 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:07 am Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
 |
|
| Quote: | > <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:
>> Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
|
| Quote: | > is more susceptible to vapor lock.
>>
|
>From: "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net (jmsears(at)adelphia.net)>
>George and I have had some discussion on this subject
| Quote: | off line; and, I thought the topic was over with.
>
|
>Sorry, Goerge; but, you still have that one backwards,
| Quote: | which helps to debunk the rest of what you say. Don't
worry, I have had a hard time keeping this one straight,
myself. 
>
|
>(para-phrase) I only know of one accident from using
>auto gas.
What did you say, you only heard of one accident?
One accident attributed to autogas? ha ha That is not
correct.
A quick NTSB search with the words *automotive fuel*
found about 250 hits. I cut it down to experimental and
*automotive fuel* and got about 50 hits.
I guess you have your facts wrong, so does that debunks
the rest of what you say. That's OK, I was wrong once
years ago.
>
>I thought the topic was over with
>
Well you thought wrong. I am sorry, too dumb to be
straightened out. When you are an expert, you expect
people to believe you. Sorry, to disappoint you.
Here you go Mr. Expert
-More carb ice
-More water in the carb
-More unexplained power loss
Just a few select AUTOMOTIVE FUEL mishaps:
Power Loss in-flight hot day? hummmm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA91LA108&rpt=fi
RV's with fuel pressure problem hot day, more hummm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
Gee handling your own fuel can contaminate it? You think
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA033&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05CA144&rpt=fi
Carb ice more likely with auto fuel?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA035&rpt=fi
Mystery or auto fuel? Many unexplained loss of power
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA103&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98LA038&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi
Oops MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) and other additives
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX91DUJ01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060706X00876&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85LA127&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX83FA246&rpt=fi
Water and corrosion in the carb again and again?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN84FTG01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95LA051&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL03FA142&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050211X00183&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL97LA003&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86LA168&rpt=fi
(this was only a few of many)
I see anecdotal evidence that auto fuel may have directly
or indirectly contributed to the grief of some of the above
pilot's and their plane?
I know by using your expert advice and procedures you can
avoid ALL the above? Well may be not all. The ones that
concern me the most are unexplained power loss on
hot days. (hint hint, over, do you copy, vapor lock, Roger?)
Note: Jim's mission in life is to promote auto fuel. He is doing
a great job. When anyone talks about risk it means nothing,
because it's not their fleshy buttock in the seat.
I don't CARE. Just be informed.
IF YOU USE AUTO FUEL AND SELF FUEL, aka HANDLE
FUEL, PLEASE BE CAREFUL. THERE ARE RISK AND IT
IS NOT ALL SUNSHINE AND BUTTERFLY'S.
It may not be as bad as I make it sound, but it is not as
great and carefree ( in my not so expert opinion) as Jim
makes it sound.
To use 1/2 auto and 1/2 avgas in each tank sounds weird
to me. Don't you trust your fuel? What do you all think. If you
don't trust you fuel to fly on, for all operations, do you want
it in your plane? ME? not so much. YOU? decide for yourself.
I don't care; I just suggest you know what you're getting.
If you do use AUTO FUEL contact Jim. He knows way more
than I do. However I know enough in 12,000 hours of flying
to know how to stay out of trouble. I want to be an expert
in power off emergency landings, but I never want to have
to prove I am an expert for real. I want to always have a
choice when and where I land. Using Avgas is just that little
bit better in my humble but ever so right opinion.
It is NOT all about money as Jim makes it sounds. What
does and off field landing cost? I hope only bent metal.
Safety first, economy second.
Boy I hope you have learned I have spoken and there is
nothing left to be said. ha ha ha ha. Just kidding. Good
debate, learned a lot, but lets keep it to facts and opinion
and not personal comments.
Have a NICE DAY. George M
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index] Yahoo! Small Business.[/url]
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:20 am Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
|
|
I only read a few of the accident reports, and none that I read said that Auto fuel CAUSED the accident. There was one stupid pilot trick where he took off with an engine that wasn't running properly, and others that said they couldn't explain the power loss. One accident was a certificated airplane, maintained by the owner/pilot (not an A&P). What stupid pilot trick did he do? I dunno. They didn't say what the CAUSE was.
