Foolish Buyer Tricks

[Kyle Boatright]

The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
airplane buying.

Aargh.

We had an estate auction in this area recently where 4 vintage aircraft were
sold. Unfortunately (for the buyers), the rules of the auction prevented
anything more than a logbook review and a cursory look at the aircraft. All
4 aircraft sold during the auction at reasonable prices considering these
aircraft had sat for a couple of years and the logbooks *probably* were not
in the best of shape. Although each of the aircraft came with a fresh
annual. ;-)

It is 3 weeks later and three of the four aircraft have not left the nest.
The fourth aircraft did go home with the new owner after a blown crankshaft
seal was replaced. I can't understand how the annual didn't turn up a blown
crankshaft seal.

One of the aircraft still on the field had 50+ squawks when the new owner
gave it the once-over. Now, this was an ongoing restoration project and a
few squawks should have been expected but over 50? With a new annual? Not
acceptable.

Another of the aircraft still on the field wouldn't pass a run-up. Why? It
had been filled with autofuel some time back, not flown or run for a while,
and the fuel system was badly gummed up. Oh, by the way, there is no
autofuel STC for this airplane. Again, this airplane had a fresh annual.

The other airplane still on the field hasn't had maintenance related
problems, so I guess the owner is probably happy with that. He's probably
not happy that he ground looped it on his first landing. It is undergoing
some minor repairs at this time.

Another foolish buyer trick is buying a fixer-upper. Generally, an
airplane's value is LESS than the sum of its parts. Take a $30k C-172 or
Cherokee, add new paint @ $8k, a new interior @ $5k, a new panel @ $15k, an
engine overhaul @ $15k and you still have an airplane worth $50k or less
despite the $70k+ you've invested.

[Jay Honeck]

> The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
> with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
> airplane buying.

Anyone who accepts this is crazy.

> Another of the aircraft still on the field wouldn't pass a run-up. Why? It
> had been filled with autofuel some time back, not flown or run for a while,
> and the fuel system was badly gummed up. Oh, by the way, there is no
> autofuel STC for this airplane. Again, this airplane had a fresh annual.

How long was "a while"? Unleaded mogas won't "gum up" anything for
years -- unless, of course, the mogas had ethanol in it. Then it
will supposedly start attacking rubber seals.

How does an A&P sign off an annual inspection on a plane that won't
pass a run-up test?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[BT]

> We had an estate auction in this area recently where 4 vintage aircraft
> were sold. Unfortunately (for the buyers), the rules of the auction
> prevented anything more than a logbook review and a cursory look at the
> aircraft.

Was someone holding them hostage and forcing them to bid on aircraft?
They did not have to bid on them.. High Risk?? Bid Low..

BT

[nrp]

I'd think the local FSDO people would be interested in whoever signed
them off as airworthy. If nothing else, that's what the FSDO should
be for.

[BT]

agreed...

"nrp" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I'd think the local FSDO people would be interested in whoever signed
> them off as airworthy. If nothing else, that's what the FSDO should
> be for.
>

[Lou]

So does that mean the new owners
can hold the log book signers liable and
responsible for any and all missed problems?
Lou

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
>> with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
>> airplane buying.
>
> Anyone who accepts this is crazy.
>
>> Another of the aircraft still on the field wouldn't pass a run-up. Why?
>> It
>> had been filled with autofuel some time back, not flown or run for a
>> while,
>> and the fuel system was badly gummed up. Oh, by the way, there is no
>> autofuel STC for this airplane. Again, this airplane had a fresh annual.
>
> How long was "a while"? Unleaded mogas won't "gum up" anything for
> years -- unless, of course, the mogas had ethanol in it. Then it
> will supposedly start attacking rubber seals.

Auto gas (and maybe avgas too) leaves behind a laquer like residue if it is
allowed to evaporate. That's one of the reasons people encourage draining
gas tanks when vehicles are stored for a long time.

>
> How does an A&P sign off an annual inspection on a plane that won't
> pass a run-up test?

Same question for the airplane with a blown crankshaft seal. A suspicious
person might be inclined to believe the AI never turned a wrench on the
aircraft.

