![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am new to this group. I know that many low hp engines can get an
autogas stc. My question is this: How hard is it to run autogas in 200+ hp engines- say 200 to 300 hp? Both physically and legally? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Skorczewski" wrote in message om... I am new to this group. I know that many low hp engines can get an autogas stc. My question is this: How hard is it to run autogas in 200+ hp engines- say 200 to 300 hp? Both physically and legally? Maybe. Probably not easy because autogas doesn't work too well with engines with compression over 8 atmospheres. Then you got problems with vaporlock where the power is so high that you have a lot of heat under the cowl. Some low compression engines are sometimes unsuitable to mogas. The Luscombe 8A with a 6.3 atmosphere compression engine is reputed to have trouble with mogas, probably because of vaporlock. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It is not the horsepower that is the problem, but the compression ratio. There
are 230 horse engines for which an STC exists and is quite easy to use. There are sub-100 horse engines for which no STC exists today, and which will either have to be derated in some way OR have an engine modification to reduce the compression ratio (which does an automatic derating). If the airplane cannot be flown derated (not enough horses for the job) then an engine change to a lower compression, more horsepower engine may be the only solution. Understand that AOPA and other groups "working on the problem" are being torn two ways. One is to keep their majority constituency that COULD use premium fuel in a derated engine happy. The other is their well-heeled minority constituency who are happy with the way things are, thank you, and will continue to block the use of autogas at the expense of the majority. Of course, the folks producing TEL could end the debate in a month or so if they wished. As noted, though, if there is a market for TEL, and unless the EPA bans the import of TEL, anybody with a class in high school chemistry could open a plant in a third world country and start selling the stuff in barrels at a mighty good profit if this happens. Jim (John Skorczewski) shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: -I am new to this group. I know that many low hp engines can get an -autogas stc. -My question is this: How hard is it to run autogas in 200+ hp engines- -say 200 to 300 hp? Both physically and legally? Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup) VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor http://www.rst-engr.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I appreciate the info--- but I still have questions. Say, I wanted to
built an RV-10 with a 260 lycoming engine. How do I find out if it can be stc-ed for autogas??? ---and if not what is the biggest lycoming engine that can burn autogas? Who has info like this?? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
With an experimental, you don't need an STC. You can run the engine on
whatever makes you happy... That said, look at the compression ratio for the engine you're considering. Lower compression = happier with autogas. I believe some engines with 8.5:1 compression can be STC'd on autogas, and should be relatively happy with it, but 8.5:1 is right at the limit. A lower compression engine would be happier with autogas. Auto gas has higher vapor pressure than avgas, so vapor lock is something you really need to consider. At high altitude on a warm day, the engine might just decide to quit... Or on a day when you flew, then made a quick turn-around, the engine compartment might be warm enough to cause a vapor lock problem. Then, there is the problem of accidentally buying winter formulation autogas (with a higher vapor pressure) during a warm spell... Here's a link to the best info you're likely to find on autogas and STC's: http://www.eaa.org/education/fuel/autogas_vs_avgas.pdf "John Skorczewski" wrote in message om... I appreciate the info--- but I still have questions. Say, I wanted to built an RV-10 with a 260 lycoming engine. How do I find out if it can be stc-ed for autogas??? ---and if not what is the biggest lycoming engine that can burn autogas? Who has info like this?? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
My Cherokee has an 8.5:1 O-360 with autogas STC for 91 minimum. You could get
a 6-cylinder version of the same engine (O-540 straight-valve) STC'd for 91 in some planes. The Comanche hydrolocked the carb on autogas (Peterson told me that), so it couldn't pass.... it's a combination of engine and airframe. That said, if you run premium an O-540 at 8.5:1 and 2700 rpm is 260 HP on autogas. If you keep it sufficiently cooled and well cowled, you could reduce the vapor locking problem. I don't know of any fuel-injected Lycomings that can be STC'd for autogas, so the O-540 is probably the biggest. If you run 7:1 compression for 235 HP (e.g. PA-28-235), it runs happily on regular 87. -Cory John Skorczewski wrote: : I appreciate the info--- but I still have questions. Say, I wanted to : built an RV-10 with a 260 lycoming engine. How do I find out if it can : be stc-ed for autogas??? ---and if not what is the biggest lycoming : engine that can burn autogas? Who has info like this?? -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering Ph.D. Graduate Student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Orval Fairbairn wrote:
: When you use autogas, you have to pay close attention to fuel system : design, to avoid sharp corners in lines, cooling paths to gascolators : and even locating boost pumps on the cabin side of the firewall, to keep : things cool. If possible, it would be great to have the return system of an automobile. Flush most of the fuel to the engine and back to the tank. It requires double the fuel lines (and thus double the potential for leakage, etc). It turns the fuel tanks into a huge coldsink to keep the fuel cool as it circulates through the engine compartment. Of course, it's a little different since airplanes operate at a large percentage of their maximum fuel burn. A car typically runs at 10-25% of its maximum power, even on the freeway so fuel burn is 2-3 gph. In a high-perf engine cruising on 14 gph (max probably 20-25 gph), circulating the fuel would require faster pumps... say 2x-3x, or about 1 gpm. Pretty beefy, now that I think about it. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * Cory Papenfuss * * Electrical Engineering Ph.D. Graduate Student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * ************************************************** *********************** |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What is "hydrolocked" with regards to the carb?
