Lycoming to approve 93 octane auto gas for O-360 & IO-360 [Archive]

dave

June 9th 08, 01:15 AM

wrote:
> Due to the problems of getting 100LL in many places, Lycoming is
> seeking FAA approval for the standard compression engines to be able
> to use 93 octane auto gas. Link to avweb article bellow. Sounds like
> good news, since I have an O-360. Maybe airports will start to carry
> it.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LycomingAnnounces_AutoGasApprovalProgram_198039-1.html
>
> Regards,
> Bud

I suspect that Continental will follow.
It makes sense, with the price of avgas going through the roof more
people will think twice( or more) about flying and buying aircraft.

With more airports supplying more cost effective fuel it will help most
aspects of general aviation.
Maybe those FBOs which have been holding us small GA aircraft hostage
with their high prices for fuel will rethink things a little bit.
Thanks for the heads up Bud.

Kyle Boatright

June 9th 08, 02:46 AM

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>> Due to the problems of getting 100LL in many places, Lycoming is
>> seeking FAA approval for the standard compression engines to be able
>> to use 93 octane auto gas. Link to avweb article bellow. Sounds like
>> good news, since I have an O-360. Maybe airports will start to carry
>> it.
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LycomingAnnounces_AutoGasApprovalProgram_198039-1.html
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bud
>
> I suspect that Continental will follow.
> It makes sense, with the price of avgas going through the roof more people
> will think twice( or more) about flying and buying aircraft.
>
> With more airports supplying more cost effective fuel it will help most
> aspects of general aviation.
> Maybe those FBOs which have been holding us small GA aircraft hostage with
> their high prices for fuel will rethink things a little bit.
> Thanks for the heads up Bud.

I discussed mogas with the local FBO owner a week or so ago. He is and has
been in a quandry over it. If he installs mogas pumps, it simply
cannibalizes his business on 100LL, and he still has to charge a buck more
than at the local gas station in order to pay the rental fees, insurance,
etc. on the additional tank and make a slight profit. Much of this is
because a small FBO just doesn't sell much gas, and therefore doesn't get a
great deal on fuel (which is being sold barely over cost at convenience
stores).

I fear that FBO owners everywhere are in a heck of a spot - shrinking
customer base, rising prices, and no alternatives that are sure fire
winners.

JGalban via AviationKB.com

June 9th 08, 07:16 PM

wrote:
>Due to the problems of getting 100LL in many places, Lycoming is
>seeking FAA approval for the standard compression engines to be able
>to use 93 octane auto gas. Link to avweb article bellow. Sounds like
>good news, since I have an O-360. Maybe airports will start to carry
>it.
>
If you're O-360 happens to be in a Cherokee, you can already get an auto
gas STC. Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath on this Lycoming move. The
autogas spec they're trying to get approved can contain oxygenates (mainly
ethanol, now that MTBE is gone). The problem will be getting STCs for the
airframes. 40 yr, old fuel systems are not built to handle the ethanol that
is showing up in auto gas these days. It wouldn't be easy to develop an
airframe STC, which is illustrated by the fact that no one has done it, even
though ethanol has been a growing problem with using auto gas STCs for many
years.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200806/1

nrp

June 9th 08, 10:25 PM

Come on people! Wide areas of the country have access to alcohol-
free auto fuel. Usually it is a premium major brand source. It is
widely used at marinas and is also available to airports that take the
effort to request it from their suppliers.

David Lesher

June 9th 08, 11:16 PM

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> writes:

> If you're O-360 happens to be in a Cherokee, you can already get an auto
>gas STC. Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath on this Lycoming move. The
>autogas spec they're trying to get approved can contain oxygenates (mainly
>ethanol, now that MTBE is gone).

There is no real reason that FBO's can not get un-tainted gasoline. The
alcohols are added in when the truck is filled. The difficulties are
procedural not strategic...

--
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

Mike Isaksen

June 10th 08, 01:59 AM

"David L" wrote...
> There is no real reason that FBO's can not get un-tainted
> gasoline. The alcohols are added in when the truck is filled.
> The difficulties are procedural not strategic...

