Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:08 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Bob Verwey)
2. 04:53 AM - Re: T-3 FIREFLYT-3 FIREFLY (Tommy Walker)
3. 06:22 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Noel Loveys)
4. 07:08 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Olen Goodwin)
5. 07:47 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Jim Baker)
6. 07:48 AM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
7. 07:24 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Noel Loveys)
8. 07:57 PM - Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Noel Loveys)
9. 08:19 PM - Re: T-3 FIREFLY (Doug Dodson)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
Having digested the technicalities, I still don't know the effects or dangers of
using mogas in an "avgas"
engine.....
Bob Verwey
A35 Bonanza
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: T-3 FIREFLYT-3 FIREFLY |
Gents,
I was just wondering, could the USAF have had an agreement with the
manufacturer of the Firefly to not release the airplane to the public.
I think, although it has been many years ago and my memory is suspect,
that Beech and the government had such an agreement concerning the T-34,
although it did make it's way into the public domain.
Just a thought.
Tommy
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
Lets see...
The certified engine should have a certain amount of lead in the fuel.
Yes
it fouls plugs but that is why the plugs should be inspected and
cleaned/replaced on a regular basis.
The certified engine is pretty high compression so to prevent pinging,
detonation and backfiring it should have a pretty good diet of high
octane
gas.
The certified engine may fly at higher altitudes. Avgas isn't as
volatile
as MOGAS so more of it will actually get to go through your engine and
not
out the vent.
Rubber fittings in the aircraft carbs and fuel system may not be alcohol
safe. Some fuel system component$ may turn to very expensive mu$h if
exposed to alcohol in some MOGAS for extended periods of time. Be aware
that Alcohol, if it's in your MOGAS, has an affinity for water
(moisture) so
it's use may require the use of carb heat
My best guess, and that's all it is, is most MOGAS supreme (booze free)
should be ok for use in certified engines that aren't doing continuous
full
power applications or flying over 6000 feet on a regular basis. check
to
make sure that your insurance doesn't have any problems with the use of
MOGAS and the federalis are happy with an STC.
Be sure to get the opinion of your A&P or AI. He will be aware of
what's
available in your area and be able to advise you what is best for your
area.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Verwey
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Having digested the technicalities, I still don't know the effects or
dangers of using mogas in an "avgas" engine.....
Bob Verwey
A35 Bonanza
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
MessageI'm not addressing the other factors, but I will say 6000 feet is
no obstacle for mogas. My vehicles spend more time between 6000 and
10000 than below it and it's no problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:20 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Lets see...
The certified engine should have a certain amount of lead in the fuel.
Yes it fouls plugs but that is why the plugs should be inspected and
cleaned/replaced on a regular basis.
The certified engine is pretty high compression so to prevent pinging,
detonation and backfiring it should have a pretty good diet of high
octane gas.
The certified engine may fly at higher altitudes. Avgas isn't as
volatile as MOGAS so more of it will actually get to go through your
engine and not out the vent.
Rubber fittings in the aircraft carbs and fuel system may not be
alcohol safe. Some fuel system component$ may turn to very expensive
mu$h if exposed to alcohol in some MOGAS for extended periods of time.
Be aware that Alcohol, if it's in your MOGAS, has an affinity for water
(moisture) so it's use may require the use of carb heat
My best guess, and that's all it is, is most MOGAS supreme (booze
free) should be ok for use in certified engines that aren't doing
continuous full power applications or flying over 6000 feet on a regular
basis. check to make sure that your insurance doesn't have any problems
with the use of MOGAS and the federalis are happy with an STC.
Be sure to get the opinion of your A&P or AI. He will be aware of
what's available in your area and be able to advise you what is best for
your area.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Verwey
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:36 AM
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Having digested the technicalities, I still don't know the effects
or dangers of using mogas in an "avgas" engine.....
Bob Verwey
A35 Bonanza
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
>The certified engine is pretty high compression so to prevent
>pinging, detonation and backfiring it should have a pretty good
>diet of high octane gas.
