---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 07/08/06: 25 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:13 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Jim Sears) 2. 07:24 AM - I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Knicholas2@aol.com) 3. 08:08 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Ed Bundy) 4. 09:06 AM - Garmin Service (Paul Besing) 5. 09:38 AM - Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Bayne JUST) 6. 09:44 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Bob J.) 7. 10:14 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Ron Lee) 8. 10:24 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Jim Sears) 9. 10:33 AM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Jim Sears) 10. 11:19 AM - non-swiveling tail wheel (Jeff Point) 11. 11:19 AM - Fuel Efficiency (Michael Duran) 12. 11:28 AM - Re: Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Tracy Crook) 13. 11:38 AM - 4 into 1 Exhaust (FATKORAT@aol.com) 14. 12:00 PM - Re: Fuel Efficiency (Mickey Coggins) 15. 12:04 PM - Re: Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Mickey Coggins) 16. 12:24 PM - fuselage center, f-623 rib question (Charlie England) 17. 12:38 PM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)) 18. 01:29 PM - Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Denis Walsh) 19. 03:55 PM - Re: Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Dan Beadle) 20. 04:20 PM - Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Vanremog@aol.com) 21. 05:10 PM - Re: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield (Ralph Koger) 22. 05:23 PM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Karen and Bob Brown) 23. 07:33 PM - Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial Pilot (jellis9847@aol.com) 24. 09:32 PM - Re: Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial (Ron Lee) 25. 10:38 PM - Re: non-swiveling tail wheel (Paul Besing) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:13:05 AM PST US From: "Jim Sears" Subject: Re: RV-List: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" >> I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)<< George and I have had some discussion on this subject off line; and, I thought the topic was over with. I guess he doesn't feel that way. Actually, George has thought seriously about using mogas in an airplane. However, George is like many on this list who have a nice sum of cash to work with. With that, he doesn't have the need, or desire, to try alternative things to help keep his aviation expenses down. George also has an engineering background; so, he's not dumber than a box of rocks, like some of us out here. :-) >> I appreciate the passion and support some have for MOgas. Hey 5,10 and 15 years of successfully operation is not bad. I appreciate the sense of humor as well.<< Where we lack in education, those of us who've used auto gas with FAA's blessings do have a background of experience. Mine has lasted for about 20 years and about 2000 hours of flying time with auto gas. Some of the others have been flying with auto gas for just as long, if not longer. I don't consider my good fortune with auto gas to be an exception. It's most likely more the rule. > Now for facts. Now, this is where George, in his good meaning way, has messed up a little. He's got most things right; but, he's just like us in that some of his information is not correct. I don't know all the facts, either. I'm no engineer and am no expert. I do read a lot and have the experience with mogas. >> besides the OCTANE molecule (distilled petroleum). Gas has 200 of chemicals in it, some are good for aviation some not, << This can be true. In the past, we've been alerted about some of those chemicals. However, I think it was found that some of those chemicals were harmful to the environment and were disallowed. MTBE seems to be one of the chemicals that is mentioned often. However, it is approved for our usage. What works in a car should be OK for the airplane, in most cases. Of course, that's just speculation on my part; but, I don't think the fuel manufacturers want autos to fail any more than we want our aircraft engines to fail. I certainly don't want my fuel delivery system to melt down, my engine to detonate, and my engine to melt down, whether it be my auto or my airplane. > Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it > is more susceptible to vapor lock. Sorry, Goerge; but, you still have that one backwards, which helps to debunk the rest of what you say. Don't worry, I have had a hard time keeping this one straight, myself. :-) > Auto gas, even premium does NOT have the same > octane as 100LL Avgas by quite a bit. I've got to admit he's right. However, most engines we use today, and certainly most engines we use for our RVs don't require the use of 100LL. At least, that's what I've read several times on this list and in publications. > Low octane can cause detonation, and uncontrolled > burning of fuel which can lead to severe engine > damage. If it's too low for the engine. >> In the past Av gas came in grades of 80-87; 91-98, 100-130 and 115-145. That has given way to the ubiquitous 100/100LL<< One can still sometimes find the 80/87 fuel; but, it's pretty rare. However, what happened to those engines that ran on 115/145 fuel? Did those go away; or, did they get derated to run on 100LL? Surely the FAA didn't say it's OK to run them on 100LL without some sort of investigation into it. Can anyone answer that? Isn't that sort of what we're doing? We're going to a lower antiknock fuel that can be used instead of one that is forced on us because nobody makes the other, anymore? > Why two numbers? The low number is the lean octane > rating and the higher number is rich octane rating. > > There are four ways to measure fuel for octane: > Automotive Research, Automotive Motor, > Aviation Lean and Aviation Rich. There is more information in the archives about this. It's interesting reading material for those who are interested. > Auto gas has one rating and is average of lean and > rich rating and there are two methods as listed > above. Yes. Check the archives for more info. >> Aviation gas lean is about equal to automotive motor octane.100LL avgas if sold at the car pump would be 105. Premium 91 octane MOgas sold as Avgas would be about equiv to 86UL. << I won't dispute this because I'd have to look it up; but, I do remember that the octane rating is lower for avgas, as he suggests. I think 87 antiknack is translated to 82UL avgas. > STC for Mogas was when 80/86 went a way and > the low compression engines ran terrible on the > default gas grade 100/100LL. And can be damaged by the lead content. > Despite the LL (Low Lead) designation, > there's a lot of lead in 100LL. About ten times as much as leaded mogas and four times as much as 80 avgas, per Petersen's STC information. >> Therefor low compression engines designed to run on low octane fuel did not need or work well on leaded fuel. Lead boost octane. That was the beginning of STC's for automotive unleaded (UL) fuels for aircraft as a substitute for low lead/UL 80 octane.