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

[Denny]

On Sep 13, 12:31 am, nrp > wrote:
> I'd think the local FSDO people would be interested in whoever signed
> them off as airworthy. If nothing else, that's what the FSDO should
> be for.

The FSDO/FAA generally refuses to get involved in business disputes
between mechanics and disgruntled airplane purchasers...
Though the facts in this case are rather interesting...

denny
btw, for us old farts, that is known as a "P51 Annual"...

[Mark Hansen]

On 09/12/07 19:53, Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
>> with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
>> airplane buying.
>
> Anyone who accepts this is crazy.
>
>> Another of the aircraft still on the field wouldn't pass a run-up. Why? It
>> had been filled with autofuel some time back, not flown or run for a while,
>> and the fuel system was badly gummed up. Oh, by the way, there is no
>> autofuel STC for this airplane. Again, this airplane had a fresh annual.
>
> How long was "a while"? Unleaded mogas won't "gum up" anything for
> years -- unless, of course, the mogas had ethanol in it. Then it
> will supposedly start attacking rubber seals.
>
> How does an A&P sign off an annual inspection on a plane that won't
> pass a run-up test?

Do you know the airplane couldn't pass the run-up at the time of the
annual inspection? All we know is that it didn't pass the run-up *now*.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Jay Honeck]

> btw, for us old farts, that is known as a "P51 Annual"...

'Splain, please?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jon Woellhaf]

According to Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_51,
the Parker pen company introduced their model 51 in 1941.

The article says,
<quote>

The pen's resemblance to the sleek fuselage of the P-51 Mustang, a fighter
plane used extensively during the war, had no bearing on its name; but
Parker took advantage of the coincidence by comparing the pen and the plane
in its advertising. Additionally, a pilot who is suspected of falsifying
flight records in his logbook in order to overstate his actual experience is
said to have logged "P-51 hours," relying on the ambiguity of the term
"P-51" to avoid directly confronting the suspect.

</quote>

That's the story I've heard.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> btw, for us old farts, that is known as a "P51 Annual"...
>
> 'Splain, please?

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
>> with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
>> airplane buying.
>
>Anyone who accepts this is crazy.
>

Although I always recommend an independent prepurchase inspection to
prospective buyers, I bought my last airplane with a "fresh annual". It
turned out that the plane was annualed by a mechanic that I knew and trusted,
who would have been the only guy in the area I would have hired for the
prepurchase inspection. He gave me access to the full shop work order (i.e.
all of the details of the work done) and pointed out things he thought might
need attention in the future.

Buying a plane that has had a fresh annual from someone I don't know would
definitely not happen.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200709/1

[Jay Honeck]

> The pen's resemblance to the sleek fuselage of the P-51 Mustang, a fighter
> plane used extensively during the war, had no bearing on its name; but
> Parker took advantage of the coincidence by comparing the pen and the plane
> in its advertising. Additionally, a pilot who is suspected of falsifying
> flight records in his logbook in order to overstate his actual experience is
> said to have logged "P-51 hours," relying on the ambiguity of the term
> "P-51" to avoid directly confronting the suspect.
>
> </quote>
>
> That's the story I've heard.

Ha! Makes a lot of sense. Thanks for sharing it...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john hawkins]

Ah. We always call it schaeffer time.

"Jon Woellhaf" > wrote in message
. ..
> According to Wikipedia,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_51,
> the Parker pen company introduced their model 51 in 1941.
>
> The article says,
> <quote>
>
> The pen's resemblance to the sleek fuselage of the P-51 Mustang, a fighter
> plane used extensively during the war, had no bearing on its name; but
> Parker took advantage of the coincidence by comparing the pen and the
> plane in its advertising. Additionally, a pilot who is suspected of
> falsifying flight records in his logbook in order to overstate his actual
> experience is said to have logged "P-51 hours," relying on the ambiguity
> of the term "P-51" to avoid directly confronting the suspect.
>
> </quote>
>
> That's the story I've heard.
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> btw, for us old farts, that is known as a "P51 Annual"...
>>
>> 'Splain, please?
>
>

[Michael[_1_]]

On Sep 12, 9:53 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
> > with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
> > airplane buying.
> Anyone who accepts this is crazy.

In other words, the fact that an aircraft passed an annual inspection
means absolutely nothing. BTW - I agree with you. It does mean
nothing.