I'd probably take issue with this statement on this point. Most
aviation engines aren't high compression. Most are in the 8 to
9.5 range with some down to 7 and some up to 10.5. True, there
are high compression piston sets but the majority of aircraft don't
run them. The primary issue is cylinder volume as it relates to
octane ratings. In order to not have all the nastiness of the
above mentioned maladies dual ignition is used to control the
flame front propagation.
But then, you all probably already knew all of that anyway.....
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
So cars in Colorado boil all of their fuel off or what about cars that
drive up Pikes Peak?
I flew at 10K or above in mY old Zodiac and NEVER had fuel boiling off.
OK so lets get to some real numbers....I have tested numerous batches of
autofuel and the very worse was a winter blend of REGULAR gas...That
showed some boiling at 11k.
The premiums were all good to about 15K.
It is very simple to do a vapour pressure check and I agree it should be
done. Also your fuel system needs to have good vents and a system design
that does not excessively suck on the fuel.
As to "pretty high compression".....well Superior warrants their engines
for 92 OCT mogas up to and including 8.5:1 CR.
The real issue for me in using Mogas is not can it be run safely...It
can, there are many engines that see nothing else....The issue is at
what CHT and what mixture regimes.
Mogas has a detonation danger zone around the 50F ROP....Max cruise CHT
is 400F for a 360 Lycoming...A higher CHT will be more likely to
detonate and so will a lower octane fuel...So the question is what is
the max CHT and where should one put the mixture control for cruise
flight. There is no point in running cheaper gas if you have to burn so
much more keeping the CHT's down.
Having said that there are so many OWT's out there and they really do
nothing but prevent real progress on the issue.
We need real data or engines run for the long term and information on
HOW they were run and what happened.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:21 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Lets see...
The certified engine should have a certain amount of lead in the fuel.
Yes it fouls plugs but that is why the plugs should be inspected and
cleaned/replaced on a regular basis.
The certified engine is pretty high compression so to prevent pinging,
detonation and backfiring it should have a pretty good diet of high
octane gas.
The certified engine may fly at higher altitudes. Avgas isn't as
volatile as MOGAS so more of it will actually get to go through your
engine and not out the vent.
Rubber fittings in the aircraft carbs and fuel system may not be alcohol
safe. Some fuel system component$ may turn to very expensive mu$h if
exposed to alcohol in some MOGAS for extended periods of time. Be aware
that Alcohol, if it's in your MOGAS, has an affinity for water
(moisture) so it's use may require the use of carb heat
My best guess, and that's all it is, is most MOGAS supreme (booze free)
should be ok for use in certified engines that aren't doing continuous
full power applications or flying over 6000 feet on a regular basis.
check to make sure that your insurance doesn't have any problems with
the use of MOGAS and the federalis are happy with an STC.
Be sure to get the opinion of your A&P or AI. He will be aware of
what's available in your area and be able to advise you what is best for
your area.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Verwey
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:36 AM
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Having digested the technicalities, I still don't know the
effects or dangers of using mogas in an "avgas" engine.....
Bob Verwey
A35 Bonanza
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
I'm glad you brought up that fact. MOGAS is formulated a number of
different ways. The formula used for winter and summer are different as
are
the formulas used in the mountains as opposed to those formulas sold in
low
altitude areas. 100LL has one formula regardless of whether you buy it
in
your home town, Timbuktu or Alert. I do know of cases where gasoline
was
being transported in accidentally open containers at lower than O2
altitudes
and arrived only half full. The reason given was because of the
volatility
of the fuel it simply evaporated at the altitude.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Olen
Goodwin
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
I'm not addressing the other factors, but I will say 6000 feet is no
obstacle for mogas. My vehicles spend more time between 6000 and 10000
than
below it and it's no problem.
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel <mailto:noelloveys@yahoo.ca> Loveys
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:20 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Lets see...
The certified engine should have a certain amount of lead in the fuel.
Yes
it fouls plugs but that is why the plugs should be inspected and
cleaned/replaced on a regular basis.
The certified engine is pretty high compression so to prevent pinging,
detonation and backfiring it should have a pretty good diet of high
octane
gas.
The certified engine may fly at higher altitudes. Avgas isn't as
volatile
as MOGAS so more of it will actually get to go through your engine and
not
out the vent.