<< This may be a true statement. Many were already using the mogas illegally, anyway. The STC just made it legal. > Just because the FAA approves STC's is not mean > much in a high compression homebuilt. Yep; but, I think many of us already realize that there is a limit as to what engines can use it. However, the FAA, which George doesn't trust to have the sense to know what the experts know, thinks that over 90% of the GA fleet can run on a lower octane fuel, if we were to lose 100LL. I'm hoping that the FAA has its own set of experts to work with. I'm betting they're working with the fuel and engine manufacturers on this. Surely, they have the right experts. >> Lycomings come in to flavors, which are certified for 80 octane and have a compression ratio about 7.2:1CR or have about 8:50:1CR and are certified for 100/100LL gas, or the old 91/96 Avgas grade. << According to my engine list, the engines are 7.5:1 and 8.5:1. I'm no expert on the subject, though. >> If you buy the Super gas at the mini-mart and it said 92 octane it is only worth about 87 octane. We assume you test it for ethanol and alcohol every time of course. << I think it has to maintain what's stated on the pump for a period of time. That means it's most likely the octane that's stated, or very close to it. It certainly won't be that much below what's stated on the pump unless George really means the 87 is the avgas equivalent. >> Can you run your 91/96 octane Lyc on it? Well that is subject to debate, but it does not fly in my plane. I guess you can reduce the timing advance a little as a precaution?<< And this is where we differ. George won't use it in his airplane; but, I might. It depends on what engine I have. > Lycoming strongly recommends NOT using MOGAS. As I told George off line, Lycoming is not going to stick its neck out because its lawyers are dead against it. To cover their asses, they'll stick with certified fuels in their certified engines. Of course, the same company is being left behind by companies like Superior and ECI who aren't as afraid as Lycoming. Superior and ECI tend to cater more to us and are willing to try new things. Lycoming may end up finding itself without a customer base, if it continues listening to lawyers instead of the fastest growing segment of GA. >> Lycoming does know about auto gas and in fact makes a very low compression O360 for flying in third world countries to run on low grade fuel. << I'm betting that's the 167hp version with the 7.5:1 compression ratio. I've thought about building one of those up for myself. With that, I'd have a lot more hp than my current 150 hp engine and could still run my engine on 87 antiknock fuel. > Unfortunately most 320's and 360's have 8:50:1CR > and need the 91/96 (100LL) gas. I have a new car that requires 91, or better, antiknock fuel. However, I read the fine print and found that it will run on 87 antiknock fuel. There would be some power reduction, though. I may be wrong; but, I'm betting Lycoming has done the same thing. They've given themselves a nice margin for error in their fuel requirements. That's why it's been found that we can actually run them on lower octane fuels with no adverse effects. Of course, this is speculation on my part. >> If you are willing to test, haul and store your own auto gas and run your engine on less than the recommended octane, than OK, do that. If you have a low compression engine than auto gas makes more sense. << Which many of us are doing. > You may want to look into reducing your timing and > all the other things For those with very high compression ratios, and some who have the lower compression ratios and want to do it that way, having automatic retardation is the cat's meow and may be the way of the future for us to get away from 100LL, altogether. >>.I mentioned about keeping the fuel cool, that where somewhat ridiculed by the MOgas experts. I would do everything I could to assure no loss of power due to vapor lock.<< I don't know who ridiculed George; but, it was not I I've flown three airplanes extensively on auto gas. Not one of them had a fuel return system. Since I don't consider firesleeve a good insulator in normal operation, I don't have my fuel system insulated. I do have a couple of blast tubes for the RV; but, my prior two aircraft did not have them. All three have worked well with auto gas. If I were going to use a FI engine, I'd most likely install a fuel return system to make me more comfortable with it. However, I've not had that much trouble with vapor locking and would opt to stay with the KISS method on my carb engines. That works for me. You guys may want to go with fuel returns. That's what makes this whole thing so neat. We can do what is right for each of us. >>If you have a 7:1CR engine than it is safer from an octane stand point, as long as it does not have the alcohol and ethanol. (However ethanol does increase the octane rating, see below).