Yes and no. Most trucks have residual when they return to the farm to
refill. Since most FBOs can't take the entire trailer, they will pay a
premium to the trucking firm for a dedicated partial load. That markup is
more than a few cents (more like 10 to 50 cents) per gallon, and then you'll
still get a small mix of residual.

The FBO is also not taking a trailer (or seven) a week, so every run is a
special. That means the trucking co will fit the FBO in with no guarantees.
So the FBO will need to schedule early (so as not to run out) and therefore
will take even a smaller load. Sometimes the load is so small the FBO will
have to take a mini, making the FBO pay for gas not taken.

Also, many of the Quicky Marts make more profits from the food and coffee,
than from the gas pumped. The FBO will not sell at such small margins, so
all said and done the Mogas will likely be a dollar to 1.50 higher than the
Quicky Mart. Now add in what Kyle B mentioned about the Mogas cutting into
the FBOs Avgas sales and it's a loser all around (for the FBO).

Damn those pesky details!

[email protected]

June 10th 08, 02:01 AM

On Jun 9, 5:16*pm, David Lesher > wrote:
> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> writes:
>
> > * If you're O-360 happens to be in a Cherokee, you can already get an auto
> >gas STC. *Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath on this Lycoming move. *The
> >autogas spec they're trying to get approved can contain oxygenates (mainly
> >ethanol, now that MTBE is gone). *
>
> There is no real reason that FBO's can not get un-tainted gasoline. The
> alcohols are added in when the truck is filled. The difficulties are
> procedural not strategic...
>
> --
> 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

That's the line I was thinking along. There are maybe a couple of
refineries making avgas. A very limited market. The rest are making
auto gas and blending it before delivery to the local quick mart. If
you wanted it unblended I don't think it would be a big problem. I can
see the problem Dave mentioned for the FBOs. Not sure how that will
play out.

Regards,
Bud

dave

June 10th 08, 02:36 AM

Mike Isaksen wrote:
> "David L" wrote...
>> There is no real reason that FBO's can not get un-tainted
>> gasoline. The alcohols are added in when the truck is filled.
>> The difficulties are procedural not strategic...
>
> Yes and no. Most trucks have residual when they return to the farm to
> refill. Since most FBOs can't take the entire trailer, they will pay a
> premium to the trucking firm for a dedicated partial load. That markup is
> more than a few cents (more like 10 to 50 cents) per gallon, and then you'll
> still get a small mix of residual.
>
> The FBO is also not taking a trailer (or seven) a week, so every run is a
> special. That means the trucking co will fit the FBO in with no guarantees.
> So the FBO will need to schedule early (so as not to run out) and therefore
> will take even a smaller load. Sometimes the load is so small the FBO will
> have to take a mini, making the FBO pay for gas not taken.
>
> Also, many of the Quicky Marts make more profits from the food and coffee,
> than from the gas pumped. The FBO will not sell at such small margins, so
> all said and done the Mogas will likely be a dollar to 1.50 higher than the
> Quicky Mart. Now add in what Kyle B mentioned about the Mogas cutting into
> the FBOs Avgas sales and it's a loser all around (for the FBO).
>
> Damn those pesky details!
>
>
I really don't think that things are as gloomy as you put it.
i suspect that the fuel trucks are pretty capable of emptying their
trucks at their retailers. When 3000 gallons of fuel is ordered, I
suspect that 3000 gallons are put on the truck and delivered to it's
destination and the truck is emptied. Even if there were a few gallons
remaining, that amount of alcohol in 1000+ gallons of fuel is in the noise.
From the FBO's point of view, if there is a market for mogas, they will
be able to provide a service for it. If multiple FBO's sell mogas, then
competition will make the prices reasonable.
There are always those FBO's that really mark up their prices because
they have a captive crowd and those who would rather sell more fuel for
less of a price but make more money/profit in the end.
From the looks of it, there are more places in the country that provide
un-tainted fuel than sell tainted so the alcohol transport issue would
be a mute point for them.
I wouldn't be surprised if the major manufacturers of engines provided
approval for using mogas in their engines, some FBO's would switch to a
mogas only operation if the sales are there and they can't/won't provide
services for both types of fuels.

At this point this is all speculation on both sides of the fence, but I
can only see the good in offering alternative fuels for our aircraft at
a fair price.

I for one would fly more if the fuel were more reasonably priced and
help support the FBOs which offer affordable fuel.

Dave

nrp

June 10th 08, 07:27 PM

How about the requirements for truck delivery of 100LL? I once
understand that there can be no other fuel on board the truck, and
that the tank(s) have to be flushed with 100 LL and the flushing
mixture thrown away (a hazardous waste?) before the airport load is
put in.

Robert M. Gary

June 10th 08, 09:35 PM

On Jun 7, 10:47*pm, wrote:
> Due to the problems of getting 100LL *in many places, Lycoming is
> seeking FAA approval for the standard compression engines to be able
> to use 93 octane auto gas. Link to avweb article bellow. Sounds like
> good news, since I have an O-360. Maybe airports will start to carry
> it.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LycomingAnnounces_AutoGasApprova...

Yep, and all you have to do is to fly to Europe to get ASTM D4814 gas.
I guess its not too far out of my way to get cheap gas ;)

-Robert

Blueskies

June 12th 08, 01:21 AM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 7, 10:47 pm, wrote:
> Due to the problems of getting 100LL in many places, Lycoming is
> seeking FAA approval for the standard compression engines to be able
> to use 93 octane auto gas. Link to avweb article bellow. Sounds like
> good news, since I have an O-360. Maybe airports will start to carry
> it.
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LycomingAnnounces_AutoGasApprova...

Yep, and all you have to do is to fly to Europe to get ASTM D4814 gas.
I guess its not too far out of my way to get cheap gas ;)

-Robert

We could just import it!

[email protected]

June 12th 08, 05:37 AM

On Jun 11, 7:21*pm, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
> On Jun 7, 10:47 pm, wrote:
>
> > Due to the problems of getting 100LL in many places, Lycoming is
> > seeking FAA approval for the standard compression engines to be able
> > to use 93 octane auto gas. Link to avweb article bellow. Sounds like
> > good news, since I have an O-360. Maybe airports will start to carry
> > it.
>
> >http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/LycomingAnnounces_AutoGasApprova...
>
> Yep, and all you have to do is to fly to Europe to get ASTM D4814 gas.
> I guess its not too far out of my way to get cheap gas ;)
>
> -Robert
>
> We could just import it!

according to the article ASTM D4814 is the American standard, no? All
it really means is that 93 octane (88 aviation rating) auto gas that
doesn't have ethanol or something else in it is OK. Why else would
Lycoming be going to the trouble if it wasn't available here. If ASTM
D4814 isn't available now, it is almost certainly easier and cheaper
than avgas, which is far different than auto gas.

Bud

JGalban via AviationKB.com

June 12th 08, 06:13 PM

wrote:
> All
>it really means is that 93 octane (88 aviation rating) auto gas that
>doesn't have ethanol or something else in it is OK.

Doesn't have ethanol? I don't think so. I read the spec and it has
provisions for oxygenates (ethanol by default). Lyc. doesn't care if you
burn ethanol in the engine. It's the plane's fuel system (tanks, hoses,
seals, etc...) that are most likely to have problems with it. Lyc. is not
applying for airframe approvals, so that's not their problem.

I'm curious where you got the 88 aviation octane number. If that is
accurate, O-360s and IO-360s will likely be blowing holes in the tops of
their pistons on hot days.

