[PA28235] Re: mogas
- From: "D. Clardy" <dclardy@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pa28235@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:12:36 -0500
I thought this was interesting.
Small Airplane Directorate
601 E. 12th Street, ACE-100
Kansas City, Missouri 64106
JUN 0 4 1998
Mr. Earl Lawrence
Executive Director, Government Programs
Experimental Aviation Association (EAA)
EAA Aviation Center
P.O. Box 3086
Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903-3086
Dear Mr Lawrence:
This letter is in response to your letter dated May 28, 1998, concerning a
recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Program Newsletter
that highlighted autogas use in a negative way. Several comparisons between
autogas and avgas were cited in the newsletter that infer airplanes and engines
that have Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) approved for autogas use are
not as safe as airplanes or engines that use avgas exclusively. This is not an
accurate representation of the operational service history for these products
that use autogas. The sixteen year service history for airplanes and engines
using autogas is good.
The newsletter cites a 1976 Textron Lycoming service information document and a
Teledyne Continental Engine Technical Bulletin that defines certain concerns
with autogas use. At that time, there were questions and issues that needed to
be answered. However, since that time a tremendous amount of airplane, engine,
and fuel testing has been accomplished among EAA, FAA, and other organizations.
Autogas use has been extensively compared, tested, and analyzed. Autogas has
been shown to be an acceptable alternative to avgas for the airplanes and
engines approved for such use. Airplanes and engines approved for autogas use
have met the FAA certification requirements for engine detonation, engine
cooling, fuel flow, hot fuel testing, fuel system compatibility, vapor lock,
and performance. The newsletter also cited a report about aggravated engine
valve seat recession (wear) with the use of autogas. Extensive FAA Technical
Center testing concluded that valve seat recession with autogas use is not
significantly different from avgas use
In summary, there are numerous studies and technical reports available
comparing autogas to avgas for use in certificated airplanes and engines. The
service history for airplanes and engines using autogas has been good and is
comparable to avgas.
We thank you for bringing this issue to our attention and we hope this
clarifies the Small Airplane Directorate's position on approved autogas use in
14 CFR part 23 airplanes.
Sincerely,
----- Original Message -----
From: PilotKris@xxxxxxx
To: pa28235@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:09 PM
Subject: [PA28235] Re: mogas
NO CLUE?..
Come on now Al. You call me Clueless while Jay calls me a liar and
misinformed.
It seams that the two of you think that anyone who doesn't use MoGas is an
idiot. I am not.
I follow no crowd and mantra but my own. I did the research and simply came
to the informed decision that it is too much trouble to do correctly and the
benefits don't outweigh the risks.
Others who my be contemplating the use of MoGas also deserve to hear both
sides as well.
I never said that the proper use of UNCONTAMINATED MoGas was unsafe.
I did say that it is very hard to be sure you have uncontaminated MoGas (and
getting harder every day with all this ethanol BS).
You are lucky that you have a convenient supply of MoGas presumably from a
reliable source. But you still are required by the STC you are using, to test
each and every load of gas you pump into your plane. You are testing it, aren't
you?
I ABSOLUTELY DID SAY THAT THE USE OF UNTESTED MOGAS IS UNSAFE!!! (You or
anyone else would have to be an absolute blithering idiot to disagree with that
statement)
Every piece of information I passed along was researched and verified. (would
you like me to list the Lycomming Service Letters and Service Bulletins again?)
Or perhaps you should just read the instructions that were added to your Flight
Manual as part of your MoGas STC. You do have the STC, don't you?
The complete answer to all of this, is a type of AvGas called 90/96 which is
essentially 100LL without the lead. It would have all the quality control and
positive features of AvGas without the problems caused by all that extra lead
and could be in use tomorrow. But my guess is that MoGas advocates won't like
it because it (undoubtedly) will be more expensive than MoGas.
We can agree to disagree BUT DON'T CALL ME CLUELESS, MISINFORMED or a LIAR.
One more time...
If you do choose to fly on MoGas, you must have the STC that allows the use
of MoGas. YOU MUST FOLLOW ALL OF THE PROCEDURES SPELLED OUT IN THE STC...
Period, end of story...
Fly SAFE (not cheep)
PilotKris
In a message dated 7/13/2006 6:49:22 AM Pacific Standard Time,
AWatt@xxxxxxxxx writes:
PilotKris
Jay is absolutely correct in his postings and you, my friend, have "NO
CLUE".
It's sad that you choose to follow the "doom and gloom" mantra of the anti
MoGas crowd.
I too did much research BEFORE using MoGas and couldn't find a SINGLE
incident of an accident being caused by MoGas use. I did find a few incidents
of misfueling with water contaminated AvGas (hmmmm, maybe it's actually SAFER
to carry my own fuel to the airport instead of trusting those leaking
underground storage tanks on the ramp).
As it stands, my local airport has a beautiful self service facility which
dispenses alchohol free gas, pays all aviation fuel taxes, and sells it for a
price similar to the road fuel.
Face it, it's perfectly safe to fly with good quality, non-contaminated
MoGas. Be my guest, keep burning 100LL but PLEASE STOP thinking that somehow
you are safer while doing so.
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: PilotKris@xxxxxxx
To: pa28235@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 12:48 AM
Subject: [PA28235] Re: mogas
Jay Jay Jay...
Rumors, Old Wives Tails? The only one spreading those is you.
You STILL seam to have a problem differentiating FACT from OPINION.
I understand where you get your opinions. Your I.A.'s might even be
considered "expert" but it's still just an opinion.
I will reiterate the Facts.
1. The manufacture of the airplane (and it's fuel system) specifically
PROHIBITS the use of anything but 80/87, 100LL or 100/130 AvGas.
2. The Manufacture of the engine specifically PROHIBITS the use of
anything but 80/87, 100LL or 100/130 AvGas and goes so far as to say (in S.B.
398) that any engine that has run on any other "non-specficed" fuel is
UNAIRWORTHY unless it has been torn down and inspected. They don't say that
it's OK to use MoGas if you foul your plugs. They don't say it's OK to use
MoGas if your Local A&P says it's OK. They don't say it's OK to use MoGas
because you only fly 75 times a year and it "couldn't be that bad". THEY SAY
DON'T DO IT... EVER!
3. The very people you quote as a "source", EAA and the STC holder state
YOU MUST TEST ALL OF THE GAS YOU PUT IN YOUR PLANE EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU FUEL
THE PLANE (specifically because ethanol will SERIOUSLY SCREW UP YOUR PLANE IF
NOT YOUR LIFE).
4. You have know idea what is coming out of the pump at your local gas
station (even uncontaminated gas may now be as much as 40% ethanol).
5. There are dozens of opportunities for the MoGas supply to get
contaminated buy the time it gets to the local "HyVee". It's the nature of the
MoGas distribution network and there is no way around it. THAT'S WHY YOU MUST
TEST EACH AND EVERY LOAD OF MOGAS YOU PUT IN YOUR PLANE!
Oh, as for your "Sources".
FAA had never said MoGas is better than AvGas. They do say however if you
use Mogas, YOU MUST FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OF THE STC TO THE LETTER. That means
testing each and every load of MoGas you put in your plane (and you aren't).
The EAA is the EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft Association (which I am a member).
The PA28-235 is not experimental. As such, must be operated in accordance with
the manufactures (both airframe and engine) operating instructions. Even so,
the work of the EAA led to the MoGas STC and they say (are you getting tired of
me saying this yet?) YOU MUST FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OF THE STC WHICH INCLUDES
TESTING EACH AND EVERY LOAD OF GAS YOU PUT IN THE PLANE!
The AAA? While they're not exactly spring chickens, the 235's aren't
Antiques and I've never heard of a O-540-C4B5 being referred to has an
"antique" either. As such, I don't think that even counts as an expert opinion.
Your I.A.? His (possibly "expert") opinions don't count as facts.
Frankly Jay, I'm worried about you. You have a very cavalier attitude
about your safety and the safety of your passengers. It's clear from your posts
that you aren't testing your MoGas for ethanol. THAT CAN GET YOU KILLED.
The PA28-235 is especially susceptible to alcohol/ethanol contamination
because it will turn the fiberglass in the tip tanks to goo. Goo that can clog
up the fuel lines and that my friend means engine failure.
Clearly you have issues with the establishment. My suggestion for you is
to put an "EXPERIMENTAL" sticker on your plane and that way you can run
whatever fuel, whatever strobe, whatever engine you want unfettered by the
restrictions placed on you by THE MAN 'cause you obviously (think you) know
better.
