to be a highly knowledgeable expert in fuel chemistry).

Jconard said:
As to the farm, I am not sure if you can put farm fuel in an airplane. I know you cannot put it in a car, in fact in many states there is a red dye, in the fuel to prevent this because that fuel is sold without highway taxes. I imagine it is also sold without aviation taxes, state-federal-or local.

Using this fuel in a car can, and has subjected people to liability under the tax code. Buying untaxed fuel to use in a vehicle subject to fuel tax seems like a good way to draw negative attention to oneself.

Oh, and most of the farmers today must get a permit for the fuel tank.
Click to expand...
Well, none of the reasons why one "Cannot put farm fuel in an airplane" that you talk about are technical in nature. Your statements are an issue of following government regulations and the all mighty dollar (the ultimate force behind these type of regulations). They are not an issue of technical feasability of having an engine run on the fuel. I am not arguing against your ideas or anyone elses for that matter. My posts were merely meant to say that there are many ways of doing things that are perfectly ok to do technically speaking and therefore just because someone like you or George says you wouldn't do them because of x y or z reasons doesn't mean those reasons exist for all of us out here who may be dealing with totally different issues than you.

Ok, I hope my long winded reply to these statements does not offend anyone, especially Jconard. What I have been trying to say in these posts is that if the design is set up to allow something like a 360 engine to run on auto gas and the individual pilots circumstances allow for it to exist then why not do it? I do believe that the "buyer beware" principle should apply to purchases of 100LL as well as to autogas at local gas stations and that trusting an unfamiliar airport fuel tank is no different than trusting an unfamiliar gas station. Live long and prosper! :D
 
Your question was originally why trust the airport fuel more than an interstate pump.


automobile fuels have national standards that the handful of refineries that produce the stuff must adhere to also. National standards do not guarantee the quality of the fuel.

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE, each local authority can demand additives and blends to be changed just for their location. Which is why the gas refined for Millwaukee cannot be sold at pumps in Minneapolis, when it comes to auto fuel.

true, but if an engine is designed to run on both blends why would this make a difference on whether one trusts the fuel or not?

Because you never know what you are getting, winter gas has a much different RVP (Vapor Pressure) than does summer fuel. Since the fuels are blended at the distributor, and you do not know what the effects are, the vapor pressure of the fuel you by at Station A one day may be very different that what you buy in a week, or from a station down the block. You also have no practical way to measure this. Finally this is just one of the major obstacles, but it does directly increase the likelyhood of vapor lock.

Why would 100LL not be hygroscopic? Or, better yet, why would it be different than 80/87 octane gasoline in this regard? 100LL is a chemical blend of hydrocarbons just as is gasoline. If this is a problem with gasoline from the local A&P why would it not be a problem with the 100LL blend as well? I would be very intersted in knowing what refining processes when creating 100LL gasoline are different than the refining processes when creating 80/87 gasoline that makes the 100LL less hygroscopic. I am more than ready to be educated on this issue

Because, as Mahlon has pointed out gas which carries alcohol and a number of other additives, attracts water. 100LL immediately seperates from water, allowing you to effectively remove water from the tanks, and be aware of its presence.

Also as to volatility, pump auto fuel loses its punch very quickly, while 100LL is a stabalized fuel.

Could be, but how often do any of us actually look at the color of our fuel?

Well, every flight before flight, as required to fulfill your duty as PIC to gather all available information necessary to the completion of a flight...seriously.

If you are talking about aviation "Mogas" sold at airports, that is one thing, it is my understanding that it is not open to local manipulation and is much more consistent, although I understand as well that it arrives in the same tankers as car gas...so who knows.

But if you are talking about going to a Qwik Stop, and filling a bunch of jerry cans from the pump, I think it is pure insanity.
 
Boy, there sure seems to be a lot of heat in this discussion!

There are some statements that apply in some areas, but not all, so they may not apply to the original poster's situation.

Ethanol: Here in northwest Oregon, ethanol is only required in the metro area for 4 months out of the year, in the fall and early winter. I test the gas every time and never found ethanol outside those times. So in the fall , I stock up on mogas, throw in a little stabilizer, & store the stuff. That's pretty simple to do. No government agent has come searchinging my pole barn for stored gas. If I need more gas than I stored, I pick some up when I venture out of the metro area, such as when I screw up a part & have to go to Van's for a replacement (which is fairly often!).

