Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:04 AM - Re: Re: Water in the fuel question (Kevin Klinefelter)
2. 07:07 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Blumax008@aol.com)
3. 07:14 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Pete Christensen)
4. 07:35 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (william sullivan)
5. 07:54 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Pete Christensen)
6. 07:54 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Ron Steele)
7. 07:54 AM - Re: Re: Water in the fuel question (Pete Christensen)
8. 07:54 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Ron Steele)
9. 08:06 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (lucien)
10. 08:06 AM - Re: Re: Water in the fuel question (Jim_and_Lucy Chuk)
11. 08:09 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Pete Christensen)
12. 08:12 AM - Re: Re: Water in the fuel question (Pete Christensen)
13. 09:13 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Carlos Trigo)
14. 10:45 AM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Robert Borger)
15. 05:48 PM - Re: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question (Roger Lee)
16. 06:04 PM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Noel Loveys)
17. 06:38 PM - Re: Re: Water in the fuel question (Noel Loveys)
18. 06:52 PM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Noel Loveys)
19. 07:12 PM - Re: Re: Water in the fuel question (Noel Loveys)
20. 07:15 PM - Re: Water in the fuel question (Noel Loveys)
21. 07:49 PM - Re: Re: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question (Richard Girard)
22. 10:47 PM - Re: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question (Roger Lee)
23. 11:44 PM - Re: Re: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question (Robert C Harrison)
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: Water in the fuel question |
If you had enough water to cause separation of the alcohol the octane rating
would be reduced too, no?
Kevin, 914 Europa
>
> The 91 Oct. with ethanol with water will run through the engine, but at
> some point, Total saturation, other problems will emerge. So yes we can
> have some water in the fuel and not even know it and it will burn through
> and we won't even know, but at some point it can get to be too much and
> this is where Rotax draws the line.
> I try to stick most of the time with what Rotax teaches in schools, but
> once in a while I do bend those rules, but I have to have solid research
> behind me or experience before I do bend those rules.
>
>
> This item was one of our discussions in my Rotax update school. I just
> thought I would throw it out and see what popped up and hoped for some
> good conversations.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311567#311567
>
>
>
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: Water in the fuel question |
...and just think, we owe all this to our government. We have some great
thinkers up there. I wonder what they'll think up next to justify their
positions of bullshit.
In a message dated 9/6/2010 9:00:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
flyadive@gmail.com writes:
Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
Shake it up...
Let it stand for 1 hour...
>From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which is heavier
than the gas/ethanol mixture...
Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
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: Water in the fuel question |
Here is my experience with removing ethanol from gasoline.
In the North Austin, Texas area I have found no source for gasoline
without ethanol. The nearest I have found is more than an hours drive
away without any nearby airport. I could load up my van with 5-gallon
cans, but buying the cans and the cost of time and fuel for my van would
make that difficult.
I have read everything I can on the subject on the Internet and have
corresponded with a few of you online.
Here is what I came up with. Last week I bought a 6-1/2 gallon carboy
used for making beer. I put 1 quart of water in the carboy and marked a
line at the top of the water. I then poured 5-1/2 gallons of high-test
gasohol into the jug. The pouring action stimulates the ethanol to begin
separation from the mix. After awhile the water-ethanol has separated
from the mix and I mark a new line that indicates the new level of the
bottom of cleaned gasoline. I use a siphon to siphon the cleaned
gasoline off the top of the water/ethanol leaving a gallon or so of good
gas to avoid siphoning up any water. (Note I do NOT pour the out this
gas/water/alcohol from the jug.) I can continue pouring gasohol into the
carboy and the process starts all over again. After a gallon or two of
water/ethanol builds up, I siphon the water/ethanol from the bottom of
the jug and add a little more water.
I pour this cleaned gas into my plane through a Mr. Funnel Fuel Filter
Funnel, which is supposed to remove any remaining water. (I found no
detectable water in the filter after pouring 10 gallons)
I have run this so far about 50/50 with avgas I had in my tank.
I have only flown the one time a couple days ago for more than an hour
with no problems. Time will tell if problems develop.
I am NOT endorsing this process for others but only describing what I am
doing.
Pete
Kitfox III SN 1000
912
On 9/6/2010 7:56 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> Roger:
>
> Too many questions :-)
>
> 1 - 100LL should have the least amount of contaminates due to
> the SUPPOSED quality control.
> 2 - 100LL may have more water due to the DIFFERENT types of storage
> and the age of the tanks [above ground & below ground].
> 3 - 100LL may have more water due to the quantity of fuel being
> sold... Ever notice the airports will NEVER tell you
> how many gallons they sell a week.
> 4 - Some planes have much more of a problem with water than others. I
> have quite a few hours in a Piper Cherokee and Comanche as well as a
> RV6 and all three of them have the flush mounted gas caps. And all of
> them have water in the tanks.
> I would LQQK first and blame first the gas cap before blaming the
> 100LL. It is a well know trick to put a patch of plastic Velcro On
> top of the gas cap and the other half on the inside of a 1 Lb coffee
> can lid. This does a lot to keep water out.
> ------------------------- AutoGas -------------------
> 5 - MoGas - Has it own problems - The first being The Cheep Ass -
> Money Grubbing - Low Life - Non-English speaking owners that put water
> into their tanks to cut price during Gas Wars. There was a gas
> station in my area that was closed by the Bureau of Weights & Measures
> for just that reason about one year after being closed because of
> illegal pumps (shorting the public). The next issue was water in the gas.
> 6 - MoGas - Probably does have higher levels of contaminates due to
> lower quality control of EVERYTHING from octant to transportation,
> storage and dispensing.
> 7 - MoGas - Should have lower contaminates due to the higher turn-over.
> 8 - MoGas - In my area the wise old government made it a requirement
> that ALL in-ground-tanks must be a fiberglass or plastic composition.
> This came to light when the wise old government made it a requirement
> that MTBE be used to reduce pollutant at the un-tested request of the
> EPA. The MTBE found all the small holes in the gas tanks
> and polluted the ground waters as well as making pump-jockeys sick.
> Now when theses pump-jockey's started reporting to hospitals for
> treatment the CDC (Center for Disease Control) was first contacted
> because of the wide spread and similarity of cases.
> Some financial saving that was!
> 9 - MoGas - and who else other than the wise old government made it a
> requirement in my area NJ-NY that ethanol be added to the gas. 10%
> less HP, 10% Less fuel economy and 100% more problems. Just ask the
> boating industry in coastal ares that ethanol is suppled.
>
> OK! Enough - But, as Roger mentioned water is NOT absorbed. It IS
> held in SUSPENSION. And it takes about 15 minutes for water to come
> out of suspension, IF there is no movement. So, what does that tell
> you.... Checking your freshly filled tanks does not show if there is
> water in your gas. Of course, if there is enough water you sure will
> see it.
>
> AND... Some one mentioned 'solution' it is NOT a solution, it is
> a suspension. There is NO chemical combining of water and gas.
> The ethanol IS in solution the water is in suspension.
> The ethanol in solution is a mixture, forming a total different compound.
>
> Now, water can be a good thing... There is a way of ethanol removal
> from gas.
> WATER - As someone did mention ethanol is hygroscopic. That means the
> ethanol will adsorb water. So...
> Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
> ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
> Shake it up...
> Let it stand for 1 hour...
> From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which
> is heavier than the gas/ethanol mixture...
> Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
> Works in the lab all the time.
>
> OK, sorry.... this is the end.
>
> Barry
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com
> <mailto:ssadiver1@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> <ssadiver1@yahoo.com <mailto:ssadiver1@yahoo.com>>
>
> Hi Guys,,
>
> Question:
>
> Which fuel are you more likely to see water in, 100LL or our
> present day 91 Oct when you catch your sample down at the
> gascolator? Why?
>
> p.s.
> If you find it in one verses the other what should yo do?
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311301#311301
>
>
> ==========
> -List"
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Water in the fuel question |
- Pete- Since the ethanol raises the octane number, what would be the oct
ane number of the processed gasoline?- You may have to add an octane boos
ter, but this might be ethanol- I don't know.
-
-------------------------
----------------------- Bill
Sullivan
-------------------------
----------------------- Winds
or Locks, Ct.