Just a few months ago, someone I know bought a Cherokee 180. It just
went through annual. I have a friend who is an A&P/IA who has been a
mechanic for decades, but never finished 8th grade. Unsurprisingly,
he is very good at swinging wrenches but barely made it through the
A&P and IA written exams and is not so good at paperwork. As a
result, I wind up doing his paperwork (AD searches, entries, etc.) and
he winds up doing a lot of work on my airplane. Works out for
everyone, and also lets me see what kind of crap is flying out there,
and how badly some A&P's/IA's are screwing their customers.

One would expect, given a brief look at the paperwork, that the AD's
were all up to date. Instead of the (now thankfully rare) "All AD's C/
W" entry, there was a complete printout made with one of the
commercial software packages, done on the computer. Problem with
computers is this - garbage in, garbage out.

The equipment list showed the airplane had an Edo-Aire transponder.
The AD list showed that the AD on the KT-76A transponder was complied
with. The plane actually had a Narco AT-150 transponder. There's an
AD on that one, and it was never checked.

There was an AD on an oxygen bottle that the IA claimed he complied
with by refilling the bottle. Sounds good - this is the required
action - only there was no oxygen bottle, and never had been.

An AD on the air filter was shown to have been complied with by
replacement of the filter element and terminated. Only problem -
element replacement was not a terminating action, and in any case the
AD didn't apply to installations on that model of engine.

It was like that all down the line. Unnecessary work done, work
claimed that could not possibly have been done, and important things
that should have been checked left unchecked. That's really pretty
normal for the planes out there.

> > Another of the aircraft still on the field wouldn't pass a run-up. Why? It
> > had been filled with autofuel some time back, not flown or run for a while,
> > and the fuel system was badly gummed up. Oh, by the way, there is no
> > autofuel STC for this airplane. Again, this airplane had a fresh annual.
>
> How long was "a while"? Unleaded mogas won't "gum up" anything for
> years -- unless, of course, the mogas had ethanol in it. Then it
> will supposedly start attacking rubber seals.

Not true. Leave unleaded mogas in your lawnmower for a year, and it
likely won't start. Autogas lacks the stabilizer package found in
avgas. No big deal if you fly regularly, but a real issue if you
don't. Of course you could just add Stabil to the autogas, and that
would work - but I doubt that's covered by STC. Not that anyone would
know.

> How does an A&P sign off an annual inspection on a plane that won't
> pass a run-up test?

It takes an IA to sign off an annual - and he can do so without ever
seeing it run. That's because a lot of the things that normally get
done at annual are not part of the annual inspection, and can be done
by an A&P without the IA or even by the owner.

Realize that if you have a plain vanilla spam can, you can legally do
about 90% of the work required for a legal annual and routine
service. It works like this:

Make an appointment with your friendly IA for the afternoon, and that
morning fly the plane for an hour or so (to get the cylinders nice and
warm), then land. If you have the Bendix magneto switch, check to
make sure you can use it to shut off the engine (it's an AD, but
you're allowed to do it yourself) before you park it. Wash the plane
(not a serious job, just enough to inspect). Put it on jacks, pull
off the wheel pants (if any), wheels, and all inspection covers.
Service the struts with air (nitrogen if you have it, but I doubt it
makes a difference) and fluid (5606). Top off the brake reservoir
(5606 again). If your battery can be serviced with acid and/or water,
service it - otherwise just put the charger on it. Or replace it.
Change your ELT battery if it needs it. Pull out the seats and the
floor inspection panels. Lube all the pulleys, replace any missing
safety wire or cotter keys. Clean everything up, spray some Corrosion-
X in there. Pull off the engine cowls, wash down the engine. Pull out
the plugs, clean, gap, reinstall the bottom ones. Change the oil (and
filter if present). Now wait for your IA, and meanwhile log what you
did (don't forget to make the AD entry if your Bendix switch is
covered). You haven't overstepped your authority as pilot-owner -
everything I noted is something the owner is allowed to do. It leaves
precious little for the IA to do.