Never heard the term used before in this context. "Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message news ![]() In article , wrote: My Cherokee has an 8.5:1 O-360 with autogas STC for 91 minimum. You could get a 6-cylinder version of the same engine (O-540 straight-valve) STC'd for 91 in some planes. The Comanche hydrolocked the carb on autogas (Peterson told me that), so it couldn't pass.... it's a combination of engine and airframe. That said, if you run premium an O-540 at 8.5:1 and 2700 rpm is 260 HP on autogas. If you keep it sufficiently cooled and well cowled, you could reduce the vapor locking problem. I don't know of any fuel-injected Lycomings that can be STC'd for autogas, so the O-540 is probably the biggest. If you run 7:1 compression for 235 HP (e.g. PA-28-235), it runs happily on regular 87. -Cory John Skorczewski wrote: : I appreciate the info--- but I still have questions. Say, I wanted to : built an RV-10 with a 260 lycoming engine. How do I find out if it can : be stc-ed for autogas??? ---and if not what is the biggest lycoming : engine that can burn autogas? Who has info like this?? When you use autogas, you have to pay close attention to fuel system design, to avoid sharp corners in lines, cooling paths to gascolators and even locating boost pumps on the cabin side of the firewall, to keep things cool. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Jim Weir wrote: It is not the horsepower that is the problem, but the compression ratio. There are 230 horse engines for which an STC exists and is quite easy to use. There are sub-100 horse engines for which no STC exists today, and which will either have to be derated in some way OR have an engine modification to reduce the compression ratio (which does an automatic derating). If the airplane cannot be flown derated (not enough horses for the job) then an engine change to a lower compression, more horsepower engine may be the only solution. Understand that AOPA and other groups "working on the problem" are being torn two ways. One is to keep their majority constituency that COULD use premium fuel in a derated engine happy. The other is their well-heeled minority constituency who are happy with the way things are, thank you, and will continue to block the use of autogas at the expense of the majority. Of course, the folks producing TEL could end the debate in a month or so if they wished. As noted, though, if there is a market for TEL, and unless the EPA bans the import of TEL, anybody with a class in high school chemistry could open a plant in a third world country and start selling the stuff in barrels at a mighty good profit if this happens. Jim WEEEEL, Not Quite that way Jim---TEL is DEADLY---Terribly so, The loading & unloading of the stuff from tank cars is very dangerous--The unloading & storage area is usually in a dyked off area on the perimeter of a refinery, and the gasoline to be treated is pumped to & from the area, with the TEL dribbled into the line as the gas goes by. I was pretty intelligent as a child, but I washed car parts in leaded gas as a teen-ager and now i are dum. jery \? jeery? Jerry ? (John Skorczewski) shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: -I am new to this group. I know that many low hp engines can get an -autogas stc. -My question is this: How hard is it to run autogas in 200+ hp engines- -say 200 to 300 hp? Both physically and legally? Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup) VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor http://www.rst-engr.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hi Octane Autogas | UltraJohn | Home Built | 24 | April 18th 04 02:43 AM |