-------------------------
----------------------- Kolb
FS, 447
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: Water in the fuel question |
Sorry I forgot to edit this sent previously. I have been washing gas
since late June. I probably have used 50 or so gallons so far of pure
washed gas with no problems. I now siphon my gas from my gas can into
the bottom of the carboy so that It runs through the water in the
bottom.. That seems to expose all of the gasoline to the water and thus
removes the alcohol and avoids having to stir or shake the water/gas. I
flew to Oshkosh and my first 3 hour leg was pure washed gas.
Pete
On 9/7/2010 9:13 AM, Pete Christensen wrote:
> Here is my experience with removing ethanol from gasoline.
>
> In the North Austin, Texas area I have found no source for gasoline
> without ethanol. The nearest I have found is more than an hours drive
> away without any nearby airport. I could load up my van with 5-gallon
> cans, but buying the cans and the cost of time and fuel for my van
> would make that difficult.
>
> I have read everything I can on the subject on the Internet and have
> corresponded with a few of you online.
>
> Here is what I came up with. Last week I bought a 6-1/2 gallon carboy
> used for making beer. I put 1 quart of water in the carboy and marked
> a line at the top of the water. I then poured 5-1/2 gallons of
> high-test gasohol into the jug. The pouring action stimulates the
> ethanol to begin separation from the mix. After awhile the
> water-ethanol has separated from the mix and I mark a new line that
> indicates the new level of the bottom of cleaned gasoline. I use a
> siphon to siphon the cleaned gasoline off the top of the water/ethanol
> leaving a gallon or so of good gas to avoid siphoning up any water.
> (Note I do NOT pour the out this gas/water/alcohol from the jug.) I
> can continue pouring gasohol into the carboy and the process starts
> all over again. After a gallon or two of water/ethanol builds up, I
> siphon the water/ethanol from the bottom of the jug and add a little
> more water.
>
> I pour this cleaned gas into my plane through a Mr. Funnel Fuel Filter
> Funnel, which is supposed to remove any remaining water. (I found no
> detectable water in the filter after pouring 10 gallons)
>
> I have run this so far about 50/50 with avgas I had in my tank.
>
> I have only flown the one time a couple days ago for more than an hour
> with no problems. Time will tell if problems develop.
>
> I am NOT endorsing this process for others but only describing what I
> am doing.
>
> Pete
>
> Kitfox III SN 1000
>
> 912
>
> On 9/6/2010 7:56 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>> Roger:
>>
>> Too many questions :-)
>>
>> 1 - 100LL should have the least amount of contaminates due to
>> the SUPPOSED quality control.
>> 2 - 100LL may have more water due to the DIFFERENT types of storage
>> and the age of the tanks [above ground & below ground].
>> 3 - 100LL may have more water due to the quantity of fuel being
>> sold... Ever notice the airports will NEVER tell you
>> how many gallons they sell a week.
>> 4 - Some planes have much more of a problem with water than others.
>> I have quite a few hours in a Piper Cherokee and Comanche as well as
>> a RV6 and all three of them have the flush mounted gas caps. And all
>> of them have water in the tanks.
>> I would LQQK first and blame first the gas cap before blaming the
>> 100LL. It is a well know trick to put a patch of plastic Velcro On
>> top of the gas cap and the other half on the inside of a 1 Lb coffee
>> can lid. This does a lot to keep water out.
>> ------------------------- AutoGas -------------------
>> 5 - MoGas - Has it own problems - The first being The Cheep Ass -
>> Money Grubbing - Low Life - Non-English speaking owners that put
>> water into their tanks to cut price during Gas Wars. There was a gas
>> station in my area that was closed by the Bureau of Weights &
>> Measures for just that reason about one year after being closed
>> because of illegal pumps (shorting the public). The next issue was
>> water in the gas.
>> 6 - MoGas - Probably does have higher levels of contaminates due to
>> lower quality control of EVERYTHING from octant to transportation,
>> storage and dispensing.
>> 7 - MoGas - Should have lower contaminates due to the higher turn-over.
>> 8 - MoGas - In my area the wise old government made it a requirement
>> that ALL in-ground-tanks must be a fiberglass or plastic composition.
>> This came to light when the wise old government made it a
>> requirement that MTBE be used to reduce pollutant at the un-tested
>> request of the EPA. The MTBE found all the small holes in the gas
>> tanks and polluted the ground waters as well as making
>> pump-jockeys sick. Now when theses pump-jockey's started reporting
>> to hospitals for treatment the CDC (Center for Disease Control) was
>> first contacted because of the wide spread and similarity of cases.
>> Some financial saving that was!
>> 9 - MoGas - and who else other than the wise old government made it a
>> requirement in my area NJ-NY that ethanol be added to the gas. 10%
>> less HP, 10% Less fuel economy and 100% more problems. Just ask the
>> boating industry in coastal ares that ethanol is suppled.
>>
>> OK! Enough - But, as Roger mentioned water is NOT absorbed. It IS
>> held in SUSPENSION. And it takes about 15 minutes for water to come
>> out of suspension, IF there is no movement. So, what does that tell
>> you.... Checking your freshly filled tanks does not show if there is
>> water in your gas. Of course, if there is enough water you sure will
>> see it.
>>
>> AND... Some one mentioned 'solution' it is NOT a solution, it is
>> a suspension. There is NO chemical combining of water and gas.
>> The ethanol IS in solution the water is in suspension.
>> The ethanol in solution is a mixture, forming a total different
>> compound.
>>
>> Now, water can be a good thing... There is a way of ethanol removal
>> from gas.
>> WATER - As someone did mention ethanol is hygroscopic. That means
>> the ethanol will adsorb water. So...
>> Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
>> ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
>> Shake it up...
>> Let it stand for 1 hour...
>> From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which
>> is heavier than the gas/ethanol mixture...
>> Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
>> Works in the lab all the time.
>>
>> OK, sorry.... this is the end.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com
>> <mailto:ssadiver1@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> <ssadiver1@yahoo.com <mailto:ssadiver1@yahoo.com>>
>>
>> Hi Guys,,
>>
>> Question:
>>
>> Which fuel are you more likely to see water in, 100LL or our
>> present day 91 Oct when you catch your sample down at the
>> gascolator? Why?
>>
>> p.s.
>> If you find it in one verses the other what should yo do?
>>
>> --------
>> Roger Lee
>> Tucson, Az.
>> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
>> Rotax Repair Center
>> 520-574-1080
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311301#311301
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
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: Water in the fuel question |
I don't like "gasahol" as we used to call it either. But let's be
honest, nobody in the government came up with it. Credit the farm
lobby, because they want to sell corn, and the oil companies because the
want the subsidies for using the alcohol. The pols are too busy raising
money, perhaps from the farm lobby and oil lobby, to actually apply any
brain cells to this.
The only way we'll get rid of ethenol in gas and keep it where it should
be (bourbon!) is to replace it with some other biomass sourced product.
The two in favor right now are Swift Fuel and (I think) G1000. The FAA
needs to get off it's behind and get the ball rolling on these. That
would be a useful role for the government.
Ron
On 09/07/2010 10:06 AM, Blumax008@aol.com wrote:
> ...and just think, we owe all this to our government. We have some
> great thinkers up there. I wonder what they'll think up next to
> justify their positions of bullshit.
> In a message dated 9/6/2010 9:00:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> flyadive@gmail.com writes:
>
> Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
> ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
> Shake it up...
> Let it stand for 1 hour...
> From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which
> is heavier than the gas/ethanol mixture...
> Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Water in the fuel question |
I have an older 912 and I'm guessing that starting with 93 octane I
end up with more than 87. Newer 912's need more octane than that.
Pete
On 9/7/2010 9:29 AM, william sullivan wrote:
> Pete- Since the ethanol raises the octane number, what would be the
> octane number of the processed gasoline? You may have to add an
> octane booster, but this might be ethanol- I don't know.
> Bill Sullivan
> Windsor Locks, Ct.
> Kolb FS, 447
>
> *
> *
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: Water in the fuel question |
You are probably ok mixing with 100LL, but you do realize you are
lowering the octane rating by removing the ethanol?
I'd interested in hearing how the engine does with pure de-ethanoled gas.
My parents live in the farm belt where corn is king. A local gas
station there has "premium" gas that is cheaper than "regular"
unleaded. They just add more ethanol to it to raise the octane rating -
and of course suck up more tax dollar subsidies.
