Mogas

Chad,

Please read the other posts on mogas in this forum. I suggest you go to the EAA website and read their information on auto gas in aircraft engines.

You might notice that other engine manufacturers such as Superior and ECI are selling engines (clones) they say can be run on mogas. Rotax aviation engines use auto gas.

The Lycoming article has some useful information but you must realise there is some CYA there.

All gasolines including aviation gas can form gummy deposits on long standing. It is not a good practice to leave auto or aviation gas standing in the tanks of your plane for long periods. Especially in conditions that promote evaporation of the most volatile components. Full tanks are better than partially filled because that limits air and moisture invasion. Oxygen reacts very slowly with the unsaturated hydrocarbons in gasoline causing some crosslinking.

As long as you are aware of the limitations of the engine it is not necessarily unsafe to use auto gas. I have an RV-9A with a high compression engine (9.2:1). I only use 100LL avgas in that engine. High compression engines need the higher octane to supress detonation. I have a low compression 1975 Cherokee that is run mostly on auto gas. The Cherokee which has an STC for auto gas has run very well in hot and cold weather, had no fouled plugs or other problems, has accumulated 2000+ hours and is doing well. Guess which plane has had two instances of detectable fuel vapor problems. Not the auto gas Cherokee! Due to EPA requirements the vapor pressure of auto gas has been lowered in many parts of the country. So the vapor pressure isn't as likely to be a problem as it might have been 20 years ago. All indications are you should not run gasoline with alcohol at this time as some fuel system components may not be compatible with the alcohol and alcohol is a co-solvent for water in gasoline. That means it stabilizes the dispersal of water in gasoline. However this stabilization is temperature dependent and decreases with lower temperatures. In cold temperatures excess water could separate.

I have followed the avgas/auto gas arguments for many years. It appears that in the not too distant future we may all be using auto gas. Are you aware that there is currently a suit to extend the ban on lead in gasoline to avgas? Economics and political pressure from enviromentalists will eventually win.
The point you bring up in the Lycoming article is they tell you not to use auto gas. Think about this. If an engine fails then it is not unlikely the engine maker will be sued. If the engine maker can say "you used auto gas and we told you not to" then they have a convenient argument to defend themselves even though the fuel may not have been the cause.

I have gone on long enough.

Larry Dickinson (chemist)
RV-9A 135 hours ( on avgas)
Atlanta, GA
 
Larry,

I appreciate your response. However, there is no need to direct it at me specifically. You indicate at the end of your post "The point you bring up in the Lycoming article." I didn't bring up any point, Lycoming did. I didn't write it, and I'm not proclaiming this as gospel. In fact, if I put an Eggenfellner Subaru in my 7, I WILL use auto fuel (while testing for vapor pressures, clean fuel, etc...), but that is a different subject. I'M not saying not to use Mogas. I just found the write up interesting, and I hoped others would as well.

I know you don't know me or my background (as I don't know you, other than you're a chemist), but I can assure you that I have followed all threads on Mogas here, EAA articles, AOPA articles, among others. I work at an FBO and fly as a professional pilot. It does pay to know of this subject working in the aviation industry.

I'm not saying I know everything there is to know (who does?). My post was simply a passing of information from Lycoming. We get the Lycoming Key Reprints at work, and the link takes you to the latest version (2006) which they print every four years.

I am aware of the suit on the ban of lead, and I agree with your statement that enviromentalists will prevail somewhere down the road.

Please take some time and read the rest of the reprints. They are great info...

I'm mean absolutley no disrespect with this response.

:)
 
Here is a link to work done by a company in Switzerland who provide STCs for the use of Mogas in Lycoming airplane engines.

http://autofuelstc.softworkx.ch/index.php?id=4&L=1

On the rare occasions when I have had to use Mogas in my Lycoming O360 I have never noticed the slighted difference in the way the engine runs. The CHTs and EGTs on all the cylinders were the same as with 100LL. I once owned a Continental O200 Jodel and that was always run on Mogas with no apparent problems.