For the others reading this, KNOW ALL THE FACTS and make your own
decisions. But for goodness sake, if you do decide to use MoGas, FOLLOW ALL OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STC!
Fly Safe!
In a message dated 7/12/2006 6:37:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jjhoneck@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Well, Kris, I'm sorry if you took my response as a personal attack.
You clearly don't spend much in the on-line community of pilots if you
perceived my response as in any way insulting. Perhaps I've become too
thick-skinned, but my response would be called "timid" in some of the aviation
forums I frequent.
Suffice it to say I apologize -- I didn't mean any affront.
That said, I think your preception of mogas, and mogas users is wrong.
Here's why:
1. If there were two pumps at my airport, and they were the SAME PRICE,
one avgas, one mogas -- I would put the unleaded mogas in my plane. It is
simply a superior fuel for our low-compression engines.
2. You are the one who is running a fuel -- 100LL -- that was not
recommended for our engines. Mogas has been SPECIFICALLY approved for
operation in our engine.
3. The ethanol issue is a problem, but one that can be managed. From
all the research I've done, the worst thing that can happen is that it can harm
the fiberglass in our tip tanks -- IF you let it sit in there for long periods
of time. Since we fly around 75 times per year, even if I accidentally got
some ethanol, it wouldn't be in contact with anything for very long.
(On a slightly different point, if we, as voters, allow our government
to mandate the use of ethanol in all gasolines, we will have driven the final
nail in the coffin of general aviation. Flying has dropped to all-time low
levels, as fuel costs have tripled, and many owners are only able to fly as
often as they do because of the mogas STC.)
4. You seem to be dismissing over 15 years of experience burning car
gas in our plane as irrelevant. You are also dismissing hundreds of thousands
of trouble-free hours of operations, by pilots all over the world, as
meaningless. Does this make sense?
5. If your A&P won't work on a plane because the pilot uses car gas,
he's ignorant of the facts. My A&P/IA (an EAA and AAA grand champion builder
with over 40 years behind a wrench) has personally rebuilt over 100 Lycoming
O-540s -- including mine. He will tell you that the very cleanest engines are
the ones that burn UNleaded fuel, since it is the overload of lead that causes
so much gunk to build up inside our engines. I can put you in touch with him,
if you'd like?
6. Fouling spark plugs IS caused by improper engine management -- if
you believe that it is somehow "normal" to severely lean your engine in order
to make it run "properly".
How in the world did we ever come to the point where we consider it
"normal" to burn a fuel in our engines that requires such bizarre and archaic
operation? Here's the bottom line: By using 100LL, YOU ARE BURNING A FUEL
THAT CONTAINS 400% MORE LEAD THAN YOUR ENGINE WAS DESIGNED TO USE. The ONLY
reason you have to lean so severely is to prevent the bottom plugs from loading
up with little BBs of lead that can't be scavenged by our low-compression
engines.
Imagine if automobile owners were sold a fuel such as this! Let's say,
for a moment, that your local gas station started selling a fuel like 100LL.
Everyone was told that it was a fine fuel -- maybe even BETTER -- for
full-power operations, but every time you coasted, or idled at a stoplight, you
would have to pull this little lever back on the dashboard, or your engine
would eventually stall.
How much of THAT fuel would they sell?
If, despite these facts, you still consider 100LL to be a "proper" and
"normal" fuel to use in your plane, well, I don't know what else can be said.
7. The Lycoming disclaimer of mogas is an insurance ploy, plain and
simple. It gives them an out on paying bogus claims, and is no different than
all the other fine print insurance companies have packed into their policies.
Remember, we're not talking about stuff you're distilling in your bath
tub -- we're talking about a fuel that has been *specifically* approved by the
Federal Aviation Administration -- a group that is not generally considered to
be run by a bunch of crazy, slip-shod, laid back guys.
Let me give you an example of how the FAA works. In 1999, the FAA
ORDERED me to remove a perfectly fine set of Aeroflash strobes from my old 1975
Warrior, because we discovered that they were STC'd for a PA28-140, not for a
PA28-151.
