[PA28235] Re: mogas
- From: PilotKris@xxxxxxx
- To: pa28235@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:53:17 EDT
Didn't someone on here say it's getting harder and harder to find ethanol
free MoGas?
Oh Ya... It was me!...
Blended fuel legislation threatens GA
(http://www.aopa.org/images/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060508autogas.jpg)
AOPA is lobbying to amend a bill that could threaten all of piston-engine
general aviation.
The "10 by 10 Act" (H.R.4357 and S.3553) would require all motor vehicle
gasoline sold in the United States be blended with 10-percent renewable fuel by
the year 2010.
"The intent of the legislation is certainly well-meaning, but the legislative
staff who wrote it were apparently unaware that almost all renewable fuels
are incompatible with current piston-powered GA aircraft," said AOPA President
Phil Boyer.
So AOPA is working to educate Congress before the bill progresses any further
in the legislative process.
AOPA is asking lawmakers to exempt aviation gasoline (avgas) from the
requirement. And AOPA wants another provision so that alcohol-free
premium-grade
automobile gasoline remains available for use in aircraft flying with an
autogas
STC.
Ethanol â an alcohol distilled from corn â is the most common renewable
fuel. But tests by the FAA and Cessna have shown that ethanol blends can't be
used safely in today's piston aircraft.
Ethanol-based fuels attract water into an aircraft's fuel system, which can
lead to engine failure, Boyer explained to bill sponsors Rep. Gil Gutknecht
(R-Minn.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
Ethanol also is incompatible with aircraft fuel systems, including electric
fuel pumps, and makes some types of fuel gauges inaccurate.
Because ethanol has less energy per volume than gasoline, an aircraft engine
has to consume more of a blended fuel to obtain the same power, and that
reduces range.
"AOPA urges you to exempt avgas from the requirements of the '10 by 10 Act,'"
_Boyer wrote to Grassley and Gutknecht_
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2006/060713fuel-letter.pdf) . "States
that have enacted laws mandating an
ethanol component in gasoline have exempted avgas.
"We request the federal government do the same."
July 13, 2006
In a message dated 7/13/2006 7:12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dclardy@xxxxxxxxx writes:
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@xxxxxxxx (mailto:PilotKris@xxxxxxx)
To: _pa28235@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto: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@xxxxxxxx (mailto:PilotKris@xxxxxxx)
To: _pa28235@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto: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:
