Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:27 AM - Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS (Griffo)
2. 12:29 AM - Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS (Griffo)
3. 12:33 AM - Re: Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS (D McFadyean)
4. 01:08 AM - Re: Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS (D McFadyean)
5. 01:28 AM - Re: Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS (D McFadyean)
6. 05:32 AM - Re: Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS (Pete)
7. 10:20 AM - Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS (n7188u)
8. 11:56 AM - Re: Populated Instrument Module weight (Jeffrey Williams)
9. 12:03 PM - Re: CKT exhaust header tube needed, please. (JonathanMilbank)
10. 01:49 PM - Re: Re: CKT exhaust header tube needed, please. (Bud Yerly)
11. 04:54 PM - Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS (Griffo)
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: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS |
If you want to find out just how far you can go with an unmodified Rotax 912 ULS - Google, Robin Austin and the story of his record breaking Sonerai VH-SGS http://www.worldrecordplane.com/
(Note: there is a mention of adjustable carburetors)
--------
46
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501497#501497
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: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS |
For what its worth; me things the CTLS & Sport cruiser are worthy aircraft that
are more hype than performance. Yet to hear of one actually achieving the performance
claims, in real world operations.
--------
46
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501498#501498
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: | Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS |
The SL (SL-912-016R1) doesn't say what is being reported in this thread. It says:
"Continuous use of engine speed below 5200 rpm must follow manifold pressure graph...."
So a takeoff and climb to 500' @ WOT is not 'continuous'.
'Continuous' might be defined by Rotax's 5-minute rule in relation to continuous
operation at >5500rpm. Cruising at 4000rpm is permitted at <27" MP, for example,
and the SL merely says operation outside of the graph is to be "limited",
not verboten.
Then there is the other hearsay (reported from the secret Rotax instructional events)
that "resonances" disfavour low (<5200rpm) rev operation, but where is
the published (by Rotax) technical evidence? Other than maybe the fretting of
crankcases in older designs, the cause of which seems also to be hearsay tainted
by vested/misguided interests?
Duncan McF.
> On 24 April 2021 at 04:06 Peter pender <ppen@live.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> The SL that I referred Griffo to back in your other post states the you should
have 5200 rpm min at take off WOT. It doesn't say what part of TO. It also doesn't
mention any thing about static revs in regard prop pitch. They now have
a sort of power chart as well but once again, pretty vague.
>
> Pete is probably correct that it doesn't help the gearbox but I think the main
reason is to protect the crankshaft. That SL came out after a crash where an
aircraft with an inflight adjustable prop had been operated for some time at
too low revs for the MAP.
>
> Prior to that most people tried for 4900 to 5000 at TO for a bit of cruise performance
and I'm sure a lot of people still do.
>
> It's really what ever people feel comfortable with.
>
> Cheers Peter
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501494#501494
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS |
And it's all at <3500'. Above which, there are 'no rules'.
DMcF.
> On 24 April 2021 at 08:33 D McFadyean <ami-mcfadyean@talktalk.net> wrote:
>
>
> The SL (SL-912-016R1) doesn't say what is being reported in this thread. It says:
> "Continuous use of engine speed below 5200 rpm must follow manifold pressure
graph...."
>
> So a takeoff and climb to 500' @ WOT is not 'continuous'.
> 'Continuous' might be defined by Rotax's 5-minute rule in relation to continuous
operation at >5500rpm. Cruising at 4000rpm is permitted at <27" MP, for example,
and the SL merely says operation outside of the graph is to be "limited",
not verboten.
>
> Then there is the other hearsay (reported from the secret Rotax instructional
events) that "resonances" disfavour low (<5200rpm) rev operation, but where is
the published (by Rotax) technical evidence? Other than maybe the fretting of
crankcases in older designs, the cause of which seems also to be hearsay tainted
by vested/misguided interests?
>
> Duncan McF.
>
> > On 24 April 2021 at 04:06 Peter pender <ppen@live.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > The SL that I referred Griffo to back in your other post states the you should
have 5200 rpm min at take off WOT. It doesn't say what part of TO. It also
doesn't mention any thing about static revs in regard prop pitch. They now have
a sort of power chart as well but once again, pretty vague.
