Cost of gas is beginning to hurt

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:30:06 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

You must operate the aircraft (including the engine) iaw the limitations.
Those limitations will include minimum standards for the fuel. As long as
you could show your batch of diodiesel meets those standards, you
should be fine.

Hmm, I always wondered about that. I used to own a 1941 Taylorcraft
(with A-65 engine), and the type certificate simply said "73 octane
minumum". No mention of "aviation gasoline" or whatever... seemed to
me that implied that auto gas should be legal, even without an STC.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, who put a "stop payment" on my reality check?

In article ,
Dana M. Hague d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:30:06 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

You must operate the aircraft (including the engine) iaw the limitations.
Those limitations will include minimum standards for the fuel. As long as
you could show your batch of diodiesel meets those standards, you
should be fine.

Hmm, I always wondered about that. I used to own a 1941 Taylorcraft
(with A-65 engine), and the type certificate simply said "73 octane
minumum". No mention of "aviation gasoline" or whatever... seemed to
me that implied that auto gas should be legal, even without an STC.

-Dana

Those engines were certificated to use unleaded gas. Remember "Phillips
66"? It was 66 octane; "Union 76" was 76 octane.

In WW-II liason aircraft used "combat gas," which was somewhere around
80 octane (there is somebody out there who can clarify this).

"Justin Gombos" wrote in message news:f3hWh.756$dM1.354@trndny07...
: On 2007-04-20, ArtP wrote:
: On 19 Apr 2007 17:38:00 -0700, M wrote:
:
: I suspect for aviation diesel will be the solution for a while.
:
: Exactly. Leaving 100LL for unleaded is half-assed. When fuel prices
: match the prices in Europe, consumers will be going straight to
: diesel, and Jet A will supply them.
:
: I also agree w/ M. Aircraft makers are short-sighted. Consider the
: small fraction of single engine diesels available. More manufacturers
: should have already been on that by now.
:
: Out of curiosity, what's to stop the GA pilot (in terms of FAA law)
: from making their own batch of biodiesel from waste oil to get rock
: bottom prices, and sidestep the avgas tax entirely?
:
: Accounting for the cost of raw material, the yield would be ~$1/gal,
: which would make the fuel costs of flying cheaper than that of driving
: a typical car. And (IRS aside) what kind of FAA approval process
: would enable a GA pilot to do that? Or is that scenario pure fiction?
:
: --


Diesel or Jet fuel will cost us the same a 100LL if the switch over occurs. BioDiesel will also become unobtanium
when/if the demand shifts; there is not enough bio stuff to make it with to go around.

In article ,
"Blueskies" wrote:

"Justin Gombos" wrote in message
news:f3hWh.756$dM1.354@trndny07...
: On 2007-04-20, ArtP wrote:
: On 19 Apr 2007 17:38:00 -0700, M wrote:
:
: I suspect for aviation diesel will be the solution for a while.
:
: Exactly. Leaving 100LL for unleaded is half-assed. When fuel prices
: match the prices in Europe, consumers will be going straight to
: diesel, and Jet A will supply them.
:
: I also agree w/ M. Aircraft makers are short-sighted. Consider the
: small fraction of single engine diesels available. More manufacturers
: should have already been on that by now.

Ain't gonna happen, since most GA aircraft have gasoline engines, which
will puke their guts out on biodiesel (or any other Diesel, for that
matter.

: Out of curiosity, what's to stop the GA pilot (in terms of FAA law)
: from making their own batch of biodiesel from waste oil to get rock
: bottom prices, and sidestep the avgas tax entirely?

Engine compatability -- 99.% of GA engines are piston engines designed
for gasoline. turbine engines, theoretically, will burn anything that
can be metered. They would have to be recalibrated for biodiesel, due to
viscosity/density differences; additives would have to be added to
prevent water and other contamination; they might freeze up at altitude
(-60F for some jets).


: Accounting for the cost of raw material, the yield would be ~$1/gal,
: which would make the fuel costs of flying cheaper than that of driving
: a typical car. And (IRS aside) what kind of FAA approval process
: would enable a GA pilot to do that? Or is that scenario pure fiction?
:
: --


Diesel or Jet fuel will cost us the same a 100LL if the switch over occurs.
BioDiesel will also become unobtanium
when/if the demand shifts; there is not enough bio stuff to make it with to
go around.

On 2007-04-23, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article ,
"Blueskies" wrote:

Ain't gonna happen, since most GA aircraft have gasoline engines,
which will puke their guts out on biodiesel (or any other Diesel,
for that matter.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that a pilot put biodiesel
in a non-diesel engine.