It didn't matter to them one whit that those strobes had been on the
plane for over 26 years -- they HAD to go. It didn't even matter that they
worked -- they were clearly a "hazard to flight" -- and I had to spend $1000
removing them, and reinstalling a set of virtually identical Whelen strobes
that had the right paperwork. No amount of pleading, cajoling, or begging
saved me from that fate.
Now, does this REALLY sound like the kind of organization that would
casually approve a fuel for use in your airplane? Given their intense level of
scrutiny, do you REALLY think they would allow car gas in aircraft if there was
ANY chance of failure?
8. Transporting fuel IS a pain in the butt, but only because so few
airports actually sell mogas on the field. (There are two within 20 miles of
Iowa City -- but the FBO at Iowa City refuses to follow suit.)
I (and thousands of people just like me) have solved that problem by
installing a professionally-made fuel transfer tank, complete with metered pump
and filter, in the back of a pick up truck. It's safe, works great, and also
allows me to have fuel for my lawn mowers, weed wackers, blowers, etc.,
whenever and wherever I need it. It's a wonderful thing to have around.
My sources for this include:
- The FAA
- EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association)
- AAA (Antique Aircraft Association)
- Iowa City Aircraft Repair (Keith Roof, A&P/IA)
Again, I say this: If you want to use avgas in your plane, have at it
-- but please don't spread rumors and old wive's tales about using mogas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
-------------- Original message from PilotKris@xxxxxxx:
--------------
Well Jay...
Since you seam to feel the need to attack me personally (one of the
reasons I almost never post what might be useful information to others), let me
respond your attacks.
It is clear you didn't even bother to read thoroughly my post.
I never said that AvGas was "better quality" than MoGas. What I said
was there is an FAA mandated, dedicated supply chain that provides the AvGas
that is pumped at the airports. Quality control exists all points. That doesn't
mean it's "higher quality" but it does provide assurance that you are getting
what you think you're getting. No such QC exists at your local "HyVee".
What happens if the guy filling the tanks (at the refinery, at the
distribution depot, the driver of the delivery truck, at the station, etc.)
accidentally dumps a few hundred gallons of diesel, or ethanol, or whatever
into the fuel that ended up in your tank? It's VERY easy to do. Even if the
station knew of the mix-up, do you think they will dispose of the gas (huge
HAZMAT issues and expense) or would they just keep pumping knowing that it
"probably won't hurt anything" (and it probably won't hurt...A CAR).
The information I brought to the attention of the group for their
consideration so that they can be informed of all the issues concerning the use
of MoGas. Not just the one-sided opinions of some.
I only provided FACTS not opinions in my post.(except for the part
about MoGas smelling bad, that was my opinion). You sir, only provided your
(obviously biased) opinions.
Let me reiterate a few of the FACTS and add more FACTS.
1. If you are going to use MoGas per a STC, YOU MUST FOLLOW ALL OF
THE PROCEDURES IN THE STC (every MoGas STC I have seen requires that every drop
of fuel you put in your plane be tested for alcohol). The purchase of a piece
of paper and a couple of stickers is just the beginning.
2. The differences between MoGas and AvGas go far beyond the octane
rating and lead content.
3. The company that designed and built the O-540-B4B5, Lycomming,
DOES NOT APPROVE OF THE USE OF ANY FUEL OTHER THAN 80/87, 100LL, 100/130
AVGAS... PERIOD. They go so far as to say the use of any "unspecified fuel"
(and MoGas from the HyVee certainly counts as unspecified) requires inspection
of the engine by "competent maintenance personnel" (read teardown).
4. If you are going to transport fuel, you must follow all of the
requirements of your local fire department including using proper containers
and procedures.
Those are the FACTS not opinions or personal experiences. I actually
did the research prior to forming my opinion. My sources included:
FAA
My local BP distributor
My local fire department
Textron Lycomming (read Service Letter L185B and Service Bulletin 398)
Piper
Now my opinions and observations:
I feel that the plug fouling issues to be combinations of poor
operation of the engine(s) and poor maintenance. In almost 3,000 of flying,
I've only had one lead-fouled plug and that was my own fault (too long between
cleanings).
No A&P or I.A. I consider competent enough to work on my plane would
even think of suggesting an owner/operator use MoGas. My I.A. had gone so far
as to say he won't work on a plane that uses MoGas (he thinks it stinks too).