When he shows up, I doubt he will care about starting the engine. He
will probably just check compressions and magneto timing, inspect the
cables, pulleys, and other moving parts with flashlight and mirror,
check whatever other things the type requires (it's usually only a few
things, generally by AD) and call it good. He doesn't need to see the
engine run. You can put it all back together later all by yourself.

It's all legal - but just because an engine passes the compression
check and magneto timing check, that does not mean it will run.

Michael

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

"Michael" > wrote some great advice
snipped >

Just finished everything you mentioned plus
removed/stripped/painted/reassembled/relabeled wheels, mounted new tires
with new tubes, new bearings/cups, new seals, and all new hardware. Brakes
were done a year ago and still good. Changed 2 cylinders and a prop
governor under the oversight of my A&P. Logged over 130 hours (ok I'm slow)
of wrenching before and after our annual inspection, which only took our IA
6 hours. BTW, those computerized printouts are great for a new owner to
research each and every AD. Buy a copy of the manufacturers SB/SL's on CD
and cross reference each SB/SL that may be referenced in the AD. Then go
through your log books to learn exactly what AD's have been complied with
and use the SB/SL's to learn how the compliance was accomplished. Note the
log book page and date as a reference to save your IA some of his time and
some of your $.

One belly pan to reinstall and then an ops check and the Aztec will be RTS.

Jim

[Jay Honeck]

> > How long was "a while"? Unleaded mogas won't "gum up" anything for
> > years -- unless, of course, the mogas had ethanol in it. Then it
> > will supposedly start attacking rubber seals.
>
> Not true. Leave unleaded mogas in your lawnmower for a year, and it
> likely won't start. Autogas lacks the stabilizer package found in
> avgas.

You know, I've heard that ever since I started using mogas in my
planes, but I've never seen a cite, nor have I *ever* noticed a
problem with unleaded gasoline in *any* of my lawn mowers, leaf
blowers, or snow blowers.

I put 'em away in the spring/winter, and start 'em up the following
winter/summer -- and away we go. Same with my Honda Goldwing -- I top
it off, and it just sits till next year. No troubles.

Can anyone point me to anything that proves (or disproves) the "fact"
that unleaded mogas deteriorates faster than avgas?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Stewart]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> You know, I've heard that ever since I started using mogas in my
> planes, but I've never seen a cite, nor have I *ever* noticed a
> problem with unleaded gasoline in *any* of my lawn mowers, leaf
> blowers, or snow blowers.
>
> I put 'em away in the spring/winter, and start 'em up the following
> winter/summer -- and away we go. Same with my Honda Goldwing -- I top
> it off, and it just sits till next year. No troubles.

My experience as well.

Last spring I got my chainsaw down from the garage
attic. It had been *at least* 10 years since I
had started it. Topped up the tank and it ran fine.

I used to run the gas out of the carb on my
lawnmower in the fall. Stopped doing it and
it didn't make any difference.

[Montblack]

("Jim Burns" wrote)
> Logged over 130 hours (ok I'm slow) of wrenching before and after our
> annual inspection...


Co-owner meeting:
"Next item on the agenda, who's turn is it to wash the plane - Jim?"

Jim:
"Hehehehe-hahahaha. Good one...! You guys crack me up."


Montblack

[Montblack]

whose

[BT]

Just looked at an aircraft to purchase, seller, non pilot selling his
father's glider from the estate. So I cant' blame the seller.
Claims current annual and all ADs complied with.
Annual did not address a revised annual which lowers the max allowable GW,
reduces Vne and other speeds, and places a "no acro" limit on the glider.

So.. who was that IA that signed off that annual? I don't know.. don't
care.. I'm not buying it.
B