But since you bring it up, a gasoline engine can actually burn
(bio)diesel safely, as long as it's mixed with at least 90% gasoline.
It would essentially be the equivelent of very high octane gasoline.
Are you familiar with those "octane boosters" sold in 8 dollar retail
bottles with all the fancy graphics? Lookup the MSDS on it - it's
only kerosene (iow, fuel oil)

"M" wrote in message
oups.com...

What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.

It part of a big bore engine.

True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87.

80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

I'm sure they'll do fine on
SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.

My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
fuel doesn't do GA much good.

You better dig into things before making such a statement. You're speaking
from a vacuum.

80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

My information (granted, many years old) is that while 80/87 is
nominally leaded, it actually has less lead than 100LL.

Is this still true?

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 14:10:14 GMT, Jose
wrote:

80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

My information (granted, many years old) is that while 80/87 is
nominally leaded, it actually has less lead than 100LL.

Is this still true?

Jose

Yup.

100LL has 2.0 grams of lead per gallon
80/87 has (had?) 0.5 grams of lead per gallon
FYI Regular (unleaded) mogas has 0.1 grams of lead per gallon.

The EAA STC (I suspect the Peterson is the same, but mine is from EAA)
says to mix 3/4 mogas with 1/4 100LL and you will get approximately
the same lead content as 80/87 (which should keep your engine happy if
it was designed to run on 80/87).

Quite frankly, I'm a bit surprised there isn't an AD out on all
aircraft with engines designed to run on 80/87, said AD warning that
running 100LL through these engines exclusively will likely lead to
plug fouling and stuck valves. If you don't use TCP or use other
methods to get rid of the excessive lead in 100LL, it'll only be a
matter of time before the fouled plugs and stuck valves manifest
themselves.

Bela P. Havasreti

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"M" wrote in message
oups.com...

What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.

It part of a big bore engine.

True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87.

80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

I'm sure they'll do fine on
SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.

My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
fuel doesn't do GA much good.

You better dig into things before making such a statement. You're speaking
from a vacuum.


Don't tell the government that 80/87 is a leaded fuel. They have made such
a big deal out of it being unleaded so it won't poison your platinum
catalytic converter that afterburns your exhaust to clean up the combustion
partial products! :-)

There has been a move afoot for some time to eliminate 100 octane "Low Lead"
aviation fuel, because it is the only leaded fuel still being made in the
US. Then all aircraft would have to use the available unleaded fuel.

My experience with the big modern engines is somewhat limited since my
newest airplane left the factory in the spring of 1955, about the time I
started college. However, I can say with the authority of experience that
the IO-520's that I have flown not only demand 100LL but are finicky about
that. I have gotten brands of 100LL that the 520 definately didn't like,
and brands that caused her to hum along just fine.

My poor old main ride also has a three hundred horsepower engine and burns
exactly the same amount of fuel per horsepower per hour as the IO-520. It
actually get a bit MORE efficiency because an airplane runs on thrust, not
horsepower. My 1800rpm cruise allows considerably more pounds of thrust
per horsepower than the higher cruise rpms of the more modern engines. Of
course I squeeze my 300 horsepower out of a measly 680 cubic inches instead
of 520. That does add a few pounds of weight and a bit of frontal area. I
also have half again as many cylinders hanging in the breeze as the little
520! :-)

Plan now. The 10th or 11th ( I lost count several years ago ) annual
rec.aviation annual EVENT at Pinckneyville is coming up soon. It is planned
this year for May 18, 19, and 20. It is an unparalleled opportunity to
actually see some of the people you have exchanged various views with on the
internet. If you have never heard of the Pinckneyville Flyin see the
unofficial FAQ at http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html

If you still have any questions you will have to come to the flyin to get
them answered. Or, perhaps, merely rendered irrelevant. :-)

We would appreciate any folks planning to attend drop an email to Mary at
and let her know how many folks are coming and what days.
It is a long way to the nearest grocery store and even farthur to a good
liquor store from the airport and we don't want to run out of essential
supplies! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"M" wrote in message
oups.com...

What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.

It part of a big bore engine.

True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87.

80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

I'm sure they'll do fine on
SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.

My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
fuel doesn't do GA much good.

You better dig into things before making such a statement. You're
speaking from a vacuum.


Don't tell the government that 80/87 is a leaded fuel. They have made
such a big deal out of it being unleaded so it won't poison your platinum
catalytic converter that afterburns your exhaust to clean up the
combustion partial products! :-)

Right you are...I was thinking 100 or the old other stuff (heavily leaded).

It is amazing, how many people fail to realize that the 30% of aircraft that
HAVE TO HAVE 100LL are the ones that do 70% (or more) of the flying hours.

The recreational aircraft that can burn Sterno, rubbling alcohol, or Jack
Daniels, just don't make much of a market.