Fuel Prices and their Effect on Your Flying

[Jon Kraus]

I did some checking around my area today (thanks www.100ll.com) about
what the fuel prices are, and was surprised to learn that my home base
(KTYQ) is charging $4.47 (the highest in the area), and that includes
our based-on-the-field discount. That is up around $1.00 from a little
over a year ago and it has forced me into several revelations.

First I decided that we can get fuel elsewhere for much cheaper. Within
a 10 minute flight I found it $1.00 cheaper @ $3.47. To me that is worth
the drive... errrr... ahhhhh... flight to go somewhere else.

Second my partner and I decided to hike our per-hour costs from $75.00
and hour to $85.00 an hour wet as a sort of fuel-surcharge. If and when
the prices retreat (historically they have) we'll revisit the charges.
My theory is that it is better to have too much in the bank than too little.

Third I am now learning and practicing everything I can about Lean of
Peak (LOP) operations in order to save money on fuel. I have found that
in cruise I can save many gallons-per-hour by twisting the red knob
until the EGT's peak and then get to 10-20 degrees on the other side of
peak temperatures. I know that this will not work for everyone but for
my IO-360 it gives me a cool, smooth running engine that is only
drinking 9.5 GPH.

Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations? I'm sure
that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have made
changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it is
my first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ

[M]

$3.47 for 100LL? That won't last very long before this batch of gas is
gone and they're taking in another load.

This is what I did this year to cope with the gas price:

* Get the autogas STC for my Grumman AA-5. For the first time ever I
was glad that I had a low compression engine :-)
* Fly at lower power setting for local flights.
* Lean like crazy on those low powered flights. It won't hurt the
engine.
* Fill up autogas whenever I can.
* Invest in engergy related mutual funds. Seriously. Those funds have
gained more than 50% since winter 2004 when I bought them. If I have
to pay more for gas I might as well get even by making money from the
oil companies.

Even autogas at AWO has gone up from $2.62 to $3.12 just in the last
month. I know for those among us that're limited to 100LL this sounds
like a steal!

BTW for the fellow autogas drivers out there, I wrote this planning map
http://www.chouby.com/apps/autogas.html as a public service. Use your
STC and patronize those airports!

[Greg Copeland]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:20:02 +0000, Jon Kraus wrote:

> Third I am now learning and practicing everything I can about Lean of
> Peak (LOP) operations in order to save money on fuel. I have found that
> in cruise I can save many gallons-per-hour by twisting the red knob
> until the EGT's peak and then get to 10-20 degrees on the other side of
> peak temperatures. I know that this will not work for everyone but for
> my IO-360 it gives me a cool, smooth running engine that is only
> drinking 9.5 GPH.
>

When you say, "EGT's", I assume you mean an EGT per cylinder?

Greg

[A Lieberman]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:20:02 GMT, Jon Kraus wrote:

> I did some checking around my area today (thanks www.100ll.com) about
> what the fuel prices are, and was surprised to learn that my home base
> (KTYQ) is charging $4.47

Great website! Not to make ya jealous Jon, but Av gas is cheaper then car
gas at some airports here in MS. (2.99 per gallon)

Last week, I had a 8 hour round trip drive to Corinth MS, which costed me
98.40 to fill up in car gas in my truck.

Had I flown (LIFR conditions stopped me - below my minimums), it would have
costed me about 80 dollars for a 2 1/4 hour round trip flight so it would
have been cheaper to fly figuring $4.00 per gallon had it been that high.

As far as the cost, well, when I balance my time to the cost of Av gas, and
the privilidge of flight, well it's worth it to me.

For local flights, I fly at 100 knots rather then 110 I plan for XC flights
so I get more flight time per gallon.

Other then that, I don't do anything different insofar as leaning the
engine and the like.

Allen

[Jon Kraus]

Yes per cylinder... but since you can not lean an individual cylinder
without affecting the others I always use the highest EGT as my base for
the leaning...

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ

Greg Copeland wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:20:02 +0000, Jon Kraus wrote:
>
>
>>Third I am now learning and practicing everything I can about Lean of
>>Peak (LOP) operations in order to save money on fuel. I have found that
>>in cruise I can save many gallons-per-hour by twisting the red knob
>>until the EGT's peak and then get to 10-20 degrees on the other side of
>>peak temperatures. I know that this will not work for everyone but for
>>my IO-360 it gives me a cool, smooth running engine that is only
>>drinking 9.5 GPH.
>>
>
>
> When you say, "EGT's", I assume you mean an EGT per cylinder?
>
> Greg
>

[Montblack]

("Jon Kraus" wrote)
>I did some checking around my area today (thanks www.100ll.com) about what
>the fuel prices are, and was surprised to learn that my home base (KTYQ) is
>charging $4.47 (the highest in the area), and that includes our
>based-on-the-field discount. That is up around $1.00 from a little over a
>year ago and it has forced me into several revelations.


I wonder how many owners are taking a second look at speed/efficiency mods
these days, because of rising fuel costs?


Montblack

[M]

Most of the speed mods makes the biggest difference at the top end of
the cruise speed, where parasite drag hurts the most. At the much
slower max-range speed, parasite drag isn't as significant because its
proportional to the square of the calibrated airspeed. Because of this
reason, speed mods only has a very modest effect to fuel efficiency at
lower speed.

The best "mod" you can get to make fuel cost more bearable is the
autogas STC, if you're lucky enough to own a model that can get the
STC, and you can get ethanol free autogas.

[Newps]

M wrote:

>
> The best "mod" you can get to make fuel cost more bearable is the
> autogas STC, if you're lucky enough to own a model that can get the
> STC, and you can get ethanol free autogas.

Or just buy a more efficient plane. I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza.
I'm burning a lot less gas, approx 40%, than when I had my 182.

[Montblack]

("Newps" wrote)
> Or just buy a more efficient plane. I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza. I'm
> burning a lot less gas, approx 40%, than when I had my 182.


What are the two engines?
Your normal cruise speeds between the two?

Curious? I wouldn't have thought that the case.


Montblack
Hangar is still in play. No offer yet. <g>

[M]

That's one way to to do it. Bonanza are a lot more fuel efficient than
a 182.

I just had a trip last weekend in my 75 AA5. 420nm buring 27.58gal of
autogas, about 15.2 nmpg. That's very good for a production 4-seater.

[Jon Woellhaf]

"Newps" wrote>
> ... I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza. I'm burning a lot less gas, approx
> 40%, than when I had my 182.

Wow! Is that at the same air speed?