I tend to believe there are two type of people. Those that have never used Mogas in their airplanes and say it does not work and the other type of person who uses Mogas and never says anything about it.

Barry
 
I agree with Barry about the quiet people. I know a guy who had a Tri-Pacer. He didn't want to pony up the $135 (1 buck per hp) for a certificate/placard/label allowing him to legally run mogas in the plane. When using 100LL, the plugs would foul before reaching the runup area but would run great on 88 octane midgrade mogas.

Steve Fabiszak
 
We ought to lobby to get rid of 100LL

I never use mogas in my RV, but I sure wish I didn't have to use 100LL. I could care less about the environmental stuff, I just don't like paying a ridiculous premium for an additive that is actually detrimental to my engine. Well over 90% of the fleet doesn't need 100 octane leaded gas. Hasn't anyone else noticed how much better our cars work since they got rid of leaded car gas?

We should beat the environmentalists to the punch and lobby for unleaded 93 octane AVGAS.

I used to have a 150hp Cherokee. Running straight 100LL in it was positively dangerous. I had to pull the plugs every 25 hours and dig out the lead chunks, just to keep it running. But the alternative of running mogas wasn't much better. Carting around car gas twenty gallons at a time in the back of my SUV in the winter was an act of lunacy. Simply entering your vehicle in the winter generates about enough static electricity to power Al Gore's mansion for an hour or so. It's a miracle that airports aren't pock-mocked by the blast craters of unlucky mogas users.

Mogas is nasty stuff. When I'd sump the tanks in the Cherokee, it looked like one of those glass balls you shake to see it snow on the Empire State building -- only the snow was that brown goo that precipitates out of mogas anytime it sits unused for more than a couple of weeks. Not to mention it stinks and makes ugly brown stains on your plane that can't be removed instead of pretty blue stains that wipe right off.

But here's the thing. If we let the environmentalists force the end of 100LL, that'll be it. They'll just end it and we'll all have to figure out how to make mogas work. But if we take the inititive, we might be able to talk them into giving us an alternative AVGAS that has a low vapor pressure safe for high altitude use, that's stable for long periods, that has consistent quality with no alcohol -- and maybe even doesn't stink.

Oh, and here's another thing to consider. They're getting ready to stick us with a 70 cent tax on avgas. That's enough to kill GA, but it's a fraction of the road use tax we already pay on car gas. If avgas wasn't so expensive in the first place, we'd never notice the tax. Think about it. When you put mogas in your plane, you're paying a road-use tax that's higher than the 70 cent air-use tax the FAA is proposing -- and it's still a dollar cheaper than 100LL AVGAS.
 
AVGAS transportation...

Since there is lead in AVGAS, it cannot go through the pipelines with unleaded. It is trucked or put on barges wherever it goes. That is one reason AVGAS is more expensive than auto fuel.

Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A N2PZ
160 HP ECI O-320, 100LL
213 hours TT
 
More on Mogas

I believe it is in everyones best interest to read the available information and then make an informed decision whether to use mogas.

If you conclude that the quality or other characteristics of the mogas available to you is unsuitable for your use then don't use it. The money saved would be inadequate if a failure resulted from the cheaper fuel.

Lycoming has printed the same blanket statement about auto gas in its bulletins for many years. Notice that it refers to additives to clean carburetors. I don't know of any auto built in the last twenty or more years that has had a carburetor.

I believe it makes good business sense for Lycoming to make that statement. Many of their engines would not perform safely on low octane auto gas. Most pilots probably don't know about the different methods of determining octane. They are different for aviation gas and auto gas. Auto gas octane numbers are higher than they would be if tested by the method used for avgas.