> >
> > Pete is probably correct that it doesn't help the gearbox but I think the main
reason is to protect the crankshaft. That SL came out after a crash where
an aircraft with an inflight adjustable prop had been operated for some time at
too low revs for the MAP.
> >
> > Prior to that most people tried for 4900 to 5000 at TO for a bit of cruise
performance and I'm sure a lot of people still do.
> >
> > It's really what ever people feel comfortable with.
> >
> > Cheers Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501494#501494
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
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: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS |
To respond to your original question, attached is some recent speed data. It's
a bit 'all over the place' if plotted.
Duncan McF
> On 24 April 2021 at 05:15 n7188u <chmgarb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I did continue my research (learning was after all the intent of this posting)
and found a Rotax SL-912-016 which does state that WOT operation during takeoff
should not result in an RPM lower than 5200 RPM. In light of this new factual
information I will say please do follow this recommendation.
>
> But I will say this openly: I didn't buy a certified airplane, instead I choose
to build an experimental Europa and, at least in the US, that means that it
is my responsibility to determine what are the operational parameters that will
result in safe operation but also in the performance I expected to achieve
from this aircraft. Google "LongEZ N295JF" (Race 25) and I think you will understand
where I come from.
>
> Sadly, we do live in a litigious society and having open discussions in public
forums regarding the essence of what experimental aviation is about is dangerous
business so I will desist right now from doing that. I will share any factual
info I find such as the one presented above or in the previous postings but
it is up to each individual to decide what to do with that info. Really sad.
>
> But I still would be interested in receiving information regarding RPM/MAP and
speed for your 912 ULS monowheel as originally intended.
>
> And PeteZ, both the CTLS and the Sport Cruiser are equipped with he 100 HP ULS
engine.
>
> Best Regards,
> Chris Martin
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501496#501496
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS |
As always Bud, an excellent post. Thanks for taking the time.
Cheers!
PeteZ
> On Apr 23, 2021, at 10:59 PM, Bud Yerly <budyerly@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> Guys,
> The main problem with playing with pitch on the propeller is one never wants
to overload or lug the engine on takeoff.
> See Rotax SL 912-16R1 which states to set WOT for takeoff no lower than 5200
on the 912 and 912S/914 with specified fuel octanes.
> Reason is detonation. If you run high quality gas 5200 Static WOT pretty much
assures you that detonation is unlikely.
> Since detonation is destructive and at 5000 RPM can't be detected by ear easily
and the engine has no knock sensor, it is probably a good idea not to lug the
engine down below that.
>
> Aircraft manufacturers are interesting.
> To tout the top speed of an aircraft a fixed pitch is set to 4000 for WOT takeoff.
Needless to say one can check the Rotax Operational charts and that is
at the limit of the propellers capability and frankly beyond the edge of possible
detonation, but at 7500 feet MSL the cruise speed is decent so it is put in
the brochure.
> For takeoff distance, the aircraft manufacturer sets 5650 and gets spectacularly
short takeoffs. Of course, immediately after liftoff the engine is at 5800
RPM and the throttle is ripped back to prevent an overspeed.
>
> Manufacturers are interested in airplane sales. You will not get the exact performance
of the book normally.
>
> It is prudent to set 5200 for auto gas operations especially where octane ratings
may be suspect.
>
> In test flying to get the best from your aircraft the test pilot must fly boring
short flights at differing prop settings to get the best all around prop setting.
> For me that was 5000 RPM on AvGas WOT Static. I got 5500 at 90 Kts climb, 5000
at cruise at 134Kts. In a 900 pound APS or empty wt. trigear.
>
> Clean composite aircraft will run out of prop with a fixed pitch almost all the
time. You will have to live with reducing the power to maintain 5000 RPM for
cruise or run around like the LSAs at higher RPMs trying to get somewhere.