[Doug Vetter]

Newps wrote:
> Or just buy a more efficient plane. I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza.
> I'm burning a lot less gas, approx 40%, than when I had my 182.

Amen.

Would you mind talking some sense into my partner? We have a perfect
opportunity to buy a F33 from a friend in the next hangar over.
Pristine aircraft, casual sale (so no tax liability here in NJ), just
needs some avionics work. It does 178KTAS on ~15GPH, while we burn
11GPH in the 172/180HP doing 115KTAS on a good day. Ugh. My kingdom
for a little common sense.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Doug Vetter > wrote:

> Would you mind talking some sense into my partner? We have a perfect
> opportunity to buy a F33 from a friend in the next hangar over.
> Pristine aircraft, casual sale (so no tax liability here in NJ), just
> needs some avionics work. It does 178KTAS on ~15GPH, while we burn
> 11GPH in the 172/180HP doing 115KTAS on a good day. Ugh. My kingdom
> for a little common sense.

However, what would the difference in maintenance costs be between the
172 and the F33, and insurance...?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[M]

>From 172 to 133 is really quite a jump. However in the same class as
172 you can get a Grumman AA5/5A. My 75 AA5 can easily do 127 KTAS on
9GPH, or 115 KTAS on 7GPH. On local flights I power back and do 98
KTAS on 5.9GPH. Last week I had a 420nm trip burning 27.58gal autogas.

The maintenance and the insurance costs are be very comparable to a
172.

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >, Doug Vetter > wrote:
>
> > Would you mind talking some sense into my partner? We have a perfect
> > opportunity to buy a F33 from a friend in the next hangar over.
> > Pristine aircraft, casual sale (so no tax liability here in NJ), just
> > needs some avionics work. It does 178KTAS on ~15GPH, while we burn
> > 11GPH in the 172/180HP doing 115KTAS on a good day. Ugh. My kingdom
> > for a little common sense.
>
> However, what would the difference in maintenance costs be between the
> 172 and the F33, and insurance...?
>

[Dan Luke]

"Jon Kraus" wrote:

> Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations? I'm sure
> that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have made changes,
> but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it is my first
> experience at spiking prices. So what say you?

High fuel costs were one factor in my decision to abandon plans to sell my
Cutlass RG and get a 210 or an A36.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[B A R R Y]

M wrote:
>
> The best "mod" you can get to make fuel cost more bearable is the
> autogas STC, if you're lucky enough to own a model that can get the
> STC, and you can get ethanol free autogas.
>

How great is that mod when you need to get 30-40 gallons into the plane?

Do you land at a gas station? <G>

Even 20 is a lot to carry around in portable containers.

[Newps]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Newps" wrote)
>
>> Or just buy a more efficient plane. I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza.
>> I'm burning a lot less gas, approx 40%, than when I had my 182.
>
>
>
> What are the two engines?
> Your normal cruise speeds between the two?
>
> Curious? I wouldn't have thought that the case.

Most of my flying is the local $100 hamburger run. In the 182 with the
standard O-470R I usually ran top of the green, 23"/2450. That gave me
about 135-140 mph indicated and burned about 12.5-13. In the Bo with
the standard IO-520 I run 45% in the local area at 19"/2100 at 50 lean
of peak. That will give me 150 mph indicated and burn 8 gph, so
nowadays I'm burning 4.5-5 gph less and when I need or want to I can
tear up the sky at 185-190 mph indicated at 15 gph.

[Newps]

Jon Woellhaf wrote:

> "Newps" wrote>
>
>>... I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza. I'm burning a lot less gas, approx
>>40%, than when I had my 182.
>
>
> Wow! Is that at the same air speed?

About 10 mph faster.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
.. .
> Third I am now learning and practicing everything I can about Lean of Peak
> (LOP) operations in order to save money on fuel.

http://www.advancedpilot.com/index.html - expensive ($1000), but worth every
penny Save gas, but more importantly, your engine. (see below)

> I have found that in cruise I can save many gallons-per-hour by twisting
> the red knob until the EGT's peak and then get to 10-20 degrees on the
> other side of peak temperatures. I know that this will not work for
> everyone but for my IO-360 it gives me a cool, smooth running engine that
> is only drinking 9.5 GPH.

At what MP? Throttle setting? Altitude?

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182045-1.html

Yes, cool and smooth...but possibly with excessive internal pressure.

Red Box = No Fly Zone
At and below about 60% power, there is no red box.
At about 65% power, 100ºF ROP to Peak.
At about 70%, 125ºF ROP to 25ºF LOP.
At about 75%, 180ºF ROP to 40ºF LOP.
At about 80%, 200ºF ROP to 60ºF LOP


http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html

>
> Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations?

Fuel here is $4.15, up from $3.45 so it translates to about $11 more an
hour. Considering our hourly DOC & Reserve is around $135 an hour, $11 is
minor.

We did cancel a optional trip to the "Big City" for shopping.

>I'm sure that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have made
>changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it is my
>first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?

LOP is your best bet. IIRC, the Mooney is running a TCM? If so, GAMIjectors.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jon Kraus" wrote:
>
>> Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations? I'm sure
>> that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have made
>> changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it is my
>> first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?
>
> High fuel costs were one factor in my decision to abandon plans to sell my
> Cutlass RG and get a 210 or an A36.
>

What's your fuel burn now?

[Matt Barrow]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> That's one way to to do it. Bonanza are a lot more fuel efficient than
> a 182.
>
> I just had a trip last weekend in my 75 AA5. 420nm buring 27.58gal of
> autogas, about 15.2 nmpg. That's very good for a production 4-seater.
>
TN B36 (IO-550): 418nm (Montrose-Lincoln, NE), 185kts, 19kt tailwind, 12,500
feet, 32.5 gallons 100LL, 60 LOP; TT 2hrs 19min.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "M" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> That's one way to to do it. Bonanza are a lot more fuel efficient than
>> a 182.
>>
>> I just had a trip last weekend in my 75 AA5. 420nm buring 27.58gal of
>> autogas, about 15.2 nmpg. That's very good for a production 4-seater.
>>
> TN B36 (IO-550): 418nm (Montrose-Lincoln, NE), 185kts, 19kt tailwind,
> 12,500 feet, 32.5 gallons 100LL, 60 LOP; TT 2hrs 19min.
>
>
>
Ugh: Kearney, not Lincoln.

[M]

That depends on whether there's an airport selling mogas near your home
base. For example there're quite a few in midwest, right in the corn
country: http://www.chouby.com/apps/autogas.html


B A R R Y wrote:
> M wrote:
> >
> > The best "mod" you can get to make fuel cost more bearable is the
> > autogas STC, if you're lucky enough to own a model that can get the
> > STC, and you can get ethanol free autogas.
> >
>
> How great is that mod when you need to get 30-40 gallons into the plane?
>
> Do you land at a gas station? <G>
>
> Even 20 is a lot to carry around in portable containers.

[Jon Kraus]

Yes a TCM 200 hp IO-360-A3B6D with no GAMI's. I usually cruise 5-6k 24
squared and 20-30 LOP.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Third I am now learning and practicing everything I can about Lean of Peak
>>(LOP) operations in order to save money on fuel.
>
>
> http://www.advancedpilot.com/index.html - expensive ($1000), but worth every
> penny Save gas, but more importantly, your engine. (see below)
>
>
>>I have found that in cruise I can save many gallons-per-hour by twisting
>>the red knob until the EGT's peak and then get to 10-20 degrees on the
>>other side of peak temperatures. I know that this will not work for
>>everyone but for my IO-360 it gives me a cool, smooth running engine that
>>is only drinking 9.5 GPH.
>
>
> At what MP? Throttle setting? Altitude?
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182045-1.html
>
> Yes, cool and smooth...but possibly with excessive internal pressure.
>
> Red Box = No Fly Zone
> At and below about 60% power, there is no red box.
> At about 65% power, 100ºF ROP to Peak.
> At about 70%, 125ºF ROP to 25ºF LOP.
> At about 75%, 180ºF ROP to 40ºF LOP.
> At about 80%, 200ºF ROP to 60ºF LOP
>
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html
>
>
>>Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations?
>
>
> Fuel here is $4.15, up from $3.45 so it translates to about $11 more an
> hour. Considering our hourly DOC & Reserve is around $135 an hour, $11 is
> minor.
>
> We did cancel a optional trip to the "Big City" for shopping.
>
>
>>I'm sure that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have made
>>changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it is my
>>first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?
>
>
> LOP is your best bet. IIRC, the Mooney is running a TCM? If so, GAMIjectors.
>

[B A R R Y]

M wrote:
> That depends on whether there's an airport selling mogas near your home
> base.

This is probably why many of us don't see the advantage. <G>

[M]

How do you get 30.5" at 12.5K w/o a turbo?

[Ross Richardson]

I have a 180hp (C/S prop) C-172F with the lyc O-360 and I burn and plan
on 9 gph. Why are you at 11? I run 2300 rpm and 22". I believe that give
me 9 gph.

Ross

Doug Vetter wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>> Or just buy a more efficient plane. I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza.
>> I'm burning a lot less gas, approx 40%, than when I had my 182.
>
>
> Amen.
>
> Would you mind talking some sense into my partner? We have a perfect
> opportunity to buy a F33 from a friend in the next hangar over. Pristine
> aircraft, casual sale (so no tax liability here in NJ), just needs some
> avionics work. It does 178KTAS on ~15GPH, while we burn 11GPH in the
> 172/180HP doing 115KTAS on a good day. Ugh. My kingdom for a little
> common sense.
>
> -Doug
>
> --------------------
> Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI
>
> http://www.dvatp.com
> --------------------

[Aaron Coolidge]

Jon Kraus > wrote:
: Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations? I'm sure
: that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have made
: changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it is
: my first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?

Sold my airplane.
--
Aaron C.

[Peter R.]

Jon Kraus > wrote:

<snip>
> Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations? I'm sure
> that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have made
> changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it is
> my first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?

I alter my weekly commute to include a fuel stop at an airport where fuel
is about $1.60 (US) cheaper per gallon than either my home airport or my
destination airport. Once there, I fill the Bonanza's mains and tip tanks
to capacity. I also reduced my Angel Flights by about 25%.


--
Peter

[Jon Kraus]

I have concidered GAMI's but since I get my engine to run smooth and
cool LOP I didn't think the cost would be worth it. On the Mooney
owners list we have some very knowledgable folks from GAMI that
participate in the lists and have told me that 20-30 LOP at 70% will be
no detonation issue at all...


Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>Yes a TCM 200 hp IO-360-A3B6D with no GAMI's. I usually cruise 5-6k 24
>>squared and 20-30 LOP.
>
>
> In calculating off the top of my head, you're running about 70% (your's is
> 200 HP?); see the chart below.
>
> Have you considered GAMI's?
>
> Try this: 12.5K, 185kts, 14.5gph (30.5"/2350 RPM); smooth as silk, even at
> idle.
>
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>>"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>
>>>
>>>>Third I am now learning and practicing everything I can about Lean of
>>>>Peak (LOP) operations in order to save money on fuel.
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.advancedpilot.com/index.html - expensive ($1000), but worth
>>>every penny Save gas, but more importantly, your engine. (see below)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have found that in cruise I can save many gallons-per-hour by twisting
>>>>the red knob until the EGT's peak and then get to 10-20 degrees on the
>>>>other side of peak temperatures. I know that this will not work for
>>>>everyone but for my IO-360 it gives me a cool, smooth running engine that
>>>>is only drinking 9.5 GPH.
>>>
>>>
>>>At what MP? Throttle setting? Altitude?
>>>
>>>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182045-1.html
>>>
>>>Yes, cool and smooth...but possibly with excessive internal pressure.
>>>
>>> Red Box = No Fly Zone
>>> At and below about 60% power, there is no red box.
>>> At about 65% power, 100ºF ROP to Peak.
>>> At about 70%, 125ºF ROP to 25ºF LOP.
>>> At about 75%, 180ºF ROP to 40ºF LOP.
>>> At about 80%, 200ºF ROP to 60ºF LOP
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations?
>>>
>>>
>>>Fuel here is $4.15, up from $3.45 so it translates to about $11 more an
>>>hour. Considering our hourly DOC & Reserve is around $135 an hour, $11 is
>>>minor.
>>>
>>>We did cancel a optional trip to the "Big City" for shopping.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm sure that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have
>>>>made changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it
>>>>is my first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?
>>>
>>>
>>>LOP is your best bet. IIRC, the Mooney is running a TCM? If so,
>>>GAMIjectors.
>>>
>>
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>>
>
> What's your fuel burn now?

9.5 GPH

[Matt Barrow]

"M" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> How do you get 30.5" at 12.5K w/o a turbo?

The Beech Bo 36 is TC'ed, but in this case is TN'ed. We regularly run 60+
LOP.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
.. .
>I have concidered GAMI's but since I get my engine to run smooth and cool
>LOP I didn't think the cost would be worth it. On the Mooney owners list
>we have some very knowledgable folks from GAMI that participate in the
>lists and have told me that 20-30 LOP at 70% will be no detonation issue at
>all...