<< I believe ethanol is a form of alcohol; but, I might be wrong on that. I do think the 7.5: 1 engines have the advantage, though. When one does the formula to convert the 87 antiknock to avgas, it's the 82UL we've seen in the past, if memory serves me. Since 7.5:1 engines are designed for 80, I don't worry about the octane, as much. >> If you get a load of ethanol gas you run the risk of water contamination since it absorbs water. Once airborne it cools the water comes out of the fuel and water contamination result in loss of power. << This could be a real problem in cold weather. Here is one little rub in that, though. What about all the cars that run on it? Why don't they have frozen fuel lines, stopped up tanks, and stopped up fuel filters from using it? Anyone ever given that one a thought? It may not be that much of a problem, in that sense. I wonder how cold it would have to be for the separation to happen. I'm more concerned about what it can do to components in the system. As others have stated, that may not be as much of a problem, anymore. > Carb ice is more likely with ethanol (alcohol). I won't dispute that because I don't know. I do know that my Lycoming engines have rarely, if ever, showed symptoms of icing up. The C172 I owned had a Continental in it. Boy, that thing would ice up, in a heart beat. I'm not saying it won't happen; but, I'm betting it would be a minor issue. I'd be more concerned about the power output from alcohol. From what I'm reading, it takes a lot more alcohol to produce what gas produces. >>That is why it is important to test your auto gas. Also ethanol is not compatible with the rubber and gaskets used in aircraft and they will swell, which has caused aircraft engines to stop in the past. << I must admit I haven't been real good about testing my fuels. I have tested it, in the past; but, I'm not one to do it with every fuel purchase. Some will critisize me for my lack of action; but, I tend to buy gas where alcohol is not in the fuel. If I lived near a large city, I'd test it regularly. >> These are facts. If you do go auto fuel please please ask lots of questions of those who are experts in the topic. I think we have a few on this list (seriously :-)<< I don't claim to have all the answers; but, I do try to help. Our archives are full of good information on the use of auto gas. >> I am not an expert but than I don't have to jump of a bridge to know it might hurt when I hit the water. I know if your engine stops while flying in a plane it can be a bad thing. MOgas is NOT as good as AVgas. The debate is it good enough. May be. << Actually, I think mogas is better than avgas. I have less problems with mogas than I do with avgas. I've had cylinders off my engines for problems not relating to mogas usage and have yet to find symptoms of detonation,etc. On the contrary, I've found the engine to be clean on the inside. No lead. Every time I fill my plane up with 100LL, I get the fouled plugs and lead related bad run ups. > What I know about auto gas is enough to discourage > me. George is lucky in that he has a job that pays very well. Making his decision was easy for him. However, there are those of us who are grass roots enthusiasts who do not have large incomes. We have to think differently and search out alternatives that work for us. Either is just fine. As best I know, I'm probably the only one at our airport who regularly uses autogas for fuel. I'm probably one of the few who is retired, as well. The rest are well paid folks, with most having businesses of their own. They complain about the cost of 100LL; but, they continue to use avgas because they can afford it. I can't. Mogas works for me. >> Ethanol does help octane so if you can get some "sub grade" fuel before the distribution puts in the additives, like ethanol you can expect a 5% hit on octane. So basic fuel planned for 91 octane with ethanol is really 89 octane without the ethanol. This is like 84 aviation. To get "sub grade" you need to get it at the distribution terminal before they add the ethanol.<< Let me try to remember. If octane increases, that slows the burn more to make it more uniform. That translates to more power. Why is it that ethanol is apt to give less power and require more fuel to do the same thing as ethanol free fuels? Just curious. I would think ethanol is more of an environmental issue additive than for octane boosting. That's why one will find it more around big cities where smog is a problem. What say you experts? >> 84 octane is not enough for higher compression 91/96 engines. If you have a 80 octane O320 140/150HP Lyc, than by all means go for it. << I'm sorry, George, I'm getting lost in your octane ratings. They're jumping all over the map. However, if one is using a 140/150/167/235 hp Lyc, one is safe to use 87 antiknock fuel. As for the 8.5:1, Superior stands behind their engines using 91-92 antiknock mogas. I suggest that they would not do that unless their engines can be run safely on it. If I were to buy a new engine for my RV, I'd look very seriously at buying a new engine from an engine manufacturer that supports our needs. It appears that Superior, and maybe ECI, does. Lycoming would be my last choice, even though their engine will most likely do as well as the Superior engine on the same fuels. >> Some debate about reducing timing for the high compression engines.<< At some point, this will probably have to be done. >> Lycoming is testing UL blends and the gas companies are working on the 95UL as a 100/100LL replacement. << Most of our engines can run on it. >>Remember there are more high compression than low compression engines. Also the real fire breathing high end piston engines, turbo charged and so on NEED the high end gas, only make up 30% of the fleet but use 70% of the gas. So all you C65 & C85 engine Piper Cubs are stuck using the 95 octane but with the UL it should be OK.<< I'm betting a lot of cub drivers are pouring in auto gas. Those engines will run nicely on it. They aren't stuck with avgas. The ones in trouble are the ones with the super hot engines. >> IF I HAD an 80 octane engine AND the gas prices kept going up I would consider auto gas it. (THERE I SAID IT, ARE YOU HAPPY....)<< Not really. Gas is always going to go up. One has to get to where the cost is prohibitive. It hasn't gotten there for most of us. When it does, many of us will just get out of aviation. Look at the other countries where gas is way more than we pay. There is very little general aviation. We'll see the same thing, here. It won't have to go up much more to leave this retiree behind. There is already talk around our airport by some who think it's about time to get out. The fuel is still cheap enough that we can sell our airplanes at reasonable prices. If it goes up much more, and aviation declines, we won't be able to give them away. Oh, yeah. Aviation is declining, it seems. That's why AOPA is asking us to help out. The average Joe can't afford start in aviation, anymore. Some of us may fall by the wayside, as well. It will trully become a rich man's hobby. The use of auto gas may not matter, then. >> As I said for the real world guy $400-$800 is about what you can expect to save per year. Some of the guys who live where fuel is cheap and ethanol is not forced down their throat, good for them. If you have a High compression engine and ethanol free fuel is hard to find at the pump than not so good.