Being a Rotax 912s driver, and being as how the Rotax prefers premium
automobile fuel, I have been searching for places that serve automobile gas
that are accessable to airplanes. I'm not having much luck.

So, does anyone know of a database that tracks availability of MOGAS for
aviation use?

thanks,
tom pettit

Markus Voget wrote:

> wrote:
>
>
>>So, does anyone know of a database that tracks availability of MOGAS
>>for aviation use?
>
>
> You did not specify your region, so I might as well give a shot...
>
> MOGAS maps for German and Austrian airfields can be found at
> http://eddh.de/equipment/kniebrett.html

http://airnav.com/fuel/local.html

Just select the fuel of choice:
Jet A, 100LL Avgas, 80/87 Avgas, Mogas (auto)

wrote:

> So, does anyone know of a database that tracks availability of MOGAS
> for aviation use?

You did not specify your region, so I might as well give a shot...

MOGAS maps for German and Austrian airfields can be found at
http://eddh.de/equipment/kniebrett.html


Greetings,
Markus

Be VERY careful depending on that feature of Airnav. Most of the places
that list "mogas" don't list a price, have irregular or spotty hours of
attendance, or very well may be mom n pop airparks.

If you plan on using these listed fields, CALL AHEAD and confirm. You
very well may just do better refilling with blue stuff when away from home.

I'm going to be running a Mazda Rotary engine in a Velocity, and the
fuel issue is one that I've looked at several times. I plan on using
100LL when fueling out.

Dave

Darrel Toepfer wrote:
> Markus Voget wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So, does anyone know of a database that tracks availability of MOGAS
>>> for aviation use?
>>
>>
>>
>> You did not specify your region, so I might as well give a shot...
>>
>> MOGAS maps for German and Austrian airfields can be found at
>> http://eddh.de/equipment/kniebrett.html
>
>
> http://airnav.com/fuel/local.html
>
> Just select the fuel of choice:
> Jet A, 100LL Avgas, 80/87 Avgas, Mogas (auto)

"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Be VERY careful depending on that feature of Airnav. Most of the places
> that list "mogas" don't list a price, have irregular or spotty hours of
> attendance, or very well may be mom n pop airparks.
>
> If you plan on using these listed fields, CALL AHEAD and confirm. You very
> well may just do better refilling with blue stuff when away from home.
>
> I'm going to be running a Mazda Rotary engine in a Velocity, and the fuel
> issue is one that I've looked at several times. I plan on using 100LL when
> fueling out.

Make that last idea a *must*, Dave. You don't know what you are getting out
of a strange mogas tank. It may be 100° out and that mogas could've been
sitting in the tank since winter. My commandments read:
1. Never use mogas from an unfamiliar source.
2. Always test for alcohol.
3. Never use mogas above 5,000' density altitude.
4. Always check for water.
5. Never use mogas above 80° F.

Remember - 100 LL can foul a spark plug. Mogas can boil, give you vapor
lock, and stop your engine RFN. Which would you prefer? Would you like fries
with that?

Rich S.

Rich S. wrote:
> Make that last idea a *must*, Dave. You don't know what you are
getting out
> of a strange mogas tank. It may be 100° out and that mogas could've been
> sitting in the tank since winter. My commandments read:
> 1. Never use mogas from an unfamiliar source.
> 2. Always test for alcohol.
> 3. Never use mogas above 5,000' density altitude.
> 4. Always check for water.
> 5. Never use mogas above 80° F.
>
> Remember - 100 LL can foul a spark plug. Mogas can boil, give you vapor
> lock, and stop your engine RFN. Which would you prefer? Would you like fries
> with that?
>
> Rich S.

Dude... I'm using mogas because I'm using a MO-engine. I've driven cars
at over 5000 ft (Lake Tahoe.. 9000 ft) MSL.. and in temps over 100* F...
and alcohol wont hurt MY engine because the seals in it and the fuel
system are DESIGNED to use motor gas in all of its domestic
forumulations. I think some of those "absolutes" you are listing are
overkill.

I will be using fuel injected engine with an automotive fuel rail
regulated at 40 PSI over upper deck pressure..through a recirculating
fuel circut with firesleeved hoses. I don't think vapor lock is gonna be
the issue here. I'm just planning on using 100LL because I dont want to
land on a 2000 ft sod strip 40 miles from the nearest town of over
50,000 people. I'm into flying to travel to where the people are :)

"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
> Dude... I'm using mogas because I'm using a MO-engine. I've driven cars at
> over 5000 ft (Lake Tahoe.. 9000 ft) MSL.. and in temps over 100* F... and
> alcohol wont hurt MY engine because the seals in it and the fuel system
> are DESIGNED to use motor gas in all of its domestic forumulations. I
> think some of those "absolutes" you are listing are overkill.
>
> I will be using fuel injected engine with an automotive fuel rail
> regulated at 40 PSI over upper deck pressure..through a recirculating fuel
> circut with firesleeved hoses. I don't think vapor lock is gonna be the
> issue here. I'm just planning on using 100LL because I dont want to land
> on a 2000 ft sod strip 40 miles from the nearest town of over 50,000
> people. I'm into flying to travel to where the people are :)
>

So? You've a different set of commandments. I just related *mine*. :^)

Rich S.

"Dave S" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
>
> Rich S. wrote:
> > Make that last idea a *must*, Dave. You don't know what you are getting
> out
>> of a strange mogas tank. It may be 100° out and that mogas could've been
>> sitting in the tank since winter. >> Rich S.
>
> Dude... I'm using mogas because I'm using a MO-engine. I've driven cars at
> over 5000 ft (Lake Tahoe.. 9000 ft) MSL.. and in temps over 100* F... and
> alcohol wont hurt MY engine because the seals in it and the fuel system
> are DESIGNED to use motor gas in all of its domestic formulations. I
> think some of those "absolutes" you are listing are overkill.