Rubber fittings in the aircraft carbs and fuel system may not be alcohol
safe. Some fuel system component$ may turn to very expensive mu$h if
exposed to alcohol in some MOGAS for extended periods of time. Be aware
that Alcohol, if it's in your MOGAS, has an affinity for water
(moisture) so
it's use may require the use of carb heat
My best guess, and that's all it is, is most MOGAS supreme (booze free)
should be ok for use in certified engines that aren't doing continuous
full
power applications or flying over 6000 feet on a regular basis. check
to
make sure that your insurance doesn't have any problems with the use of
MOGAS and the federalis are happy with an STC.
Be sure to get the opinion of your A&P or AI. He will be aware of
what's
available in your area and be able to advise you what is best for your
area.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Verwey
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Having digested the technicalities, I still don't know the effects or
dangers of using mogas in an "avgas" engine.....
Bob Verwey
A35 Bonanza
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mogas versus 100LL |
I especially agree with your last statement Frank. The problem in
getting
the real figures is the number of different blends of MOGAS available.
I
think your Zodiac may have forward facing vents in the fuel caps which
help
to pressurize the fuel system and prevent evaporation at altitude.
I run MOGAS in my little Kitfox two stroke. I know that's a good
stretch
from the engine in the Beech, Two stroke vs. four stroke, two cylinders
vs.
four cylinders and of course air-cooled boxer vs. inline liquid cooled.
Not
to mention the roller bearings in the little R. All my flying is low
altitude and so far all summer flying. That may change this winter.
I have serviced several certified aircraft, some use MOGAS, others
100LL.
Again none of them fly above 10K.ft. Some have trouble getting above
1500'
that happens when most of your flying is to the closest fishing hole to
fill
the frying pan for breakfast.
The only difference I've seen is on the plugs and in the oil. The MOGAS
is
much cleaner on the plugs and at better than $50/plug it's a plus not to
have to do as much cleaning, a practice that's not recommended by plug
manufacturers but apparently very common.
It is interesting that the insurance Co.s don't seem to like the MOGAS
because they won't write policies for commercial planes using MOGAS to
carry
passengers but they may allow it for use in aircraft used for training.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hinde,
Frank
George (Corvallis)
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 12:16 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
So cars in Colorado boil all of their fuel off or what about cars that
drive up Pikes Peak?
I flew at 10K or above in mY old Zodiac and NEVER had fuel boiling off.
OK so lets get to some real numbers....I have tested numerous batches of
autofuel and the very worse was a winter blend of REGULAR gas...That
showed
some boiling at 11k.
The premiums were all good to about 15K.
It is very simple to do a vapour pressure check and I agree it should be
done. Also your fuel system needs to have good vents and a system design
that does not excessively suck on the fuel.
As to "pretty high compression".....well Superior warrants their engines
for
92 OCT mogas up to and including 8.5:1 CR.
The real issue for me in using Mogas is not can it be run safely...It
can,
there are many engines that see nothing else....The issue is at what CHT
and
what mixture regimes.
Mogas has a detonation danger zone around the 50F ROP....Max cruise CHT
is
400F for a 360 Lycoming...A higher CHT will be more likely to detonate
and
so will a lower octane fuel...So the question is what is the max CHT and
where should one put the mixture control for cruise flight. There is no
point in running cheaper gas if you have to burn so much more keeping
the
CHT's down.
Having said that there are so many OWT's out there and they really do
nothing but prevent real progress on the issue.
We need real data or engines run for the long term and information on
HOW
they were run and what happened.
Frank
_____
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 6:21 AM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Lets see...
The certified engine should have a certain amount of lead in the fuel.
Yes
it fouls plugs but that is why the plugs should be inspected and
cleaned/replaced on a regular basis.
The certified engine is pretty high compression so to prevent pinging,
detonation and backfiring it should have a pretty good diet of high
octane
gas.
The certified engine may fly at higher altitudes. Avgas isn't as
volatile
as MOGAS so more of it will actually get to go through your engine and
not
out the vent.