>
> Performance testing requires repetitive tests at specific RPM, MP, FF, Altitude
and weight. Make a spreadsheet and note the prop pitch for the test, fuel
type, WOT static indications, TO roll, Climb speed to get 5500 exactly, and log
the RPM, Throttle position, MP, FF, at each cruise altitude. Land and tweak
the prop and go fly again compensating for the altitude change as the temp changes
to maintain roughly the same density. SPREADSHEETS TELL THE STORY!
>
> Don't go cheap on fuel.
>
> I have tested an 80 HP KR at 4000 RPM WOT on AvGas and the takeoff was less than
spectacular. Over a 1000 foot takeoff roll. Float in the landing was so bad
shutting the engine off is preferred on a hot day. 10,000 foot speed was quite
impressive. If I recall that little KR2 went nearly 138 Knots on a fixed
Warp Drive tapered blade. (Cold day!) Never did that again. Most of that planes
life was done at 5000 RPM WOT Static. Speed dropped only about 10 knots
but you could get off the ground in 800 feet and land on a 3000 foot runway and
turn off at mid field without shutting off the engine.
>
> I prefer to spend the bucks and install a constant speed prop on composite aircraft.
You get the best takeoff distance, climb rate and best cruise your engine
can provide.
> I still don't do Max Continuous at altitude with the 914. I stick with my charts
and look for the best range, max endurance, or time to destination I can
get. My little Europa responds. On 912S equipped aircraft, fuel flow does not
decrease with altitude above roughly 3500 MSL. So, either a leaning kit is
needed or at WOT your gas milage tends to sag, so setting the throttle slightly
back and or adding a leaning kit increases performance and range slightly.
>
> On a 912S ram air is not normally a good idea. It tends to lean the engine excessively
rather than add MP. The typical Bing is designed to suck air, that
is why the Bing 64 on the 914 has all those gimmicks to keep the mixture right.
>
> Go get some data on your plane. But don't blow the engine doing it. It's expensive
and time consuming.
>
> Best Regards,
> Bud Yerly
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com <owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com>
On Behalf Of n7188u
> Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 11:38 AM
> To: europa-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Europa-List: Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS
>
>
> First let me apologize to the group for trying to dig so deep into this subject.
I am by no means an expert but I have been around a bit. However, my goal
is to learn and as an Engineer I do tend to overthink stuff a little (good thing
when you design life critical medical devices :) ).
>
> Griffo, this subject is so complex, and open to so much debate that yes, what
you mention is valid, but a few items beg to be clarified as to ensure we are
comparing apples to apples.
>
> First, RPM alone is not enough to determine the power output of an engine (although
you mention speed which could be used as the additional parameter but I
prefer not to due to variability). You need a way to determine that the pitch
in your prop is set correctly to start with (and hence the engine is developing
the desired power). A common way to "communicate" this to aircraft builders
is through the "static RPM" parameter. But, although a good starting point for
first flight, the final outcome is so dependent on the prop design that the
parameter alone is not enough to properly set a ground adjustable prop.
>
> And yes, the "art" of adjusting a fixed pitch prop will always depend on the
preference of the user so is there really a "right" answer?, certainly not. Keep
in mind though that the Europa, as well as my LongEZ, ire aircrafts designed
for speed so it is my goal to maximize speed and still retain acceptable TO
performance. Also, the engine operates most of the time in cruise regime, so to
achieve descent efficiency it is desirable to operate at power/RPM settings
that avoids "chocking" the engine with low throttle settings.
>
> The consensus I found in the Rotax-Owners forums that made most sense to me is
to adjust the prop pitch so that you get 5800 RPM WOT in the air at level flight
(of course this would be altitude and temp dependent). Then check RPM on
takeoff to make sure it will still provide acceptable takeoff and climb performance.
If you set your prop with that specific baseline then yes the MAP info
is unnecessary for comparison purposes but only if everyone does it that way (unlikely).