Oh - as for the rest of it? Lousy gas can stop that Wankel in it's tracks.
Gas that is not blended for altitude and or season (temperature) can make
the fan stop turning. In your car, you likely bought gas that was intended
for use at Lake Tahoe and/or in temps over 100° F. In your airplane you
might buy mogas at sea level which is designed for sea level. Then you haul
your butt to 10,000' msl and your sea level mogas is merrily bubbling away.
Firesleeves and recirculation only *delay* vapor lock - they don't prevent
it.

You may be safe - for a while. Then maybe. . .not. You have a point - stay
close to roads and civilization.

Rich "Never say 'all'" S. :)

All of the dozen or so airports I've contacted about mogas only have 87
octane. All are considerably higher priced than the most expensive gas
station.

If you use 100ll in an engine that has valves designed for no lead
usage, you're probably going to lose that engine. Also, the O2 sensors
will clog with lead very shortly. A propane torch can burn the lead off
it but you'll have to remove all the O2 sensors to do that. If the O2
sensors clog up during flight, the engine computer will go into limp
home mode. This usually means a *drastic* cut in horsepower, sometimes
engine stoppage.

HTH.



Dave S wrote:

>
>
> Rich S. wrote:
> > Make that last idea a *must*, Dave. You don't know what you are
> getting out
>
>> of a strange mogas tank. It may be 100° out and that mogas could've
>> been sitting in the tank since winter. My commandments read:
>> 1. Never use mogas from an unfamiliar source.
>> 2. Always test for alcohol.
>> 3. Never use mogas above 5,000' density altitude.
>> 4. Always check for water.
>> 5. Never use mogas above 80° F.
>>
>> Remember - 100 LL can foul a spark plug. Mogas can boil, give you
>> vapor lock, and stop your engine RFN. Which would you prefer? Would
>> you like fries with that?
>>
>> Rich S.
>
>
> Dude... I'm using mogas because I'm using a MO-engine. I've driven cars
> at over 5000 ft (Lake Tahoe.. 9000 ft) MSL.. and in temps over 100* F...
> and alcohol wont hurt MY engine because the seals in it and the fuel
> system are DESIGNED to use motor gas in all of its domestic
> forumulations. I think some of those "absolutes" you are listing are
> overkill.
>
> I will be using fuel injected engine with an automotive fuel rail
> regulated at 40 PSI over upper deck pressure..through a recirculating
> fuel circut with firesleeved hoses. I don't think vapor lock is gonna be
> the issue here. I'm just planning on using 100LL because I dont want to
> land on a 2000 ft sod strip 40 miles from the nearest town of over
> 50,000 people. I'm into flying to travel to where the people are :)
>

Rich S. wrote:

>
> Make that last idea a *must*, Dave. You don't know what you are getting out
> of a strange mogas tank. It may be 100° out and that mogas could've been
> sitting in the tank since winter. My commandments read:
> 1. Never use mogas from an unfamiliar source.
> 2. Always test for alcohol.
> 3. Never use mogas above 5,000' density altitude.
> 4. Always check for water.
> 5. Never use mogas above 80° F.


Funny stuff, if it wasn't so assinine.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
> Funny stuff, if it wasn't so assinine.

You Sir, are a boorish dolt. Your language is offensive and you, no doubt,
know not of what you speak.

I do. Been there - done that. Won't be stupid enough to do it again.

If you don't like what you are hearing, be polite enough to shut the **** up
and do what you like.

Are you associated with ANN?

Rich S.

You are presuming that I am going to use the stock ECU (engine control
unit)..which is the last thing I would do. Stock ECU's do strange and
unpredictable things like turn off (or power down) the engine to
"protect" it when sensor readings get out of spec (like oil temp or
pressure parameters, etc)

The issue of ECU's have been discussed EXTENSIVELY in the forums that I
frequent: one is a list-serv dedicated to rotary engines, and the other
is a canard forum with a rotary engine portion. If you were a member
there you could spend hours and still not cover all the material, some
practical and some theoretical.

The ECU we will be using will be able to tune/make program adjustments
to the fuel map, but once programmed can operate without input from the
sensor.

Also, the neat thing about the Mazda rotary is.. no valves.

Dave

AINut wrote:
> All of the dozen or so airports I've contacted about mogas only have 87
> octane. All are considerably higher priced than the most expensive gas
> station.
>
> If you use 100ll in an engine that has valves designed for no lead
> usage, you're probably going to lose that engine. Also, the O2 sensors
> will clog with lead very shortly. A propane torch can burn the lead off
> it but you'll have to remove all the O2 sensors to do that. If the O2
> sensors clog up during flight, the engine computer will go into limp
> home mode. This usually means a *drastic* cut in horsepower, sometimes
> engine stoppage.
>
> HTH.
>
>
>
> Dave S wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Rich S. wrote:
>> > Make that last idea a *must*, Dave. You don't know what you are
>> getting out
>>
>>> of a strange mogas tank. It may be 100° out and that mogas could've
>>> been sitting in the tank since winter. My commandments read:
>>> 1. Never use mogas from an unfamiliar source.
>>> 2. Always test for alcohol.
>>> 3. Never use mogas above 5,000' density altitude.
>>> 4. Always check for water.
>>> 5. Never use mogas above 80° F.
>>>
>>> Remember - 100 LL can foul a spark plug. Mogas can boil, give you
>>> vapor lock, and stop your engine RFN. Which would you prefer? Would
>>> you like fries with that?
>>>
>>> Rich S.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dude... I'm using mogas because I'm using a MO-engine. I've driven
>> cars at over 5000 ft (Lake Tahoe.. 9000 ft) MSL.. and in temps over
>> 100* F... and alcohol wont hurt MY engine because the seals in it and
>> the fuel system are DESIGNED to use motor gas in all of its domestic
>> forumulations. I think some of those "absolutes" you are listing are
>> overkill.
>>
>> I will be using fuel injected engine with an automotive fuel rail
>> regulated at 40 PSI over upper deck pressure..through a recirculating
>> fuel circut with firesleeved hoses. I don't think vapor lock is gonna
>> be the issue here. I'm just planning on using 100LL because I dont
>> want to land on a 2000 ft sod strip 40 miles from the nearest town of
>> over 50,000 people. I'm into flying to travel to where the people are :)
>>

