jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:21 pm Post subject: Super unleaded in 160hp O-320 Auto Fuel STC's ( fine point |
 |
|
| Quote: | > If you read carefully in the EAA and Perterson STC's for auto fuel
> STC's, one notices that all of the STC's are always combined with a
> airframe and engine pair, Just to say that the Lycoming-ABCD engine is
> STCed is incorrect when this particular example should be Lycoming-ABCD
> as installed in a Cessn-1234. Meaning that if the same engine is
> installed on a Piper=XYZ may NOT be Stc-able for auto fuel. Everyone
> seems to automatically assume that it's the engine only that determines
> the STC-ability to use auto fuel, when indeed it's the airframe and
> engine PAIR that determines the ability to consume autofeuk <<
|
This is true if one owns a commercially built aircraft that must adhere to
the STC. However, experimentals do not require an STC for auto gas.
Therefore, we aren't bound by the restrictions that owners of commercially
built airplanes are. My friend owns a 150hp powered Mooney. His engine
would run quite nicely on 87 antiknock fuel. His airframe/engine is not
included in the STCs; so, he can't use auto gas. The AA-5A Cheetah that I
owned before I started flying my RV-6A was listed in Petersen's STC; so, I
bought the STC for it and took advantage of the savings.
As owners of experimental aircraft, our biggest concerns are having fuel
systems, ignition systems, and compression ratios that allow us to use the
fuel. With that, the fine point as indicated was not missed because
experimentals don't abide by the same rules as commercially built airplanes.
The point of our discussion was what engines might be able to use auto gas
safely in our RV airframes. Based on tests in other airframes, some higher
compression ratio engines are good candidates for auto gas in our RVs, as
well. We just need to use gas with a higher antiknock value.
One of the advantages of building and flying experimentals is that we're
supposed to experiment. I did test flights with auto fuel to be sure it
works in my RV. It did; so, I use it. Knowing that I can up the
compression and still possibly use premium auto gas gives me more options
for my next RV. Think of it this way. As we fly more and more hours on
auto fuels, the FAA may open the doors more for those who fly commerically
built aircraft. Not a bad idea, huh? Our experiences will be quite helpful
as 100LL becomes a thing of the past. 
By the way, the only difference I've encountered between having the STCs for
my two previous airplanes and my RV is the paperwork. Or, should I say the
lack of it on the RV. I have a placard at the fuel cap that indicates 100LL
or 87 antiknock fuels. I had to fill out paperwork, put placards at the
tanks, and put tags on the engines for the STCs. I also had to pay for the
STCs, which were well worth it. I played it somewhat smart when I did the
fuel system on my RV. I made it almost identical to the one that was on my
AA-5A Cheetah that was allowed the STC. So far, no complaints and much
savings.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-7A #70317 (One of these days)
EAA Tech Counselor
| | - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