To use auto gas the engine should be tested for its use in the aircraft. In an experimental airplane that means you the builder/manufacturer are responsible to determine that the fuel is adequate to the task. To obtain the STC for auto gas use each model of a certified airplane had to be tested and demonstrate that there were no problems associated with its use. My Cherokee has been tested. My experience with the Cherokee is that the engine performs the same with auto gas and avgas. The auto gas has eliminated the lead fouling problems encountered prior to use of auto gas. So less maintenance and lower cost make the use of auto fuel a success for me. I transport the auto gas a short distance in five gallon approved containers in my pickup truck. I would not transport a large quantity of gasoline inside an SUV or auto. There is inconvenience to fueling with gas cans especially with a high wing airplane. The Cherokee is low wing of course as are the RVs. In any case, the pilot should always determine that the fuel is of adequate octane, free of alcohol, clean, and free of visible of water.

Again, if you think you might someday want to use auto gas read the available information from many sources. Then you can make an informed decision.

Larry Dickinson
 
I keep seeing references to carrying fuel in 5-gal cans in vehicles - maybe it's just my rural upbringing (thank God for that!) but the answer is crystal clear to me - though I understand that this is certainly not possible for everyone. I will have a 50-gallon tank with 12-volt pump in the bed of my pickup, just like you see for diesel service on any self-respecting farm anywhere in the US, but filled with 92UL. Add a 10 foot hose with pump handle, and a static line for grounding, and you've got a genuine fuel truck.
 
Had a friend who did that

Worked great until he left his truck outside in Oregon one too many times. His enging quit taxiing to the runway.

He then drained 2 gallons of water out of his tanks!

He was a lucky boy!..:)

Frank
 
frankh said:
Worked great until he left his truck outside in Oregon one too many times. His enging quit taxiing to the runway.

He then drained 2 gallons of water out of his tanks!

He was a lucky boy!..:)

Frank
Click to expand...
Yeah, lucky. Hmmmm. :rolleyes: I would expect that if this is the avenue one choses to go down one would be making sure the fuel truck is not going to be sitting around in situations that would allow water to collect in the tank. Even if it were, one should be making sure the fuel could be filtered as it comes out of the tank. Most farm tanks I have ever used had gascolators attached to the tank lines so you could do something about water before it was pumped into something. Seems only natural one would want to do that in this situation as well.
 
Every farm tank I've ever used had a water filter attached for that purpose. Diesel engines don't like water either.

Gee, it's a good thing the tank manufacturers put those on there, so those poor dumb farmers don't get in trouble. They've only been using them for about 70 years, you know. :rolleyes:
 
Alcohol in mogas?

Is there an easy way to determine if the mogas you buy has alcohol in it? I don't see any labels on the pumps out where I live...


???


JCB
 
A TRUCK IS ALREADY A TANKER

airguy said:
I will have a 50-gallon tank with 12-volt pump in the bed of my pickup, just like you see for diesel service on any self-respecting farm anywhere in the US, but filled with 92UL. Add a 10 foot hose with pump handle, and a static line for grounding, and you've got a genuine fuel truck.
Click to expand...

There is a simpler way. Just fashion an appropriate length of fuel hose with a screw-on schraeder valve connector on one end & attach it to the test port on the truck's fuel rail. The other end goes to the aircraft fuel tank, preferably through a water separator funnel. Now jumper the underhood fuel pump test connector to the truck battery & the truck's in-tank fuel pump will transfer 50-60gph through the truck fuel filter & the water separator funnel to the aircraft. No muss, no fuss, no cans, cost is minimal, & fuel is always fresh. Just be sure to leave enough in the truck to get back to the gas station.
 
not bad

BOBM said:
There is a simpler way. Just fashion an appropriate length of fuel hose with a screw-on schraeder valve connector on one end & attach it to the test port on the truck's fuel rail. The other end goes to the aircraft fuel tank, preferably through a water separator funnel. Now jumper the underhood fuel pump test connector to the truck battery & the truck's in-tank fuel pump will transfer 50-60gph through the truck fuel filter & the water separator funnel to the aircraft. No muss, no fuss, no cans, cost is minimal, & fuel is always fresh. Just be sure to leave enough in the truck to get back to the gas station.
Click to expand...
this would work :) but ;) fuel pump duty cycle is 100% on most older cars however most / some of the newer cars are returnless type and manipulate pressure by controlling pump speed,(PWM the voltage to the pump). they may not run with that big of a leak (these poppet style injectors are very finicky and a 4-5 psi drop will cause rough running if they run at all)and the car must run for the pump to run due to the fuel system being driven by the pcm and not an external relay. not to say you couldnt straight wire it but then you run into potential MIL problems... anyway it can be done im sure but maybe a little more than just hose and a schrader valve for repeated use. it will take an hour to fill my plane. this is probally the least resistive legal route however. as far as farm tanks....for every injection pump installed 9 out of 10 of them will be from farm trucks that are using dirty illegal fuel. just a data point.
 
Last edited:
hmmm preflight?

frankh said:
Worked great until he left his truck outside in Oregon one too many times. His enging quit taxiing to the runway.

He then drained 2 gallons of water out of his tanks!

He was a lucky boy!..:)

Frank
Click to expand...
guess he didnt sump his plane....lucky?
 
BOBM said:
There is a simpler way. Just fashion an appropriate length of fuel hose with a screw-on schraeder valve connector on one end & attach it to the test port on the truck's fuel rail. The other end goes to the aircraft fuel tank, preferably through a water separator funnel. Now jumper the underhood fuel pump test connector to the truck battery & the truck's in-tank fuel pump will transfer 50-60gph through the truck fuel filter & the water separator funnel to the aircraft. No muss, no fuss, no cans, cost is minimal, & fuel is always fresh. Just be sure to leave enough in the truck to get back to the gas station.
Click to expand...

Standard 9A tanks according to Van are 36 gallons - some other reports on here say they are actually closer to 38 total. My truck tank only holds 26. I can only fill it up using the above method if my truck is full and the flight was short. A 50 gallon in-bed tank can be had combined with a tool box (which I need as well) for only a few hundred bucks and gaurantees a full fill even if you landed on fumes. It's a lot simpler electrically as well, and fuel transfer rates are about 4 times as fast. Plus, with a separate tank in the bed, I can run 92UL in the plane and 87 in the truck. Your method would work, at least until/unless you ran into problems running the pump under those conditions, but I think my method is preferable (my opinion, YMMV).

cytoxin said:
this is probally the least resistive legal route however. as far as farm tanks....for every injection pump installed 9 out of 10 of them will be from farm trucks that are using dirty illegal fuel. just a data point.
Click to expand...

Dirty, perhaps - use a fuel filter. 9 out of 10? I'll believe that when you show me some backup documentation from the source. Illegal? Not if it's farm fuel used in a farm-registered truck. Farm fuel can also be used in an airplane (or boat) entirely legally - it's nontaxed fuel for NON-HIGHWAY use. Now if we get the new 70-cent avgas tax, that may be an arguable point.
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
Not if it's farm fuel used in a farm-registered truck. Farm fuel can also be used in an airplane (or boat) entirely legally - it's nontaxed fuel for NON-HIGHWAY use. Now if we get the new 70-cent avgas tax, that may be an arguable point.
Click to expand...
farm fuel (the red stuff) is not to be used on the highway in anything IIRC http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/SpecialNotices/2006/sn_06_farm_fuel_exemptions.pdf
just in equipment, didnt say you couldnt haul it on the highway. and arent there taxes on the avgas already. as far as 9out of ten well lets just say that the only injection pumps we replaced were on farm trucks maybe its ten out of ten :D tractors seem more tolerant than trucks but then i never worked on tractors, but my freinds that work in the cat lab say those injectors work at about 3000 psi :eek:
 
cytoxin said:
farm fuel (the red stuff) is not to be used on the highway in anything IIRC http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Pubs/SpecialNotices/2006/sn_06_farm_fuel_exemptions.pdf
just in equipment, didnt say you couldnt haul it on the highway. and arent there taxes on the avgas already. as far as 9out of ten well lets just say that the only injection pumps we replaced were on farm trucks maybe its ten out of ten :D tractors seem more tolerant than trucks but then i never worked on tractors, but my freinds that work in the cat lab say those injectors work at about 3000 psi :eek:
Click to expand...

And some higher than that - many of John Deere's injector pumps on the newer models run above 5000 psi now, and the new breed of diesels coming out of the auto showrooms run pressures as high as 27,000 psi. Injector pumps are notoriously intolerant of water or foreign debris - a good water separator and fuel filter is not just a good idea, it's a no-go item.
 
wow

airguy said:
run above 5000 psi now, as high as 27,000 psi. Injector pumps .
Click to expand...
:eek: better not get in front of that one. kinda reminds me of the shots we used to get in the Army. no needle all pressure.
 
Chad, where do you find gas without ethanol around Atlanta? I'd love to know as I have an STC to burn it in my Cherokee, but won't because of the ethanol. Or do you have a method for removing it? Thanks!
 
N574FL said:
Chad, where do you find gas without ethanol around Atlanta? I'd love to know as I have an STC to burn it in my Cherokee, but won't because of the ethanol. Or do you have a method for removing it? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Mmm...don't know. I don't live in or near Atlanta...

I have no method of doing anything with ethanol or Mogas, as I've never used it. Sorry...:eek: As I said over a year ago, this was (and still is) interesting to me, but I have no idea what really goes in to burning it.
 
jonbakerok said:
I never use mogas in my RV, but I sure wish I didn't have to use 100LL. I could care less about the environmental stuff, I just don't like paying a ridiculous premium for an additive that is actually detrimental to my engine. Well over 90% of the fleet doesn't need 100 octane leaded gas. Hasn't anyone else noticed how much better our cars work since they got rid of leaded car gas?

We should beat the environmentalists to the punch and lobby for unleaded 93 octane AVGAS.
[/U][/B].
Click to expand...

Hear Hear! Let's get the lead out!
 
jonbakerok said:
We should beat the environmentalists to the punch and lobby for unleaded 93 octane AVGAS.
Click to expand...
Too late. The EPA is under court order to revise the ambient (outside) air standard for lead, and they have to have it out by mid October 2008.

The revised standard has the possibility for causing a lot of trouble for 100LL. Its days are clearly numbered.

TODR
 
Learn to live with it, even if you don't like it.

My wife has a 1958 Cessna 172. It's got the Peterson auto gas STC.
I check for alcohol with the little tester that you put some water in (up to the line) and shake. So far, no alcohol in Western Washington at the Chevron Stations.
Eastern Wa has alcohol in all gas stations in Chewelah and Coleville. We used 100LL to get back home. You can actually smell the alcohol, once you get the hang of it. The Peterson STC does not allow alcohol in fuel.
O-300's love autogas. I'd consider an O-300 in my RV-9a kit (If I ever get back to it, I'm slaving away on the RV-8)
At some point the alcohol problem will be identified, and we can modify our planes to accomodate it. Perhaps it's O rings in selector valves or float needles, whatever. We will figure it out and keep flying.
The "Alternate Engine" crowd don't seen too worried, car engines have been running on gasohol for years and the car engines used in aircraft seem to be experimenting around with gasohol right now. More data will surely be forthcomming.
I agree with the post about lead being bad for your engine. If the gas can be lead free and meet your octane requirement it would be better.
Synthetic avgas is available now:
"Hjelmco Oil research is focused on bio ethyl tertiary-butyl ether (bio-ETBE), a component which does not attract water. Bio-ETBE in AVGAS can decrease dependance of traditional hydrocarbon components, introduce bio material, open up for partly carbon dioxide neutral emissions, reduce/eliminate lead and ozone depleeting scavenger substances, reduce flammability, increase storage stability, increase octane numbers and reduce/remove unhealthy/toxic aromatics.


Bio-ETBE is since 1995 approved by the US Federal Aviation Administration as a component in autogas used for aviation purposes under various aircraft supplemental type certificates (STC)."

