MoGas Tips, Tricks, Concerns, How To

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Hmmm. Let's see. Shall I believe the guy who runs a multi-million
dollar aircraft exhaust system business (and has no incentive to lie to
me), or shall I believe Usenet?

Teledyne Continental and (I think) Lycoming have both gone on record
to say that mogas is damaging to their engines. They are certainly
multi-millon dollar aircraft engine companies and have have no
incentive to lie to you.

Yet you, Jay, are an ardent user of mogas. Who do believe: the engine
companies or Usenet?

Just what damage is caused by mogas? I don't believe either company has
ever provided one iota of evidence. It is more the lawyers talking than
anyone that actually knows an engine from a rock.


I'd ask your exhaust system rebuilder to show you the data. I doubt
he really has any and that he is perpetrating yet another aviation
old wives tale. If he does actually have valid data, I'd wager that
a different conclusion could be drawn from it.

--
Frank Stutzman (who uses both mogas AND LOP operations)
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...
Maybe you can have him explain how he's doing such a great business in
when
maybe 5% of the aircraft are being run LOP?

Maybe you can have him explain how that happens when the EGT is
symetrical
on either side of peak EGT, and the CHT is actually cooler...much cooler?

I believe Dawley's exhaust business is benefiting from people running
INCORRECTLY lean of peak.

Considering that most engines will shake themselves to death before they're
much leaner than peak, that's a bit of a stretch.

If someone is leaning incorrectly, attemping LOP will give warnings before
they get there. Blaming it BLINDLY on LOP is stupid. If he wants to say
"Incorrect leaning procedures", that's what he should say. Again, for YEARS
the standard procedure was right at peak EGT, as in the standard dogma, "I
lean to peak then enrich a bit". Well, that kept the engine shops busy doing
jugs and heads. It kept the maintenance people busy doing fouled plugs and
valves.

Think of someone you drove with who was driving a stick shift, but who
didn't give it enough gas before engaging the clutch, or who rode the
clutch; does that mean stick shifts are bad because they'd wear out the
clutch really soon?


The problem isn't necessarily running lean
of peak, which most people know should produce cooler (not hotter) EGTs
and CHTs.

Most people DON'T know that LOP is cooler. AAMOF, on the A&P tests, the
correct answer to "What will too lean a mixture produce" define the problem
just the opposite (ie, higher CHT temps).


The trouble comes with everyone TRYING to run LOP (or, just plain
leanER) to save gas, without the proper instrumentation, technique, or
knowledge.

SInce most people are flying rentals/club aircraft which are rented WET, I
really wonder how many are trying ot overlean without the proper equipment
and instrumentation. Even so, having the right "stuff", LOP procedures is
different (ie, going from full rich to LOP in 2-3 seconds, not the several
seconds up to a minute that some people use in adjusting the mixture.


Heat kills exhaust systems. Dawley has noticed a spike in their sales
since gas prices went through the roof, and they believe it is due to
everyone trying to run LOP. I have no reason to doubt them.

Well, when people were running in the "Red Zone", that would have been a
boon to his business since ROP is hotter. Much hotter.


People are saving a few bucks on gas, but are spending a few hundred on
more frequent exhaust system replacement costs. I would imagine this
may translate into other repair costs as well. It's the nature of the
beast.

As above...but no doubt, many have changed from 200ROP over to peak to
20LOP, still in the "Red Zone". But again, if he doesn't know the difference
between LOP and merely bad leaning technique, he should qualify his
statement or else he comes off a fool.

Just to show how stupid the FAA exams are and the naiveté of many of they
people they "spawned", see what Mike Busch has to say:
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182135-1.html

Now, you can take that stuff as an "Internet Legend" because we all know
that what comes out of the engine manufacturers Legal or Sales & Marketing
departments is GOSPEL (everybody say "Amen"!!).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...

In reading about this somewhere (AvWeb? EAA?) I recall words to the
effect that the refineries can get up to about 97 octane without any
lead, and they only add as much in to get to (or slightly exceed) the
100 octane rating.

This one: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html

That's it! Thanks for the link (bookmarked it this time).

Hell, pop over to "Printer Friendly Page" and save it as a MHT file to your
hard drive (if using Windows Exploder).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Newps" wrote in message
...


Allen wrote:



Well gee, think of the lure that TCM would have to produce engines for
aircraft manufacturers if they could tout running lean of peak. They
don't. Why not? Warranty costs. Get a clue.

It doesn't matter where you run your engine. If you run it wrong it will
cause warranty claims.

And he never evidently heard of the "Legal Department" that would "frown" on
them changing their procedures after all these years...

"Allen" wrote in message
. com...


Have they ever shown you or anyone else REAL DATA?

No? Gee, why not?


Yes, like Lycoming who recommends 50ROP. Got any idea what THAT will do
to your valves, heads, exhaust system?

Oh, and Columbia recommends LOP for it's IO-550'ed 400 model.

Well gee, think of the lure that TCM would have to produce engines for
aircraft manufacturers if they could tout running lean of peak. They
don't. Why not? Warranty costs. Get a clue.

What warranty? What warranty costs?

You still haven't shown us any DATA, just regurgitating the same BS.

What is the lure that TCM and Lycoming have for running ROP? Oh, just
engines that last 800 hours...maybe. Sure sell a lot of 'em, won't they.
And, hey...if the break, it sure is easy to put a Lycoming into a
Bonanza, or a TCM into a current Cessna, right?