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

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Newps

June 13th 08, 02:32 AM

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

>
> I'm curious where you got the 88 aviation octane number. If that is
> accurate, O-360s and IO-360s will likely be blowing holes in the tops of
> their pistons on hot days.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Temp has almost nothing practical to do with the octane required. What
matters is the internal cylinder pressure. For example the IO-520 in my
Bo develops about 800 psi, sea level and standard day, at max rpm and
full throttle. The GAMI guys have instrumented aviation engines and
gathered this data. Neither Lyc or Continental have done so. At 800
psi the 520 is on the ragged edge of detonation. That's at 31 inches of
MP, what you'd get at sea level. They also determined that at 26 inches
of MP the 520 develops 400 psi. This is also why owners with constant
speed props are told to always reduce manifold pressure first. If you
are at 800 psi with everything wide open and you reduce rpm you have
made the situation worse. The engine stays at the high pressures
longer, and at a different spot relative to top dead center, because
you just made the engine turn slower. All bad. So the fact is that it
is the internal cylinder pressure that determines what octane you need.
While reading the article he wrote I got to thinking that I never see
over 26 inches of MP at my elevation of 3650 and of course the higher
you go the lower it gets. Therefore here at 3650 MSL 100 octane is not
needed, 90 would be more than adequate. And go to those mountain strips
that are higher yet and your octane requirement drops even lower.

[email protected]

June 13th 08, 06:42 AM

On Jun 12, 12:13*pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:
> wrote:
> > All
> >it really means is that 93 octane (88 aviation rating) auto gas that
> >doesn't have ethanol or something else in it is OK.
>
> * *Doesn't have ethanol? *I don't think so. *I read the spec and it has
> provisions for oxygenates (ethanol by default). *Lyc. doesn't care if you
> burn ethanol in the engine. *It's the plane's fuel system (tanks, hoses,
> seals, etc...) that are most likely to have problems with it. *Lyc. is not
> applying for airframe approvals, so that's not their problem.
>
> * *I'm curious where you got the 88 aviation octane number. * If that is
> accurate, O-360s and IO-360s will likely be blowing holes in the tops of
> their pistons on hot days.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
> --
> Message posted viahttp://www.aviationkb.com

I got the octane info from a member of the Cardinal flyers group that
owns a turbo Cardinal. He works for Chevron and is very knowledgeable
about petroleum products. He has a digest column where he answers
questions from members about their planes.

Regards,
Bud

JGalban via AviationKB.com

June 14th 08, 12:56 AM

Newps wrote:
>
>Temp has almost nothing practical to do with the octane required. What
>matters is the internal cylinder pressure.

I agree that cylinder pressure is the primary factor, but intake
temperatures can push detonation margins lower. That's why intercoolers and
water injection systems were invented.

Down here closer to sea level, when the official temp is 115F in the shade,
it's not unusual to have temps greater thatn 135F, 3ft. above superheated
asphalt. I've got two vehicles (truck and motorcycle) that are supposed to
run on 87 octane that will detonate lightly in the summer unless I bump the
octane up to 89. Both run fine on 87 with ambient temps below 100.

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

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200806/1

Newps

June 14th 08, 04:32 AM

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>> Temp has almost nothing practical to do with the octane required. What
>> matters is the internal cylinder pressure.
>
> I agree that cylinder pressure is the primary factor, but intake
> temperatures can push detonation margins lower. That's why intercoolers and
> water injection systems were invented.

Yes, but raise the temperature of the air and you lower its density
altitude which reduces the octane requirement. So temp plays a factor
but it's a complex relationship.

NW_Pilot

June 22nd 08, 11:47 AM

rotor&wing

June 24th 08, 02:54 PM

This is also why owners with constant
speed props are told to always reduce manifold pressure first. If you
are at 800 psi with everything wide open and you reduce rpm you have
made the situation worse. The engine stays at the high pressures
longer, and at a different spot relative to top dead center, because
you just made the engine turn slower. All bad.

Welcome once again to "Amateur Hour".

Funny thing, most of the radial engines I've flown, not to mention GTSIO-520's and TSIO-540's always operate at high MP versus low RPM.

Please show me in a POH where it specifically says "Do not reduce RPM before MP."

Newps

June 24th 08, 06:25 PM

rotor&wing wrote:
> Newps;639635 Wrote:
>> This is also why owners with constant
>> speed props are told to always reduce manifold pressure first. If you
>>
>> are at 800 psi with everything wide open and you reduce rpm you have
>> made the situation worse. The engine stays at the high pressures
>> longer, and at a different spot relative to top dead center, because
>> you just made the engine turn slower. All bad.
>
> Welcome once again to "Amateur Hour".
>
> Funny thing, most of the radial engines I've flown, not to mention
> GTSIO-520's and TSIO-540's always operate at high MP versus low RPM.
>
> Please show me in a POH where it specifically says "Do not reduce RPM
> before MP."