>
> BTW, I have spoken to CTLS owners in my field and they agree that 4900 to 5000
RPM on initial climb is customary. As soon as you go to cruise climb speeds
that number goes up significantly. If you don't do that the cruise performance
will be dismal. They still get impressive TO performance and keep in mind that
you are operating at that lower RPM high torque regime for a very short period
of time. My LongEZ gives me only 2200 RPM on initial rollout (totally unacceptable
per Rutan) but goes up to 2500 by the time I am rotating. On cruise I
have to live with 2700 with my throttle lever at around 1/4 open (100 RPM less
than redline) which is not great. So is the nature of the beast. In the LongEZ
I play with altitude to achieve optimal RPM. Yes, altitude is my VP control
:) But that works on a prop that is slightly overpitched.
>
> Right now , on my Europa, I am getting around 5300 RPM/80 knts @ WOT on climb
but WOT at level flight still exceeds 5800 RPM. At cruise, I checked today, I
am at 5200 RPM/22" MAP at 3000' but only truing 115 ktas. I think based on this
I still need more pitch. BTW, Bud Yerly told me my airplane will be slow since
I still don't have my final shiny coat of paint. I believe him.
>
> Of course I can keep tweaking the blade angle until I reach a good compromise
(and ultimately that will be the process) but with just a little feedback from
the group I can then compare the performance of my airplane to other folks flying
the Europa out there.
>
> Best Regards,
> Chris
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fp%3D501478%23501478&data=04%7C01%7C%7C1df5dbba5d174a15e3b008d9066e5159%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637547893148900798%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=bEoHy5XU5%2Fi9OXP%2BmcpbiVEbvDkyK7K8DwfoLYNLPDA%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS |
I join PeterZ in thanking Bud for the post as well as those who replied in this
post.
I read the SL and I agree Bud that Rotax concern revolves around the issue of detonation.
Valid and much more serious than concerns about the longevity of the
engine (my opinion).
I wholeheartedly agree and have learned, as a new Rotax 912 operator, that the
auto gasoline situation is, well, not optimal (short of using words not appropriate
for a forum). We used to have Mogas at the field and life was good but that
went away (I guess people are not concerned about leaded aviation fuel anymore).
The unleaded no-ethanol stuff I get at the gas station looks like piss and smells
like **** (dead dinosaur ****?). Per my CTLS friend advice I do mix it 50-50
with premium ethanol-full stuff. I agree that if there a risk of detonation,
the fuel we use is not helping the cause (or make you feel better). I heard of
some people that have the 914 engine run straight premium gas (with ethanol).
Would that be safer than using stale non-ethanol fuel that we don't know how
long it sits in the gas station?
I also agree that a CS prop is the way to go and I hope to one day be able to get
one.
Best regards,
Chris
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501503#501503
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: | Re: Populated Instrument Module weight |
Well, rparigor@hotmail.com <mailto:rparigor@hotmail.com>, my instrument
panel weighs 15 pounds. This is what is on and in it.
MGL Avionics =9CVoyager=9D Electronic Flight Instrument
System (EFIS)
MGL Avionics =9CV6" Comm Radio=9D
Mode S - uAvonix Echo ESX UAT transceiver/Mode S transponder with ADS-B
in/out
Magnetic Compass
Pitch Trim Indicator and rocker switch
Flap switch
Rheostat for panel lights
Cabin Light switch
ELT indicator light and reset button
Separate 30A Alternator Breaker (Tyco Electronics W31-X2M1G-30)
Standard Power Panel, Composite Design Inc.(Wayne Lanza), which has
eight switches, including a Cessna type split master switch, and 18
circuit breakers.
Plug-in jacks for pilot and passenger headphones
Plug-in jack for auxiliary audio
Two warning /caution lights (for battery and EFIS)
Various placards, as required
Panel wiring and associated D-sub connectors.
Regards,
Jeff Williams
> On Apr 23, 2021, at 12:21 PM, rparigoris <rparigor@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Group
> Curiosity question: Whats the weight of your Populated Instrument
Module, and what do you have in it?
> I know some have went on a weight reduction mission, before and after
results would be of interest.
> Thx. Ron P.