Get a clue yourself. Gullibility is not attractive in adults.

Let's see, the company that designed and manufactured the engine says
don't run lean of peak, the aircraft manufacturer (except for a handful of
instances) says don't run lean of peak but Matt Barrow says ok to run lean
of peak. Whom to believe, whom to believe. Talk about being gullible,
look in the mirror.

No, Matt Barrow doesn't say it (Allen is evidently reading comp challenged
as well as gullible).


Don't you think that if running lean of peak would make their engines
reach TBO that TCM wouldn't jump on that in an instant?

No, I don't. See remarks about gullibility.

"Allen" wrote in message
om...

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 05/12/06 11:21, Allen wrote:
"Allen" wrote in message
. com...

Let's see, the company that designed and manufactured the engine says
don't
run lean of peak, the aircraft manufacturer (except for a handful of
instances) says don't run lean of peak but Matt Barrow says ok to run
lean
of peak. Whom to believe, whom to believe. Talk about being gullible,
look
in the mirror.

Don't you think that if running lean of peak would make their engines
reach
TBO that TCM wouldn't jump on that in an instant?

Have you read the John Deakin articles on AVWeb? He talks in great length
about LOP operations and why the manufacturers (generally) don't
recommend
it in the POHs.

The articles have a lot of data to back up the claims.

Regardless of which camp you're in, they're a very good read.

Best Regards,

Yes.

Glad you agree, now go and COMPREHEND them and all their contexts and
caveats, not just READ them. Then compare Deakins' data to what you beloved
manufacturers have spewed, and you just regurgitate.

"Javier" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"Allen" wrote in message
. com...
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Hmmm. Let's see. Shall I believe the guy who runs a multi-million
dollar aircraft exhaust system business (and has no incentive to lie
to
me), or shall I believe Usenet?
"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message

Teledyne Continental and (I think) Lycoming have both gone on record
to say that mogas is damaging to their engines. They are certainly
multi-millon dollar aircraft engine companies and have have no
incentive to lie to you.
They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

Have they ever shown you or anyone else REAL DATA?

No? Gee, why not?

Yes, like Lycoming who recommends 50ROP. Got any idea what THAT will do
to your valves, heads, exhaust system?

Oh, and Columbia recommends LOP for it's IO-550'ed 400 model.


Mirage/Malibu models with certain engines need to be ran LOP, per the POH,
too.

Recall, too, that the earlier Malibu's ran into problems because pilots were
"chicken" to run LOP and the engine baffeling was quite suboptmal.


From what I've been reading on the Mooney list by Walter Atkinson, LOP is
a Good Thing, and even doable on carbureted engines (one needs to play
with the carb heat setting, an engine analyzer and a carb temp gauge are
de rigueur).

A touch of Carb heat and the throttle cracked ever so slightly. It creates
turbulence in the intake system that evens things out rather nicely. I
guess it, unfortunately, doesn't work with many of the 182's whose carbs are
just a nightmare. (??)

"Allen" wrote in message
. com...

"Newps" wrote in message
. ..


Allen wrote:
"Newps" wrote in message
...


Allen wrote:



They are also multi-million dollar aircraft engine companies that
recommend against LOP operation. (Unless you are running a FADEC
system).

Yes, suddenly it's OK to run LOP when you give them $10K for their
FADEC.


That is because you have zero control over the fuel-air mixture, they
do.

Which isn't their argument now. They flat out say it isn't good for the
engine period.

That is correct, because you can't control the fuel flow to all cylinders
precisely enough.

Well, so lets put in $8000 for a FADEC instead of $1000 for GAMI's. Yeah,
that's a great deal.

The FADEC system will not allow the engine to run in an condition that
will cause damage. If a CHT is too high or EGT too high guess what
happens. It INCREASES the fuel flow to that one cylinder to bring it
down.

FADEC can't adjust one cylinders fuel flow.

It can also retard the ignition on that one cylinder only to correct the
condition. It never LEANS further to cool cylinders or EGT temps.

What a marvel of Rube Goldberg engineering.

So, are they going to increase their warranties from nothing to something
now?

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
om...

"Frank Stutzman" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:
Hmmm. Let's see. Shall I believe the guy who runs a multi-million
dollar aircraft exhaust system business (and has no incentive to lie to
me), or shall I believe Usenet?

Teledyne Continental and (I think) Lycoming have both gone on record
to say that mogas is damaging to their engines. They are certainly
multi-millon dollar aircraft engine companies and have have no
incentive to lie to you.

Yet you, Jay, are an ardent user of mogas. Who do believe: the engine
companies or Usenet?

Just what damage is caused by mogas?

The same problem that some cars had; hose, gaskets, etc., something like
that?

I don't believe either company has ever provided one iota of evidence. It
is more the lawyers talking than anyone that actually knows an engine from
a rock.

Well, that last is ALL IMPORTANT given out litigious society.

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message ...
On 12 May 2006 12:00:24 -0700, "M" wrote:

Lower octane autogas is quite common in mountain states where the
elevation is high. Non turbo-charged car engines have a bigger
denotation margin at higher elevation and require less octane.

So that's why "super" mogas in Florida is 93 octane but only
92 octane in the Seattle area. Thanks everyone for the replies
(usenet is good for something besides arguing about politics
afterall!).

Bela P. Havasreti


Both Seattle and Florida are basically at sea level. The lower octane is not explained by altitude difference in this
case....