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
> The foolish buyer trick I've seen more often than others is the "It comes
> with a fresh annual, I don't need a pre-purchase inspection." approach to
> airplane buying.
>
> Aargh.
>
> We had an estate auction in this area recently where 4 vintage aircraft
> were sold. Unfortunately (for the buyers), the rules of the auction
> prevented anything more than a logbook review and a cursory look at the
> aircraft. All 4 aircraft sold during the auction at reasonable prices
> considering these aircraft had sat for a couple of years and the logbooks
> *probably* were not in the best of shape. Although each of the aircraft
> came with a fresh annual. ;-)
>
> It is 3 weeks later and three of the four aircraft have not left the nest.
> The fourth aircraft did go home with the new owner after a blown
> crankshaft seal was replaced. I can't understand how the annual didn't
> turn up a blown crankshaft seal.
>
> One of the aircraft still on the field had 50+ squawks when the new owner
> gave it the once-over. Now, this was an ongoing restoration project and a
> few squawks should have been expected but over 50? With a new annual?
> Not acceptable.
>
> Another of the aircraft still on the field wouldn't pass a run-up. Why?
> It had been filled with autofuel some time back, not flown or run for a
> while, and the fuel system was badly gummed up. Oh, by the way, there is
> no autofuel STC for this airplane. Again, this airplane had a fresh
> annual.
>
> The other airplane still on the field hasn't had maintenance related
> problems, so I guess the owner is probably happy with that. He's probably
> not happy that he ground looped it on his first landing. It is undergoing
> some minor repairs at this time.
>
> Another foolish buyer trick is buying a fixer-upper. Generally, an
> airplane's value is LESS than the sum of its parts. Take a $30k C-172 or
> Cherokee, add new paint @ $8k, a new interior @ $5k, a new panel @ $15k,
> an engine overhaul @ $15k and you still have an airplane worth $50k or
> less despite the $70k+ you've invested.
>

[The Visitor[_2_]]

I thought that was just an "old'n days" problem?

John

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>How long was "a while"? Unleaded mogas won't "gum up" anything for
>>>years -- unless, of course, the mogas had ethanol in it. Then it
>>>will supposedly start attacking rubber seals.
>>
>>Not true. Leave unleaded mogas in your lawnmower for a year, and it
>>likely won't start. Autogas lacks the stabilizer package found in
>>avgas.
>
>
> You know, I've heard that ever since I started using mogas in my
> planes, but I've never seen a cite, nor have I *ever* noticed a
> problem with unleaded gasoline in *any* of my lawn mowers, leaf
> blowers, or snow blowers.
>
> I put 'em away in the spring/winter, and start 'em up the following
> winter/summer -- and away we go. Same with my Honda Goldwing -- I top
> it off, and it just sits till next year. No troubles.
>
> Can anyone point me to anything that proves (or disproves) the "fact"
> that unleaded mogas deteriorates faster than avgas?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[150flivver]

On Sep 14, 2:56 pm, Michael > wrote:


> It takes an IA to sign off an annual - and he can do so without ever
> seeing it run. That's because a lot of the things that normally get
> done at annual are not part of the annual inspection, and can be done
> by an A&P without the IA or even by the owner.
> ...
> When he shows up, I doubt he will care about starting the engine. He
> will probably just check compressions and magneto timing, inspect the
> cables, pulleys, and other moving parts with flashlight and mirror,
> check whatever other things the type requires (it's usually only a few
> things, generally by AD) and call it good. He doesn't need to see the
>engine run. You can put it all back together later all by yourself.
>
> It's all legal - but just because an engine passes the compression
> check and magneto timing check, that does not mean it will run.
>
> Michael

Sorry Michael, but you're wrong.

FAR Part 43.15 specifically requires the IA to run the engine:

"(2) Each person approving a reciprocating-engine-powered aircraft for
return to service after an annual or 100-hour inspection shall, before
that approval, run the aircraft engine or engines to determine
satisfactory performance in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations of--
(i) Power output (static and idle r.p.m.);
(ii) Magnetos;
(iii) Fuel and oil pressure; and
(iv) Cylinder and oil temperature."

[Mike Spera]

> .stuff snipped
> Can anyone point me to anything that proves (or disproves) the "fact"
> that unleaded mogas deteriorates faster than avgas?
> --
> .othe stuff snipped

I believe this may have started with some poster way back looking at the
shelf life recommendations that come from the oil companies. Of course,
they will say gasoline lasts 3 weeks and you should drain your tank,
throw it out, and buy new stuff if you keep it longer. Their whole angle
is to avoid liability. Similarly, someone (mechanics, FAA, Mogas STC
producers, whoever) made some statements about the "limited" shelf life
of mogas vs. avgas. Opponents to mogas seem happy to spout off about the
"dangers" of mogas, including their conclusion that it "goes bad quickly".