I feel that most people using MoGas are thinking with there wallets,
not their heads. They also tend to rationalize the use of MoGas by claiming
it's somehow "better" than AvGas.
While there might be some people out there who are doing it
correctly, I've never seen a pilot who follows all the MoGas STC procedures and
I've seen many pilots do things that are down right dangerous like transport
fuel in the trunk of their car in used paint thinner cans.
I WILL NOT USE MOGAS IN MY PLANE NOR WILL I FLY/INSTRUCT IN A PLANE
THAT HAS USED MOGAS. I won't expose my family to the potential risks it brings
to save a few bucks.
Besides, how egotistical would I be to think I know better than the
people who designed and built the motor?...
But I'm just a 3,000 hour CSEL. CMEL, CFI, MEI. What do I know...
In a message dated 7/11/2006 9:20:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jbenson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
jjhoneck@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> This post is TOTALLY untrue, and ranks as one of the most
uninformed posts I've
> ever seen on this group.
>
> 1. There is no requirement to use anything higher than 87 octane
regular
> unleaded gas with our Cherokee 235 STC.
>
> 2. The low compression O-540 was designed to run on 80 octane
avgas -- a fuel
> that is no longer available. By using 100LL in your plane, you
are using a gas
> that it was never designed to use.
>
> 3. 100LL has 4 times more lead in it than 80 octane gas. This is
why you must
> lean your engine severely in order to NOT foul spark plugs when
you run with
> 100LL avgas.
>
> I'm just astounded when I read misinformation like this. Given
all the
> p roblems caused by 100LL, how did it EVER develop that some
pilots today still
> believe that 100LL is somehow "better" for your plane than car
gas? Nothing
> (and I mean NOTHING) could be further from the truth.
>
> What's even funnier is the statement that it's somehow "better
quality" gas.
> The local HyVee gas station where I fill my transfer tank pumps
more gas PER
> DAY than my airport pumps all YEAR. Let's talk about what
happens to aviation
> gasoline that sits in a big metal tank for 11 months, shall we?
>
> Then let's go down the road to discuss FAA approval of mogas in
airplanes.
> This is the same organization that we all bitch about for being
so anal that
> they won't let us use a non-approved light bulb in our plane --
yet, for some
> reason, people think that they were wild-eyed lunatics when they
approved the
> use of car gas in aircraft? Does anyone REALLY believe that
the FAA didn't
> check mogas thoroughly (beyond thoroughly!) prior to approval?
>
> If you want to spend an extra $15 per hour on a fuel that can
actually harm
> your engine (100LL), have at it. But don't spread misinformation
like this to
> other 235 drivers, please.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject:
> [PA28235] Re: mogas
> From:
> PilotKris@xxxxxxx
> Date:
> Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:16:19 +0000
> To:
> pa28235@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> To:
> pa28235@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> OK OK,
>
> Enough is enough on the MoGas deal.
>
> Everyone se ams to be forgetting that you MUST follow all of the
STC
> requirements which include using SUPER unleaded gas. That is not
that
> much cheeper than AvGas, around here it's only about $.50 per
gallon.
> You also MUST test the MoGas for alcohol. Who is actually doing
that?
> For EVERY purchase?
>
> I know a guy who's so proud of the $ he saves buying MoGas, I
then found
> out he buys it at the cheapest "brand-X" station around. I'd
doubt that
> he's even getting 91 octane.
>
> What about the stability of MoGas (especially for those storring
large
> quanities). I've had many tanks of MoGas "go-bad" in cars, boats,
> motorcycles but never a load of AvGas.
>
> There are MANY differences between 100LL and MoGas that go beyond
just
> the octane. Oh, and let's not forget that the differences vary BY
DESIGN
> for the seasons.
>
> The biggest reas on AvG as costs more than MoGas is quality
control. There
> MUST be a totally dedicated supply chain that extends from the
refinery
> all the way to your airplane. The fuel CANNOT be pumped via a
pipeline
> or even carried in a truck that has ever had MoGas before. Can
your
> local Brand-X station say the same about their "super" unleaded?
>
> Oh, and do I even start about varpor-lock problems?
>
> I'll gladly pay the extra $7.00 an hour for the extra security
provided
> by AvGas...
>
> (Besides, MoGas STINKS!)
Other related posts:
