Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:53 AM - Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (Roger Lee)
2. 08:17 AM - Re: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (Jack Kuehn)
3. 01:54 PM - Re: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (Noel Loveys)
4. 03:39 PM - Re: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (John Cox)
5. 03:39 PM - Re: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (Jack Kuehn)
6. 04:08 PM - Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (rampil)
7. 06:04 PM - Re: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (Noel Loveys)
8. 06:23 PM - Re: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (Noel Loveys)
9. 06:53 PM - Re: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (Noel Loveys)
10. 08:25 PM - Re: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline (Jack Kuehn)
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
For me personally,
I would run 10% ethanol before 100LL. If you have ever seen a gear box and engine
run on 100LL torn down then you would pick 91 oct. with the ethanol every time.
100LL is far harder on the 912. The lead gets every where and you have to
do certain tear downs along the way to clean out the lead deposits.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181912#181912
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
You don't have to tear down the gear box to see the lead deposits, you can
see it caked up on the spark plugs and sludging up in the bottom of the oil
sump! The only problem with ethanol is you get slightly less power. I
suppose it could be hard on your fuel lines, but I have seen no evidence of
this.
Jack
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> For me personally,
> I would run 10% ethanol before 100LL. If you have ever seen a gear box and
> engine run on 100LL torn down then you would pick 91 oct. with the ethanol
> every time. 100LL is far harder on the 912. The lead gets every where and
> you have to do certain tear downs along the way to clean out the lead
> deposits.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181912#181912
>
>
(406)273-2563 fax
http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
Jack:
Why is it then that COPA does NOT recommend the use of ethanol contaminated
fuels. Why is it the FAA will not certify ethanol contaminated fuels? I
agree most of our engines should not be using 100LL ( should be Loaded with
Lead) My opinion on the use of ethanol as a fuel source is well known as is
my opinion on using it to fly. Best thing is to hoot holler and yell bloody
murder until the brain dead politicians allow access to clean fuel.
Who runs our countries any way??? Use the ballot box!
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Kuehn
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline
You don't have to tear down the gear box to see the lead deposits, you can
see it caked up on the spark plugs and sludging up in the bottom of the oil
sump! The only problem with ethanol is you get slightly less power. I
suppose it could be hard on your fuel lines, but I have seen no evidence of
this.
Jack
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
For me personally,
I would run 10% ethanol before 100LL. If you have ever seen a gear box and
engine run on 100LL torn down then you would pick 91 oct. with the ethanol
every time. 100LL is far harder on the 912. The lead gets every where and
you have to do certain tear downs along the way to clean out the lead
deposits.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181912#181912
(406)273-2563 fax
http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
The leaded gas is permitted up to the 50% rule. The maintenance is
straight forward to correct the result.
The ethanol gasoline at 10% is not permitted and when it absorbs
moisture and you fly at altitude the result does not allow for a
mechanic to help you correct the response or for warrantee adjustment.
YMMV.
John Cox
Portland, OR and Rotax Trained
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended
gasoline
Jack:
Why is it then that COPA does NOT recommend the use of ethanol
contaminated fuels. Why is it the FAA will not certify ethanol
contaminated fuels? I agree most of our engines should not be using
100LL ( should be Loaded with Lead) My opinion on the use of ethanol as
a fuel source is well known as is my opinion on using it to fly. Best
thing is to hoot holler and yell bloody murder until the brain dead
politicians allow access to clean fuel.
Who runs our countries any way??? Use the ballot box!
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Kuehn
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended
gasoline
You don't have to tear down the gear box to see the lead deposits, you
can see it caked up on the spark plugs and sludging up in the bottom of
the oil sump! The only problem with ethanol is you get slightly less
power. I suppose it could be hard on your fuel lines, but I have seen
no evidence of this.
Jack
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
<ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
For me personally,
I would run 10% ethanol before 100LL. If you have ever seen a gear box
and engine run on 100LL torn down then you would pick 91 oct. with the
ethanol every time. 100LL is far harder on the 912. The lead gets every
where and you have to do certain tear downs along the way to clean out
the lead deposits.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181912#181912
(406)273-2563 fax
http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
Noel,
I understand your point of view, however another take on it might be that we
are very fortunate indeed to have any fuel at all, at any price. Billions
of people in the world have their hands full just surviving. Flying is
indeed a luxury.