Those with chemical backgrounds look over the ingredients lists for
avgas and mogas and come to the conclusion that a shorter shelf life for
mogas makes sense.

The question Jay asks is: where is the scientific data that shows how
long these fuels last when stored before bad stuff happens? I'll bet the
answer is "it depends". Probably depends on the time stored,
temperatures, amount of humidity in the air, water present in the fuel,
how much agitation, specific blend of fuel and additives, sunspots,
solar flares, karma, aliens... who knows?

Likely also that fuels change slowly over time. So, what is "bad"? Not
sure we have an established baseline for when this mysterious threshold
is reached. Airplane folks will likely agree that fuel that won't start
their engine qualifies. How about fuel that starts the engine and kills
it later, at altitude, gums up the fuel system, clogs the screens over
time, vapor locks when hot, etc.? Is that "bad"?

It is likely there are enough variables to skew the storage numbers
quite a bit. And, all the stories about how one person does this and it
works fine and another person does that and it turns to crud means...
well, nothing.

As Jay requests, bring on the data.

Avgas does smell better...

Have fun beating this to death,
Mike

[Mike Isaksen]

"Mike Spera" wrote ...
> Probably depends on the time stored, temperatures, amount
> of humidity in the air, water present in the fuel, how much
> agitation, specific blend of fuel and additives, sunspots, solar flares,
> karma, aliens... who knows?

Who Knows ?!? Those are all quantifiable, so an engineer
would know,.... except for Karma,... that's clearly marketing.

[Blueskies]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in message news:AFgHi.2903$Ap2.170@trndny05...
>
> "Mike Spera" wrote ...
>> Probably depends on the time stored, temperatures, amount
>> of humidity in the air, water present in the fuel, how much
>> agitation, specific blend of fuel and additives, sunspots, solar flares, karma, aliens... who knows?
>
> Who Knows ?!? Those are all quantifiable, so an engineer
> would know,.... except for Karma,... that's clearly marketing.
>

Here:

http://www.goldeagle.com/sta-bil/all_about_sta-bil.htm

;-)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 09:37:24 -0500, Mike Spera >
wrote:

>
>> .stuff snipped
>> Can anyone point me to anything that proves (or disproves) the "fact"
>> that unleaded mogas deteriorates faster than avgas?
>> --
>> .othe stuff snipped
>
>I believe this may have started with some poster way back looking at the
>shelf life recommendations that come from the oil companies. Of course,
>they will say gasoline lasts 3 weeks and you should drain your tank,
>throw it out, and buy new stuff if you keep it longer. Their whole angle
>is to avoid liability. Similarly, someone (mechanics, FAA, Mogas STC
>producers, whoever) made some statements about the "limited" shelf life
>of mogas vs. avgas. Opponents to mogas seem happy to spout off about the
>"dangers" of mogas, including their conclusion that it "goes bad quickly".
>
>Those with chemical backgrounds look over the ingredients lists for
>avgas and mogas and come to the conclusion that a shorter shelf life for
>mogas makes sense.
>
>The question Jay asks is: where is the scientific data that shows how
>long these fuels last when stored before bad stuff happens? I'll bet the
>answer is "it depends". Probably depends on the time stored,
>temperatures, amount of humidity in the air, water present in the fuel,
>how much agitation, specific blend of fuel and additives, sunspots,
>solar flares, karma, aliens... who knows?

I can only give antidotal evidence, but I never drain the tanks in the
tractor, generator, snow blowers, lawn mowers...etc. Some of it ends
up in there for several years and I've never had mo gas go bad.

HOWEVER...When I shut down any one of them and know it will be for a
while, I do shut off the gas and let the thing run until the carb is
dry and the engine quits. If you leave the carb full of gas the stuff
will slowly evaporate over long periods and that will form "gunk". Gas
in my big generator may end up as old as two years. I turn on the gas,
give it time to fill the carb float bowl (just a few minutes) and it's
never failed to start.

>
>Likely also that fuels change slowly over time. So, what is "bad"? Not
>sure we have an established baseline for when this mysterious threshold
>is reached. Airplane folks will likely agree that fuel that won't start
>their engine qualifies. How about fuel that starts the engine and kills
>it later, at altitude, gums up the fuel system, clogs the screens over
>time, vapor locks when hot, etc.? Is that "bad"?

Gum forms when fuel evaporates. If it can't evaporate I can't see how
it could form deposits. With the stuff still being good after two
years, I really don't believe it breaks down with age, or at least not
nearly as fast as some say.

Even back on the farm in "the old days" we never had problems with gas
going bad in storage or in the tractors over the winter.
We had both above and below ground storage.

This has been my experience.

Roger (K8RI)

>
>It is likely there are enough variables to skew the storage numbers
>quite a bit. And, all the stories about how one person does this and it
>works fine and another person does that and it turns to crud means...
>well, nothing.
>
>As Jay requests, bring on the data.
>
>Avgas does smell better...
>
>Have fun beating this to death,
>Mike

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> Another foolish buyer trick is buying a fixer-upper. Generally, an
> airplane's value is LESS than the sum of its parts. Take a $30k C-172 or
> Cherokee, add new paint @ $8k, a new interior @ $5k, a new panel @ $15k,
> an engine overhaul @ $15k and you still have an airplane worth $50k or
> less despite the $70k+ you've invested.

I don't know about that. My dad went through several fixer-uppers and did
just fine with them. Of course, you can't just hand the aircraft and a
credit card to someone and say "fix it".

Example - $8K for paint??? Most of that cost is prep work which you can do
yourself. I spent more then a few hours stripping paint as a kid. I
particularly remember a Navion - there's a TON of rivet heads to be cleaned
when you strip a Navion... After agreeing on how it was to be painted (I
don't remember the details, but I thing they aggreed to white with some
brown stripes) the old man flew it off somewhere to get the paint sprayed
(and I assume that he did the masking work too). It came back in a real
sharp looking maroon with cream trim paint job...

Overhaul - you have to have a mechanic that will work with you and sign off
on your work. (Pop used to be a crew chief in the Army Air Corps)

It helps if you enjoy doing that kind of work.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[David Lesher]

{gas/storage..}


Yesterday's gas is not today's... Fuel injection in cars raised
the bar on what is usable gas. Even so, long storage of gas
is not a good idea.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[kontiki]

Jim Stewart wrote:

>
> Last spring I got my chainsaw down from the garage
> attic. It had been *at least* 10 years since I
> had started it. Topped up the tank and it ran fine.
>

2-cycle oil has stabilizers in it. When you mix it up
it will last a long long time.

[Darrel Toepfer]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:

> I can only give antidotal evidence, but I never drain the tanks in the
> tractor, generator, snow blowers, lawn mowers...etc. Some of it ends
> up in there for several years and I've never had mo gas go bad.
>
> HOWEVER...When I shut down any one of them and know it will be for a
> while, I do shut off the gas and let the thing run until the carb is
> dry and the engine quits. If you leave the carb full of gas the stuff
> will slowly evaporate over long periods and that will form "gunk". Gas
> in my big generator may end up as old as two years. I turn on the gas,
> give it time to fill the carb float bowl (just a few minutes) and it's
> never failed to start.
>
> Gum forms when fuel evaporates. If it can't evaporate I can't see how
> it could form deposits. With the stuff still being good after two
> years, I really don't believe it breaks down with age, or at least not
> nearly as fast as some say.
>
> Even back on the farm in "the old days" we never had problems with gas
> going bad in storage or in the tractors over the winter.
> We had both above and below ground storage.
>
> This has been my experience.

Down here in the south (we probably don't have "winterizers"), you'd
have syrup coming out the fuel lines, or we used to. Dunno, I don't ever
let fuel sit that long anymore...

And thats been my experience...

[Jay Honeck]

> Down here in the south (we probably don't have "winterizers"), you'd
> have syrup coming out the fuel lines, or we used to. Dunno, I don't ever
> let fuel sit that long anymore...
>
> And thats been my experience...- Hide quoted text -

Hey Darrel -- thanks to you (and your Dad) for sending us the Cajun
spices! We'll put it to goooooood use...