Rich S. wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Funny stuff, if it wasn't so assinine.
>
>
> You Sir, are a boorish dolt. Your language is offensive and you, no doubt,
> know not of what you speak.
>
> I do. Been there - done that. Won't be stupid enough to do it again.
>
> If you don't like what you are hearing, be polite enough to shut the **** up
> and do what you like.
>
> Are you associated with ANN?
>
> Rich S.
>
>
Actually I think he's an ATC type, Atlanta Center or something. I've
noticed he usually has the ATC issues down pat and can quote chapter and
verse regarding them.

I also thought the restrictions were a little over the top, but I'm not
running mo-gas in a carburated lycoming or continental, so its an
apples/oranges comparison. You have ground rules that you have
established based on what your personal safety margin is.. I cant argue
with that at all.

The strange source caveat DOES apply to me, more so with low volume
providers who usually let their first customer of the day sump their
tanks for them by filling up their plane. Again, from a practical
standpoint, the fuel will be tankered in my pickup truck with a 50
gallon transfer tank.. all the rest will be blue stuff.. its just too
much hassle otherwise (unless my favorite uncle in SC lets me leave a
transfer tank in his favorite truck)

Dave

"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Gas that is not blended for altitude and or season (temperature) can make
> the fan stop turning. In your car, you likely bought gas that was intended
> for use at Lake Tahoe and/or in temps over 100° F.

That's silly. We have driven a Suburban, with its 42 gallon tank, all over
the US, including Lake Tahoe. We bought the fuel we rode into Tahoe on at
least 500 miles away, not far above sea level, in the desert. Many times,
fuel purchased in one locale took us right into a place with completely
different characteristics (altitude, temperature, whatever).

I wouldn't be surprised to find there are road vehicles with even greater
range (the actual range of our Suburban is about 800 miles, but we didn't
roll into Lake Tahoe on fumes, of course). In fact, I'm pretty sure the
hybrids do, and I know at least two that have been driven on long trips.
Never heard any complaints about gas troubles there either.

I've seen the "well, but the auto gas is specially formulated for the region
in which it's sold" line before. It just doesn't hold up to common sense
and personal experience. If the gas *is* specially formulated, then using
it in the "wrong" place certainly doesn't cause anything so serious as
engine stoppage, or even any significant performance difference (ie,
noticeable by the driver).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > Gas that is not blended for altitude and or season (temperature) can
make
> > the fan stop turning. In your car, you likely bought gas that was
intended
> > for use at Lake Tahoe and/or in temps over 100° F.
>
> That's silly. We have driven a Suburban, with its 42 gallon tank, all
over
> the US, including Lake Tahoe. We bought the fuel we rode into Tahoe on at
> least 500 miles away, not far above sea level, in the desert. Many times,
> fuel purchased in one locale took us right into a place with completely
> different characteristics (altitude, temperature, whatever).

Formulations aside, my big concern with buying mogas from a podunk airport
tank is that the gas could be old and contaminated. This would be due to the
small number of planes that are actually set up to burn mogas. With 100LL,
you can feel a bit more assured that the fuel has a had a decent "turnover"
rate and the fuel is fresher and cleaner.

-Trent
PP-ASEL

Dave S wrote:

>>
> Actually I think he's an ATC type, Atlanta Center or something.

ATC yes. A center? Good God no.

>
> I also thought the restrictions were a little over the top,

They are ridiculous.


but I'm not
> running mo-gas in a carburated lycoming or continental,

I am. Hot summers, 90+ here at home at 3650 MSL, which works out to
approx 7000 DA and also play in the mountains. Sky is the limit for DA
there. To say that you won't use mogas above say 70 or 80 degrees or
above a certain DA just shows a complete lack of knoweledge.

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>Gas that is not blended for altitude and or season (temperature) can make
>>the fan stop turning. In your car, you likely bought gas that was intended
>>for use at Lake Tahoe and/or in temps over 100° F.
>
>
> That's silly. We have driven a Suburban, with its 42 gallon tank, all over
> the US, including Lake Tahoe. We bought the fuel we rode into Tahoe on at
> least 500 miles away, not far above sea level, in the desert.

No kidding. I can drive 65 miles from my 100+ degree summer temps to
the Top of the World store on the Beartooth Pass, elev 11,000 and temps
in the 30's on an average day. They sell the same gas as I buy here.
The fact is the higher the altitude the lower quality of gas that you need.