That's not the point. You have to look at the example I gave. Every
engine is different. For a given power setting on any engine reducing
rpm makes the pressure peak last longer. Very simple since you just
slowed the engine down. Reducing rpm has no effect on the internal
cylinder pressure. Reducing manifold pressure does. If your engine is
already below the point at which detonation can occur then it is
irrelevant which you reduce first. On the IO-520 in my Bo on takeoff at
sea level standard day the engine is nibbling the edge of detonation.
You would be foolish to reduce rpm first just after takeoff. That's how
this engine is designed. You can design the engine to handle more or
less pressure, for example turbo'd engines that run 40-50 inches of
manifold pressure. Run that on my 520 and all kinds of things will go
flying out the cowl. It's not designed for it.
So it's irrelevant that some radial engine can run oversquare. So
can mine. At cruise power. But you're not going to run an IO-520 at 31
inches and 2300 rpm and get very many hours out of it.

rotor&wing

June 25th 08, 09:50 PM

rotor&wing wrote:[color=blue][i]
Newps;639635 Wrote: [color=green][i]

But you're not going to run an IO-520 at 31
inches and 2300 rpm and get very many hours out of it.

OK, please provide the reference from the manufacturer backing this up.

Newps

June 26th 08, 04:19 AM

rotor&wing wrote:
> Newps;641643 Wrote:
>> rotor&wing wrote:[color=blue][i]
>> Newps;639635 Wrote: [color=green][i]
>>
>> But you're not going to run an IO-520 at 31
>> inches and 2300 rpm and get very many hours out of it.
>
>
> OK, please provide the reference from the manufacturer backing this up.
>
>
>
>
The manufacturer? Are you ****tin' me? Continental and Lycoming are
the last people you go to to learn how to operate your engine correctly.
This is basic stuff. Contact Walter Atkinson and George Braly for the
details on what's going on inside your engine.

rotor&wing

June 26th 08, 01:32 PM

The manufacturer? Are you ****tin' me? Continental and Lycoming are
the last people you go to to learn how to operate your engine correctly.
This is basic stuff. Contact Walter Atkinson and George Braly for the
details on what's going on inside your engine.

Thanks for proving my point. So now the engineers and designers that designed and certified these engines don't know how they work? Brilliant.

So using your "logic" we can only assume Beechcraft doesn't know anything about operating your Bonanza either. LOL.

Like I said earlier, welcome to "Amateur Hour"...........

Newps

June 27th 08, 03:13 AM

rotor&wing

June 27th 08, 03:49 PM

Keep studying. You'll get it.

Unfortunately you never will.

Newps

July 8th 08, 02:58 AM

rotor&wing wrote:
> Newps;641976 Wrote:
>> The manufacturer? Are you ****tin' me? Continental and Lycoming are
>> the last people you go to to learn how to operate your engine
>> correctly.
>> This is basic stuff. Contact Walter Atkinson and George Braly for
>> the
>> details on what's going on inside your engine.
>
> Thanks for proving my point. So now the engineers and designers that
> designed and certified these engines don't know how they work?
> Brilliant.
>
> So using your "logic" we can only assume Beechcraft doesn't know
> anything about operating your Bonanza either. LOL.
>
> Like I said earlier, welcome to "Amateur Hour"...........
>
>
>
>

You can read up on this and when your pea brain realizes the engine
manufacturers are the last people to refer to for proper engine
operation we'll discuss the next Old Wives Tale. That you can reduce
plug fouling in a carb'd engine by leaning on the ground.

> http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_59_egt_cht_and_leaning_198162-1.html

rotor&wing

July 10th 08, 03:57 AM

You can read up on this and when your pea brain realizes the engine
manufacturers are the last people to refer to for proper engine
operation we'll discuss the next Old Wives Tale. That you can reduce
plug fouling in a carb'd engine by leaning on the ground.

http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_59_egt_cht_and_leaning_198162-1.html

Wow......So now Mike Busch is smarter than the people that engineered and designed the engine.