The problem is not detonation, but internal chamber (cylinder) pressure.

>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>
>>>Yes a TCM 200 hp IO-360-A3B6D with no GAMI's. I usually cruise 5-6k 24
>>>squared and 20-30 LOP.
>>
>>
>> In calculating off the top of my head, you're running about 70% (your's
>> is 200 HP?); see the chart below.
>>
>> Have you considered GAMI's?
>>
>> Try this: 12.5K, 185kts, 14.5gph (30.5"/2350 RPM); smooth as silk, even
>> at idle.
>>
>>
>>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jon Kraus" > wrote in message
.. .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Third I am now learning and practicing everything I can about Lean of
>>>>>Peak (LOP) operations in order to save money on fuel.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.advancedpilot.com/index.html - expensive ($1000), but worth
>>>>every penny Save gas, but more importantly, your engine. (see below)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have found that in cruise I can save many gallons-per-hour by
>>>>>twisting the red knob until the EGT's peak and then get to 10-20
>>>>>degrees on the other side of peak temperatures. I know that this will
>>>>>not work for everyone but for my IO-360 it gives me a cool, smooth
>>>>>running engine that is only drinking 9.5 GPH.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At what MP? Throttle setting? Altitude?
>>>>
>>>>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182045-1.html
>>>>
>>>>Yes, cool and smooth...but possibly with excessive internal pressure.
>>>>
>>>> Red Box = No Fly Zone
>>>> At and below about 60% power, there is no red box.
>>>> At about 65% power, 100ºF ROP to Peak.
>>>> At about 70%, 125ºF ROP to 25ºF LOP.
>>>> At about 75%, 180ºF ROP to 40ºF LOP.
>>>> At about 80%, 200ºF ROP to 60ºF LOP
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182084-1.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Fuel here is $4.15, up from $3.45 so it translates to about $11 more an
>>>>hour. Considering our hourly DOC & Reserve is around $135 an hour, $11
>>>>is minor.
>>>>
>>>>We did cancel a optional trip to the "Big City" for shopping.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I'm sure that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have
>>>>>made changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year)
>>>>>it is my first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOP is your best bet. IIRC, the Mooney is running a TCM? If so,
>>>>GAMIjectors.
>>>>
>>>
>>

[Doug Vetter]

Bob Noel wrote:
> However, what would the difference in maintenance costs be between the
> 172 and the F33, and insurance...?

Maintenance: Modestly higher, obviously, but with the fixed costs taken
as a whole, we wouldn't pay that much more (hangar is the same,
insurance is about $1000 more...chump change all things considered).
What makes the Bo so attractive is that this particular specimen is
owned by a guy who's just as anal as we are about the 172 so we don't
even expect a "catch up" annual. Even the engine was freshly overhauled
last year.

Insurance: We're established pilots with experience (ATP/Comm/CFI) and
I fly turbine equipment. No factor. Insurance might want my partner to
get 10-25 hours in type because he has no Bo time, but that's a no brainer.

But, unfortunately, he's getting up there in age and in spite of telling
him how the new 172's are driving down the value of the 35+ year old
six-pack equipped 172's, AND the fact that I don't plan to fly it very
much anymore given it no longer meets my mission profile, he won't
budge. Shame too...other than being a stick in the mud on matters like
this, he's been a great partner.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

[Doug Vetter]

Ross Richardson wrote:
> I have a 180hp (C/S prop) C-172F with the lyc O-360 and I burn and plan
> on 9 gph. Why are you at 11? I run 2300 rpm and 22". I believe that give
> me 9 gph.

I rounded up a bit -- sorry. 22/23 is 65% (book is 8.8GPH). We usually
run 23/24 (75% -- for obvious reasons) and burn 10.6GPH block to block
(0.6GPH over book). If we fly low and don't lean as aggressively, we
can easily see 11.5GPH block to block. And we can't run LOP due to the
carb. My kingdom for a fuel-injected, flow-balanced engine like that in
the Bo.

The biggest slap in the face is that even with the benefits of the CS
prop we don't go as fast as the fixed pitch 172R/SP because the stupid
old-school STOL kit with leading edge cuff destroys the cruise
performance of the wing. If we could just lose that and put some vortex
generators on it we'd get the same low-speed performance without the
cruise penalty and then we'd have a solid 125-130K airplane. Still slow
as sh!t but an improvement.

At one point I thought seriously about paying to get the kit removed
because it causes other issues related to low-speed performance when
combined with the heavy CS prop, etc., but then I came to my senses.
Every $1000 we spend on this pig is $1000 less I have to invest in a
real airplane built for real traveling.

Sorry for the rant. Can you tell I'm tired of flying low-tech airplanes
going 115KTAS? :-) I think I'm beginning to understand why small GA is
dying. If you're going to pay as much as we do to fly an airplane
(particularly in relation to fuel), it better damn well perform like a jet.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

[Jay Honeck]

> : Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations?
>
> Sold my airplane.

That sucks, Aaron.

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

[[email protected]]

B A R R Y > wrote:
: How great is that mod when you need to get 30-40 gallons into the plane?

: Do you land at a gas station? <G>

: Even 20 is a lot to carry around in portable containers.

I've found that with a little planning, it's not too bad for the way I fly at
least. Most flights are relatively local, with the occasional 500nm cross country.
I've got three 5-gallon cans in my car. For local flights I just stop by the gas
station before flying and get a can or two. For the longer ones, I'll fill them all
up on the way to the airport. When I return I'll dump them in and then go for one
more trip for three more. Not too inconvenient for the few times I return from a
trip and need to put 30-40 gallons in.... just one extra trip to the local filling
station.

I was going to build a fuel trailer, but decided that the small cans work OK.
If I had a high-wing I'd be more inclined to build a trailer (with the requisite pump,
etc). With the low-wing I've got, I just let the cans drain while I post-flight,
tie-down, etc.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

: * Fly at lower power setting for local flights.
: * Lean like crazy on those low powered flights. It won't hurt the
: engine.
: * Fill up autogas whenever I can.

That's one of the biggest ways to save significantly on fuel. In particular
with a high-performance plane. Drag power (and thus fuel burn) goes with the *cube*
of the speed, and a plane with a big engine generally lets you climb that steep cubic
curve a pretty good ways. If you're willing to slow down a few knots (generally 5-10
is pretty significant), you can generally get a pretty big fuel savings.