Trent Moorehead wrote:


>
>
> Formulations aside, my big concern with buying mogas from a podunk airport
> tank is that the gas could be old and contaminated. This would be due to the
> small number of planes that are actually set up to burn mogas. With 100LL,
> you can feel a bit more assured that the fuel has a had a decent "turnover"
> rate and the fuel is fresher and cleaner.

From a podunk airport all bets are off for any type of gas. My
mechanic is the manager of just such an airport. He installed a 12,000
gallon 100LL above ground self fueling setup a few years ago. He
sometimes doesn't buy gas for 7-8 months.

--
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"Rich S." > wrote in message
...
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> Dude... I'm using mogas because I'm using a MO-engine. I've driven cars
>> at over 5000 ft (Lake Tahoe.. 9000 ft) MSL.. and in temps over 100* F...
>> and alcohol wont hurt MY engine because the seals in it and the fuel
>> system are DESIGNED to use motor gas in all of its domestic
>> forumulations. I think some of those "absolutes" you are listing are
>> overkill.
>>
>> I will be using fuel injected engine with an automotive fuel rail
>> regulated at 40 PSI over upper deck pressure..through a recirculating
>> fuel circut with firesleeved hoses. I don't think vapor lock is gonna be
>> the issue here. I'm just planning on using 100LL because I dont want to
>> land on a 2000 ft sod strip 40 miles from the nearest town of over 50,000
>> people. I'm into flying to travel to where the people are :)
>>
>
> So? You've a different set of commandments. I just related *mine*. :^)
>
> Rich S.
>

> 1. Never use mogas from an unfamiliar source.

At an airport? That's crazy. From a car gas station? Absolutely.

> 2. Always test for alcohol.

Good idea, if you don't know the source.

> 3. Never use mogas above 5,000' density altitude.

Nonsense.

> 4. Always check for water.

Absolutely. Same with avgas.

> 5. Never use mogas above 80° F.

That's ridiculous.

Our plane has run on mogas (Lycoming O-540) since we bought it in 2002. The
previous owner ran it on mogas for over ten years.

The ONLY time I've EVER had engine trouble has been while operating with 100
LL -- which has far more lead in it than my engine was designed to run on.

I would use car gas if it cost MORE than avgas -- that's how much better my
plane runs on it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Formulations aside, my big concern with buying mogas from a podunk airport
> tank is that the gas could be old and contaminated. This would be due to
> the
> small number of planes that are actually set up to burn mogas.

That's interesting. Around here, the vast majority of personal planes
(which are predominantly Skyhawks and Cherokees of various flavors) have the
autogas STC.

I'm trying to figure out why anyone still uses 100 LL. It burns less
cleanly, fouls spark plugs -- and costs 50% more. If you have the autogas
STC, and aren't using it, you're just burning hundred dollar bills
needlessly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:CT6ce.31050$r53.24915@attbi_s21...
> The ONLY time I've EVER had engine trouble has been while operating with
100
> LL -- which has far more lead in it than my engine was designed to run on.

Just how much do you think "too much" is?

April 27, 2002

Pelican's Perch #55:
Lead in the Hogwash

"100LL has a maximum limit of only two grams per gallon, but in reality,
most 100LL has even less. The refineries have learned how to blend a package
that produces approximately 97-octane fuel without the lead, and they add
barely enough to bring that up to 100 plus a few more points so that they
can be sure that their product meets the minimum specification when it is
delivered. Lead is by far the most expensive component of the fuel, so they
save money by doing it that way. When 100/130 was the standard, the mix
limit was four grams of lead per gallon, but in reality the actual blends
were around 2.7, for the same reasons. (There are about 6.0 pounds, or about
2,721 grams in a gallon of 100LL, so the lead is less than 0.0735%, by
weight.)"

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:8X6ce.31054$r53.2293@attbi_s21...
>
> That's interesting. Around here, the vast majority of personal planes
> (which are predominantly Skyhawks and Cherokees of various flavors) have
the
> autogas STC.
>
> I'm trying to figure out why anyone still uses 100 LL. It burns less
> cleanly, fouls spark plugs -- and costs 50% more. If you have the autogas
> STC, and aren't using it, you're just burning hundred dollar bills
> needlessly.

Is there an STC for Mogas in an IO-550?


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Is there an STC for Mogas in an IO-550?

Not enough info, you also need manufacturer and series, though I'd
hazzard a guess at NO...

Here's Petersons listing:
http://www.webworksltd.com/autofuelstc/pa/ApprovedEngines.html

I was looking for info on the Lycoming IO-540-D4A5 for instance. There
is one approved IO model 470 that Continental makes. Otherwise aviation
fuel injection seems to negate mogas usage. As an example Jay is flying
behind a carb'd 540 engine...

The EAA also offers Mogas STC's. Be aware that its also tied to the
airframe on certified planes...

http://www.eaa.org/education/fuel/index.html

The EAA is based on $1 a HP or somesuch...

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:RP6ce.30990$NU4.17278@attbi_s22...
>
>
> --
> --
> Jay Honeck

Why Jay, that is the most intelligent thing I have heard you say in a long
time! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message ...

> April 27, 2002
>
> Pelican's Perch #55:
> Lead in the Hogwash
>
> When 100/130 was the standard, the mix
> limit was four grams of lead per gallon, but in reality the actual blends
> were around 2.7, for the same reasons. (There are about 6.0 pounds, or about
> 2,721 grams in a gallon of 100LL, so the lead is less than 0.0735%, by
> weight.)"
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html
>
>

Ok, fuel is 6 lbs/gallon, and the quote says there is 6 lbs of lead in a gallon...what????