Ron
On 09/07/2010 10:13 AM, Pete Christensen wrote:
> Here is my experience with removing ethanol from gasoline.
>
> In the North Austin, Texas area I have found no source for gasoline
> without ethanol. The nearest I have found is more than an hours drive
> away without any nearby airport. I could load up my van with 5-gallon
> cans, but buying the cans and the cost of time and fuel for my van
> would make that difficult.
>
> I have read everything I can on the subject on the Internet and have
> corresponded with a few of you online.
>
> Here is what I came up with. Last week I bought a 6-1/2 gallon carboy
> used for making beer. I put 1 quart of water in the carboy and marked
> a line at the top of the water. I then poured 5-1/2 gallons of
> high-test gasohol into the jug. The pouring action stimulates the
> ethanol to begin separation from the mix. After awhile the
> water-ethanol has separated from the mix and I mark a new line that
> indicates the new level of the bottom of cleaned gasoline. I use a
> siphon to siphon the cleaned gasoline off the top of the water/ethanol
> leaving a gallon or so of good gas to avoid siphoning up any water.
> (Note I do NOT pour the out this gas/water/alcohol from the jug.) I
> can continue pouring gasohol into the carboy and the process starts
> all over again. After a gallon or two of water/ethanol builds up, I
> siphon the water/ethanol from the bottom of the jug and add a little
> more water.
>
> I pour this cleaned gas into my plane through a Mr. Funnel Fuel Filter
> Funnel, which is supposed to remove any remaining water. (I found no
> detectable water in the filter after pouring 10 gallons)
>
> I have run this so far about 50/50 with avgas I had in my tank.
>
> I have only flown the one time a couple days ago for more than an hour
> with no problems. Time will tell if problems develop.
>
> I am NOT endorsing this process for others but only describing what I
> am doing.
>
> Pete
>
> Kitfox III SN 1000
>
> 912
>
> On 9/6/2010 7:56 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>> Roger:
>>
>> Too many questions :-)
>>
>> 1 - 100LL should have the least amount of contaminates due to
>> the SUPPOSED quality control.
>> 2 - 100LL may have more water due to the DIFFERENT types of storage
>> and the age of the tanks [above ground & below ground].
>> 3 - 100LL may have more water due to the quantity of fuel being
>> sold... Ever notice the airports will NEVER tell you
>> how many gallons they sell a week.
>> 4 - Some planes have much more of a problem with water than others.
>> I have quite a few hours in a Piper Cherokee and Comanche as well as
>> a RV6 and all three of them have the flush mounted gas caps. And all
>> of them have water in the tanks.
>> I would LQQK first and blame first the gas cap before blaming the
>> 100LL. It is a well know trick to put a patch of plastic Velcro On
>> top of the gas cap and the other half on the inside of a 1 Lb coffee
>> can lid. This does a lot to keep water out.
>> ------------------------- AutoGas -------------------
>> 5 - MoGas - Has it own problems - The first being The Cheep Ass -
>> Money Grubbing - Low Life - Non-English speaking owners that put
>> water into their tanks to cut price during Gas Wars. There was a gas
>> station in my area that was closed by the Bureau of Weights &
>> Measures for just that reason about one year after being closed
>> because of illegal pumps (shorting the public). The next issue was
>> water in the gas.
>> 6 - MoGas - Probably does have higher levels of contaminates due to
>> lower quality control of EVERYTHING from octant to transportation,
>> storage and dispensing.
>> 7 - MoGas - Should have lower contaminates due to the higher turn-over.
>> 8 - MoGas - In my area the wise old government made it a requirement
>> that ALL in-ground-tanks must be a fiberglass or plastic composition.
>> This came to light when the wise old government made it a
>> requirement that MTBE be used to reduce pollutant at the un-tested
>> request of the EPA. The MTBE found all the small holes in the gas
>> tanks and polluted the ground waters as well as making
>> pump-jockeys sick. Now when theses pump-jockey's started reporting
>> to hospitals for treatment the CDC (Center for Disease Control) was
>> first contacted because of the wide spread and similarity of cases.
>> Some financial saving that was!
>> 9 - MoGas - and who else other than the wise old government made it a
>> requirement in my area NJ-NY that ethanol be added to the gas. 10%
>> less HP, 10% Less fuel economy and 100% more problems. Just ask the
>> boating industry in coastal ares that ethanol is suppled.
>>
>> OK! Enough - But, as Roger mentioned water is NOT absorbed. It IS
>> held in SUSPENSION. And it takes about 15 minutes for water to come
>> out of suspension, IF there is no movement. So, what does that tell
>> you.... Checking your freshly filled tanks does not show if there is
>> water in your gas. Of course, if there is enough water you sure will
>> see it.
>>
>> AND... Some one mentioned 'solution' it is NOT a solution, it is
>> a suspension. There is NO chemical combining of water and gas.
>> The ethanol IS in solution the water is in suspension.
>> The ethanol in solution is a mixture, forming a total different
>> compound.
>>
>> Now, water can be a good thing... There is a way of ethanol removal
>> from gas.
>> WATER - As someone did mention ethanol is hygroscopic. That means
>> the ethanol will adsorb water. So...
>> Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
>> ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
>> Shake it up...
>> Let it stand for 1 hour...
>> From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which
>> is heavier than the gas/ethanol mixture...
>> Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
>> Works in the lab all the time.
>>
>> OK, sorry.... this is the end.
>>
>> Barry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com
>> <mailto:ssadiver1@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> <ssadiver1@yahoo.com <mailto:ssadiver1@yahoo.com>>
>>
>> Hi Guys,,
>>
>> Question:
>>
>> Which fuel are you more likely to see water in, 100LL or our
>> present day 91 Oct when you catch your sample down at the
>> gascolator? Why?
>>
>> p.s.
>> If you find it in one verses the other what should yo do?
>>
>> --------
>> Roger Lee
>> Tucson, Az.
>> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
>> Rotax Repair Center
>> 520-574-1080
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311301#311301
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>> -List"
>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
>> ==========
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>> ==========
>> le, List Admin.
>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
> *
>
>
> *
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: Water in the fuel question |
Thom Riddle wrote:
> Your observations about water absorption are correct, but I would not chuck the
91 octane E-10 with water at the bottom. Drain off the water as you would when
found in 100LL.
>
> Rationale:
> If there was just enough water in the E-10 that the ethanol would absorb it all
and no more (ethanol saturated with water), then you would not know it, and
as you said the Rotax will handle it with no problem. How is this different from
draining off the excess water that is not absorbed by the ethanol? No difference
at all. None. Nada.
Just out of curiosity, since Rotax finally approved the use of E10 in all the engines
(except the 447) a while back, why not just run the E10 and don't worry
about it?
I'd have to reread the SB, but I don't believe there were any other qualifications
as to having to replace parts or etc.
I run ethanol-free when I can find it, but I also ran E10 in my 912ULS for about
the last year or so with no operational differences over E0 or 100LL at all.
Even up to 10,000' MSL I didn't have any running problems that I could tell.
It's true you have to be vigilant about water, which may be a bit more fooling
around for folks who live in humid or wet areas.
And no, there's no possibility of ever convincing the gubbamint that ethanol is
_not_ a renewable fuel (because it's not sustainable) and we'll run out of petrolium
faster by trying to substitute ethanol than we would if we simply burned
the other 10% of the gas in our engines instead. So we really can just forget
about that ever happening.
Also, trying to remove the ethanol gives you a gas with some unknown octane rating,
doesn't it? I.e. ethanol is an octane booster which is probably how they're
able to sell lower octane gas as high-test because of the ethanol.
Sure, when they go to 15% we'll be right back at square 1 again, but for the meantime,
seems to me the simplest solution is to just use the E10 and keep the
sump drained....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311678#311678
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: Water in the fuel question |
I would be carefull of using octane boosters. I had a tall skinny plastic
bottle that I would use to test for alcohol in the gas. I used that bottle
lots of times with no ill effects to the plastic. I put some pieces of fr
esh fiberglass in the bottle and put some gas in the bottle that had Justic
e Brothers octane booster in it. I wanted to see if the booster would hurt
the fiberglass. A day later=2C the plastic bottle was softening to the po
int that is started to leak near the bottom. The fiberglass was not affect
ed=2C but the plastic sure was. I never used that octane booster again. O
f course different boosters have different chemicals in them so maybe other
s might not hurt the plastic. Fortunatly=2C up here in Mn we can get non o
xigenated premium gas at about 1/4 of the gas stations so that's what I bur
n in my planes. Take care=2C Jim Chuk Avids=2C Kitfox 4 (building) Mn
From: williamtsullivan@att.net
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Water in the fuel question
Pete- Since the ethanol raises the octane number=2C what would be the oct
ane number of the processed gasoline? You may have to add an octane booste
r=2C but this might be ethanol- I don't know.