My PA28-180 is neither high-performance nor has a big engine, but the airframe
is pretty much in the "sweet-spot" with a 150-160hp engine at 75%. More than that
means lots more fuel burn for very little speed gain. In my case:

75%: 10gph -> 115-120KIAS (can't lean too much)
65%: 8.5gph -> 110-115KIAS (can lean to whatever as long as CHT is OK)
55%: 7.5gph -> 105-110KIAS (can lean 'till it wheezes out of the sky)

That's a increase from 12nmpg -> 13.5nmpg -> 14.5 nmpg... roughly 8% speed
penalty for 20% fuel savings. With a slippery plane with a big engine, even moreso.

Oh yeah... headwinds suck. :)

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[B A R R Y]

wrote:
>
> I was going to build a fuel trailer, but decided that the small cans work OK.
> If I had a high-wing I'd be more inclined to build a trailer (with the requisite pump,
> etc). With the low-wing I've got, I just let the cans drain while I post-flight,
> tie-down, etc.
>

Do your local fields allow fuel cans to be stored on the property? Both
of the places where I've had tie-downs forbade it.

[[email protected]]

: > I was going to build a fuel trailer, but decided that the small cans work OK.
: > If I had a high-wing I'd be more inclined to build a trailer (with the requisite pump,
: > etc). With the low-wing I've got, I just let the cans drain while I post-flight,
: > tie-down, etc.
: >

: Do your local fields allow fuel cans to be stored on the property? Both
: of the places where I've had tie-downs forbade it.

I "store" them in my vehicle so that I can bring them full to the airport.
Some FBO's might forbid full fuel cans to be stored on the property, but I wouldn't
think that they could forbid empty ones.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Roger]

On 30 Apr 2006 19:55:07 -0700, "M" > wrote:

>
>>From 172 to 133 is really quite a jump. However in the same class as
>172 you can get a Grumman AA5/5A. My 75 AA5 can easily do 127 KTAS on
>9GPH, or 115 KTAS on 7GPH. On local flights I power back and do 98
>KTAS on 5.9GPH. Last week I had a 420nm trip burning 27.58gal autogas.
>
>The maintenance and the insurance costs are be very comparable to a
>172.

There are too many "it all depends" to give that as a blanket
statement.

Total time for each pilot, time in high performance/complex/retract,
hours flown per year in recent years, hours in last 90 days,
instrument rating, any claims, and the hours required to be checked
out in make and model vary widely between companies.

The Bo is reliable, but parts for one add a new meaning to the word
"expensive". For example each of those little stamped aluminum hinges
on a gear door (2 per door) is over $500. The doors them selves run
close to that and there are two doors. Last I heard the nose strut
was over $7,000 and climbing.

Using my old Deb for example, my total operating costs (all fixed and
variable combined) are currently running around $115 per hour, or
between 10 and $12K per year. Insurance is now around $1300 give or
take a tad and hangar rent is now $135/Mo. That has historically been
less than several of the single owner 172s on the field. A few years
ago when I was flying more hours I was running about $78/hr and those
172s were running around $100 to $125, BUT they were not flying as
many hours as I was.

So, yes you might operate a Bo for even less than a 172, but any major
work will put the operating costs right up there. The Bo is fast and
slipery and can be very unforgiving for those who do not stay
proficient (rather than current)

>
>Bob Noel wrote:
>> In article >, Doug Vetter > wrote:
>>
>> > Would you mind talking some sense into my partner? We have a perfect
>> > opportunity to buy a F33 from a friend in the next hangar over.

If it's cheap enough I could use another one<:-))

Good Luck,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>> > Pristine aircraft, casual sale (so no tax liability here in NJ), just
>> > needs some avionics work. It does 178KTAS on ~15GPH, while we burn
>> > 11GPH in the 172/180HP doing 115KTAS on a good day. Ugh. My kingdom
>> > for a little common sense.
>>
>> However, what would the difference in maintenance costs be between the
>> 172 and the F33, and insurance...?
>>

[Roger]

On 30 Apr 2006 14:46:30 -0700, "M" > wrote:

>Most of the speed mods makes the biggest difference at the top end of
>the cruise speed, where parasite drag hurts the most. At the much
>slower max-range speed, parasite drag isn't as significant because its
>proportional to the square of the calibrated airspeed. Because of this
>reason, speed mods only has a very modest effect to fuel efficiency at
>lower speed.
>
>The best "mod" you can get to make fuel cost more bearable is the
>autogas STC, if you're lucky enough to own a model that can get the
>STC, and you can get ethanol free autogas.

Mo Gas in a Bo? I have the little 260HP and even it can not get a mo
gas STC due to the compression. Besides, last fill up I paid $2.97
for car gas and $3.06 or so for the 100LL.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On 1 May 2006 04:05:07 -0700, "Denny" > wrote:

>The maintenance and the insurance costs are be very comparable to a
>172.
>************************************************** **********************
>
>In an infinite universe it is possible, but unlikely...
>Having in a wasted lifetime owned and maintained everything from 65 hp
>taildraggers with no electrics, to multiegine double redundant IFR
>cross country machines, maintenance costs go up geometrically with each
>mechanical and electrical itty bitty that is added to the airframe...

You noticed that too, huh?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>denny

[Roger]

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:20:02 GMT, Jon Kraus >
wrote:
<snip>

>Have higher fuel prices forced you to adjust your operations? I'm sure

Not really. I might stop at places selling fuel cheaper on long
trips, but I don't go out of my way to get it. It normally takes 20
to 30 gallons to top off. At a $1.00 a gallon cheaper I can't save
anything by making a 20 mile hop to fill up.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>that over the years when fuel prices have peaked, folks have made
>changes, but since I am a new owner (working on our second year) it is
>my first experience at spiking prices. So what say you?
>
>Jon Kraus
>'79 Mooney 201
>4443H @ TYQ

[Newps]

Roger wrote:

>
>
> Mo Gas in a Bo?

Sure, every one up to and including the E series engines.

[[email protected]]

Roger > wrote:
: Not really. I might stop at places selling fuel cheaper on long
: trips, but I don't go out of my way to get it. It normally takes 20
: to 30 gallons to top off. At a $1.00 a gallon cheaper I can't save
: anything by making a 20 mile hop to fill up.

30 gallons at $1.00 cheaper => $30 savings

20 miles at 12 mpg => 1.7 gal @ $4/gal => $7

Bzzzt! Try a different argument.... :)

For long trips (especially to popular/large places with expensive fuel) one
can usually find less expensive fuel with very little additional distance. If you
don't want the aggravation, that's a different story.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-04-30, Montblack <Y4-NOT> wrote:
> ("Newps" wrote)
>> Or just buy a more efficient plane. I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza. I'm
>> burning a lot less gas, approx 40%, than when I had my 182.
>
> What are the two engines?
> Your normal cruise speeds between the two?