;-)

(Darrel and his Dad ended up being pressed into doing most of the
grillmeister work for our Oshkosh Fly-In Pool Party at the hotel last
July. I was so danged busy running people over from the airport that
we'd STILL be waiting to eat if I had done my usual cook duties, too!)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Kyle Boatright]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote in message
news:t6Odna1iRNU0UHDbnZ2dnUVZ_rGrnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>> Another foolish buyer trick is buying a fixer-upper. Generally, an
>> airplane's value is LESS than the sum of its parts. Take a $30k C-172 or
>> Cherokee, add new paint @ $8k, a new interior @ $5k, a new panel @ $15k,
>> an engine overhaul @ $15k and you still have an airplane worth $50k or
>> less despite the $70k+ you've invested.
>
> I don't know about that. My dad went through several fixer-uppers and did
> just fine with them. Of course, you can't just hand the aircraft and a
> credit card to someone and say "fix it".


Sweat equity wasn't included in my equation, although some owners put plenty
of it into their aircraft. In my instance, I built my own airplane, so I
know all about sweat equity. And blood equity. And bye-bye girlfriend
equity. However, many people lack the time, skills, or willpower to tackle
a job as big as painting an airplane or rewiring a panel or rebuilding an
engine. And there is nothing wrong with that.

So for those people, it is wise to buy the airplane they want, because it'll
be far cheaper than buying a fixer upper and bringing it up to their
standard.

That's all I was saying...

KB



>
> Example - $8K for paint??? Most of that cost is prep work which you can do
> yourself. I spent more then a few hours stripping paint as a kid. I
> particularly remember a Navion - there's a TON of rivet heads to be
> cleaned when you strip a Navion... After agreeing on how it was to be
> painted (I don't remember the details, but I thing they aggreed to white
> with some brown stripes) the old man flew it off somewhere to get the
> paint sprayed (and I assume that he did the masking work too). It came
> back in a real sharp looking maroon with cream trim paint job...
>
> Overhaul - you have to have a mechanic that will work with you and sign
> off on your work. (Pop used to be a crew chief in the Army Air Corps)
>
> It helps if you enjoy doing that kind of work.
>
> --
> Geoff
> The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
> remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
> When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
>

[Darrel Toepfer]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

>> Down here in the south (we probably don't have "winterizers"), you'd
>> have syrup coming out the fuel lines, or we used to. Dunno, I don't
>> ever let fuel sit that long anymore...
>>
>> And thats been my experience...- Hide quoted text -
>
> Hey Darrel -- thanks to you (and your Dad) for sending us the Cajun
> spices! We'll put it to goooooood use...
>
> ;-)

As "good cajuns", we should always carry those with us, our bad. I did
bring our very best local BBQ Sauce for you though...

> (Darrel and his Dad ended up being pressed into doing most of the
> grillmeister work for our Oshkosh Fly-In Pool Party at the hotel last
> July. I was so danged busy running people over from the airport that
> we'd STILL be waiting to eat if I had done my usual cook duties, too!)

Not a problem, glad to be able to help out. I dunno what the future
holds for a repeat, as we've made our trip to Mecca!!! But you(r) people
do grow some excellent corn!!!

[Mike Noel]

Following up on the pilgrimage topic, since people who have made the trip to
Mecca add 'al Hajji ' to their names, perhaps 'al Oshi ' is appropriate for
the Oshkosh crowd?

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

A frog in a well does not know the great sea.
"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. 18...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
>>> Down here in the south (we probably don't have "winterizers"), you'd
>>> have syrup coming out the fuel lines, or we used to. Dunno, I don't
>>> ever let fuel sit that long anymore...
>>>
>>> And thats been my experience...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> Hey Darrel -- thanks to you (and your Dad) for sending us the Cajun
>> spices! We'll put it to goooooood use...
>>
>> ;-)
>
> As "good cajuns", we should always carry those with us, our bad. I did
> bring our very best local BBQ Sauce for you though...
>
>> (Darrel and his Dad ended up being pressed into doing most of the
>> grillmeister work for our Oshkosh Fly-In Pool Party at the hotel last
>> July. I was so danged busy running people over from the airport that
>> we'd STILL be waiting to eat if I had done my usual cook duties, too!)
>
> Not a problem, glad to be able to help out. I dunno what the future
> holds for a repeat, as we've made our trip to Mecca!!! But you(r) people
> do grow some excellent corn!!!