Bill Sullivan
Windsor Locks=2C Ct.
Kolb FS=2C 447
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: Water in the fuel question |
Ron,
So far I notice no problems with washed gas. Had someone recommend
adding Sta Bil so just I started doing that with the last 5 gallons I
used. It is supposed to stabilize the gasoline. I fly one or 2 hours a
week with an occasional 2 to 4 hours.
Pete
On 9/7/2010 9:52 AM, Ron Steele wrote:
>
> You are probably ok mixing with 100LL, but you do realize you are
> lowering the octane rating by removing the ethanol?
> I'd interested in hearing how the engine does with pure de-ethanoled gas.
>
> My parents live in the farm belt where corn is king. A local gas
> station there has "premium" gas that is cheaper than "regular"
> unleaded. They just add more ethanol to it to raise the octane rating
> - and of course suck up more tax dollar subsidies.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On 09/07/2010 10:13 AM, Pete Christensen wrote:
>> Here is my experience with removing ethanol from gasoline.
>>
>> In the North Austin, Texas area I have found no source for gasoline
>> without ethanol. The nearest I have found is more than an hours drive
>> away without any nearby airport. I could load up my van with 5-gallon
>> cans, but buying the cans and the cost of time and fuel for my van
>> would make that difficult.
>>
>> I have read everything I can on the subject on the Internet and have
>> corresponded with a few of you online.
>>
>> Here is what I came up with. Last week I bought a 6-1/2 gallon carboy
>> used for making beer. I put 1 quart of water in the carboy and marked
>> a line at the top of the water. I then poured 5-1/2 gallons of
>> high-test gasohol into the jug. The pouring action stimulates the
>> ethanol to begin separation from the mix. After awhile the
>> water-ethanol has separated from the mix and I mark a new line that
>> indicates the new level of the bottom of cleaned gasoline. I use a
>> siphon to siphon the cleaned gasoline off the top of the
>> water/ethanol leaving a gallon or so of good gas to avoid siphoning
>> up any water. (Note I do NOT pour the out this gas/water/alcohol from
>> the jug.) I can continue pouring gasohol into the carboy and the
>> process starts all over again. After a gallon or two of water/ethanol
>> builds up, I siphon the water/ethanol from the bottom of the jug and
>> add a little more water.
>>
>> I pour this cleaned gas into my plane through a Mr. Funnel Fuel
>> Filter Funnel, which is supposed to remove any remaining water. (I
>> found no detectable water in the filter after pouring 10 gallons)
>>
>> I have run this so far about 50/50 with avgas I had in my tank.
>>
>> I have only flown the one time a couple days ago for more than an
>> hour with no problems. Time will tell if problems develop.
>>
>> I am NOT endorsing this process for others but only describing what I
>> am doing.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> Kitfox III SN 1000
>>
>> 912
>>
>> On 9/6/2010 7:56 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
>>> Roger:
>>>
>>> Too many questions :-)
>>>
>>> 1 - 100LL should have the least amount of contaminates due to the
>>> SUPPOSED quality control.
>>> 2 - 100LL may have more water due to the DIFFERENT types of storage
>>> and the age of the tanks [above ground & below ground].
>>> 3 - 100LL may have more water due to the quantity of fuel being
>>> sold... Ever notice the airports will NEVER tell you how many
>>> gallons they sell a week.
>>> 4 - Some planes have much more of a problem with water than others.
>>> I have quite a few hours in a Piper Cherokee and Comanche as well
>>> as a RV6 and all three of them have the flush mounted gas caps. And
>>> all of them have water in the tanks.
>>> I would LQQK first and blame first the gas cap before blaming the
>>> 100LL. It is a well know trick to put a patch of plastic Velcro On
>>> top of the gas cap and the other half on the inside of a 1 Lb coffee
>>> can lid. This does a lot to keep water out.
>>> ------------------------- AutoGas -------------------
>>> 5 - MoGas - Has it own problems - The first being The Cheep Ass -
>>> Money Grubbing - Low Life - Non-English speaking owners that put
>>> water into their tanks to cut price during Gas Wars. There was a
>>> gas station in my area that was closed by the Bureau of Weights &
>>> Measures for just that reason about one year after being closed
>>> because of illegal pumps (shorting the public). The next issue was
>>> water in the gas.
>>> 6 - MoGas - Probably does have higher levels of contaminates due to
>>> lower quality control of EVERYTHING from octant to transportation,
>>> storage and dispensing.
>>> 7 - MoGas - Should have lower contaminates due to the higher turn-over.
>>> 8 - MoGas - In my area the wise old government made it a requirement
>>> that ALL in-ground-tanks must be a fiberglass or plastic
>>> composition. This came to light when the wise old government made
>>> it a requirement that MTBE be used to reduce pollutant at the
>>> un-tested request of the EPA. The MTBE found all the small holes in
>>> the gas tanks and polluted the ground waters as well as making
>>> pump-jockeys sick. Now when theses pump-jockey's started reporting
>>> to hospitals for treatment the CDC (Center for Disease Control) was
>>> first contacted because of the wide spread and similarity of cases.
>>> Some financial saving that was!
>>> 9 - MoGas - and who else other than the wise old government made it
>>> a requirement in my area NJ-NY that ethanol be added to the gas.
>>> 10% less HP, 10% Less fuel economy and 100% more problems. Just ask
>>> the boating industry in coastal ares that ethanol is suppled.
>>>
>>> OK! Enough - But, as Roger mentioned water is NOT absorbed. It IS
>>> held in SUSPENSION. And it takes about 15 minutes for water to come
>>> out of suspension, IF there is no movement. So, what does that tell
>>> you.... Checking your freshly filled tanks does not show if there is
>>> water in your gas. Of course, if there is enough water you sure
>>> will see it.
>>>
>>> AND... Some one mentioned 'solution' it is NOT a solution, it is a
>>> suspension. There is NO chemical combining of water and gas. The
>>> ethanol IS in solution the water is in suspension. The ethanol in
>>> solution is a mixture, forming a total different compound.
>>>
>>> Now, water can be a good thing... There is a way of ethanol removal
>>> from gas.
>>> WATER - As someone did mention ethanol is hygroscopic. That means
>>> the ethanol will adsorb water. So...
>>> Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
>>> ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
>>> Shake it up...
>>> Let it stand for 1 hour...
>>> From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which is
>>> heavier than the gas/ethanol mixture...
>>> Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
>>> Works in the lab all the time.
>>>
>>> OK, sorry.... this is the end.
>>>
>>> Barry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:ssadiver1@yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <ssadiver1@yahoo.com <mailto:ssadiver1@yahoo.com>>
>>>
>>> Hi Guys,,
>>>
>>> Question:
>>>
>>> Which fuel are you more likely to see water in, 100LL or our
>>> present day 91 Oct when you catch your sample down at the
>>> gascolator? Why?
>>>
>>> p.s.
>>> If you find it in one verses the other what should yo do?
>>>
>>> --------
>>> Roger Lee
>>> Tucson, Az.
>>> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
>>> Rotax Repair Center
>>> 520-574-1080
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311301#311301
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ==========
>>> -List"
>>>
>>> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
>>> ==========
>>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>> ==========
>>> le, List Admin.
>>> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>> ==========
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
Message 12
| 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: Water in the fuel question |
THE ONLY REASON that I wash my gas is because I have a fiberglass fuel
tanks that may or may not be ok for alcohol and I hate doing 25 hour oil
changes with 100LL.
Pete
On 9/7/2010 10:05 AM, lucien wrote:
> --> RotaxEngines-List message posted by: "lucien"<lstavenhagen@hotmail.com>
>
>
> Thom Riddle wrote:
>> Your observations about water absorption are correct, but I would not chuck
the 91 octane E-10 with water at the bottom. Drain off the water as you would
when found in 100LL.