While I enjoy some of Mr. Busch's writings, he's not a professional mechanic....in fact he's never actually worked as a mechanic in his life. Besides, Mr. Busch gets a lot of his information from the manufacturer.

Matt Barrow[_5_]

July 10th 08, 05:57 AM

<rotor&amp>; "wing" > wrote in
message ...
>
> Newps;645107 Wrote:
>>
>>
>> You can read up on this and when your pea brain realizes the engine
>> manufacturers are the last people to refer to for proper engine
>> operation we'll discuss the next Old Wives Tale. That you can reduce
>> plug fouling in a carb'd engine by leaning on the ground.
>>
>> -
>> http://tinyurl.com/6atqtu-
>
> Wow......So now Mike Busch is smarter than the people that engineered
> and designed the engine.

That wouldn't be hard.
>
> While I enjoy some of Mr. Busch's writings, he's not a professional
> mechanic....in fact he's never actually worked as a mechanic in his
> life.

Argument from (false) authority.

> Besides, Mr. Busch gets a lot of his information from the
> manufacturer.

Cite?

From the article:

"Why would so many aircraft manufacturers publish such bad advice in their
POHs? Well for one thing, back in the 1960s and 1970s when many of the POHs
were written, the relationships between EGT, CHT and ICP were not as well
understood as they are today. The conventional wisdom at that time was that
richer mixtures were better for the engine, and leaner mixtures were worse.
A culture of fear evolved, promulgated by the flight instructors of the day:
If you leaned too aggressively, you'd blow up your engine.
With today's sophisticated instrumentation, we now know that this isn't
true. The hottest, most stressful mixture is about 50°F ROP, and mixtures
that are richer or leaner are better for the engine. At 75-percent cruise
power, you want to stay well away from that worst-case mixture setting,
either by operating at least 100°F ROP (preferably richer) or at least 20°F
LOP (preferably leaner), take your pick."

Just in case you didn't realize, the factory recommendation of 50 ROP, we've
come to realize, is the WORST possible setting to run. That's your
"brilliant" engineers.

To this day, IIUC, the engine manufacturers still HAVE NOT procured even
remotely the elaborate testing equipment that GAMI/TATurbo have developed.

http://www.engineteststand.com/

Robert M. Gary

July 10th 08, 11:41 PM

On Jun 9, 3:16*pm, David Lesher > wrote:
> "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> writes:
>
> > * If you're O-360 happens to be in a Cherokee, you can already get an auto
> >gas STC. *Otherwise, I wouldn't hold my breath on this Lycoming move. *The
> >autogas spec they're trying to get approved can contain oxygenates (mainly
> >ethanol, now that MTBE is gone). *
>
> There is no real reason that FBO's can not get un-tainted gasoline. The
> alcohols are added in when the truck is filled. The difficulties are
> procedural not strategic...

In some states the alcholol is required by law in auto fuel. Not sure
if the refinerys are going to be interested in making a special
aviation batch when they already make 100LL.

-Robert

David Lesher

July 11th 08, 02:29 AM

"Robert M. Gary" > writes:

>>
>> There is no real reason that FBO's can not get un-tainted gasoline. The
>> alcohols are added in when the truck is filled. The difficulties are
>> procedural not strategic...

>In some states the alcholol is required by law in auto fuel. Not sure
>if the refinerys are going to be interested in making a special
>aviation batch when they already make 100LL.

As I said, it's added at the truck-loading station.
Not at the refinery. So if it's NOT being sold for
cars....

--
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

David Lesher

July 11th 08, 06:09 AM

nrp > writes:

>How about the requirements for truck delivery of 100LL? I once
>understand that there can be no other fuel on board the truck, and
>that the tank(s) have to be flushed with 100 LL and the flushing
>mixture thrown away (a hazardous waste?) before the airport load is
>put in.

AFAIK, 100LL is not moved by pipeline anywhere. So it's trucked/railed
to either the final destination airport or a truck loading terminal.

I suspect the delivery truck from there may be dedicated to 100LL, but
maybe not.

I can't see the requirement before delivering 100LL; but after may be an
issue re: lead getting into autogas.

--
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