Fueling from plastic gasoline containors

"LCT Paintball" wrote in message
news:RuMUd.77580$4q6.7306@attbi_s01...
In reality its a bit of a work to self-fuel but I save about $35 to $45
dollars every fill up. Much more important my 7:1 compression ratio
O-470 engine runs better on 80/87 octane. No lead fouled plugs and no
lead sludge in the oil. Oil analysis greatly improved since switching
to mogas. I'm Happy. Rig was paid for after 6 months.


Auto gas cannot be used unless you're flying a home built, right?

Wrong. Some certified aircraft use it from the start, but most will require
a STC, which stands for supplemental type certificate. It basicly says that
someone has tested the operation of the type of plane and engine with the
auto fuel, and made any necessary changes to the engine, fuel system or
whatever. They usually are kinda expenssive in the short run, but will pay
off after a quanity of cheaper fuel has run through it. The fuel must have
no alcohol, though.
--
Jim in NC

They usually are kinda expenssive in the short run, but will pay
off after a quanity of cheaper fuel has run through it. The fuel must have
no alcohol, though.
--

What is kinda expensive?
Why no alcohol?

"LCT Paintball" wrote in message
news:17RUd.77210$tl3.9758@attbi_s02...
They usually are kinda expenssive in the short run, but will pay
off after a quanity of cheaper fuel has run through it. The fuel must
have
no alcohol, though.
--

What is kinda expensive?

STC's could be a hundred, to several hundred, or thousands if new pistons
and stuff for an engine are required. Top of head info only; I've never got
an auto fuel STC.

Why no alcohol?

Most airplane fuel systems and engines contain parts that do not react well
to alcohol. Some hoses and gaskets can swell up to more than double their
size.

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

Jim Carriere wrote:

Carl Ellis wrote:
On 27 Feb 2005 12:42:42 -0800, wrote:


A former student of ours had a fire refuelling an aiplane from a
plastic can. In Alaska. Cold, dry weather raises the risk considerably,
and an airplane recently landed may have more charge on it, too. Living
in Canada we regularly hear stories of fuelling accidents attributable
to static. Not too many years ago a guy got burnt when his coat,
rubbing on the wing, set off fuel fumes. How's that for being bit by
what you don't know?

Dan


It's amazing how a charge can build up. Last summer I was at the MMV
flyin. It was hot and dry and I was taking in lot of water so I needed a
visit to the Port-O-John. While I was in there, a Bonanza taxied by and
blew a big prop blast over the row of cans. Instantly, the hair on my
arms
and head stood up. Quite a charge!

Imagine how this story could have ended with all the flammable gas
present in the row of cans. One spark...

Yeah that row of Port-O-Johns (cans) probably had a lot of pent up gas!
John
;-)

Carl Ellis wrote:
On 27 Feb 2005 12:42:42 -0800, wrote:


A former student of ours had a fire refuelling an aiplane from a
plastic can. In Alaska. Cold, dry weather raises the risk considerably,
and an airplane recently landed may have more charge on it, too. Living
in Canada we regularly hear stories of fuelling accidents attributable
to static. Not too many years ago a guy got burnt when his coat,
rubbing on the wing, set off fuel fumes. How's that for being bit by
what you don't know?

Dan


It's amazing how a charge can build up. Last summer I was at the MMV
flyin. It was hot and dry and I was taking in lot of water so I needed a
visit to the Port-O-John. While I was in there, a Bonanza taxied by and
blew a big prop blast over the row of cans. Instantly, the hair on my arms
and head stood up. Quite a charge!

Imagine how this story could have ended with all the flammable gas
present in the row of cans. One spark...

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 Sun, 27 Feb 2005 17:13:07 GMT, "Cy Galley"
wrote:

I'm sorry but your airplane is not just like a large lawnmower. You dump
small quantities of gas into your lawnmower. The longer you pour the larger
the static charge. Pouring small qualities is safer than dumping an entire
can. Grounding the can, funnel and tank together DOES help. It prevents
that charge from building to the point of discharge and explosion.

You can also point to fueling a car as a NON-grounded application but you
couldn't be farther from the truth. Look at the UL or DOT label on the
hose. It MUST be a conductive hose meeting certain specs.

Remember the longer you fuel, the larger the charge. The more important
grounding becomes as well.

One thing this doesn't take into consideration.

"Grounding an airplane" to ground works when the fuel source is
grounded but does absolutely nothing for static discharge when fueling
from a can because it does nothing to equalize the charge differential
between the can and the airplane.

We need to realize that static electricity is like any other DC
voltage. It is "The potential difference" (the definition of voltage)
between two points and in the case of filling from a can one of those
points is not ground. One is the can and one is the airplane.

The static charge comes from the fuel flowing out of the can and the
process works like a Vandegraf generator. It does not come from
moving the can or swirling the gas in the can.

Once a solid fuel stream is flowing from the can to the tank and the
operator is against the metal airplane you have effectively reduced
the systems ability to build a charge.

Even with the underground fueling system, *IF* the proper procedure is
followed there will be no potential difference developed. HOWEVER in
the case of the underground fuel system the operator/owner has no way
of knowing if the user is going to touch the nozzle to the bare metal,
open the tank, insert the nozzle and maintain contact against the edge
of the metal take while fueling. The underground system also operates
and a higher pressure and substantially higher flow rate than pouring
out of a can, hence it would have a much higher potential for
developing a high potential difference were the hose not conductive
and the plane not grounded.

IF the source and destination are held at the same potential the
static can not develop.

If you are holding the can and touching the metal of the airplane the
electrons flowing out of the can with the gas, flow through the
airplane, through you and back to the surface of the can even though
it is plastic. Certainly it would be better if the can were
conductive but that doesn't usually seem to be a problem.
it takes very little conductivity to keep the charge neutralized, but
it does take some.

When filling from a can, I'd guess the worst possible conditions would
be holding the can up and pouring into an open funnel where the
operator holding the can is insulated from the plane

Normally you are in more danger when filling the plastic can at the
pumps than when pouring it into the airplane, unless of course you
hold the tank way up and pour through the center of the opening while
avoiding contact with both the airplane and can.

BTW, the ground to the plane from an underground system removes the
likely hood of a spark when initiating the fueling if procedures are
not followed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:40:34 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"LCT Paintball" wrote in message
news:17RUd.77210$tl3.9758@attbi_s02...
They usually are kinda expenssive in the short run, but will pay
off after a quanity of cheaper fuel has run through it. The fuel must
have
no alcohol, though.
--

What is kinda expensive?

STC's could be a hundred, to several hundred, or thousands if new pistons
and stuff for an engine are required. Top of head info only; I've never got
an auto fuel STC.

Why no alcohol?

Most airplane fuel systems and engines contain parts that do not react well
to alcohol. Some hoses and gaskets can swell up to more than double their
size.

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

Just a note, that is not due tot he alcohol though.
Alcohol raises the octane rating with the maximum coming around 10%.
This is strange as Alcohol by itself has a very low octane rating.

holes in the pistons, and other important parts. Also, some fuel systems are
prone to vapor lock.

My IO470N for one. The high compression and heat can be a real bear
in the summer for hot starts. OTOH it's built for the 100 octane
avgas.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com