And then thre's SWIFT FUEL:
Swift Enterprises Ltd. has unveiled a new general aviation fuel that is less expensive, fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than any on the market, said co-founder John Rusek. The general aviation industry includes all flights other than military and scheduled airline flights, both private and commercial. Data on Swift Enterprises' 100 percent renewable general aviation fuel was presented April 28 at an annual meeting of an international committee that oversees aviation fuel standards. Unlike current biomass fuels, SwiftFuel is comprised of synthetic hydrocarbons derived from biomass. Rusek said it can provide an effective range (distance between refueling) greater than petroleum while its projected cost is half the current petroleum manufacturing cost.
The innovation by Swift Enterprises' propulsion and energy researchers meets or exceeds the standards for aviation fuel as verified by nationally recognized laboratories, said Rusek, a professor in Purdue University's School of Astronautics and Aeronautics Engineering.
Swift Enterprises, founded seven years ago at Purdue Research Park, is led by Rusek and his wife, Mary, who have been involved in the field of energy more than two decades. The meeting was held by the Coordinating Research Council of ASTM International in Alexandria, Va. ASTM International is one of the largest voluntary standards development organizations in the world.
"Our fuel should not be confused with first-generation bio-fuels like E-85, which don't compete well right now with petroleum,? Rusek said. "For general aviation aircraft, range is paramount. Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry's standard petroleum fuel, it can outperform it."
The general aviation industry each year uses nearly 570 million gallons of 100LL aviation fuel, which is toxic, increasingly expensive and non-renewable. In contrast, testing has shown SwiftFuel? is 15 percent to 20 percent more fuel efficient, has no sulfur emissions, requires no stabilizers; has a 30-degree lower freezing point, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, John Rusek said. In addition, he said, the components of this fuel can be formulated into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels.
The aviation industry has been the only form of transportation to use leaded fuel (tetraethyl lead) since an Environmental Protection Agency ban went into effect 30 years ago. However, that lead-free exemption will cease in less than two years.
"The general aviation industry, both domestic and foreign, is demanding a solution to this dilemma," said Mary Rusek, Swift Enterprises' president. "Our new, patented technology can provide the 1.8 million gallons per day required by the industry in the U.S. by utilizing only 5 percent of this country's existing bio-fuel plant infrastructure."
 
Here in Iowa, a lot of the guys are mixing 1/2 100 LL and autogas. Some use 75-25, some use 50-50 and some use 25-75. Many use a couple of ounces of Marvel Mystery oil in each tankfull. The scuttlebutt around here is that it helps keep the valves from sticking. I have no basis for understanding all of this, but that is what is happening in this area. I have an O-360 and it does form deposits on the plugs with 100 LL. I have tried all of the above, and my engine is happiest with the 50-50 mix and the oil may be helping, although it is about impossible to quantify. Just an option to the above conversations that is being done around here.
 
Complex topic, I just say "NO" for now

Lycoming "Key Reprints", cover to cover should be required reading. Of course Lycoming does not approve of autogas. Why should they. Of course when this was written Avgas was $1.25 a gallon. I don't know how much gas cost when this Key Reprint article was written, but in the last two years fuel prices have doubled. Lycoming has tested 95UL and it seems to be compatible.

IF they replace 100LL it should be compatible to most piston or "petrol" aircraft engines as the Euros say. I bring up Euro because the 93/95UL stuff is European. I guess its revenge for being lead by the USA since 1945. The tide has turned and the USA is capitulating to the shenanigan's on "The Continent". The one world order. Where do you think the LSA's came from, Europe, their "class" of airplane, which I don't think fits the flying we do in the USA. We shall see if LSA takes off. Hope I am wrong but think we should have worked with what we had.

I say we KEEP our 100LL in the USA because 93/95UL will NOT be cheaper. Why give up 7 to 5 octane points?

I'm not fan of AUTO GAS. It's only about a $1.00 savings a gallon on average. AUTO GAS is not that much cheaper than AVgas. Is a $1.00 per gallon worth "schlepping " gas around. Some claim greater savings but do the math your self and figure out the gear you will need to haul gas around.

Most 160/180HP Lycs are marginal on regular lower octane AUTO GAS, the kind you get at the airport (very few airports). So you have to go to premium and that cost more. What do you do when fly X-C. You have to go to 100LL since you can't get premium AUTO gas on airfields (check it out before you rebut).

Speaking of availability of Auto Gas or Mogas (motor gas) at airports. I did some research and its not common and its not that cheap. I found cases where 100LL was less in the same region? WHY?

MY POINT? Just that until Mogas is more prevalent and free of the bad stuff it will not be very friendly to MY PLANE. Use what you want, its not for me.

RV's have very tight cowls and all the STC for mogas approvals are on slow planes with low compression engines, big fat cowls and inlets the size of a '55 Chevy.

The 180 HP Mooney (early 1960's) is kind of like a RV in speed and cowl, right? Well they had to abandon the STC. The fuel boiled in the bowl of the Carb. There is NO DEBATE Mogas has higher vapor pressure. Therefore it is more susceptible to vapor lock. Vapor lock will stop engine power as much as your prop falling off, but its kind of like carb ice. The evidence is gone at the crash site. Speaking of carb ice.....Mogas is more susceptible to producing carb ICE. All this for a $1.00 cheaper a gallon? (Just search the NTSB reports for vapor lock, Mogas or autogas and you will see a lot of accidents due to suspect vapor lock, both in approved STC installations and kit planes. It is hard to search but you will eventually find several 100 Mogas related accidents.)

DON'T ROOT FOR 93UL. It's going to be 93UL or 95UL, my vote is for the 95UL. However I hope 100LL stays around. Just because Europe uses UL does not mean we must.

93UL or 95UL will NOT be cheaper. It is just to make the Greens happy. Do you really the thousands of GA planes causes global warming. If it does its an infinitesimal trivial precentage to the smoke stacks and other pollutants.

There is nothing wrong with 100LL, except for the lead. Lead is a great way to get octane up. There is no way a Lyc even with 93/95UL can even come close to current EPA emission standards. Of course classic cars are exempt.

Some small precentage of aircraft in the fleet (certified planes, helicopters and HOT engined homebuilts) which will not run on the "swill" (I say joking).

If I had a J3 with a C65 or C85, or any classic plane with low compression engine I'd use Mogas if it was available in a pump on the field. I just don't want to haul gas. It can be dangerous and subject to contamination. There are people that do this and do it well. More power to them (pun intended).:D
 
Last edited:
the sad fact of the matter is 100LL is a far safer fuel than any PULP. The PULP uses known carcinogens and is bad for you.

100LL when burnt is not poisonous like the greenies would have you believe.

You just need to stop the the greenies, just the same as Global warming and CO2. Its all Bull Excriment.:mad:

Do some serious homework and you will see what I mean.

DB
 
I just happened to meet the fellow who developed Avgas 96UL at the Swedish RV fly-in at Hogonas last weekend. Refreshing to find he has a grass-roots interest in aviation, remarkably knowledgable about fuels (as you'd expect) and a very nice chap too.

He was very optimistic about developing Avgas 100UL as a universal lead-free replacement for 100LL. In fact he has already made some.

The main issue seems to be the ASTM committee that is responsible for the specification accepting the use of alkalydes as octane boosters (at least that's what I think he said).

I asked about the Swift Technologies product, but he has been unable to get much technical info from them other than the press releases.
I can understand the need for conservatism when changing the Avgas spec (96UL fully meets current spec), but the issue will be forced on us before very long, so we will need to work from these technologies that are already there.
 
RV10inOz said:
the sad fact of the matter is 100LL is a far safer fuel than any PULP. The PULP uses known carcinogens and is bad for you.

100LL when burnt is not poisonous like the greenies would have you believe.
Click to expand...
How is lead not "poisonous"? Yes, it's not as toxic to adults, but the science is there to link it to developmental problems in children. Lead particulate, once emitted, tends to stay in the environment for many, many years.

TODR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.