Fueling from plastic gasoline containors

The other major thing that needs to be looked at, is engine compression
ratios. If it is too high, the engine will detonate, and hammer or melt
holes in the pistons, and other important parts. Also, some fuel systems
are
prone to vapor lock.
--
Jim in NC


So, would it be safe to assume that an engine modified to use 87 octane auto
fuel would not run well on Aviation fuel?
What would you do if your auto fueled airplane was at an airport without
access to auto fuel?

In article fu9Vd.21974$Ze3.3954@attbi_s51,
"LCT Paintball" wrote:

The other major thing that needs to be looked at, is engine compression
ratios. If it is too high, the engine will detonate, and hammer or melt
holes in the pistons, and other important parts. Also, some fuel systems
are
prone to vapor lock.
--
Jim in NC


So, would it be safe to assume that an engine modified to use 87 octane auto
fuel would not run well on Aviation fuel?

No.

What would you do if your auto fueled airplane was at an airport without
access to auto fuel?


Engines designed (or modified) to run on 87 octane auto fuel run on
100LL, with proper leaning. They can have a tendency to foul plugs if
proper care is not taken, however. Mogas STCs allow mixing of aviation
fuel with mogas, in any ratio. The main caveat is alcohol in the gas,
which is a no-no.

What would you do if your auto fueled airplane was at an airport without
access to auto fuel?


Engines designed (or modified) to run on 87 octane auto fuel run on
100LL, with proper leaning. They can have a tendency to foul plugs if
proper care is not taken, however. Mogas STCs allow mixing of aviation
fuel with mogas, in any ratio. The main caveat is alcohol in the gas,
which is a no-no.

You know how some people with cars put hi octane in, thinking it is going to
get them better performance? Waste of money, since no more power is
produced, without re-tuning the engine, but no problem.

Same with the airplane, going to the 100 octane. Problem is the Lead in the
100(L)ow (L)ead

There is a problem at times, with the lead buidup on valves. Usually not a
problem, if done on occasion. I you have to burn 100 LL, and want to be
perfectly safe, you can buy some stuff that will scavenge the lead out, but
it is pricey.
--
Jim in NC

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 23:50:28 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:

You know how some people with cars put hi octane in, thinking it is going to
get them better performance? Waste of money, since no more power is
produced, without re-tuning the engine, but no problem.

Unless it's one of those engines that has computer controlled
individual cylinder timing using a knock sensor. Those things will
retard the timing if knocking is sensed, and advance the timing as far
as possible when knocking is not sensed.

I remember seeing a Saab with such a system being dynoed using regular
first and then high test. The engine gained some power, although I
don't remember the exact figures. I just remember that it did gain
some.

With engines that do not have constantly adjusting timing, you are
correct, using high octane gas won't make any difference in power.

Corky Scott

Some links that may be of interest on the subject of static
discharge while fueling:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...ch/Static1.htm

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...ch/Static2.htm

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...ch/Static3.htm

http://www.globalair.com/discussions...cle~/msgID=237


3 of the above articles are at:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/archive/march.cfm

I have been fueling for years with plastic containers. As the first link
(from FAA) recommends, the fuel container nozzle is inserted into the tank
opening before fuel begins to flow, and the container nozzle continues
contact with the aircraft fuel tank throughout the process. I have never
seen a spark or had a fire, but always keep a halon fire extinguisher handy.
The aircraft is, of course, never refueled in the hangar. It is always out
on the ramp away from buildings, vehicles, and other aircraft.

That's not to say that a grounding wire should not be used.

"Marv" wrote in message
oups.com...

Some links that may be of interest on the subject of static
discharge while fueling:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...ch/Static1.htm

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...ch/Static2.htm

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/arch...ch/Static3.htm

http://www.globalair.com/discussions...cle~/msgID=237


3 of the above articles are at:

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/news/archive/march.cfm

"Corky Scott" wrote


Unless it's one of those engines that has computer controlled
individual cylinder timing using a knock sensor. Those things will
retard the timing if knocking is sensed, and advance the timing as far
as possible when knocking is not sensed.

Corky Scott

Given the fact that most airplane engines don't even have the most basic
advantage, even of vacuum advance, I didn't think that was a very important
factor. g

Good point, but most will only advance within a certain set of parameters.
I doubt if it would be enough to take advantage as much as if you changed it
manually.

Life rules state that there are always exceptions to the rules, right?
--
Jim in NC