---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 09/26/06: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:08:31 AM PST US From: "Bob Verwey " 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:53:36 AM PST US From: "Tommy Walker" Subject: Re: Engines-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:22:03 AM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" 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 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:08:25 AM PST US From: "Olen Goodwin" Subject: Re: Engines-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:47:18 AM PST US From: "Jim Baker" Subject: Re: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41) --> Engines-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" >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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:48:05 AM PST US Subject: RE: Engines-List: Mogas versus 100LL From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:41 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Engines-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:57:19 PM PST US From: "Noel Loveys" Subject: RE: Engines-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:19:16 PM PST US From: "Doug Dodson" Subject: RE: Engines-List: T-3 FIREFLY --> Engines-List message posted by: "Doug Dodson" 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 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" > >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/