<< This is a fact of life. Not everyone can partake in its use; but, many of us can and do. >> For the convenience of pulling up to the airport pump, filling with very high octane fuel, with very high vapor pressure and knowing there's no bad chemicals in it with out having to test it, is worth it to me.<< Yep. Isn't it nice you can have it your way? The key is doing what makes you feel comfortable. Many of us feel very comfortable pouring auto gas into our tanks. It works for us. >>To each his own, I'll never say never but at some point I just will not fly as much or at all, sadly. << That is a fate that all of us face. I see my end in aviation coming too fast. :-( Sorry for the long response; but, I feel it's necessary to defend what I believe in. Use of mogas in airplanes isn't for everyone; but, giving false information isn't going to help, either. George means well; but, he's like the rest of us. He's learning. However, one must realize that the old tales about how mogas will cause us to crash have been disproved. Now, some engine manufacturers are backing its use. That's good enough for me! Jim Sears in KY do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:24:34 AM PST US From: Knicholas2@aol.com Subject: RV-List: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke and I need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it) and they had no idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2 different email addresses (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each has bounced back. Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a replacement slider piece? Thanks! Kim Nicholas RV9A Auburn, WA ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:08:08 AM PST US From: "Ed Bundy" Subject: RE: RV-List: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) --> RV-List message posted by: "Ed Bundy" As someone who long ago made up my mind not to use Mogas (for a variety of reasons) I still found this discussion interesting. I personally don't think the *potential* risks outweigh the monetary savings. I don't know if I fit into the "nice sum of cash" camp, but I know that I DO give up other things that I would like (such as an automobile built after 1988) in order to fly an RV. One thing I haven't seen mentioned (although I confess I have skipped a lot of this topic) is that a few years ago Avgas was twice as expensive as Mogas ($2 vs. $1). Now the same $1 differential exists, but at $4 vs. $3 Mogas is "only" 25% cheaper. Sorry, but with all the expenses of airplane ownership, a 25% savings on fuel is not worth ANY possibility of Mogas problems. Not to mention the hassle factor of lugging your own airplane fuel around. Yuck. Ed Bundy >> I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but > I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives > or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the > cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)<< > George is like many on this list who have a nice sum of > cash to work with. With that, he doesn't have the > need, or desire, to try alternative things to help keep > his aviation expenses down. George also has an > engineering background; so, he's not dumber than a > box of rocks, like some of us out here. :-) -- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 09:06:57 AM PST US From: Paul Besing Subject: RV-List: Garmin Service --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Besing I remember someone stating a problem with Garmin service a while back, and thought I would add to the discussion. I have a Garmin 396 that I had mounted in an Airgizmos panel dock. When working on my new panel, the antenna wire touched a breaker and somehow damaged the ground portion of the 396. It wouldn't recognize any external power anymore! So I sent it back, to see if it would be fixed under warranty. It was shipped out from them 3 days later via second day air, no charge. It had a couple of scratches on it, and one small scratch on the screen I wasn't happy about before hand. They replaced the entire front and back covers of the unit as well, all no charge. That's pretty darn good service I'd say for a large corporation like Garmin. Paul Besing __________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:38:08 AM PST US From: Bayne JUST Subject: Re: RV-List: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield --> RV-List message posted by: Bayne JUST The paper work that came with my Koger Sun Shade shows: Ralph Koger 1947 W. 1st ext. Boone, IA 50036 515 432 5714 Bayne Just RV9A SEE Gillespie field San Diego, CA On Jul 8, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Knicholas2@aol.com wrote: > One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke > and I need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it) > and they had no idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2 > different email addresses (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each > has bounced back. > > Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a > replacement slider piece? > > Thanks! > > Kim Nicholas > RV9A > Auburn, WA ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:44:44 AM PST US From: "Bob J." Subject: Re: RV-List: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) I don't think anyone can claim to be an expert on whether or not mogas is suitable for their airplanes unless they try it and see if it works in their airplane. Forget the numbers (compression ratio, octane, vapor pressure, etc.) For me 25% 100LL and 75% 87 octane sans alcohol mix works for me and I can't tell a bit of difference when I'm fueled up with 100% 100LL. My lines are firesleeved, no problem in the summer temperatures. It works for me and as far as I care those are the facts, everything else is conjecture. I've borescoped the cylinders to look for any signs of detonation, and there are none. My oil analysis reports always come back good. I have 9:1 pistons in the rocket, will likely go 50/50 on the fuel mixture, but have to see what works best thru some trial and error. Regards, Bob Japundza RV-6 flying 700+hours, F1 under const. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:14:17 AM PST US From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: RV-List: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee >Actually, I think mogas is better than avgas. I have >less problems with mogas than I do with avgas. I've >had cylinders off my engines for problems not relating >to mogas usage and have yet to find symptoms of detonation,etc. On the >contrary, I've found the engine >to be clean on the inside. No lead. Every time I fill >my plane up with 100LL, I get the fouled plugs and >lead related bad run ups. Don't take this the wrong way but that may be operating technique. I use 100LL and fly more than most folks and I don't have fouled plug issues on every fillup. I think that I have had three cases in 900 hours and most were probably because I failed to lean the engine after startup. I would prefer a fuel with little or no lead because it does require periodic maintenance to clean the plugs. Ron Lee ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:24:18 AM PST US From: "Jim Sears" Subject: Re: RV-List: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" > As someone who long ago made up my mind not to use > Mogas (for a variety of > reasons) I still found this > discussion interesting. > These discussions can be very interesting, especially if there is a distinct polarity between those who use auto gas and those who don't. :-) > I personally don't think the *potential* risks outweigh the > monetary savings. I don't know if I fit into the "nice sum > of cash" camp, but I know that I DO give up other things > that I would like (such as an automobile built after 1988) > in order to fly an RV. > Each of us less fortunate folks has to give up something to get to fly. I had to give the idea of having a big fancy house and the mortgage payments that go with it. :-) As for the potential risks, I've found very few. In fact, I feel good enough about using auto gas that I've taken up over 300 kids in the Young Eagles program with auto gas in the tanks. I've not lost one, yet. I've had more problems with 100LL and its fouling tendencies. We all get so hooked on the risks involved that we forget the risk we take by just driving to the airport. I'm not going to belittle anyone for not wanting to try mogas; but, I would not tell you that it's safe knowing it's not. I'm not the most brave/macho pilot in the world; so, I'm not fond of taking risks, either. I trusted in those who did the testing to be right and gave it a try. I've not regretted it, yet. > One thing I haven't seen mentioned (although I confess > I have skipped a lot > of this topic) is that a few years > ago Avgas was twice as expensive as Mogas ($2 vs. $1). > Now the same $1 differential exists, but at $4 vs. $3 Mogas > is "only" 25% cheaper. > That's a neat way to look at it; but, it's more than that. There is still that $1+ price differential that keeps that savings way up there. Also keep in mind that our incomes haven't been inflated at the same rate as gas; so, that savings that we were talking about a couple of years ago is still substantial to us, today. As a note of interest, my retirement income will never increase; so, a dollar saved is a dollar earned. :-) > Sorry, but with all the expenses of airplane ownership, > a 25% savings on fuel is not worth ANY possibility of > Mogas problems. Not to mention the hassle factor of > lugging your own airplane fuel around. Yuck. > Ed is comfortable with his decision and has his reasons; but, there aren't that many risks. I've had engine problems with my aircraft, just as any aricraft owner does. I've had to replace cylinders because the tubes in the sump loosened up. I've had to overhaul an engine because it had sat for a while before I bought it. The cam gave it up. I had to replace a cylinder because the oil ring stuck. Have you noticed I've said nothing about detonation, yet? There hasn't been any that we've found. In each case, the problem was something totally unrelated to the type of fuel I was using. That's in about 2000 hours of flying on auto gas. Gang, I'm not here to recruit anyone from joining me unless you want to. If you want to, there are those of us who have chosen to try auto gas and have been very successful at it. To me, it's worth the hassle. When it no longer is, I'm sure I'll be priced out of aviation. At that point, it will be moot. Jim in KY do not archive. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:33:59 AM PST US From: "Jim Sears" Subject: Re: RV-List: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) --> RV-List message posted by: "Jim Sears" > I don't think anyone can claim to be an expert on > whether or not mogas is suitable for their airplanes > unless they try it and see if it works in their airplane. That's kinda how I see it. Those who haven't tried it, and are listening to others who are dead set against it, may be missing out on something that not only saves money from fuel purchase. It could reduce costs in operation from lead deposit problems, as well. > Forget the numbers (compression ratio, octane, > vapor pressure, etc.) For me 25% 100LL and 75% > 87 octane sans alcohol mix works for me and I can't > tell a bit of difference when I'm fueled up with 100% > 100LL. Bob is using a little more conservative mix than I do; but, I've found that having a 25% mix of 100LL all but eliminates vapor lock problems on those days when I'm doing quick turnarounds for Yound Eagles. Like Bob, I can't tell the difference between the performance of 100LL and the 87 antiknock from around the corner. In fact, my little RV's engine ran just fine on it, this morning. :-) > My lines are firesleeved, no problem in the summer > temperatures. It works for me and as far as I care > those are the facts, everything else is conjecture. I like this man's attitude. :-) > I've borescoped the cylinders to look for any signs > of detonation, and there are none. My oil analysis > reports always come back good. Same here on both counts. In fact, I get better oil analysis reports on auto gas. > I have 9:1 pistons in the rocket, will likely go 50/50 > on the fuel mixture, but have to see what works best > thru some trial and error. That kind of testing should be report to us, Bob. I'd like to know how well the higher compression ratio engines do with it. I'm confident with the 8.5:1 engines because Superior has stepped up to back it. So, you see, here is another happy RVer who is using auto gas with no problems. We aren't alone, fellas. Jim in KY do not archive ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:32 AM PST US From: Jeff Point Subject: RV-List: non-swiveling tail wheel --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point Does anyone know how much travel the old style non-swiveling tail wheels had? I'm looking for degrees side to side from center. Jeff Point RV-6 Milwaukee do not archive ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:19:32 AM PST US From: Michael Duran Subject: RV-List: Fuel Efficiency I'm also into fuel efficiency, and would like to suggest that you folks calculating NM/gal plug travel destinations into maps.google and then compare the efficiency of your airplane travel with that of driving a stupid utility vehicle going the same distance. If you haven't already. The curvier the roads, the better to fly. If Deltahawk ever gets their stuff together I'll finish this 7A and start doing some "extreme" efficiency/mileage experiments :-). Anyone else waiting on this pixie-dust engine? Mike Duran M20C 7A - airframe finished, treading water ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:25 AM PST US From: "Tracy Crook" Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... That was seriously Cool data Dan. Thanks also to Ed Bundy who supplied his numbers. It is surprisingly hard to find RV drivers who keep track of this stuff (too busy having fun in these things which I also understand : ) be a significant advantage. If you ever get the chance Dan, I'd like to see you do the same test but instead of dropping manifold pressure only, try dropping the prop rpm to get the same fuel flow numbers you used. This should reduce pumping losses and result in even better numbers. "Do not operate" zones on the prop rpm is the only possible problem I can think of. I don't have that problem with my fixed pitch wood prop but I have to put up with very high pumping losses, especially at low altitude (which is another reason I cruise high). Bottom line is that based on this info, I don't see a nickel's worth of difference between the Lyc (when run LOP) and my Mazda rotary when it comes to fuel economy. Cleanliness of the airframe makes more difference than the engine. I always burn less fuel than the guys who run Lycs ROP. The horror stories about the fuel consumption of the rotary are based on automotive experience. Ironically, the rotary is at it's worst in auto use. The lower the engine load, the worse the rotary is. Car's typically run at 10% or less power settings. At low power settings the flame goes out in the large quench areas of the rotary combustion chamber resulting in more unburned mixture. The higher the power load is, the longer the flame stays lit and more complete combustion results. The crumby results on the rotary RV-8 comparisons they did at Van's home drome were the results of two factors. 1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage. They should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two engine types (it is not the same). 2. The EFI controllers used with the Powersport engines do not allow the pilot to optimize the mixture. They were essentially running at full rich the whole time. The designers of it did not consider the users capable of deciding this and programmed what they thought was the safest mixture setting (rich). Tracy Crook ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Checkoway To: rv-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 5:59 PM Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... Tracy, you might get a kick out of this: http://www.rvproject.com/20060419.html )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (967 hours) http://www.rvproject.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Tracy Crook To: rv-list@matronics.com Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:04 PM Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... RV planes aren't gas guzzlers! At 8000 ft on an economy cruise setting you get over 24 mpg (assuming no head wind) I would say that's pretty good. Fly at 10,000ft or 11,000ft and you get even better millage. That's better than I get in my Ford Ranger. It's only about 6 mpg away from what some call a high millage for cars. My 24 mpg figure was based on the range listed on Van's website for an RV-7 at 55% power with the 160 hp engine. do not archive. Chris W KE5GIX Good data point, I hadn't read that on Van's site. I typically fly higher than 8000 feet, and since I've always been an efficiency freak, my engine monitor has a readout directly in MPG (based on TAS and fuel flow). I spend a lot of time tweaking & tuning to eke out that last possible .1 mpg on those long cross countries. At 15,500 I can do a little better than 30 MPG at 175 mph TAS. Anyone else into fuel efficiency? I'd love to hear your numbers. I honestly don't know how the rotary engine compares to a Lyc when flown for max efficiency. But I suspect it isn't much different. While I have always been into energy efficiency, I have grown weary of the painfully stupid mass media debate on the subject. Many of the same folks who demand better fuel economy standards are often the same ones to decry small cars as dangerous. Now I intend to use all the fuel I want while dreading the day someone decides that private aviation is too much of a security risk. Tracy Crook (Wacko of many types) ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:38:26 AM PST US From: FATKORAT@aol.com Subject: RV-List: 4 into 1 Exhaust For those of you looking for a 4 into 1 exhaust may I suggest Kevin Murray of Sky Dynamics. I just received my 4 into 1 for my RV-8 / IO-390 and it is a thing of beauty. Kevin supplies exhausts for the likes of Patty Wagstaff, Sean Tucker, Jim Leroy, and Dave Anders. at www.skydynamics.com Bob Gibbons RV-8 Waiting 6 months for an MT prop. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 12:00:31 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Fuel Efficiency --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > If Deltahawk ever gets their stuff together I'll finish this 7A and > start doing some "extreme" efficiency/mileage experiments :-). Anyone > else waiting on this pixie-dust engine? All the "pie in the sky" stuff is for my next airplane. You've got your Mooney to fly, but many of us are renting while we build. I'm in serious "get'er done" mode. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:37 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > 1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage. They > should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two > engine types (it is not the same). Tracy, What is the fixed prop RPM rule? I don't recall reading anything about this in the article. Apologies if it was there and I missed it. Thanks, Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:24:52 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: RV-List: fuselage center, f-623 rib question --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England Greetings, those who have gone before, I'm clecoing the mid section bottom skin to the seat & baggage ribs, trying to interpret the drawings on dwg22 (view C-C). My F623L & R ribs have a joggle on the outside vertical flange where it meets the F705 bulkhead. The joggle seems intended to allow a rivet to tie the side skin, f705 bulkhead & the outside flange of the F623 together. However, view C-C (side view of this point) seems to show the F623 rib being cut off just short of the F705 bulkhead flange. If I cut nothing, I'll have a joggle in the bottom skin (obviously wrong). If I cut as shown in view C-C, I'm cutting off a joggle in the flange that Van's went to the trouble of adding to the rib. My 1st thought is to cut the inside flange & horizontal surface of the F623 & leave the joggled tab for riveting to F705. Should I do something different? Bonus question1: The instructions say to cut a 1 1/2" hole in one of the baggage ribs if you intend to add a step. Is there any harm in cutting this hole if no step is planned? (grams add up to ounces add up to pounds....) Bonus question2: Any harm in enlarging the back tooling holes in the seat ribs to 5/8", like the front ones? (possible future wiring path, if needed) Thanks, Charlie ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 12:38:20 PM PST US From: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper) Subject: RV-List: Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS --> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper) The seasonal blending and geographical blending by automotive gasoline refiners does have a significant effect on the operation of the engines. When I was Terminal Superintendent of the Union 76 tank farms at San Diego and Imperial (El Centro) Terminals back in the early 1980's, we used to back haul the Imperial "desert gasoline" for the coastal San Diego's California Highway Patrol during certain seasons of the year for fuelling the 24/7 patrolcars that ran severe duty periods of idling and high speed pursuits. As engines used in aircraft adopt modern automotive computers utilizing such monitors as temperature probes and O2 sensors, the engines will be able to finely tune themselves as they encounter differing weather and altitudes. With the 1930's technology of many of our Lycoming & Continental aircraft engines, this thread has been informative with its cautions and could prevent damage from unexpected power off landings or even save some lives. If a plane is based on a private strip at a rural home, farm or ranch where automotive gasoline for vehicles and equipment can be delivered by commercial tankwagon, the savings can be measurable if the automotive fuel is found to be adequate for the aircraft engine. Our local fairly busy airport, with commercial airline service on its 6,559 foot runway with ILS, only pumps 150,000 gallons of Aviation gasoline a year. If this were a corner filling station pumping only 150,000 gallons in just a month - it would be facing closure for being uneconomical. Refiners are making aviation gasoline more as a service than a profit center. We need to continue to educate ourselves about alternate fuels as aviation gasoline will no doubt have to change from the currently available 100LL to a fuel that has other shared applications to make it at least marginally profitable to produce and distribute. As to the flamers and naysayers . . . "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind." Pete Cowper RV-8 #81139 (working on fuselage) ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 01:29:28 PM PST US From: Denis Walsh Subject: Re: RV-List: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield He used to live near the Lauritsens. If all else fails, call Cleaveland Tool and I am sure they can get you fixed up. Denis Walsh On Jul 8, 2006, at 07:18 299370007, Knicholas2@aol.com wrote: > One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke > and I need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it) > and they had no idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2 > different email addresses (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each > has bounced back. > > Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a > replacement slider piece? > > Thanks! > > Kim Nicholas > RV9A > Auburn, WA ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 03:55:27 PM PST US From: "Dan Beadle" Subject: RE: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... _____ Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 3:49 PM And, airplane mileage is often 10-25% less, improving real economy to right up there with a micro car. _____ [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:05 PM RV planes aren't gas guzzlers! At 8000 ft on an economy cruise setting you get over 24 mpg (assuming no head wind) I would say that's pretty good. Fly at 10,000ft or 11,000ft and you get even better millage. That's better than I get in my Ford Ranger. It's only about 6 mpg away from what some call a high millage for cars. My 24 mpg figure was based on the range listed on Van's website for an RV-7 at 55% power with the 160 hp engine. do not archive. Chris W KE5GIX Good data point, I hadn't read that on Van's site. I typically fly higher than 8000 feet, and since I've always been an efficiency freak, my engine monitor has a readout directly in MPG (based on TAS and fuel flow). I spend a lot of time tweaking & tuning to eke out that last possible .1 mpg on those long cross countries. At 15,500 I can do a little better than 30 MPG at 175 mph TAS. Anyone else into fuel efficiency? I'd love to hear your numbers. I honestly don't know how the rotary engine compares to a Lyc when flown for max efficiency. But I suspect it isn't much different. While I have always been into energy efficiency, I have grown weary of the painfully stupid mass media debate on the subject. Many of the same folks who demand better fuel economy standards are often the same ones to decry small cars as dangerous. Now I intend to use all the fuel I want