And carb ice doesn't usually (almost never???) come from water in the fuel, but from water in the atmosphere. Water and fuel system corrosion are a natural hazard of having your plane tied down on the ramp, but that never shows up in an NTSB report.
I don't have the time to cull through thousands of accident reports (although my home page is the NTSB accident/month page), and I see far more stupid pilot tricks than I see accidents that occurred when using auto fuel. I thank you for the list though, because I didn't know that there were that many accidents where auto fuel was used. But again, none of the reports that I read said auto fuel CAUSED the accident. There was the inference that it MIGHT have contributed to the accident though.
Linn
do not archive
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com (gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com) wrote: | Quote: |
Well you thought wrong. I am sorry, too dumb to be
straightened out. When you are an expert, you expect
people to believe you. Sorry, to disappoint you.
Here you go Mr. Expert
-More carb ice
-More water in the carb
-More unexplained power loss
Just a few select AUTOMOTIVE FUEL mishaps:
Power Loss in-flight hot day? hummmm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA91LA108&rpt=fi
RV's with fuel pressure problem hot day, more hummm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
Gee handling your own fuel can contaminate it? You think
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA033&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05CA144&rpt=fi
Carb ice more likely with auto fuel?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA035&rpt=fi
Mystery or auto fuel? Many unexplained loss of power
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA103&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98LA038&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi
Oops MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) and other additives
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX91DUJ01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060706X00876&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85LA127&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX83FA246&rpt=fi
Water and corrosion in the carb again and again?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN84FTG01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95LA051&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL03FA142&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050211X00183&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL97LA003&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86LA168&rpt=fi
(this was only a few of many)
I see anecdotal evidence that auto fuel may have directly
or indirectly contributed to the grief of some of the above
pilot's and their plane?
I know by using your expert advice and procedures you can
avoid ALL the above? Well may be not all. The ones that
concern me the most are unexplained power loss on
hot days. (hint hint, over, do you copy, vapor lock, Roger?)
Note: Jim's mission in life is to promote auto fuel. He is doing
a great job. When anyone talks about risk it means nothing,
because it's not their fleshy buttock in the seat.
I don't CARE. Just be informed.
IF YOU USE AUTO FUEL AND SELF FUEL, aka HANDLE
FUEL, PLEASE BE CAREFUL. THERE ARE RISK AND IT
IS NOT ALL SUNSHINE AND BUTTERFLY'S.
It may not be as bad as I make it sound, but it is not as
great and carefree ( in my not so expert opinion) as Jim
makes it sound.
To use 1/2 auto and 1/2 avgas in each tank sounds weird
to me. Don't you trust your fuel? What do you all think. If you
don't trust you fuel to fly on, for all operations, do you want
it in your plane? ME? not so much. YOU? decide for yourself.
I don't care; I just suggest you know what you're getting.
If you do use AUTO FUEL contact Jim. He knows way more
than I do. However I know enough in 12,000 hours of flying
to know how to stay out of trouble. I want to be an expert
in power off emergency landings, but I never want to have
to prove I am an expert for real. I want to always have a
choice when and where I land. Using Avgas is just that little
bit better in my humble but ever so right opinion.
It is NOT all about money as Jim makes it sounds. What
does and off field landing cost? I hope only bent metal.
Safety first, economy second.
Boy I hope you have learned I have spoken and there is
nothing left to be said. ha ha ha ha. Just kidding. Good
debate, learned a lot, but lets keep it to facts and opinion
and not personal comments.
Have a NICE DAY. George M
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index] Yahoo! Small Business.[/url] |
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:39 am Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
|
|
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
What did you say, you only heard of one accident?
One accident attributed to autogas? ha ha That is not
correct.
A quick NTSB search with the words *automotive fuel*
found about 250 hits. I cut it down to experimental and
*automotive fuel* and got about 50 hits.
I guess you have your facts wrong, so does that debunks
the rest of what you say. That's OK, I was wrong once
years ago.
>
>I thought the topic was over with
>
Well you thought wrong. I am sorry, too dumb to be
straightened out. When you are an expert, you expect
people to believe you. Sorry, to disappoint you.