Rubber fittings in the aircraft carbs and fuel system may not be alcohol
safe. Some fuel system component$ may turn to very expensive mu$h if
exposed to alcohol in some MOGAS for extended periods of time. Be aware
that Alcohol, if it's in your MOGAS, has an affinity for water
(moisture) so
it's use may require the use of carb heat
My best guess, and that's all it is, is most MOGAS supreme (booze free)
should be ok for use in certified engines that aren't doing continuous
full
power applications or flying over 6000 feet on a regular basis. check
to
make sure that your insurance doesn't have any problems with the use of
MOGAS and the federalis are happy with an STC.
Be sure to get the opinion of your A&P or AI. He will be aware of
what's
available in your area and be able to advise you what is best for your
area.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Verwey
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL
Having digested the technicalities, I still don't know the effects or
dangers of using mogas in an "avgas" engine.....
Bob Verwey
A35 Bonanza
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
nics.com/Navigator?Engines-List
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
Quote: I'd say procurement is probably one of the top reasons for
institutional CYA. Misguided pride is another...
I agree with the second reason (hence my football reference), but I really
don't see much of that in the military on an institutional level. Too much
oversight at all levels. The inclination may be there, but it gets overcome
by competing criteria.
Procurement? Certainly a tough game in the military, and one where MANY
rather embarrassing mistakes are made. But the T-3 had already brought that
humiliation to the institution. Selling them would have opened the door for
more of the same, more so than the scrapping IMO. I could be construed as
CYA to sell the aircraft to reduce the waste just as much as CYA to scrap to
prevent further embarrassment (not even considering the potential for actual
damage to the buyer).
FYI, Edwards just sent a team to Iraq to see why a Comp-Air 7 (highly
modified to include tricycle landing gear and a turboprop) that belonged to
the Iraqi Air Force crashed. The investigation and flight test done on the
remaining fleet pointed to scrapping those aircraft too. Guess what, from
VERY high up it was declared that we would fix the aircraft. The reason was
of course political. The State Department wants it to look like we are
helping the Iraqis, not carrying them. It would have been easier and
cheaper to just give them some C-12's and T-34's to replace their POS
aircraft, but no! Well, some time later, the project appeared to be near to
being scrapped (so to speak). I really don't know the final status as I
retired several months ago and the project was still not quite dead.
-Doug Dodson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-engines-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 6:45 PM
Subject: RE: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY
--> Engines-List message posted by: Jeff Boatright <jboatri@emory.edu>
Doug,
I'd say procurement is probably one of the top reasons for
institutional CYA. Misguided pride is another (where one gets the
actions of the organization confused with one's self-perception - I
feel bad when Emory University gets dinged. Why? I wasn't the one who
did x, y, or z. But I still feel bad.).
From my POV, which is not based on military experience, but rather a
little (a little) experience with large organizations both private
and public, there is a vast distance between those who get the job
done (people who you describe, I think, very aptly) and people who
set top level and long term policy. They often are the ones who are
looking to the budget for the next decades and "legacy". At that
level, regardless of who did what on any one project, if the
organization gets dinged, the organization's future is threatened.
Thus, sweep stuff under the rug, make sure the long term budget is
safe.
As for being naive, I apologize if I was condescending. I don't think
you're naive, I think that you and I were just talking at cross
purposes and I tend to be a smart-ass. But I'm working on toning it
down!
Jeff
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" <dodsond@qnet.com>
>
>Uh, OK. Maybe there is such a thing, but the DoD is not a college
football
>alumni association. What would be the driving motivation for
"institutional
>CYA"? Why would a person make a decision to protect an institution as fast
>changing as the military? In my experience, my leaders considered first
>what is best for the mission, and so long as that criteria is met, what is
>best for the education and morale of the workforce. CYA certainly exists
but
>it doesn't seem to span the length of a tour of whomever is involved.
>Safety IS the primary motivation for CYA decision making. The USAF may be
>the second most risk-averse government agency, right after NASA.
>
>Just my observations and opinion. Maybe I'm just naive.
>
>-Doug Dodson
--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Ophthalmology
Emory University School of Medicine
Atlanta, GA 30322
Editor-in-Chief
Molecular Vision
http://www.molvis.org/
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|