>>
>> Rationale:
>> If there was just enough water in the E-10 that the ethanol would absorb it
all and no more (ethanol saturated with water), then you would not know it, and
as you said the Rotax will handle it with no problem. How is this different
from draining off the excess water that is not absorbed by the ethanol? No difference
at all. None. Nada.
>
> Just out of curiosity, since Rotax finally approved the use of E10 in all the
engines (except the 447) a while back, why not just run the E10 and don't worry
about it?
>
> I'd have to reread the SB, but I don't believe there were any other qualifications
as to having to replace parts or etc.
>
> I run ethanol-free when I can find it, but I also ran E10 in my 912ULS for about
the last year or so with no operational differences over E0 or 100LL at all.
Even up to 10,000' MSL I didn't have any running problems that I could tell.
>
> It's true you have to be vigilant about water, which may be a bit more fooling
around for folks who live in humid or wet areas.
>
> And no, there's no possibility of ever convincing the gubbamint that ethanol
is _not_ a renewable fuel (because it's not sustainable) and we'll run out of
petrolium faster by trying to substitute ethanol than we would if we simply burned
the other 10% of the gas in our engines instead. So we really can just forget
about that ever happening.
>
> Also, trying to remove the ethanol gives you a gas with some unknown octane rating,
doesn't it? I.e. ethanol is an octane booster which is probably how they're
able to sell lower octane gas as high-test because of the ethanol.
>
> Sure, when they go to 15% we'll be right back at square 1 again, but for the
meantime, seems to me the simplest solution is to just use the E10 and keep the
sump drained....
>
> LS
>
> --------
> LS
> Titan II SS
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311678#311678
>
>
Message 13
| 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: | Water in the fuel question |
Pete
I find your procedure interesting.
Will you please explain to a non-American, non-native English speaking
guy,
what is a CARBOY?
TIA
Carlos
_____
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Christensen
Sent: ter=E7a-feira, 7 de Setembro de 2010 15:34
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Water in the fuel question
Sorry I forgot to edit this sent previously. I have been washing gas
since
late June. I probably have used 50 or so gallons so far of pure washed
gas
with no problems. I now siphon my gas from my gas can into the bottom
of
the carboy so that It runs through the water in the bottom.. That seems
to
expose all of the gasoline to the water and thus removes the alcohol and
avoids having to stir or shake the water/gas. I flew to Oshkosh and my
first 3 hour leg was pure washed gas.
Pete
On 9/7/2010 9:13 AM, Pete Christensen wrote:
Here is my experience with removing ethanol from gasoline.
In the North Austin, Texas area I have found no source for gasoline
without
ethanol. The nearest I have found is more than an hours drive away
without
any nearby airport. I could load up my van with 5-gallon cans, but
buying
the cans and the cost of time and fuel for my van would make that
difficult.
I have read everything I can on the subject on the Internet and have
corresponded with a few of you online.
Here is what I came up with. Last week I bought a 6-1/2 gallon carboy
used
for making beer. I put 1 quart of water in the carboy and marked a line
at
the top of the water. I then poured 5-1/2 gallons of high-test gasohol
into
the jug. The pouring action stimulates the ethanol to begin separation
from
the mix. After awhile the water-ethanol has separated from the mix and I
mark a new line that indicates the new level of the bottom of cleaned
gasoline. I use a siphon to siphon the cleaned gasoline off the top of
the
water/ethanol leaving a gallon or so of good gas to avoid siphoning up
any
water. (Note I do NOT pour the out this gas/water/alcohol from the jug.)
I
can continue pouring gasohol into the carboy and the process starts all
over
again. After a gallon or two of water/ethanol builds up, I siphon the
water/ethanol from the bottom of the jug and add a little more water.
I pour this cleaned gas into my plane through a Mr. Funnel Fuel Filter
Funnel, which is supposed to remove any remaining water. (I found no
detectable water in the filter after pouring 10 gallons)
I have run this so far about 50/50 with avgas I had in my tank.
I have only flown the one time a couple days ago for more than an hour
with
no problems. Time will tell if problems develop.
I am NOT endorsing this process for others but only describing what I am
doing.
Pete
Kitfox III SN 1000
912
On 9/6/2010 7:56 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
Roger:
Too many questions :-)
1 - 100LL should have the least amount of contaminates due to the
SUPPOSED
quality control.
2 - 100LL may have more water due to the DIFFERENT types of storage and
the
age of the tanks [above ground & below ground].
3 - 100LL may have more water due to the quantity of fuel being sold...
Ever
notice the airports will NEVER tell you how many gallons they sell a
week.
4 - Some planes have much more of a problem with water than others. I
have
quite a few hours in a Piper Cherokee and Comanche as well as a RV6 and
all
three of them have the flush mounted gas caps. And all of them have
water
in the tanks.
I would LQQK first and blame first the gas cap before blaming the 100LL.
It
is a well know trick to put a patch of plastic Velcro On top of the gas
cap
and the other half on the inside of a 1 Lb coffee can lid. This does a
lot
to keep water out.
------------------------- AutoGas -------------------
5 - MoGas - Has it own problems - The first being The Cheep Ass - Money
Grubbing - Low Life - Non-English speaking owners that put water into
their
tanks to cut price during Gas Wars. There was a gas station in my area
that
was closed by the Bureau of Weights & Measures for just that reason
about
one year after being closed because of illegal pumps (shorting the
public).
The next issue was water in the gas.
6 - MoGas - Probably does have higher levels of contaminates due to
lower
quality control of EVERYTHING from octant to transportation, storage and
dispensing.
7 - MoGas - Should have lower contaminates due to the higher turn-over.
8 - MoGas - In my area the wise old government made it a requirement
that
ALL in-ground-tanks must be a fiberglass or plastic composition. This
came
to light when the wise old government made it a requirement that MTBE be
used to reduce pollutant at the un-tested request of the EPA. The MTBE
found all the small holes in the gas tanks and polluted the ground
waters as
well as making pump-jockeys sick. Now when theses pump-jockey's started
reporting to hospitals for treatment the CDC (Center for Disease
Control)
was first contacted because of the wide spread and similarity of cases.
Some financial saving that was!
9 - MoGas - and who else other than the wise old government made it a
requirement in my area NJ-NY that ethanol be added to the gas. 10%
less
HP, 10% Less fuel economy and 100% more problems. Just ask the boating
industry in coastal ares that ethanol is suppled.
OK! Enough - But, as Roger mentioned water is NOT absorbed. It IS held
in
SUSPENSION. And it takes about 15 minutes for water to come out of
suspension, IF there is no movement. So, what does that tell you....
Checking your freshly filled tanks does not show if there is water in
your
gas. Of course, if there is enough water you sure will see it.
AND... Some one mentioned 'solution' it is NOT a solution, it is a
suspension. There is NO chemical combining of water and gas. The
ethanol
IS in solution the water is in suspension. The ethanol in solution is a
mixture, forming a total different compound.
Now, water can be a good thing... There is a way of ethanol removal from
gas.
WATER - As someone did mention ethanol is hygroscopic. That means the
ethanol will adsorb water. So...
Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
Shake it up...
Let it stand for 1 hour...
>From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which is heavier
than the gas/ethanol mixture...
Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
Works in the lab all the time.
OK, sorry.... this is the end.
Barry
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
<ssadiver1@yahoo.com>
Hi Guys,,
Question:
Which fuel are you more likely to see water in, 100LL or our present day
91
Oct when you catch your sample down at the gascolator? Why?
p.s.
If you find it in one verses the other what should yo do?
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311301#311301
-List"
target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
http://forums.matronics.com
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 14
| 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: Water in the fuel question |
Carlos,
Go to Wikipedia & search on "carboy".
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:41, Carlos Trigo <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
> Pete
>
>
>
> I find your procedure interesting.
>
> Will you please explain to a non-American, non-native English speaking guy, what
is a CARBOY?
>
>
>
> TIA
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| 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: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question |
Hi All,
The answer:
Well this question is a little harder than others that are spelled out well in
the manuals. This one isn't as clear cut in black and white print and some Rotax
instructors teach it a little differently from what I have seen. The Rotax
manual doesn't really state where the 200 hr. inspection ends and where a rebuild
starts.
The 200 hr. is not the same as a rebuild. The 200 hr. is just what it says, an
inspection only and no parts replacement except maybe the carb socket, floats
or diaphragm and those few minor visible parts if necessary. You need only to
check the carb socket for cracks, carb diaphragm for splitting, the bowl and the
float level. Flush with a carb cleaner for any dirt and do a pressure test.