The Bonanza is vastly more efficient than a C182. Our club had a 1960
C182 and a mid-60s S35 Bonanza. The C182 (IIRC) had an O-470. It would
burn about 13 gph in cruise at about 135 kts (again, IIRC). The Bonanza
with an IO-520 (285hp) would do 160 knots at the same fuel flow. It
would also climb a lot faster, take off in less distance, and IMHO was a
much nicer plane to fly.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Newps]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-04-30, Montblack <Y4-NOT> wrote:
>
>>("Newps" wrote)
>>
>>>Or just buy a more efficient plane. I sold my 182 and got a Bonanza. I'm
>>>burning a lot less gas, approx 40%, than when I had my 182.
>>
>>What are the two engines?
>>Your normal cruise speeds between the two?
>
>
> The Bonanza is vastly more efficient than a C182. Our club had a 1960
> C182 and a mid-60s S35 Bonanza. The C182 (IIRC) had an O-470. It would
> burn about 13 gph in cruise at about 135 kts (again, IIRC). The Bonanza
> with an IO-520 (285hp) would do 160 knots at the same fuel flow. It
> would also climb a lot faster, take off in less distance, and IMHO was a
> much nicer plane to fly.

I have the S model also. At 13 gph you are at 65% which gives me an
indicated airspeed of 173-175 MPH and a TAS of 186-189 MPH at 6000.
Yours was maybe a little slow.

[Jay Honeck]

> Do your local fields allow fuel cans to be stored on the property? Both
> of the places where I've had tie-downs forbade it.

Build one of these: http://alexisparkinn.com/fuel_truck.htm and save
yourself many, MANY thousands of dollars.

It's safer, easier, and your fuel is filtered properly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Roger]

On Wed, 3 May 2006 11:53:36 +0000 (UTC),
wrote:

>Roger > wrote:
>: Not really. I might stop at places selling fuel cheaper on long
>: trips, but I don't go out of my way to get it. It normally takes 20
>: to 30 gallons to top off. At a $1.00 a gallon cheaper I can't save
>: anything by making a 20 mile hop to fill up.
>
> 30 gallons at $1.00 cheaper => $30 savings
>
> 20 miles at 12 mpg => 1.7 gal @ $4/gal => $7
>
> Bzzzt! Try a different argument.... :)

Try again. At $115 to $125 and hour I'm looking at roughly half an
hour total round trip counting taxi time at both airports. That works
out to about $55 to $62.50 minus $30 still costs me $25 to $35 over
the gas savings.
So instead of saving a dollar a gallon I'm spending an extra dollar a
gallon. IE, it costs me $2 a gallon to save a dollar a gallon.

There's a lot more to the cost of flying than gas.
Now if I'm coming back from a trip in that direction it makes sense to
top off before coming the rest of the way home.

>
> For long trips (especially to popular/large places with expensive fuel) one
>can usually find less expensive fuel with very little additional distance. If you
>don't want the aggravation, that's a different story.

On trips where I can plan ahead even the extra 20 miles of so makes
much less difference and there I'm often putting in 60 to 70 gallons.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>-Cory

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-05-03, Newps > wrote:
> I have the S model also. At 13 gph you are at 65% which gives me an
> indicated airspeed of 173-175 MPH and a TAS of 186-189 MPH at 6000.
> Yours was maybe a little slow.

I think the exact numbers I saw in the plane were 163 KTAS at 8000',
which multiplied by 1.15 is 187 mph TAS. It was good to be able to make
a reasonable distance in a single hop (a fuel stop when IFR usually
added another 45 minutes). The 182 we had in the club had the small fuel
tanks - so for many trips I could do them faster and cheaper (the Bo had a
higher hourly rate, but the speed made up) by a worthwhile margin in the
Bonanza.

Not to want to gush over the Bo, but I think it's probably one of the
best in its class - real pilots plane, flies really nicely with just
fingertip inputs. It's stable IFR (I found it easier to hand fly than an
Arrow). Other nice touches like no trim change when you put the flaps
down are just icing on the cake. Oh, and landing gear that worked well
for bumpy unpaved runways.

Pity about the lousy ergonomics though, but a lot of planes were like
that in the 1960s!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[[email protected]]

: It's safer, easier, and your fuel is filtered properly.

I can't argue with the easier and possibly not safer. I have rigged a spin-on
water-separating fuel filter to act as the pour nozzle of my 5-gallon cans. It keeps
the crud and water out and I just need to move the nozzle from can to can as I fill.
Mildly annoying, but just as effective.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

Roger > wrote:
: Try again. At $115 to $125 and hour I'm looking at roughly half an
: hour total round trip counting taxi time at both airports. That works
: out to about $55 to $62.50 minus $30 still costs me $25 to $35 over
: the gas savings.
: So instead of saving a dollar a gallon I'm spending an extra dollar a
: gallon. IE, it costs me $2 a gallon to save a dollar a gallon.

OK... I thought you were talking about diverting an additional 20 miles to get
fuel on a trip... not making a special trip somewhere for fuel.

: There's a lot more to the cost of flying than gas.
: Now if I'm coming back from a trip in that direction it makes sense to
: top off before coming the rest of the way home.

That's what I was thinking.

As far as the cost of flying, I know everyone justifies it in different ways.
As far as our partnership goes, we are pretty loose, and don't charge an hourly rate.
My own (personal) justification is that the only expense I care about is direct
operating (fuel, oil, and operating fees like tiedowns elsewhere, etc). All the rest
are fixed and become *smaller* the more it is flown... and it's already split 3 ways.
Kind of a justification for flying more hours.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Dave Butler]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Do your local fields allow fuel cans to be stored on the property? Both
>>of the places where I've had tie-downs forbade it.
>
>
> Build one of these: http://alexisparkinn.com/fuel_truck.htm and save
> yourself many, MANY thousands of dollars.
>
> It's safer, easier, and your fuel is filtered properly.

Hey, Jay,

I admire your ingenuity in implementing "The Grape".

I was just thinking about all the rules / precautions that are taken at my
airport with fuel trucks. They have a special parking area away from everything
else, and they are returned to that parking area after every fueling. It's so
far away that the line crew has to take a golf cart to go get the truck. They
return the truck to its special spot even if they anticipate they'll be using it
again in a very few minutes. I'm sure all this is not just FBO policy, it must
be regulated in some way.