Jack
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Jack:
>
> Why is it then that COPA does NOT recommend the use of ethanol contaminated
> fuels. Why is it the FAA will not certify ethanol contaminated fuels? I
> agree most of our engines should not be using 100LL ( should be Loaded with
> Lead) My opinion on the use of ethanol as a fuel source is well known as is
> my opinion on using it to fly. Best thing is to hoot holler and yell bloody
> murder until the brain dead politicians allow access to clean fuel.
>
>
> Who runs our countries any way??? Use the ballot box!
>
>
> Noel
>
>
> *From:* owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jack Kuehn
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:45 PM
> *To:* rotaxengines-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended
> gasoline
>
>
> You don't have to tear down the gear box to see the lead deposits, you can
> see it caked up on the spark plugs and sludging up in the bottom of the oil
> sump! The only problem with ethanol is you get slightly less power. I
> suppose it could be hard on your fuel lines, but I have seen no evidence of
> this.
>
> Jack
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> For me personally,
> I would run 10% ethanol before 100LL. If you have ever seen a gear box and
> engine run on 100LL torn down then you would pick 91 oct. with the ethanol
> every time. 100LL is far harder on the 912. The lead gets every where and
> you have to do certain tear downs along the way to clean out the lead
> deposits.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181912#181912
>
>
> (406)273-2563 fax
> http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
--
Jack Kuehn
5565 Brady Ln
Lolo, MT USA 59847
(406)273-6801
(406)546-1086 cell
jack.kuehn@gmail.com
(406)273-2563 fax
http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
John,
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with E10 Mogas.
You just have to understand the differences.
E10 has a somewhat lower energy density, about 5%
E10 may have a somewhat higher likelihood to vaporize and flow lock
tubing over 10k density altitude.
Oh yes, and E10 will melt old lycoming and continental engines and
old cessnas and pipers that use cork and natural rubber in their
fuel systems. Bad for them, irrelevant to Rotax engines which
are not composed of E10 sensitive materials.
The FAA will not "approve" EtOH for general use when there are so many
airframes and engines that are old enough to use rubber, cork, and a
few other EtOH sensitive components
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=182026#182026
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
That would be funny... if it wasn't so serious.
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Cox
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: RE: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline
The leaded gas is permitted up to the 50% rule. The maintenance is straight
forward to correct the result.
The ethanol gasoline at 10% is not permitted and when it absorbs moisture
and you fly at altitude the result does not allow for a mechanic to help you
correct the response or for warrantee adjustment.
YMMV.
John Cox
Portland, OR and Rotax Trained
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Noel
Loveys
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 1:50 PM
Subject: RE: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline
Jack:
Why is it then that COPA does NOT recommend the use of ethanol contaminated
fuels. Why is it the FAA will not certify ethanol contaminated fuels? I
agree most of our engines should not be using 100LL ( should be Loaded with
Lead) My opinion on the use of ethanol as a fuel source is well known as is
my opinion on using it to fly. Best thing is to hoot holler and yell bloody
murder until the brain dead politicians allow access to clean fuel.
Who runs our countries any way??? Use the ballot box!
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Kuehn
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline
You don't have to tear down the gear box to see the lead deposits, you can
see it caked up on the spark plugs and sludging up in the bottom of the oil
sump! The only problem with ethanol is you get slightly less power. I
suppose it could be hard on your fuel lines, but I have seen no evidence of
this.
Jack
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
For me personally,
I would run 10% ethanol before 100LL. If you have ever seen a gear box and
engine run on 100LL torn down then you would pick 91 oct. with the ethanol
every time. 100LL is far harder on the 912. The lead gets every where and
you have to do certain tear downs along the way to clean out the lead
deposits.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181912#181912
(406)273-2563 fax
http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
I'm first to agree that flying is indeed a luxury. But it should be done
with the greatest safety and economic responsibility. Ethanol fuel
production in that past two months has increased the price at the pumps and
to add insult to injury the cost of food is sky rocketing at a slightly
lower rate. With the increase problems of using ethanol in aviation and the
stone cold fact ethanol production is anything but economically responsible
it's use should be prohibited not encouraged.
There are times I actually feel a bit guilty in the fact where I live on the
island of Newfoundland the chances of getting contaminated fuel are slim.