That's it.
That's pretty much all the inspection covers. It does not require all the parts
to be replaced.
In a rebuild you replace all the parts internally and the 200 hr. is mainly a look
and clean as need be on exposed parts. If you disturb any of the "O" rings
they should be replaced and that starts into the carb rebuild side, which Line
maint. can't do. The carb rebuild is removing and replacing parts within the
carb. We just went over all this with Eric Tucker in the update class. I also
just got off the phone with Jeremy McGregor of CPS in California about this and
he confirmed with me about both items. We ask why the carb rebuild couldn't
be moved to the Line maint. section, but Rotax refuses because carb rebuilds
are done so infrequently by individuals that Rotax wants to make sure the people
preforming a rebuild has the most current training and continued experience.
Yes, you can get in trouble by doing some wrong things to the carb or not doing
them.
Bottom line is Line Maint. can do a 200 hr. inspection, but you have to be Heavy
Maint. rated to do a carb rebuild.
It would be nice if every instructor were on the same page, but we all know that
this doesn't always happen. Sometimes the lines get a little blurred.
I know there are some of the Experimental people that have done carb rebuilds,
but this isn't to be done for the SLSA crowd.
Don't shoot the messenger here (no flaming arrows or tracer ammunition) I learned
it in school, too.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311754#311754
Message 16
| 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: | Water in the fuel question |
I'd like to chime in on this one
To start with 100 LL has a very low affinity to absorb water so any water
you find in it will turn up in the prescribed 15 to 20 minutes in either
your sumps or the gascolator.
The great advantage to 100 LL is the recipe never changes so the gallon
(which does change) you buy at your local FBO will be the same gas the world
over. In other words if it works for you home it will work for you in
Timbuktu.
Gas caps certainly can leak but assuming that they are not leaking a full
tank will condense moisture out of damp air a lot less than an empty tank.
I know this from personal experience and living in one of the dampest most
corrosive places in the world.
MOGAS:
This has several problems among which are the seasonal changing of the
recipe and that is only one refinery. Everybody seems to have their own
recipe which changes at the drop of a hat.
Mogas may have Ethanol, a pet peeve of mine in it. Training in the aviation
field tells me this is totally unacceptable. Reason tells me some guys have
to fly on it so just be extra careful if this is your case. Always use the
freshest fuel you can (less chance of water in the fuel) never leave fuel in
your plane for extended periods of time (it can absorb moisture from the tie
down or hangar) If you depend on a gascolator to remove water from your
fuel the ethanol just killed that idea. By the time you see drop one you
will also see gallon one.... Bad news!
I think removing ethanol from the gas with water is not as bad as some think
it is. All the components of the gas have extremely low ability to combine
with water. It is somewhere in the decimal parts per many millions.
If you get a phase separation your fan, the big thing on the front, or back
of the plane will stop! After your perfect forced approach with unmixed gas
you will drain your sumps and carb bowls and then look for a place to take
off. If you were using mixed gas be prepared to pull the whole fuel system
apart and clean out the milky grey/tan sludge that will plug everything
except the gates of hell. While you are cleaning the mess write me and I'll
provide you with four letter words most of the world doesn't know.
I'm going to try to explain what Barry has said in my own way.
For all intents and purposes water and the components of gasoline do not in
any way mix or join. The lone exception to the rule ie ethanol which loves
to form a solution with water.
Alcohol, booze, hooch,the good stuff in Scotch, forms a phase relationship
with gas. This is something like a solution but, BIG BUT, It can be
physically reversed.
Methods of physically reversing include adding enough water to disrupt the
phase relationship with the gas...hence a phase separation.
Phase separations occur with lower concentrations of water as the
temperature lowers. Like when you fly your plane.
The really bad news is that there is no way of knowing exactly how close you
are to a phase separation because you never know how much moisture your fuel
has absorbed at the station or in the tanks of your plane. If you are able
to remove a quantity of gas into a clean jar and notice it is getting hazy
it would be a good time to ditch the gas. This is why I advise only flying
on the freshest fuel you can find from the busiest station.
After fuelling any plane especially one with clean gasoline (no eth) you
always want to head to the coffee shop for twenty minutes and catch up with
news while your gas settles. After the twenty minutes drain your sumps to
make sure there is no water in your fuel. The same thing goes for adding
water to gas to remove ethanol. Wait at least twenty minutes to drain the
water/ethanol solution from the bottom of your container.
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of FLYaDIVE
Sent: September 6, 2010 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Water in the fuel question
Roger:
Too many questions :-)
1 - 100LL should have the least amount of contaminates due to the SUPPOSED
quality control.
2 - 100LL may have more water due to the DIFFERENT types of storage and the
age of the tanks [above ground & below ground].
3 - 100LL may have more water due to the quantity of fuel being sold... Ever
notice the airports will NEVER tell you how many gallons they sell a week.
4 - Some planes have much more of a problem with water than others. I have
quite a few hours in a Piper Cherokee and Comanche as well as a RV6 and all
three of them have the flush mounted gas caps. And all of them have water
in the tanks.
I would LQQK first and blame first the gas cap before blaming the 100LL. It
is a well know trick to put a patch of plastic Velcro On top of the gas cap
and the other half on the inside of a 1 Lb coffee can lid. This does a lot
to keep water out.
------------------------- AutoGas -------------------
5 - MoGas - Has it own problems - The first being The Cheep Ass - Money
Grubbing - Low Life - Non-English speaking owners that put water into their
tanks to cut price during Gas Wars. There was a gas station in my area that
was closed by the Bureau of Weights & Measures for just that reason about
one year after being closed because of illegal pumps (shorting the public).
The next issue was water in the gas.
6 - MoGas - Probably does have higher levels of contaminates due to lower
quality control of EVERYTHING from octant to transportation, storage and
dispensing.
7 - MoGas - Should have lower contaminates due to the higher turn-over.
8 - MoGas - In my area the wise old government made it a requirement that
ALL in-ground-tanks must be a fiberglass or plastic composition. This came
to light when the wise old government made it a requirement that MTBE be
used to reduce pollutant at the un-tested request of the EPA. The MTBE
found all the small holes in the gas tanks and polluted the ground waters as
well as making pump-jockeys sick. Now when theses pump-jockey's started
reporting to hospitals for treatment the CDC (Center for Disease Control)
was first contacted because of the wide spread and similarity of cases.
Some financial saving that was!
9 - MoGas - and who else other than the wise old government made it a
requirement in my area NJ-NY that ethanol be added to the gas. 10% less
HP, 10% Less fuel economy and 100% more problems. Just ask the boating
industry in coastal ares that ethanol is suppled.
OK! Enough - But, as Roger mentioned water is NOT absorbed. It IS held in
SUSPENSION. And it takes about 15 minutes for water to come out of
suspension, IF there is no movement. So, what does that tell you....
Checking your freshly filled tanks does not show if there is water in your
gas. Of course, if there is enough water you sure will see it.
AND... Some one mentioned 'solution' it is NOT a solution, it is a
suspension. There is NO chemical combining of water and gas. The ethanol
IS in solution the water is in suspension. The ethanol in solution is a
mixture, forming a total different compound.
Now, water can be a good thing... There is a way of ethanol removal from
gas.
WATER - As someone did mention ethanol is hygroscopic. That means the
ethanol will adsorb water. So...
Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
Shake it up...
Let it stand for 1 hour...
>From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which is heavier
than the gas/ethanol mixture...
Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
Works in the lab all the time.
OK, sorry.... this is the end.
Barry
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Guys,,
Question:
Which fuel are you more likely to see water in, 100LL or our present day 91
Oct when you catch your sample down at the gascolator? Why?
p.s.
If you find it in one verses the other what should yo do?
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311301#311301
==========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
Message 17
| 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: Water in the fuel question |
In a word ...Yes! by at least three RON.
Worst part is most of the octane boosters available not very strong.
Ethanol has an RON of 116.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin
Klinefelter
Sent: September 7, 2010 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Water in the fuel question
<kevann@gotsky.com>
If you had enough water to cause separation of the alcohol the octane rating
would be reduced too, no?