So, finally coming to my point, I wonder whether you take any similar
precautions with the grape, whether you carry insurance on it, whether the
insurer has put any limitations or special provisions on you.

Just curious.

Dave

[Jay Honeck]

> So, finally coming to my point, I wonder whether you take any similar
> precautions with the grape, whether you carry insurance on it, whether the
> insurer has put any limitations or special provisions on you.

First, you must remember where I live. Although Iowa City is a very
urban, cosmopolitan kind of place (thanks to the University of Iowa),
we are surrounded by thousands of square miles of farmland. Every few
miles, there is a farmer. He owns a pickup truck which, invariably,
has a fuel transfer tank in the back -- just like the Mighty Grapes --
and he comes into town to shop, once in a while.

Every building contractor in the area has one, too.

In short, it's not unusual to see trucks around town that look just
like the Grape (although most aren't purple, and most are big ol'
American pickem-up trucks, not dinky little Nissans), so no one is
excited or surprised to see me.

Now, if I still lived in the Milwaukee/Racine/Kenosha/Chicago
metroplex, things might be a bit different. But around here, there
are no special restrictions or requirements to haul gas around. Your
mileage may vary.

In the summer, when we pull the Mustang out of the hangar after a long
winter's nap, we park the Grape at the hotel, and usually only use it
to drive the 400 yards or so to our hangar each time we fly. We also
use it to fuel our lawn tractor, mowers, etc., and to haul stuff to the
dump once in a while. In the winter we drive it to/from from the hotel
every day, just like a regular car. (It's actually an wonderful little
truck. Nissan really got it right, back in '95.)

We even park it in the garage at our home, which freaked me out for the
first few years. Gradually I came to realize that the fuel transfer
tank was no different than any of my other vehicle's fuel tanks, and
relaxed about it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> : It's safer, easier, and your fuel is filtered properly.
>
> I can't argue with the easier and possibly not safer. I have rigged a spin-on
> water-separating fuel filter to act as the pour nozzle of my 5-gallon cans. It keeps
> the crud and water out and I just need to move the nozzle from can to can as I fill.
> Mildly annoying, but just as effective.

We did the same thing, Cory, before building the Grape. Lifting 36
pound containers up onto the wing (and suspending them in mid-air, so
as not to scratch the paint) was never fun. And I was always paranoid
about the static electricity build-up, due to the plastic containers.
At any moment I figured I was going to self-immolate.

And, of course, you've got your face uncomfortably close to the fumes,
which can't be very good for a person. And I always seemed to spill
some.

The Grape, on the other hand, can be safely grounded, and I can pump
gas out faster than I can pump it in at the gas station. It's quick,
easy, portable, paid for, and we've now run almost 7,000 gallons
through it, at a savings (after the cost of the truck and tank) of over
$4800...and counting.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

: Now, if I still lived in the Milwaukee/Racine/Kenosha/Chicago
: metroplex, things might be a bit different. But around here, there
: are no special restrictions or requirements to haul gas around. Your
: mileage may vary.

I'm in the "sticks" of southwest Virginia, but our new and improved airport
manager nearly swallowed his tongue when I first busted out my gas cans to fill my
plane. That was another reason I never expanded to build a fuel trailer/truck. I'm
sure that if I were to build a dedicated fuel trailer he could refuse parking on the
premises, and require DOT certification. I basically had to throw the relevant AC's
at him to clarify that it was *ILLEAGAL* for him to forbid me to self-fuel.

As long as it's in "normal" cans, it's still casual, non-bulk operation. It
certainly would be nice to have larger quantites, but around here it's certainly not
politically acceptable. So long as the cans have a filter on them to keep the fuel
clean, it's OK by me.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Newps]

wrote:


>
> As long as it's in "normal" cans, it's still casual, non-bulk operation. It
> certainly would be nice to have larger quantites, but around here it's certainly not
> politically acceptable. So long as the cans have a filter on them to keep the fuel
> clean, it's OK by me.

He cannot stop you from refuelling your own plane, even if that means
you want to pull a semi trailer onto the airport. He can enforce
reasonable safety rules, such as no fuelling in the hangar, don't block
busy taxiways, remain a certain distance from other hangars, must have a
fire extinguisher, etc. I've long had a 100 gallon tank from Tractor
Supply to refuel. It is currently mounted on a small 4x8 trailer.

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:
: > As long as it's in "normal" cans, it's still casual, non-bulk operation. It
: > certainly would be nice to have larger quantites, but around here it's certainly not
: > politically acceptable. So long as the cans have a filter on them to keep the fuel
: > clean, it's OK by me.

: He cannot stop you from refuelling your own plane, even if that means
: you want to pull a semi trailer onto the airport. He can enforce
: reasonable safety rules, such as no fuelling in the hangar, don't block
: busy taxiways, remain a certain distance from other hangars, must have a
: fire extinguisher, etc. I've long had a 100 gallon tank from Tractor
: Supply to refuel. It is currently mounted on a small 4x8 trailer.

That's what I had to explain to him... that he cannot stop me from refuelling
my plane. I'm pretty sure that a 100 gallon tank would have to have some DOT-approved
work to make it legal for transportation on the road. I don't know what the magic
capacity limits, but obviously a semi trailer and a 5 gallon can in the trunk are
subject to different rules.

Most places don't actively enforce such rules (farmers/construction workers
with bulk tanks mounted in the pickup beds, etc). If someone wanted to get nasty
however, they could enforce it. Most of the times (reasonable) people just look the
other way.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Newps]

wrote:


>
> That's what I had to explain to him... that he cannot stop me from refuelling
> my plane. I'm pretty sure that a 100 gallon tank would have to have some DOT-approved
> work to make it legal for transportation on the road. I don't know what the magic
> capacity limits, but obviously a semi trailer and a 5 gallon can in the trunk are
> subject to different rules.

I've been told by one of my county commissioners who is also a partner
on a 12,000 gallon self serve outfit at an airport near here as well as
being a pilot that you have to be over 300 gallons before you have DOT
problems. Like a lot of rural areas 100-150 gallon in-bed fuel tanks
are everywhere here. I put mine on a trailer as I didn't like the smell
in the garage and I needed the space in the bed for other things.

[[email protected]]

: >
: > That's what I had to explain to him... that he cannot stop me from refuelling
: > my plane. I'm pretty sure that a 100 gallon tank would have to have some DOT-approved
: > work to make it legal for transportation on the road. I don't know what the magic
: > capacity limits, but obviously a semi trailer and a 5 gallon can in the trunk are
: > subject to different rules.

