Question about auto gas STC

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

"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

JimT96309 wrote:


3. Can you give me a rough idea of cost to add a 2nd Nav-comm with Glideslope
and then have the whole thing certified for IFR? I would probably try to find a
good quality used one from one of the local shops.

Conventional wisdom (I am not an owner so do not know) is that it's more
economical to spend the money to get a plane that already has the
avionics you want, rather than buy low and try to upgrade. Not to
mention the downtime in the avionics shop, are you buying it to fly it
or to park it in the shop?

(JimT96309)
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-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?

Yes. You can mix and match all you want.


-
-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 took our 172 (64 E model) in and out of Big Bear several dozen times over the
years. You just learn not to do it between 10 am and 7 pm. Not a big deal.


-
-3. Can you give me a rough idea of cost to add a 2nd Nav-comm with Glideslope
-and then have the whole thing certified for IFR? I would probably try to find
a
-good quality used one from one of the local shops.

The best thing about an older aircraft is that you can learn to work on it
yourself without a lot of hassle. A second navcom with GS can be had on Ebay
for $700 or so. Two weeks of your work will install it AND give you a hell of
an insight into the internal workings of your aircraft.

What does "certified for IFR" mean? Find me an FAR reference.


-
-Thanks for any help you can give to a rookie getting ready to make a first
-purchase.
-
-Jim
-


Jim

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.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$) *
************************************************** ***********************

I too have a STC for autofuel. You should read up on using it and
leaning using autofuel. Autofuel has different properties than 100LL.


Trip




In article , says...

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?

3. Can you give me a rough idea of cost to add a 2nd Nav-comm with Glideslope
and then have the whole thing certified for IFR? I would probably try to find a
good quality used one from one of the local shops.

Thanks for any help you can give to a rookie getting ready to make a first
purchase.

Jim

(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

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

"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.