Kevin, 914 Europa
>
> The 91 Oct. with ethanol with water will run through the engine, but at
> some point, Total saturation, other problems will emerge. So yes we can
> have some water in the fuel and not even know it and it will burn through
> and we won't even know, but at some point it can get to be too much and
> this is where Rotax draws the line.
> I try to stick most of the time with what Rotax teaches in schools, but
> once in a while I do bend those rules, but I have to have solid research
> behind me or experience before I do bend those rules.
>
>
> This item was one of our discussions in my Rotax update school. I just
> thought I would throw it out and see what popped up and hoped for some
> good conversations.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311567#311567
>
>
>
Message 18
| 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: | Water in the fuel question |
Pete have you considered distilling the water eth mixture to make fuel for a
table alcohol burner. They put something into the alcohol to make it
unpalatable even with distillation. Pure eth added to the gas of a so
called flex fuel vehicle may make it run more efficiently. If I remember my
high school chemistry correctly ethanol distils off at around 78.5C. You
can even get solar heaters to run the still! Apparently quantities of
alcohol less than a gallon are legal to make in the U.S..
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete
Christensen
Sent: September 7, 2010 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Water in the fuel question
Here is my experience with removing ethanol from gasoline.
In the North Austin, Texas area I have found no source for gasoline without
ethanol. The nearest I have found is more than an hours drive away without
any nearby airport. I could load up my van with 5-gallon cans, but buying
the cans and the cost of time and fuel for my van would make that difficult.
I have read everything I can on the subject on the Internet and have
corresponded with a few of you online.
Here is what I came up with. Last week I bought a 6-1/2 gallon carboy used
for making beer. I put 1 quart of water in the carboy and marked a line at
the top of the water. I then poured 5-1/2 gallons of high-test gasohol into
the jug. The pouring action stimulates the ethanol to begin separation from
the mix. After awhile the water-ethanol has separated from the mix and I
mark a new line that indicates the new level of the bottom of cleaned
gasoline. I use a siphon to siphon the cleaned gasoline off the top of the
water/ethanol leaving a gallon or so of good gas to avoid siphoning up any
water. (Note I do NOT pour the out this gas/water/alcohol from the jug.) I
can continue pouring gasohol into the carboy and the process starts all over
again. After a gallon or two of water/ethanol builds up, I siphon the
water/ethanol from the bottom of the jug and add a little more water.
I pour this cleaned gas into my plane through a Mr. Funnel Fuel Filter
Funnel, which is supposed to remove any remaining water. (I found no
detectable water in the filter after pouring 10 gallons)
I have run this so far about 50/50 with avgas I had in my tank.
I have only flown the one time a couple days ago for more than an hour with
no problems. Time will tell if problems develop.
I am NOT endorsing this process for others but only describing what I am
doing.
Pete
Kitfox III SN 1000
912
On 9/6/2010 7:56 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
Roger:
Too many questions :-)
1 - 100LL should have the least amount of contaminates due to the SUPPOSED
quality control.
2 - 100LL may have more water due to the DIFFERENT types of storage and the
age of the tanks [above ground & below ground].
3 - 100LL may have more water due to the quantity of fuel being sold... Ever
notice the airports will NEVER tell you how many gallons they sell a week.
4 - Some planes have much more of a problem with water than others. I have
quite a few hours in a Piper Cherokee and Comanche as well as a RV6 and all
three of them have the flush mounted gas caps. And all of them have water
in the tanks.
I would LQQK first and blame first the gas cap before blaming the 100LL. It
is a well know trick to put a patch of plastic Velcro On top of the gas cap
and the other half on the inside of a 1 Lb coffee can lid. This does a lot
to keep water out.
------------------------- AutoGas -------------------
5 - MoGas - Has it own problems - The first being The Cheep Ass - Money
Grubbing - Low Life - Non-English speaking owners that put water into their
tanks to cut price during Gas Wars. There was a gas station in my area that
was closed by the Bureau of Weights & Measures for just that reason about
one year after being closed because of illegal pumps (shorting the public).
The next issue was water in the gas.
6 - MoGas - Probably does have higher levels of contaminates due to lower
quality control of EVERYTHING from octant to transportation, storage and
dispensing.
7 - MoGas - Should have lower contaminates due to the higher turn-over.
8 - MoGas - In my area the wise old government made it a requirement that
ALL in-ground-tanks must be a fiberglass or plastic composition. This came
to light when the wise old government made it a requirement that MTBE be
used to reduce pollutant at the un-tested request of the EPA. The MTBE
found all the small holes in the gas tanks and polluted the ground waters as
well as making pump-jockeys sick. Now when theses pump-jockey's started
reporting to hospitals for treatment the CDC (Center for Disease Control)
was first contacted because of the wide spread and similarity of cases.
Some financial saving that was!
9 - MoGas - and who else other than the wise old government made it a
requirement in my area NJ-NY that ethanol be added to the gas. 10% less
HP, 10% Less fuel economy and 100% more problems. Just ask the boating
industry in coastal ares that ethanol is suppled.
OK! Enough - But, as Roger mentioned water is NOT absorbed. It IS held in
SUSPENSION. And it takes about 15 minutes for water to come out of
suspension, IF there is no movement. So, what does that tell you....
Checking your freshly filled tanks does not show if there is water in your
gas. Of course, if there is enough water you sure will see it.
AND... Some one mentioned 'solution' it is NOT a solution, it is a
suspension. There is NO chemical combining of water and gas. The ethanol
IS in solution the water is in suspension. The ethanol in solution is a
mixture, forming a total different compound.
Now, water can be a good thing... There is a way of ethanol removal from
gas.
WATER - As someone did mention ethanol is hygroscopic. That means the
ethanol will adsorb water. So...
Lets say you have a gas with 10% ethanol...
ADD 10% of the gas volume in water... 10 Gal Gas = 1 Gal water.
Shake it up...
Let it stand for 1 hour...
>From the bottom of the container drain off the water... Which is heavier
than the gas/ethanol mixture...
Which will have the Water with the ethanol attached to it.
Works in the lab all the time.
OK, sorry.... this is the end.
Barry
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Guys,,
Question:
Which fuel are you more likely to see water in, 100LL or our present day 91
Oct when you catch your sample down at the gascolator? Why?
p.s.
If you find it in one verses the other what should yo do?
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311301#311301
==========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
Message 19
| 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: Water in the fuel question |
Lucien the reason to worry a bit about running E10 are:
The tests that Rotax did were done with factory fresh E-10 I doubt there is
a station outside Nevada that can provide that fuel just because it absorbs
moisture right out of the air.
The tests that Rotax did only apply to the engine. I doubt the SB covers
tanks, fuel lines or the pumps.
Basically all they said is E-10 ( in it's pure state) won't croak your
engine. Then again if E-10 contaminated with moisture starts to dissolve
the white metal of the carbs then they sell more parts.
Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucien
Sent: September 7, 2010 12:36 PM
Subject: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Water in the fuel question
Thom Riddle wrote:
> Your observations about water absorption are correct, but I would not
chuck the 91 octane E-10 with water at the bottom. Drain off the water as
you would when found in 100LL.
>
> Rationale:
> If there was just enough water in the E-10 that the ethanol would absorb
it all and no more (ethanol saturated with water), then you would not know
it, and as you said the Rotax will handle it with no problem. How is this
different from draining off the excess water that is not absorbed by the
ethanol? No difference at all. None. Nada.
Just out of curiosity, since Rotax finally approved the use of E10 in all
the engines (except the 447) a while back, why not just run the E10 and
don't worry about it?
I'd have to reread the SB, but I don't believe there were any other
qualifications as to having to replace parts or etc.
I run ethanol-free when I can find it, but I also ran E10 in my 912ULS for
about the last year or so with no operational differences over E0 or 100LL
at all. Even up to 10,000' MSL I didn't have any running problems that I
could tell.
It's true you have to be vigilant about water, which may be a bit more
fooling around for folks who live in humid or wet areas.
And no, there's no possibility of ever convincing the gubbamint that ethanol
is _not_ a renewable fuel (because it's not sustainable) and we'll run out
of petrolium faster by trying to substitute ethanol than we would if we
simply burned the other 10% of the gas in our engines instead. So we really
can just forget about that ever happening.
Also, trying to remove the ethanol gives you a gas with some unknown octane
rating, doesn't it? I.e. ethanol is an octane booster which is probably how
they're able to sell lower octane gas as high-test because of the ethanol.