In fact there is only one refiner/distributor of gasoline that ships gas to
Newfoundland and they aren't too happy with what the stuff does to their
tankers. We don't ( really can't) grow corn commercially here so our local
refinery doesn't produce any E blend
Sometimes it's good to be surrounded by water....
Time will show how wrong the idiots in both our governments really are. I
just hope no one will end up paying the ultimate price.
There are places like Arizona where it is questionable as to how much
moisture ethanol will absorb from the air. In such places the possibility
of problems are greatly reduced. However the guy who lives in Washington
state or British Columbia is a lot more prone to having a phase separation
just because their environment is so much damper and they are subject to
some pretty large temperature swings especially while flying. I recommend
everyone read their legislators the riot act and use your best weapon... the
ballot box. It may be an uphill battle. No doubt it will be. Consider the
fact it is the right thing to do.
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Kuehn
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline
Noel,
I understand your point of view, however another take on it might be that we
are very fortunate indeed to have any fuel at all, at any price. Billions
of people in the world have their hands full just surviving. Flying is
indeed a luxury.
Jack
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Jack:
Why is it then that COPA does NOT recommend the use of ethanol contaminated
fuels. Why is it the FAA will not certify ethanol contaminated fuels? I
agree most of our engines should not be using 100LL ( should be Loaded with
Lead) My opinion on the use of ethanol as a fuel source is well known as is
my opinion on using it to fly. Best thing is to hoot holler and yell bloody
murder until the brain dead politicians allow access to clean fuel.
Who runs our countries any way??? Use the ballot box!
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Kuehn
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline
You don't have to tear down the gear box to see the lead deposits, you can
see it caked up on the spark plugs and sludging up in the bottom of the oil
sump! The only problem with ethanol is you get slightly less power. I
suppose it could be hard on your fuel lines, but I have seen no evidence of
this.
Jack
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
For me personally,
I would run 10% ethanol before 100LL. If you have ever seen a gear box and
engine run on 100LL torn down then you would pick 91 oct. with the ethanol
every time. 100LL is far harder on the 912. The lead gets every where and
you have to do certain tear downs along the way to clean out the lead
deposits.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181912#181912
(406)273-2563 fax
http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
Jack Kuehn
5565 Brady Ln
Lolo, MT USA 59847
(406)273-6801
(406)546-1086 cell
jack.kuehn@gmail.com
(406)273-2563 fax
http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
Isn't it a good idea to be able to go over 10,000 ft while flying in some of
the west coast mountains? Check it out... The FAA does not want anyone to
fly on ethanol, new or old. Why?? Because it is dangerous. Those guys are
not ignorant politicians out to purchase a vote or two, but well educated
people in the aviation field. We can all do well to listen to them.
You may fly for years on ethanol laced gas with no problems.... There have
been thousands of people who drive home from the bar too soused to stand up.
Some of them have been doing it for years with no problems but that doesn't
make it any less dangerous. It only means there are a few drunks driving
around with a piece of the Blarney Stone secured in a private place...
Someday the stone and all that's behind it will hit the fan.
I stand by my convictions. Ethanol has no place in aviation, short of
cleaning a few parts and M.E.K. is better for that.
There are a few things I find hard to believe. One is that people will
still try to foist off an obviously poor idea (ethanol fuel) on a public
that are probably smarter than they are. I also find it hard to believe
there are so many people who roll over and say, "Well there's nothing we can
do about it"
As sure as god made little green apples it isn't the American way, Canadian
way, the Australian way or the British way!
Those of you who want to fly on clean safe gasoline get upset, Get loud, get
angry! Let your legislators know you are angry. Ask your politicians who
are facing election or re-election what their stand is and then let them
know in no uncertain terms what your stance is. Kick up a big fuss. Then
put the hammer down in the ballot box. The will only ignore you for one
election and then only if they ulterior motives.
Win, lose or draw at least you will feel good in knowing you have done
something right.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of rampil
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:33 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline
John,
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with E10 Mogas.
You just have to understand the differences.
E10 has a somewhat lower energy density, about 5%
E10 may have a somewhat higher likelihood to vaporize and flow lock
tubing over 10k density altitude.
Oh yes, and E10 will melt old lycoming and continental engines and
old cessnas and pipers that use cork and natural rubber in their
fuel systems. Bad for them, irrelevant to Rotax engines which
are not composed of E10 sensitive materials.
The FAA will not "approve" EtOH for general use when there are so many
airframes and engines that are old enough to use rubber, cork, and a
few other EtOH sensitive components
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=182026#182026
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: Experience with ethanol blended gasoline |
Noel,
Yes I really agree. Email is so limiting in this kind of discussion! Wish
we could sit down and chew on this one for a while. I would learn for
sure. I am lucky enough to live in a relatively dry climate here in western
Montana, so I guess I am oblivious to phase separation though I always
visually check my fuel. Politics of ETOH are a mess, and play a role in
lots of problems.
Jack
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I'm first to agree that flying is indeed a luxury. But it should be done
> with the greatest *safety* and *economic responsibility*. Ethanol fuel
> production in that past two months has increased the price at the pumps and
> to add insult to injury the cost of food is sky rocketing at a slightly
> lower rate. With the increase problems of using ethanol in aviation and the
> stone cold fact ethanol production is anything but economically responsible
> it's use should be prohibited not encouraged.
>
>
> There are times I actually feel a bit guilty in the fact where I live on
> the island of Newfoundland the chances of getting contaminated fuel are
> slim. In fact there is only one refiner/distributor of gasoline that ships
> gas to Newfoundland and they aren't too happy with what the stuff does to
> their tankers. We don't ( really can't) grow corn commercially here so our
> local refinery doesn't produce any E blend
>
>
> Sometimes it's good to be surrounded by water....
>
>
> Time will show how wrong the idiots in both our governments really are. I
> just hope no one will end up paying the ultimate price.
>
>
> There are places like Arizona where it is questionable as to how much
> moisture ethanol will absorb from the air. In such places the possibility
> of problems are greatly reduced. However the guy who lives in Washington
> state or British Columbia is a lot more prone to having a phase separation
> just because their environment is so much damper and they are subject to
> some pretty large temperature swings especially while flying. I recommend
> everyone read their legislators the riot act and use your best weapon... the
> ballot box. It may be an uphill battle. No doubt it will be. Consider the
> fact it is the right thing to do.
>
>
> Noel
>
>
> *From:* owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jack Kuehn
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 8:04 PM
> *To:* rotaxengines-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended
> gasoline
>
>
> Noel,
> I understand your point of view, however another take on it might be that
> we are very fortunate indeed to have any fuel at all, at any price.
> Billions of people in the world have their hands full just surviving.
> Flying is indeed a luxury.
>
> Jack
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Noel Loveys <noelloveys@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> Jack:
>
> Why is it then that COPA does NOT recommend the use of ethanol contaminated
> fuels. Why is it the FAA will not certify ethanol contaminated fuels? I
> agree most of our engines should not be using 100LL ( should be Loaded with
> Lead) My opinion on the use of ethanol as a fuel source is well known as is
> my opinion on using it to fly. Best thing is to hoot holler and yell bloody
> murder until the brain dead politicians allow access to clean fuel.
>
>
> Who runs our countries any way??? Use the ballot box!
>
>
> Noel
>
>
> *From:* owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Jack Kuehn
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:45 PM
> *To:* rotaxengines-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Experience with ethanol blended
> gasoline
>
>
> You don't have to tear down the gear box to see the lead deposits, you can
> see it caked up on the spark plugs and sludging up in the bottom of the oil
> sump! The only problem with ethanol is you get slightly less power. I
> suppose it could be hard on your fuel lines, but I have seen no evidence of
> this.
>
> Jack
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> For me personally,
> I would run 10% ethanol before 100LL. If you have ever seen a gear box and
> engine run on 100LL torn down then you would pick 91 oct. with the ethanol
> every time. 100LL is far harder on the 912. The lead gets every where and
> you have to do certain tear downs along the way to clean out the lead
> deposits.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=181912#181912
>
>
> (406)273-2563 fax
> http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List*
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
>
> --
> Jack Kuehn
> 5565 Brady Ln
> Lolo, MT USA 59847
>
> (406)273-6801
> (406)546-1086 cell
> jack.kuehn@gmail.com
>
> (406)273-2563 fax
> http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Jack Kuehn
5565 Brady Ln
Lolo, MT USA 59847
(406)273-6801
(406)546-1086 cell
jack.kuehn@gmail.com
(406)273-2563 fax
http://mountaintime.myrf.net/imglib/index.htm
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! --
|