I found it more convenient to haul gas to the airport in 5 gal. jugs in the back of my pickup than to fly 20 miles each way to an airport that sometimes has gas, sometimes doesn't, then going another 10 miles to one that always does.

I find it more convenient to use auto gas than to pull my plugs every 20 hours to clean off the lead fouling.

All the foregoing applies to my experience with a C-75 engine in my Interstate Cadet. Things might change when I go to a Lyc. in my 9A. But all the guys I know at our airport use mogas, and that includes a Cherokee, a 182, a 172 and 2 Bonanzas. Some of the guys I don't know might not.

One other thing about quality: Car makers have pressured the oil companies to start using detergents to keep injectors clean. You'll see ads for "top tier" gas, which is gas which meets this standard. Refiners do have standards to meet, they may just be different from brand to brand. And when was the last time your car broke down because of "bad gas"? Been driving since 1959 & that has NEVER happened to me. A 66 Nova did have vapor lock on start up a couple times on hot days in So. Cal. and that was easily cured.

Remember, our aircraft engines were designed 40 or 50 years ago and gas standards since then have tightened up a lot since then.

The relevant questions seem to me to be ethanol and vapor lock poetntial. If a person can get gas without ethanol and keep his fuel lines cool, I see no reason to get worked up about his wanting to use a more economical fuel.

The future availability of 100LL vs. ethanol in mogas has me debating what engine to put in my RV-9A. I only hope the situation becomes clearer by the time I need an engine.
 
100LL is ~$2 a gallon higher than even premium autogas in my area. If you fly 200 hours a year at an average of 8gph, that's a savings of $3,200. This doesn't take into account that some states will even refund the tax on gasoline since you aren't using it on the roads.

That's not an insignificant amount of money, at least to me. That will pay for your insurance and still leave a lot left over for beer.

It's not hard have an airplane that will run well on autogas. The nice folks at Peterson have a few hints that will help. To me, the biggest problems are flying often and transportation. You don't want to have autogas just sitting around, and I don't recommend it for the "fifty hour a year" pilot. Also, it helps to have a scheme that doesn't involve hauling around five-gallon gas cans. Something like 50ish gallon tank on a trailer will make life much more pleasant.
 
Fuel lines in the engine compartment should be insulated

Joey suggested checking with the nice folks at Peterson.

I did. Their website says: Fuel lines in the engine compartment should be insulated to prevent heat from soaking through to the fuel. Fuel lines should not be located in close proximity to hot spots in the engine compartment.

What would you use to insulate the lines?
Has anyone experienced ethanol or alcohol attacking proseal?
Please discuss the use of a vent line back to the tank.

Barry
RV9A gonna fly by Xmas
 
MrNomad said:
Joey suggested checking with the nice folks at Peterson.

I did. Their website says: Fuel lines in the engine compartment should be insulated to prevent heat from soaking through to the fuel. Fuel lines should not be located in close proximity to hot spots in the engine compartment.

What would you use to insulate the lines?
Has anyone experienced ethanol or alcohol attacking proseal?
Please discuss the use of a vent line back to the tank.

Barry
RV9A gonna fly by Xmas
Click to expand...

Use the Search facility of the website a lot has been said already, but to answer 2 of your questions:
1) I checked with my local ProSeal Supply shop, used Flamemaster product, they say it is fine, they supply the same to all kit builders using Rotax engines , auto conversions etc. So for what its worth, I felt good using the same stuff vans recommends, that is also sold to Rotax and Auto conversion planes.

2) Vent line: Go Here, this is how CJ and I did ours, mine is not flying, but it is a point of reference. I built it in from the start. I will blank it off for the first 100 or so hours and then start to experiment with Mogas. But it is in the system when I want to start. If I decided not to experiment with Mogas I'll keep it blanked of. Look at what everyone says, you might change your design decisions. It is experimental so keep that in mind, it is not for everyone. I wish there was a tried and tested method on the RV's recommended by Vans but there isn't.

Kind Regards
Rudi
 
Last edited:
Some Facts, Some Opinions

I haven't read all the posts in detail; it gets wearisome when they're so long. Chew on this.

All of life is risk management. There is no security. Running 100LL because of it's purity and pedigree? Chevron once gave me (and $65,000,000 worth of others) a new engine because of contaminated 100LL. A big part of Oz GA was grounded several years ago for 100LL contamination.

Over the decades of STC mogas implementation, we've proven It Can Be Done. You do what's necessary and desired to mitigate the well known risks and your fears, after paying your money and taking your choice.

Sententious enough for you?

Now go build your airplane. Can't use any gas without an airplane.

BTW, I believe EAA says 5% ethanol is tolerable under their STC.

John Siebold
-7, 190 hrs
-7, -400 hrs and counting
172, 2500 hrs
And they see a good percentage of mogas.
 
RScott said:
Boy, there sure seems to be a lot of heat in this discussion!
Click to expand...
For my part to the contribution of that heat, I apologize. My intentions were never meant to cause a flame war. I hope I have posted in a civil manner, but if someone has felt otherwise, I apologize to them. My thoughts have been motivated, and continue to be so motivated, by the fact that for those who desire to make something in their aircraft function a certain way that may be more beneficial for them to do so, they should not be restricted from that action because others don't agree with the idea.

My attempts to support that idea in this post revolved around a discussion of trusting fuel from various sources. I contend and continue to believe, that, regardless of what others may think, we should not always be so blindly trusting in a fuel source. I made a statement concerning trusting fuel stored in an airport fuel tank compared to trusting fuel stored in any auto gas station. The reality is, I am guilty of not concerning myself at all about this idea when I fuel up my car at the local gas station nor when I fuel up a plane at the airport. Right or wrong, I chose to trust that whatever powers that be that exist to control those sources will continue to uphold their responsibilities that I have entrusted them to perform.

Why should the level of trust be greater or less in one or the other locations. If anyone is concerned with one they should be equally as concerned with the other. My belief is that anyone who is concerned about one or the other is fooling themselves if they do not put equal concern in the other source of fuel. Regardless of whatever supposed measures are taken to make one type of fuel "more controlled" than the other, the control is in the hands of individual humans. In my case, I have chosen to trust them at present. However, if there is an incident that would cause problems due to some type of problem with the fuel source I can see myself loosing that trust very easily. Until then I have chosen to trust them.

I do not believe that things with the word "aviation" next to it are always better engineered than things with the word "automobile" next to it. This follows along the same principle that I follow involving doctors and lawyers and such.

Hey, wait a minute. . . Wasn't there a song about that?? Yes. . .
Mommas don't let your babies grow up to be cowboys. . . Let 'em be doctors and lawyers and such. . .

Huh? Er, umm... Oh yeah, sorry about that.:eek: I guess I had a Willie Nelson flashback for a second there. Anyway, the point is, just because someone has letters by their name like M.D. or JD does not make them experts on what I need to know. This is no different than when we look at a system, part, etc. that has wording that says it is "designed for aviation" on it. Just because someone placed those words next to the "whatever" does not make it the best choice for my needs. Blindly believing that the words "aviation" written next to these parts is better for our airplanes is simply placing our faith that another one of those individual human beings that just happens to work for a human creation called government has stated that that thing has his approval to be used in aviation. To me this is placing blind faith in something just because someone else said I should trust it.

Whatever we are doing, we need to look at things in terms of how it best will work for our design. If one cannot make that deterimination themselves without blindly following what other people say, then perhaps that person should not be doing this experimental plane building thing anyway. Which all leads me back to my original post on this thread concerning using auto fuel in an O-360. If the systems can be designed in the O-360 to accomodate that fuel then my original answer was, why not?
 
auto gas in LYCOMING 0-320 A2B

I have been bunning auto gas in my 0-320 lycoming for the past 3years.mixing marval mistrey oil with the gas 3 oz. per 6 gal. of gas.
I have had no missfire, vaper lock or any kind of problems. of any kind with the engine.I burn up the gas with in 2 mo. don't leave it set for a long period of time. and buy at a station that sales a lot of gas. I have the s.t.c. for the plane , theres a 18.5 cents a gal. off the road use tax. I get back on income tax evey year. The only thing the car gas has a bad oder and will stan the paint if not wiped off right a way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.