Question about auto gas STC

Robert M. Gary wrote:


I'm not 100% sure about the Big Bear area, but in most parts of
California the FAA prohibits the use of autogas. Autogas in Ca usually
(depending on the county) contains MTBE which is prohibited by the FAA
because it eats fuel lines.

-Robert

MTBE is ok

http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/187232-1.html


You may be thinking of alcohol additives, which are precluded by
my STC and the FAA.

MikeM

We had an O-300 in ours and decided
to replace it with a O-360 (180 HP). Glad we did. Continental doesn't
make the O-300 any more, and the extra 35 HP is great. It's a little
expensive (somewhere around $32K) but you get a factory new engine. I
love having the extra power and getting to keep the manual 40 degree
flaps. (Ours is a '64 E model.)

I have a '67 and when the time comes, I will probably upgrade to the 180 hp.
How much more fuel do you burn now? Did you install any new fuel tanks or do
you still carry 36 gallons?

I was up today for 1.8 and burned only 14 gallons of mogas. :-)



www.Rosspilot.com

Jim Weir wrote:
: What does "certified for IFR" mean? Find me an FAR reference.

Exactly... the only "certification" requirement for IFR is a 24 month
altimeter static check in addition to the *required* 24-month VFR transponder encoder
check. Now that I know more about it, using "IFR certified" in an sale advertisement
can be pretty much bull.

Now, whether or not it's a good idea to have the equipment checked before
slogging in the soup is another matter. My experience has been 85% of avionics
failures is due to mis-wiring, or poor installation and loose/broken wiring. Another
10% is broken wire/solder joint inside the radio. Probably only 5% is actually broken
component in the radio.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

On 02 Jun 2004 19:55:40 GMT, ospam (Rosspilot)
wrote:

We had an O-300 in ours and decided
to replace it with a O-360 (180 HP). Glad we did. Continental doesn't
make the O-300 any more, and the extra 35 HP is great. It's a little
expensive (somewhere around $32K) but you get a factory new engine. I
love having the extra power and getting to keep the manual 40 degree
flaps. (Ours is a '64 E model.)

I have a '67 and when the time comes, I will probably upgrade to the 180 hp.
How much more fuel do you burn now? Did you install any new fuel tanks or do
you still carry 36 gallons?

I was up today for 1.8 and burned only 14 gallons of mogas. :-)



www.Rosspilot.com



As a rule of thumb you can use a half a pound per horse power per
hour.

i.e. 75% power of a 160hp engine is 120hp, so .5*120 = 60lbs per
hour, or 10 gallons an hour in cruise. How you lean, and other things
obviously modify this number somewhat, but it's a good rule of thumb.

HTH.
z

2. I often fly into/out of Big Bear City, Ca. (elev. 6500ft.) I've been able
to get out lightly loaded (me and one in the right seat) at a density altitude
of 8,100 with one of our clubs 172s with the 320H2AD engines at 160 hp. What
difference would I see with the 15 fewer horses up front?

Don't know if you're partial to 172s for any reason, but you may want
to open up the search to other aircraft. Piper and Grumman may offer
you something with suitable performance and a slightly less expensive
purchase price.

Are 180hp (less expensive ^ ) Grumman's really suitable for frequent
8000+' DA takeoffs ?

"Martin Kosina" wrote in message
om...

Are 180hp (less expensive ^ ) Grumman's really suitable for frequent
8000+' DA takeoffs ?


They are suitable for one attempt.

On 2 Jun 2004 14:06:56 -0700, (Martin
Kosina) wrote:

2. I often fly into/out of Big Bear City, Ca. (elev. 6500ft.) I've been able
to get out lightly loaded (me and one in the right seat) at a density altitude
of 8,100 with one of our clubs 172s with the 320H2AD engines at 160 hp. What
difference would I see with the 15 fewer horses up front?

Don't know if you're partial to 172s for any reason, but you may want
to open up the search to other aircraft. Piper and Grumman may offer
you something with suitable performance and a slightly less expensive
purchase price.

Are 180hp (less expensive ^ ) Grumman's really suitable for frequent
8000+' DA takeoffs ?


Any non-turbocharged aircraft will have issues with 8000' + DAs. The
bigger the engine the heavier the bird. You will need to manage the
load and watch your conditions no matter what you choose to purchase.

z

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
(JimT96309) wrote in message
...
I am currently interested in an older C-172 (Cont. 0-300 engine) that
has an
STC for auto gas. My questions a

1. Can I continue to use AVgas instead of auto fuel?

2. I often fly into/out of Big Bear City, Ca. (elev. 6500ft.) I've
been able
to get out lightly loaded (me and one in the right seat) at a density
altitude
of 8,100 with one of our clubs 172s with the 320H2AD engines at 160 hp.
What
difference would I see with the 15 fewer horses up front?

I'm not 100% sure about the Big Bear area, but in most parts of
California the FAA prohibits the use of autogas. Autogas in Ca usually
(depending on the county) contains MTBE which is prohibited by the FAA
because it eats fuel lines.

-Robert

The FAA does not prohibit using auto fuel. They prohibit using fuel with
alcohol. Airports can purchase autogas without the alcohol. MTBE is not a
problem. The problem is natural rubber parts which are damaged by alcohol,
not fuel lines. Might be time to review your STC.

"zatatime" wrote in message
...


Any non-turbocharged aircraft will have issues with 8000' + DAs. The
bigger the engine the heavier the bird. You will need to manage the
load and watch your conditions no matter what you choose to purchase.

While that's true you couldn't make a much worse choice than a Grumman.

On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 17:48:58 -0600, "Newps"
wrote:


"zatatime" wrote in message
.. .


Any non-turbocharged aircraft will have issues with 8000' + DAs. The
bigger the engine the heavier the bird. You will need to manage the
load and watch your conditions no matter what you choose to purchase.

While that's true you couldn't make a much worse choice than a Grumman.



My point was to open the poster up to the idea that a different
airplane may better suit his needs. While I'm not a big fan of most
Grummans I know people who love them so I offered it as one of two
alternatives. Maybe I should have said something like...Insert
alternative manufacturer here...instead of being specific.

z