while dreading the day someone decides that private aviation is too much of a security risk. Tracy Crook (Wacko of many types) ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 04:20:11 PM PST US From: Vanremog@aol.com Subject: Re: RV-List: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield In a message dated 7/8/2006 9:41:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bjust@cox.net writes: The paper work that came with my Koger Sun Shade shows: Ralph Koger 1947 W. 1st ext. Boone, IA 50036 515 432 5714 =========================================== Also this kind of stuff is always just a mouse click away in the Yeller Pages at _http://www.matronics.com/YellerPages/_ (http://www.matronics.com/YellerPages/) GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 792hrs, Silicon Valley, CA) ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 05:10:53 PM PST US From: "Ralph Koger" Subject: Re: RV-List: I need replacement parts for my Koger Sun Shield RV list, I have changed to a cable server and my old e-mail address is not correct. My web site will be updated as soon as Mike Lauritson get home from the Washington show. www.Cleavelandtool.com/kogercompany/ Web site. If anyone needs parts send me the model of shade and your address and I will send them to you. Over the past 10+ years I have had very little breakage and replacements. I want to keep your Koger SunShade in good condition. ralphkoger@gmail.com or r.koger@mchsi.com Phone 515-432-5714 Thank You for buying my sunshade and the RV list. Ralph Koger On 7/8/06, Knicholas2@aol.com wrote: > > One of the end retainer slider pieces for my Koger Sun Shield broke and I > need a replacement. I talked to Van's (where I bought it) and they had no > idea what I was talking about. I have tried 2 different email addresses > (via the archives) for Mr. Koger and each has bounced back. > > Does anyone know how to reach Mr. Koger or at least get a replacement > slider piece? > > Thanks! > > Kim Nicholas > RV9A > Auburn, WA > ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:23:58 PM PST US From: " Karen and Bob Brown" Subject: Re: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 FWIW, before gluing the canopy and windscreen (and skirts) on my 7A frame and fuselage with Sikaflex, I bought some black Sikaflex295UV and did a few Dr. Destructo pull tests using scrap pieces of plexi and pieces of both powder coated steel and aluminum. Thickness of the adhesive beads was controlled with rubber hose washers at 3/16ths inch per the product data sheet manuals. On one pull test, I tore the aluminum sheet (.032) and the Sika joint never failed. In all my other tests, the plexi failed. The Sika joints never failed. I can only presume the product that failed was out of date (either the primer, the wash or the adhesive or all) or there was some other contaminant present at the point of adhesion. This product has been sold as an adhesive for polycarbonate and plexiglass for years. It is recognized as an industry standard for the application we are using it for. I suppose time will tell, but there are installations in RV's out there now with over 5 years on them. If anyone knows of any other failures, I'd sure like to hear the details about them. I can only speak about my installation, which shows no sign of being anything but solid. I did return some tubes of Sikaflex which were out of date when I received them. I'd suggest looking at those dates closely. One thing I've learned from using Sikaflex 295 is that it will absolutely not stick to a surface that has not been properly prepped (both surfaces sanded w/60 grit, washed, primed). Also note there are time limits.wait 20 minutes after the wash coat before priming. Adhesive must be applied within 2 hrs of priming. I used to freak out if I got some Sikaflex on the canopy outside my masked bead area.later I just left it on until it cured, because it would peel off as easy as rivet tape if it was not applied over a properly prepped area. Bob _______________________________________________ Bob and Karen Brown RV7A - flying ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 07:33:36 PM PST US From: jellis9847@aol.com Subject: RV-List: Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial Pilot Hi All, Is there anyone out there who has tried to connect a Blue Mountain EFIS G3 Lite to a Trutrak Pictorial Pilot? I have the Serial Port B connected to the Pictorial Pilot but the autopilot doesn't recognize the GPS input. I suspect that I don't have the correct settings in the EFIS (choices include GPSS and NMEA 0183 among others). BMA Tech Support says they haven't tested this autopilot so that can't give me the correct settings. Anybody out there have any ideas? Thanks Jim Ellis RV9-A, Flying ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:40 PM PST US From: Ron Lee Subject: Re: RV-List: Connecting Blue Mountain EFIS lite to Pictorial Page 5 has this info. Looks like NMEA-0183 on Pin 3. Have you tried that format? P101 Pin Function Notes 1 Autopilot Master (+12 to +14 V DC). The autopilot itself draws less than 0.3 ampere. Most of the current required by the system is used by the servo (up to 1Amp depending on torque setting) and a smaller amount (up to 180 mA) for the illuminated pushbuttons. 2 Control Wheel Switch. Connect as shown in wiring diagram to a SPST momentary switch located remotely to the autopilot for convenient engage/disengage function. 3 Primary Serial Input. Baud rate selectable 1200,2400,4800 or 9600 baud. Automatically decodes NMEA-0183, Garmin Aviation Format, or Apollo/UPSAT Moving-Map format. Provides directional reference to the autopilot. 4,5,6 ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 10:38:04 PM PST US From: Paul Besing Subject: Re: RV-List: non-swiveling tail wheel --> RV-List message posted by: Paul Besing It will go 90, but not much more than that before the chains bind up. Another words, the chains are the limiting factor..the will swivel but the chains inhibit the movement. Will be upgrading to swivel tailwheel soon! Paul Besing --- Jeff Point wrote: > --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point > > > Does anyone know how much travel the old style > non-swiveling tail wheels > had? I'm looking for degrees side to side from > center. > > Jeff Point > RV-6 > Milwaukee > do not archive > > > > > > browse > Subscriptions page, > FAQ, > > > Admin. > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________