Sure, when they go to 15% we'll be right back at square 1 again, but for the
meantime, seems to me the simplest solution is to just use the E10 and keep
the sump drained....
LS
--------
LS
Titan II SS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311678#311678
Message 20
| 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: | Water in the fuel question |
It=99s a dirt big glass bottle.... usually with a slender neck on
it.
Noel
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert Borger
Sent: September 7, 2010 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Water in the fuel question
Carlos,
Go to Wikipedia & search on "carboy".
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 7, 2010, at 11:41, Carlos Trigo <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
Pete
I find your procedure interesting.
Will you please explain to a non-American, non-native English speaking
guy, what is a CARBOY?
TIA
Carlos
_____
Message 21
| 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: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question |
Something else to look for when doing any carb checks.
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Apr/10-01%5B1%5D.pdf
<https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Apr/10-01%5B1%5D.pdf>Rick
Girard
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> The answer:
>
> Well this question is a little harder than others that are spelled out well
> in the manuals. This one isn't as clear cut in black and white print and
> some Rotax instructors teach it a little differently from what I have seen.
> The Rotax manual doesn't really state where the 200 hr. inspection ends and
> where a rebuild starts.
>
> The 200 hr. is not the same as a rebuild. The 200 hr. is just what it says,
> an inspection only and no parts replacement except maybe the carb socket,
> floats or diaphragm and those few minor visible parts if necessary. You need
> only to check the carb socket for cracks, carb diaphragm for splitting, the
> bowl and the float level. Flush with a carb cleaner for any dirt and do a
> pressure test. That's it.
> That's pretty much all the inspection covers. It does not require all the
> parts to be replaced.
>
> In a rebuild you replace all the parts internally and the 200 hr. is mainly
> a look and clean as need be on exposed parts. If you disturb any of the "O"
> rings they should be replaced and that starts into the carb rebuild side,
> which Line maint. can't do. The carb rebuild is removing and replacing parts
> within the carb. We just went over all this with Eric Tucker in the update
> class. I also just got off the phone with Jeremy McGregor of CPS in
> California about this and he confirmed with me about both items. We ask why
> the carb rebuild couldn't be moved to the Line maint. section, but Rotax
> refuses because carb rebuilds are done so infrequently by individuals that
> Rotax wants to make sure the people preforming a rebuild has the most
> current training and continued experience. Yes, you can get in trouble by
> doing some wrong things to the carb or not doing them.
> Bottom line is Line Maint. can do a 200 hr. inspection, but you have to be
> Heavy Maint. rated to do a carb rebuild.
>
> It would be nice if every instructor were on the same page, but we all know
> that this doesn't always happen. Sometimes the lines get a little blurred.
>
>
> I know there are some of the Experimental people that have done carb
> rebuilds, but this isn't to be done for the SLSA crowd.
>
> Don't shoot the messenger here (no flaming arrows or tracer ammunition) I
> learned it in school, too.
>
> --------
> Roger Lee
> Tucson, Az.
> Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
> Rotax Repair Center
> 520-574-1080
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311754#311754
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
Message 22
| 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: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question |
Hi Rick,
Good article and a good point. If you do the 200 hr. inspection and look at the
diaphragm you should see any corrosion on a slide, in the bowl or in the carb
throat because you should be removing the slide which gives you a good visual
picture of these parts.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311776#311776
Message 23
| 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: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question |
Hi! Richard.
The symptoms of the Jabiru incident you publish here remind me of a
situation I had when I was test running mine (before I changed to a Rotax
914!)
There is a tiny brass nipple on the carb neck ( seeming by it's appearance
to call for a pipe to be attached ) there was no mention of this nipple in
the engine installation manual.
It looks like a carb float chamber overflow nipple. I reasoned therefore
that should fuel flow from it be likely then it should be directed into a
"catch bottle" so I put the pipe end into my oil breather separation bottle.
(later I think Jabiru issued an instruction that it was a fuel bowl pressure
stabilizing pipe and it should be directed into the carb intake air filter
after the filter / but before the carb intake.)
To continue ...my engine ran ok except I did get some oil spatter from the
oil catcher bottle and so put a loose fitting rag into the bottle neck.(
the amount of oil present in the bottle was minimal but I just may have,
whilst stuffing the rag into the neck, pushed the little pipe end below the
oil surface.)
The net result was on start up the engine ran rough and (unbeknown to me
smoked like a factory chimney for some time since I was working alone
outside the hangar ) I could not get a smooth running engine, someone
arrived and accused me of running up inside the hangar almost
simultaneously I had oil cover my screen from the engine compartment.
On stopping and further investigating I had massive fuel dilution to the
engine oil and the level was way over the top filling the breather bottle
to overflowing.
I sat and did a lot of head scratching and traced the sequence of events to
my stopping off the breather bottle with the rag. I removed the rag and the
pipe, changed the engine oil and the engine started flawlessly. As I said
above I eventually ran the pipe to new instructions.
If the unfortunate pilot had a similar installation and for some reason his
pressure balance pipe had been installed into the oil breather catch bottle
the same scenario would prevail. Why should the oil level in the bottle
suddenly increase? Well I discovered that the engine breather pipe was
attached to the neck of the oil filler/dip stick assembly and on filling
/top up of engine oil some would run down the breather pipe into the "catch"
bottle! So a simple top up of engine oil could have commenced the sequence
of events listed above.
Perhaps you would see that this info gets to the relevant authorities as an
unbiased contribution which if circulated will probably save further
incidents.
Best regards
Bob Harrison Europa G-PTAG.
_____
From: owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rotaxengines-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Girard
Sent: 08 September 2010 03:48
Subject: Re: RotaxEngines-List: Re: Carb rebuild - Xtra credit question
Something else to look for when doing any carb checks.
<https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Apr/10-01%5B1%5D.pdf>
https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Apr/10-01%5B1%5D.pdf
<https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Apr/10-01%5B1%5D.pdf> Rick
Girard
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Roger Lee <ssadiver1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi All,
The answer:
Well this question is a little harder than others that are spelled out well
in the manuals. This one isn't as clear cut in black and white print and
some Rotax instructors teach it a little differently from what I have seen.
The Rotax manual doesn't really state where the 200 hr. inspection ends and
where a rebuild starts.
The 200 hr. is not the same as a rebuild. The 200 hr. is just what it says,
an inspection only and no parts replacement except maybe the carb socket,
floats or diaphragm and those few minor visible parts if necessary. You need
only to check the carb socket for cracks, carb diaphragm for splitting, the
bowl and the float level. Flush with a carb cleaner for any dirt and do a
pressure test. That's it.
That's pretty much all the inspection covers. It does not require all the
parts to be replaced.
In a rebuild you replace all the parts internally and the 200 hr. is mainly
a look and clean as need be on exposed parts. If you disturb any of the "O"
rings they should be replaced and that starts into the carb rebuild side,
which Line maint. can't do. The carb rebuild is removing and replacing parts
within the carb. We just went over all this with Eric Tucker in the update
class. I also just got off the phone with Jeremy McGregor of CPS in
California about this and he confirmed with me about both items. We ask why
the carb rebuild couldn't be moved to the Line maint. section, but Rotax
refuses because carb rebuilds are done so infrequently by individuals that
Rotax wants to make sure the people preforming a rebuild has the most
current training and continued experience. Yes, you can get in trouble by
doing some wrong things to the carb or not doing them.
Bottom line is Line Maint. can do a 200 hr. inspection, but you have to be
Heavy Maint. rated to do a carb rebuild.
It would be nice if every instructor were on the same page, but we all know
that this doesn't always happen. Sometimes the lines get a little blurred.
I know there are some of the Experimental people that have done carb
rebuilds, but this isn't to be done for the SLSA crowd.
Don't shoot the messenger here (no flaming arrows or tracer ammunition) I
learned it in school, too.
--------
Roger Lee
Tucson, Az.
Light Sport Repairman - Maintenance Rated
Rotax Repair Center
520-574-1080
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=311754#311754
==========
-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RotaxEngines-List
==========
http://forums.matronics.com
==========
le, List Admin.
="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
--
Zulu Delta
Kolb Mk IIIC
582 Gray head
4.00 C gearbox
3 blade WD
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable
to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
- G.K. Chesterton
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! --
|