"Blueskies" > wrote
>
> Ok, fuel is 6 lbs/gallon, and the quote says there is 6 lbs of lead in a
gallon...what????
>
Ahh, grasshopper, read it very carefully, again. There is great truth in
the details, and relationships of the part, and the whole. <g>
--
Jim (wise teacher) in NC

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, fuel is 6 lbs/gallon, and the quote says there is 6 lbs of lead in a
> gallon...what????

The quote is telling you how much a gallon of 100LL weighs, not how much
lead is in a gallon of 100LL. (Well, technically, the quote also tells you
how much lead is in a gallon of 100LL -- 2 grams -- but that doesn't appear
to be what you're confused about :) ).

Pete

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote
>>
>> Ok, fuel is 6 lbs/gallon, and the quote says there is 6 lbs of lead in a
> gallon...what????
>>
> Ahh, grasshopper, read it very carefully, again. There is great truth in
> the details, and relationships of the part, and the whole. <g>
> --
> Jim (wise teacher) in NC
>

Ok, I suppose it can be read that way also...

"When 100/130 was the standard, the mix limit was four grams of lead per gallon, but in reality the actual blends were
around 2.7, for the same reasons. (There are about 6.0 pounds, or about 2,721 grams in a gallon of 100LL, so the lead is
less than 0.0735%, by weight.)"

I don't think I have never heard of weight being 'in' something, a better read would be something like a gallon weighs 6
lbs, or about 2,721 grams, so...

Dan (with 185 pounds in him) D.

;-)

> Why Jay, that is the most intelligent thing I have heard you say in a long
> time! ;-)

"............?"

?!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Trent Moorehead" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Rich S." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > [...]
> > > Gas that is not blended for altitude and or season (temperature) can
> make
> > > the fan stop turning. In your car, you likely bought gas that was
> intended
> > > for use at Lake Tahoe and/or in temps over 100° F.
> >
> > That's silly. We have driven a Suburban, with its 42 gallon tank, all
> over
> > the US, including Lake Tahoe. We bought the fuel we rode into Tahoe on
at
> > least 500 miles away, not far above sea level, in the desert. Many
times,
> > fuel purchased in one locale took us right into a place with completely
> > different characteristics (altitude, temperature, whatever).
>
> Formulations aside, my big concern with buying mogas from a podunk airport
> tank is that the gas could be old and contaminated. This would be due to
the
> small number of planes that are actually set up to burn mogas. With 100LL,
> you can feel a bit more assured that the fuel has a had a decent
"turnover"
> rate and the fuel is fresher and cleaner.
>
> -Trent
> PP-ASEL

More engines are mogas capable than those that need 100LL. If 100LL were to
disappear the vast majority of the fleet would get along just fine on mogas.
In fact the majority of the fleet is much better off burning mogas.

>> The ONLY time I've EVER had engine trouble has been while operating with
> 100
>> LL -- which has far more lead in it than my engine was designed to run
>> on.
>
> Just how much do you think "too much" is?

80 octane avgas -- which my engine was designed to use -- had roughly 25%
(?) of the lead 100 "low lead" (ha!) has in it today.

Which explains why I have to mercilessly lean my engine when running 100LL
avgas to prevent spark plug fouling.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Blueskies" > wrote
> >
> > Ok, fuel is 6 lbs/gallon, and the quote says there is 6 lbs of lead in a
> gallon...what????
> >
> Ahh, grasshopper, read it very carefully, again. There is great truth in
> the details, and relationships of the part, and the whole. <g>
> --
> Jim (wise teacher) in NC

Extremely poorly worded sentence. It has multiple meanings.

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> > April 27, 2002
> >
> > Pelican's Perch #55:
> > Lead in the Hogwash
> >
> > When 100/130 was the standard, the mix
> > limit was four grams of lead per gallon, but in reality the actual
blends
> > were around 2.7, for the same reasons. (There are about 6.0 pounds, or
about
> > 2,721 grams in a gallon of 100LL, so the lead is less than 0.0735%, by
> > weight.)"
> >
> > http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html
> >
> >
>
> Ok, fuel is 6 lbs/gallon, and the quote says there is 6 lbs of lead in a
gallon...what????


100/130 is four grams of lead per gallon (actually 2.7) and there are 2721
grams in a gallon.

Read it again and this time pause at the "(". :~)

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Blueskies" > wrote
> >>
> >> Ok, fuel is 6 lbs/gallon, and the quote says there is 6 lbs of lead in
a
> > gallon...what????
> >>
> > Ahh, grasshopper, read it very carefully, again. There is great truth
in
> > the details, and relationships of the part, and the whole. <g>
> > --
> > Jim (wise teacher) in NC
> >
>
> Ok, I suppose it can be read that way also...
>
> "When 100/130 was the standard, the mix limit was four grams of lead per
gallon, but in reality the actual blends were
> around 2.7, for the same reasons. (There are about 6.0 pounds, or about
2,721 grams in a gallon of 100LL, so the lead is
> less than 0.0735%, by weight.)"
>
> I don't think I have never heard of weight being 'in' something, a better
read would be something like a > gallon weighs 6
> lbs, or about 2,721 grams, so...

(Sigh)

>
> Dan (with 185 pounds in him) D.
>
> ;-)

Would an English Lit teacher be able to break down the lead content ratios?
:~)

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> More engines are mogas capable than those that need 100LL. If 100LL were
to
> disappear the vast majority of the fleet would get along just fine on
mogas.
> In fact the majority of the fleet is much better off burning mogas.
>

You probably already know, but that 25% that needs 100LL is the bunch that
flies 75% (or so) of the hours each year.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Blueskies" > wrote
> > >
> > > Ok, fuel is 6 lbs/gallon, and the quote says there is 6 lbs of lead in
a
> > gallon...what????
> > >
> > Ahh, grasshopper, read it very carefully, again. There is great truth
in
> > the details, and relationships of the part, and the whole. <g>
> > --
> > Jim (wise teacher) in NC
>
> Extremely poorly worded sentence. It has multiple meanings.

Only when taken out of context of the previous sentence

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > More engines are mogas capable than those that need 100LL. If 100LL
were
> to
> > disappear the vast majority of the fleet would get along just fine on
> mogas.
> > In fact the majority of the fleet is much better off burning mogas.
> >
>
> You probably already know, but that 25% that needs 100LL is the bunch that
> flies 75% (or so) of the hours each year.

I would need to see something to support that. The 100LLers are the high
performance engines which in my experience sit in the hangar. Given, on
those few occasions when they do venture out they burn a lot of gas.

"Blueskies" > wrote

> I don't think I have never heard of weight being 'in' something, a better
read would be something like a gallon weighs 6
> lbs, or about 2,721 grams, so...
>
> Dan (with 185 pounds in him) D.
>
> ;-)

No doubt, it could have been written more clearly.
--
Jim in NC

> I would need to see something to support that. The 100LLers are the high
> performance engines which in my experience sit in the hangar.

Agreed -- although offsetting that are the air charters that fly many hours
on end. I believe they are skewing the numbers dramatically.

At my field, private twins and truly high performance birds rarely leave
their hangars. What we see flying all day long, day in and day out, are the
C-150s and Cherokee 140s -- both of which could be (and possibly already
are) running on mogas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
> > >
> >
> > You probably already know, but that 25% that needs 100LL is the bunch
that
> > flies 75% (or so) of the hours each year.
>
> I would need to see something to support that. The 100LLers are the high
> performance engines which in my experience sit in the hangar. Given, on
> those few occasions when they do venture out they burn a lot of gas.

AOPA GA Fact Sheet:

"General Aviation aircraft flew an average of 144 flight hours each in 1997,
but considerable differences existed within the fleet: the average for all
piston aircraft was 133 hours (131 hours for piston singles, 149 for
multiengine pistons); 295 hours for turboprops; 331 hours for jets; and 307
hours for rotorcraft."

Also, the higher performance aircraft are used in a lot of cargo hauling and
air taxi...they fly a lot.

Then too, while it's anecdote, John Deakin says "The owners of the 70% of
the airplanes that burn 30% of the fuel will yell, "Give us a low octane
fuel we can use, and find something else for those other guys." Two fuels
isn't going to work — the two-fuel infrastructure is no longer there." I'd
say he's a lot closer to the industry than you or I.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:xnpce.26236$c24.21401@attbi_s72...
> > I would need to see something to support that. The 100LLers are the
high
> > performance engines which in my experience sit in the hangar.
>
> Agreed -- although offsetting that are the air charters that fly many
hours
> on end. I believe they are skewing the numbers dramatically.

Not to mention the cargo/package haulers. Every night, out and back.

> At my field, private twins and truly high performance birds rarely leave
> their hangars. What we see flying all day long, day in and day out, are
the
> C-150s and Cherokee 140s -- both of which could be (and possibly already
> are) running on mogas.

Get into an airport that supports a lot of commerce and you'll see a lot of
difference from the smaller town recreational flyers. I see the
recreational/personal flyers go out and fly an hour or so, but the business
users I know (Cessna 3xx, 4xx, 210's, Barons, Bonanzas, etc) are doing two
and three hour flights at least a couple times a month to a couple times a
week.

I hear so many people in here that put 50-100 hours a year on their planes.
I put over 380 hours on my airplane last year; 310 for business and 70 for
personal.

I'm guessing, Jay, that a lot of people you know with high performance
aircraft mainly use them for personal flying. Fly into a Denver/Centennial
or Jeffco, Grand Junction, or the reliever airports around Dallas, or San
Antonio and you'll see a very different composition. I also fly into a lot
of out-of-the-way places and the difference is striking.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

He's right... I wanna say I saw it in a column on Avweb.. regarding the
"demise" of 100LL.

I think it was a Deakin or Busch Column..

And it was to the effect of the 25% of the fleet that REQUIRES 100LL is
the part that burns 75% of the refined fuel. Keep in mind these are the
higher compression, higher horsepower, sometimes turboed engines..
usually on twins.. doing commercial stuff.

Dave

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>More engines are mogas capable than those that need 100LL. If 100LL
>
> were
>
>>to
>>
>>>disappear the vast majority of the fleet would get along just fine on
>>
>>mogas.
>>
>>>In fact the majority of the fleet is much better off burning mogas.
>>>
>>
>>You probably already know, but that 25% that needs 100LL is the bunch that
>>flies 75% (or so) of the hours each year.
>
>
> I would need to see something to support that. The 100LLers are the high
> performance engines which in my experience sit in the hangar. Given, on
> those few occasions when they do venture out they burn a lot of gas.
>
>
>
>

Sounds good, Dave. The ECU sounds like the MegaSquirt or one of it's
derivatives. However, how will you solve the O2 sensor problem? Maybe
you could use history data to maintain the fuel/air ratios?



Dave S wrote:

> You are presuming that I am going to use the stock ECU (engine control
> unit)..which is the last thing I would do. Stock ECU's do strange and
> unpredictable things like turn off (or power down) the engine to
> "protect" it when sensor readings get out of spec (like oil temp or
> pressure parameters, etc)
>
> The issue of ECU's have been discussed EXTENSIVELY in the forums that I
> frequent: one is a list-serv dedicated to rotary engines, and the other
> is a canard forum with a rotary engine portion. If you were a member
> there you could spend hours and still not cover all the material, some
> practical and some theoretical.
>
> The ECU we will be using will be able to tune/make program adjustments
> to the fuel map, but once programmed can operate without input from the
> sensor.
>
> Also, the neat thing about the Mazda rotary is.. no valves.
>
> Dave
>
> AINut wrote:
>
>> All of the dozen or so airports I've contacted about mogas only have
>> 87 octane. All are considerably higher priced than the most expensive
>> gas station.
>>
>> If you use 100ll in an engine that has valves designed for no lead
>> usage, you're probably going to lose that engine. Also, the O2
>> sensors will clog with lead very shortly. A propane torch can burn
>> the lead off it but you'll have to remove all the O2 sensors to do
>> that. If the O2 sensors clog up during flight, the engine computer
>> will go into limp home mode. This usually means a *drastic* cut in
>> horsepower, sometimes engine stoppage.
>>
>> HTH.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dave S wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Rich S. wrote:
>>> > Make that last idea a *must*, Dave. You don't know what you are
>>> getting out
>>>
>>>> of a strange mogas tank. It may be 100° out and that mogas could've
>>>> been sitting in the tank since winter. My commandments read:
>>>> 1. Never use mogas from an unfamiliar source.
>>>> 2. Always test for alcohol.
>>>> 3. Never use mogas above 5,000' density altitude.
>>>> 4. Always check for water.
>>>> 5. Never use mogas above 80° F.
>>>>
>>>> Remember - 100 LL can foul a spark plug. Mogas can boil, give you
>>>> vapor lock, and stop your engine RFN. Which would you prefer? Would
>>>> you like fries with that?
>>>>
>>>> Rich S.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dude... I'm using mogas because I'm using a MO-engine. I've driven
>>> cars at over 5000 ft (Lake Tahoe.. 9000 ft) MSL.. and in temps over
>>> 100* F... and alcohol wont hurt MY engine because the seals in it and
>>> the fuel system are DESIGNED to use motor gas in all of its domestic
>>> forumulations. I think some of those "absolutes" you are listing are
>>> overkill.
>>>
>>> I will be using fuel injected engine with an automotive fuel rail
>>> regulated at 40 PSI over upper deck pressure..through a recirculating
>>> fuel circut with firesleeved hoses. I don't think vapor lock is gonna
>>> be the issue here. I'm just planning on using 100LL because I dont
>>> want to land on a 2000 ft sod strip 40 miles from the nearest town of
>>> over 50,000 people. I'm into flying to travel to where the people are :)
>>>
>

One thing that really bothers me (and I don't have a practical answer
for it yet) is that mogas will degrade significantly over just a short
period of time. If I let the plane sit for months (gasp!) before using
it again, I'd be extremely worried about the fuel quality. Avgas has
additives that remove that problem. I tried sta-bil in my lawn mower as
a test and had to toss that engine 8-(.



Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Rich S." > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...]
>>Gas that is not blended for altitude and or season (temperature) can make
>>the fan stop turning. In your car, you likely bought gas that was intended
>>for use at Lake Tahoe and/or in temps over 100° F.
>
>
> That's silly. We have driven a Suburban, with its 42 gallon tank, all over
> the US, including Lake Tahoe. We bought the fuel we rode into Tahoe on at
> least 500 miles away, not far above sea level, in the desert. Many times,
> fuel purchased in one locale took us right into a place with completely
> different characteristics (altitude, temperature, whatever).
>
> I wouldn't be surprised to find there are road vehicles with even greater
> range (the actual range of our Suburban is about 800 miles, but we didn't
> roll into Lake Tahoe on fumes, of course). In fact, I'm pretty sure the
> hybrids do, and I know at least two that have been driven on long trips.
> Never heard any complaints about gas troubles there either.
>
> I've seen the "well, but the auto gas is specially formulated for the region
> in which it's sold" line before. It just doesn't hold up to common sense
> and personal experience. If the gas *is* specially formulated, then using
> it in the "wrong" place certainly doesn't cause anything so serious as
> engine stoppage, or even any significant performance difference (ie,
> noticeable by the driver).
>
> Pete
>
>

AINut wrote:

> One thing that really bothers me (and I don't have a practical answer
> for it yet) is that mogas will degrade significantly over just a short
> period of time. If I let the plane sit for months (gasp!) before using
> it again, I'd be extremely worried about the fuel quality. Avgas has
> additives that remove that problem. I tried sta-bil in my lawn mower as
> a test and had to toss that engine 8-(.

And I just fired up my lawn mower with last years gas a couple weeks
ago. I had about 3 gallons that was left sitting in the shed over the
winter, fill up the mower and on about the third pull she fired right
up. Probably bought that gas in August or September.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> AINut wrote:
>
>> One thing that really bothers me (and I don't have a practical answer
>> for it yet) is that mogas will degrade significantly over just a short
>> period of time. If I let the plane sit for months (gasp!) before
>> using it again, I'd be extremely worried about the fuel quality.
>> Avgas has additives that remove that problem. I tried sta-bil in my
>> lawn mower as a test and had to toss that engine 8-(.
>
>
> And I just fired up my lawn mower with last years gas a couple weeks
> ago. I had about 3 gallons that was left sitting in the shed over the
> winter, fill up the mower and on about the third pull she fired right
> up. Probably bought that gas in August or September.

Yep... as they say, your mileage may vary.

A few years ago, before I went away for six months, I put some
sta-bil in my car's gas tank and filled it up with regular gas. I
had a friend come over and start it every month or so and run it for
a few minutes, but other than that it sat. When I got home, it ran a
bit rough for the first couple minutes and fine after that.

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/eficont.html

Its sitting in the box at the hangar.. just need to fabricate a custom
intake. The EFI runs off of a MAP sensor and and the stock crankshaft
position sensor (which derives RPM and ingnition timing points). Two
programming maps (data table): One is under load, and the other is for
low load/high RPM (such as in a descent).

No MAF's, No Throttle Position Sensors, No use of the oxygen sensor is
REGULAR use, only in programming the fuel maps (data table). Brutally
simple, but the aircraft mode of operation is pretty simple as well.

Dave

AINut wrote:
> Sounds good, Dave. The ECU sounds like the MegaSquirt or one of it's
> derivatives. However, how will you solve the O2 sensor problem? Maybe
> you could use history data to maintain the fuel/air ratios?
>
>
>
> Dave S wrote:
>
>> You are presuming that I am going to use the stock ECU (engine control
>> unit)..which is the last thing I would do. Stock ECU's do strange and
>> unpredictable things like turn off (or power down) the engine to
>> "protect" it when sensor readings get out of spec (like oil temp or
>> pressure parameters, etc)
>>
>> The issue of ECU's have been discussed EXTENSIVELY in the forums that
>> I frequent: one is a list-serv dedicated to rotary engines, and the
>> other is a canard forum with a rotary engine portion. If you were a
>> member there you could spend hours and still not cover all the
>> material, some practical and some theoretical.
>>
>> The ECU we will be using will be able to tune/make program adjustments
>> to the fuel map, but once programmed can operate without input from
>> the sensor.
>>
>> Also, the neat thing about the Mazda rotary is.. no valves.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> AINut wrote:
>>
>>> All of the dozen or so airports I've contacted about mogas only have
>>> 87 octane. All are considerably higher priced than the most
>>> expensive gas station.
>>>
>>> If you use 100ll in an engine that has valves designed for no lead
>>> usage, you're probably going to lose that engine. Also, the O2
>>> sensors will clog with lead very shortly. A propane torch can burn
>>> the lead off it but you'll have to remove all the O2 sensors to do
>>> that. If the O2 sensors clog up during flight, the engine computer
>>> will go into limp home mode. This usually means a *drastic* cut in
>>> horsepower, sometimes engine stoppage.
>>>
>>> HTH.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave S wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rich S. wrote:
>>>> > Make that last idea a *must*, Dave. You don't know what you are
>>>> getting out
>>>>
>>>>> of a strange mogas tank. It may be 100° out and that mogas could've
>>>>> been sitting in the tank since winter. My commandments read:
>>>>> 1. Never use mogas from an unfamiliar source.
>>>>> 2. Always test for alcohol.
>>>>> 3. Never use mogas above 5,000' density altitude.
>>>>> 4. Always check for water.
>>>>> 5. Never use mogas above 80° F.
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember - 100 LL can foul a spark plug. Mogas can boil, give you
>>>>> vapor lock, and stop your engine RFN. Which would you prefer? Would
>>>>> you like fries with that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rich S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dude... I'm using mogas because I'm using a MO-engine. I've driven
>>>> cars at over 5000 ft (Lake Tahoe.. 9000 ft) MSL.. and in temps over
>>>> 100* F... and alcohol wont hurt MY engine because the seals in it
>>>> and the fuel system are DESIGNED to use motor gas in all of its
>>>> domestic forumulations. I think some of those "absolutes" you are
>>>> listing are overkill.
>>>>
>>>> I will be using fuel injected engine with an automotive fuel rail
>>>> regulated at 40 PSI over upper deck pressure..through a
>>>> recirculating fuel circut with firesleeved hoses. I don't think
>>>> vapor lock is gonna be the issue here. I'm just planning on using
>>>> 100LL because I dont want to land on a 2000 ft sod strip 40 miles
>>>> from the nearest town of over 50,000 people. I'm into flying to
>>>> travel to where the people are :)
>>>>
>>

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> What we see flying all day long, day in and day out, are the
> C-150s and Cherokee 140s -- both of which could be (and possibly already
> are) running on mogas.

In many cases, you don't see the perfomance birds because they takeoff and go
somewhere. They're putting lots of hours in, but they aren't shooting T&Gs like
the bug-smasher crowd is.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

Newps wrote:
>
>
> And I just fired up my lawn mower with last years gas a couple weeks
> ago.

Well, I just fired mine up with last year's gas too. Almost made one circuit
around the yard before it developed spasms and limped back to it's home under
the porch.

I'll be draining the gas tomorrow.

George Patterson
There's plenty of room for all of God's creatures. Right next to the
mashed potatoes.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>> Extremely poorly worded sentence. It has multiple meanings.
>
> Only when taken out of context of the previous sentence
>
>
>

Yes, which is what the parenthesis are for...

My copy of the ASTM spec for avgas (D910) gives the max Tetraethyl Lead
(TEL) content in milliliters (ml), not grams. 100LL has 2 ml/gal max,
80 octane had 0.5 ml/gal max.

TEL is about 1.66 grams per milliliter, and TEL is about 55% lead by
weight. Multiply it out and there is about 128 grams or a little over
1/4 lb of lead in a 70 gallon tank of fuel.

I'd like to see the reference which suggests a lower TEL content for
100LL is typical.

I use Mogas almost exclusively