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501480#501480
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: CKT exhaust header tube needed, please. |
Thanks Bud.
After posting this topic yesterday I was emailed by Donald Cameron who flies from
Oban on the Scottish West Coast. He has experienced at least one similar crack
at the same location on the tube from #3 cylinder. He also sent pictures of
cracks on top of his muffler box, which fortunately I haven't yet suffered.
Since installation of the CKT exhaust system 4 years ago, my aircraft has done
230 hours airborne and also about 50 hours running on the ground, before the
fracture occurred. Not too bad, I think.
If I remember correctly, Kevin Dilks (a UK Rotax engine rebuilder who used to work
in the factory in Austria) advised that the 912S engines have a "sweet spot"
around 4700 rpm, so in the cruise I generally set my Airmaster propeller control
to Manual and reduce engine speed below 5000 rpm, which subjectively makes
everything feel considerably less harsh.
Whether other Rotax 912S powered aircraft are achieving more than 200 flight hours
before cracks appear in their CKT muffler systems would be interesting to
know.
Finally, yes Donald Cameron and I both had cracks originating near the spring attachment.
Thanks again.
Jonathan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501506#501506
Message 10
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: CKT exhaust header tube needed, please. |
CKT replaced any problems for me.
Contact CKT with the year group and save time.
Many of the CKT problems were not a result of welds but installation as many folks
did not tighten down the exhaust uniformly. It is not rocket science but
I am impressed with the problems with the older shakey 912ULS.
Call CKT.
Bud Yerly
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com <owner-europa-list-server@matronics.com>
On Behalf Of JonathanMilbank
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 3:03 PM
Subject: Europa-List: Re: CKT exhaust header tube needed, please.
Thanks Bud.
After posting this topic yesterday I was emailed by Donald Cameron who flies from
Oban on the Scottish West Coast. He has experienced at least one similar crack
at the same location on the tube from #3 cylinder. He also sent pictures of
cracks on top of his muffler box, which fortunately I haven't yet suffered.
Since installation of the CKT exhaust system 4 years ago, my aircraft has done
230 hours airborne and also about 50 hours running on the ground, before the
fracture occurred. Not too bad, I think.
If I remember correctly, Kevin Dilks (a UK Rotax engine rebuilder who used to work
in the factory in Austria) advised that the 912S engines have a "sweet spot"
around 4700 rpm, so in the cruise I generally set my Airmaster propeller control
to Manual and reduce engine speed below 5000 rpm, which subjectively makes
everything feel considerably less harsh.
Whether other Rotax 912S powered aircraft are achieving more than 200 flight hours
before cracks appear in their CKT muffler systems would be interesting to
know.
Finally, yes Donald Cameron and I both had cracks originating near the spring attachment.
Thanks again.
Jonathan
Read this topic online here:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums.matronics.com%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fp%3D501506%23501506&data=04%7C01%7C%7C9cab8b1d323e4d04bab108d9075420d3%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637548880171823952%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=6fhYlaCXcMtDBmPiqUKk3WTuDgM3NqtaFsTShdl3vos%3D&reserved=0
Message 11
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: Cruise speed data for Monowheel with 912ULS |
Chris, 3 points:
Detonation will reduce the service life of your engine ie longevity.
The description of fuel for your country/location may not be easily interpreted
in another; In Australia we have two grades of unleaded automotive petrol/gasoline
(ULP/MoGas) that are appropriate for use in Rotax 91 engines - 95 RON &
98 RON (RON stands for Research Octane Rating). We do have an ethanol blend at
10% known as E10, however I have yet to hear of anyone using it.
Testing on the "shelf life" of 95 & 98 RON has shown, if stored in an airtight
container, at or above 75% capacity, both fuels will maintain their quality for
6 + months. If stored in a vented/open container (eg an aircraft fuel tank)
loss of volatile fractions is quite quick (going off within two weeks) with the
fuel loosing mainly those fractions that assist in starting. The addition of
a significant fresh top up will restore the whole fuel supply to almost 100%
--------
46
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=501510#501510
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! --
|