: I've been told by one of my county commissioners who is also a partner
: on a 12,000 gallon self serve outfit at an airport near here as well as
: being a pilot that you have to be over 300 gallons before you have DOT
: problems. Like a lot of rural areas 100-150 gallon in-bed fuel tanks
: are everywhere here. I put mine on a trailer as I didn't like the smell
: in the garage and I needed the space in the bed for other things.

Interesting. I started looking into it at one point (talking with the fire
marshall, etc) but eventually lost interest. A trailer would be ideal since I've got
a crappy little car. Realistically however, I don't fly long distances often enough
to justify such a contraption... a few cans here and there is generally sufficient.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Newps]

wrote:

>
>
> Interesting. I started looking into it at one point (talking with the fire
> marshall, etc) but eventually lost interest. A trailer would be ideal since I've got
> a crappy little car. Realistically however, I don't fly long distances often enough
> to justify such a contraption... a few cans here and there is generally sufficient.

There's a national code which will apply to Freeways and US highways.
Your state may or may not have different rules, they probably do.
Likewise your city may have rules.

[.Blueskies.]

> wrote in message ...
>: It's safer, easier, and your fuel is filtered properly.
>
> I can't argue with the easier and possibly not safer. I have rigged a spin-on
> water-separating fuel filter to act as the pour nozzle of my 5-gallon cans. It keeps
> the crud and water out and I just need to move the nozzle from can to can as I fill.
> Mildly annoying, but just as effective.
>
> -Cory
>
>

I never have had any water drain from the sumps of the 172 even after many many gallons of mogas (never any alcohol in
it btw), but it seems every time in put in avgas there are some little water bubbles at the bottom. Makes me wonder...

[[email protected]]

..Blueskies. > wrote:
: I never have had any water drain from the sumps of the 172 even after many many gallons of mogas (never any alcohol in
: it btw), but it seems every time in put in avgas there are some little water bubbles at the bottom. Makes me wonder...

Wow... my experience is exactly the opposite. I only ran mogas without the water-absorbing spin-on filter for
a few weeks, but every time I would collect a few drops in the sump. Even with my separator, I get just a drop or two
of mogas, with a few specs of what looks like rust floating in the water but underneath the gasoline. I check for
alcohol a few times a year, although I was assured by the supplier to the service station I religiously get my fuel
from that there is no alcohol blended in. A few times a year assures against winter/summer mix.

Although I am disturbed by the existence of any contamination at all, it is always small and only in the fuel
tank sump drains. I have never found anything in the gascolator (sorry... not familiar with the 172 setup... I've got
one per wing tank and common gravity-filter gascolator before the carb).

100LL has always been squeaky clean for both water and particulates.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jay Honeck]

> 100LL has always been squeaky clean for both water and particulates.

The only time I've ever seen contamination is in avgas. Mogas, with
our filtration system especially, is never an issue.

I always figure it's because of the tiny amounts of 100 LL some of the
out-of-the-way airports we visit actually sells. Some of that gas in,
oh, let's say Maquoketa, Iowa, is probably two years old, and God knows
what the inside of the tanks look like.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
: I always figure it's because of the tiny amounts of 100 LL some of the
: out-of-the-way airports we visit actually sells. Some of that gas in,
: oh, let's say Maquoketa, Iowa, is probably two years old, and God knows
: what the inside of the tanks look like.
: --

Sure, but I've never seen a 100LL pump without a filter inline. Anyway... I
guess I haven't visited enough out-of-the-way places. I would have figured I'd seen
gunk flying to Alaska and back last summer, but of the 500 gallons of 100LL we ran
though it, there was never a spec/drop.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jay Honeck]

> Sure, but I've never seen a 100LL pump without a filter inline. Anyway... I
> guess I haven't visited enough out-of-the-way places. I would have figured I'd seen
> gunk flying to Alaska and back last summer, but of the 500 gallons of 100LL we ran
> though it, there was never a spec/drop.

Hmmm. Although I've always considered Alaska to be "out of the way",
I've never considered it to be anything but at the heart of aviation
heaven.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no state in the Union with more
dependence upon general aviation than Alaska. I'll bet they chew
through a LOT more 100 LL than Iowa does...and therefore their gas
ought to be pretty "fresh".

Or as fresh as something made from dinosaurs can be, anyway...

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

[Newps]

You can experince the same flying by going to Idaho and Montana and get
infinitely better weather to boot.



Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Sure, but I've never seen a 100LL pump without a filter inline. Anyway... I
>>guess I haven't visited enough out-of-the-way places. I would have figured I'd seen
>>gunk flying to Alaska and back last summer, but of the 500 gallons of 100LL we ran
>>though it, there was never a spec/drop.
>
>
> Hmmm. Although I've always considered Alaska to be "out of the way",
> I've never considered it to be anything but at the heart of aviation
> heaven.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no state in the Union with more
> dependence upon general aviation than Alaska. I'll bet they chew
> through a LOT more 100 LL than Iowa does...and therefore their gas
> ought to be pretty "fresh".
>
> Or as fresh as something made from dinosaurs can be, anyway...
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
: > Sure, but I've never seen a 100LL pump without a filter inline. Anyway... I
: > guess I haven't visited enough out-of-the-way places. I would have figured I'd seen
: > gunk flying to Alaska and back last summer, but of the 500 gallons of 100LL we ran
: > though it, there was never a spec/drop.

: Hmmm. Although I've always considered Alaska to be "out of the way",
: I've never considered it to be anything but at the heart of aviation
: heaven.

: Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no state in the Union with more
: dependence upon general aviation than Alaska. I'll bet they chew
: through a LOT more 100 LL than Iowa does...and therefore their gas
: ought to be pretty "fresh".

We didn't fly too much around... just into Juneau. The fuel stops along the
way were pretty well-traveled as they were practically the *only* ones in the area and
tended to be where there was a rather large town anyway. We didn't need to get fuel
in the few out-of-the-way places we landed (Atlin BC, and the Prophet River airstrip
come to mind).

Never ceases to amaze me going back to Juneau (now as a GA pilot) how it's
just like stepping back in time aviation-wise. Beavers, C-185's, and supercubs are
almost all on floats and flying continuously with loads of tourists. Something pretty
sweet hearing the rattle of the radials climbing a load of tourists up into the scud.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

[[email protected]]

Newps > wrote:
: You can experince the same flying by going to Idaho and Montana and get
: infinitely better weather to boot.

AK weather *seriously* depends on where you're talking about. Southeast is
generally pretty bad during the spring/summer and REALLY bad the rest of the year...
:) Interior is generally good in the summer, and clear in the winter... although
quite nippy.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************