Here you go Mr. Expert
-More carb ice
-More water in the carb
-More unexplained power loss
Just a few select AUTOMOTIVE FUEL mishaps:
|
George, while I thank you for the time you spent putting together the
reports they do not really help with your side of the discussion.
For as many hits as you found with the words auto fuel I could if I had
the time find many more example of
the same types of accidents with aircraft using strictly avgas. I am
sure you as I do as a flight instructor read the
accident reports everyday. The only situation where I agree with you is
in the handling process where fuel can
become contaminated with water or crud.
Jerry
do not archive
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmsears(at)adelphia.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
|
|
Since George has taken offense to our discussion, I think it best to stop this discussion, now. It's obvious he has his own ideas based on whatever he can come up with that supports his position. I have mine based on what I've read and have actually experienced in the 2000 hours I've flown with auto fuel. If any of you want to continue supporting his narrative, be my guest. If you want to constructively discuss the use of auto gas in your airplane, I'll answer any questions I can offline. I'm no expert, and have never claimed to be; but, I do have experience with its use in my airplanes. I've found that experience to be a great teacher. That works for me and may not for others. If not, follow George's lead and stay far away from the auto gas pumps. Be safe with whatever you do.
Jim in KY
do not archive
[quote] ---
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Phillips in TN
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 431
Location: Columbia, TN
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:16 pm Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
|
|
C'mon McQueen, is this the best you can do? A quick search of the reports containing the words "auto" & "fuel"? Didn't bother to read them, didja. I did. Very informative, but wearily long and all of these reports that YOU CITED offer pretty lousy support for your position on this debate. Unless y'all wanna dig into each of these, I've commented on each below. Delete if uninterested & do not archive-
Mark Phillips - Filtered Kroger goes in one side of my RV, 100LL on the other & works just peachy!
In a message dated 07/09/2006 6:11:58 AM Central Daylight Time, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
No mention of automotive fuel in probable cause statement.
No mention of automotive fuel in probable cause statement.
"An FAA inspector...found no evidence as to why the engine lost power"
Report states that pilot put rust/water contaminated fuel in his helicopter- but then helicopters were never intended to fly anyway, eh? (in case you were wondering, that was a joke...) Automotive fuel not cited as causal by NTSB
"Pilots failure to strain the fuel" (probable cause) plugged fuel filter as contributing. No mention of auto fuel in findings...
"loss of engine power due to carburetor ice" and again, no mention of auto fuel in probable cause statement.
Probable cause statement excerpt: "An FAA inspector, who examined the aircraft, found no evidence as to why the engine lost power"
"A loss of engine power for undetermined reasons"
"A complete loss of engine power for undetermined reasons"
"A loss of engine power for undetermined reasons"
Probable cause: "Engine failure due to improper fuel"- in Findings section: "Fluid,fuel grade incorrect" Noteworthy here is that the NTSB made these findings, but also tell us the aircraft was using automotive fuel. In a Volkswagen engine. My dementia must be getting worse because I thought VWs were automobiles- guess I'm wrong...
In this preliminary report, it is stated that the Renegade in question had fuel eight months old in it with some "stabilizer" added, and no means of sumping the tanks. Didn't dig for the final, but my "guess" is "pilot error".....duh...
"Softened tank sealant material was obstructing the tank strainer screen" after this T-18 had been sitting for 8 months and no ispection of fuel system. Another "duh" here- again no mention of auto gas in the probable cause statement...
Probable cause statement missing- a Varieze with pax operating at 10K DA, and no connection made between accident and auto gas.
Another water and debris in carb & tanks after plane was sitting all winter. Pilot did not sump tanks (again) duh (again)
Auto gas used, water found in carb after engine quit & plane spun in. Engine make: Buick. Last time I check, these were common in autos, but again, I may be wrong...
C-172 with STC for auto gas. Guess what? Debris & water found in gas. Another "duh" bites the dust...
Witness "said that the engine sounded strong until the thud, and it did not sputter or backfire." Preliminary report- only mention of auto gas was that the carb contents appeared to be so. Hmmm- sounds like it was working pretty well right up to the point the pilot spun in...
Another case of contaminated fuel and sadly another entry into the "duh" category...
Another easy one- gas tank is lower than engine (according to the physics of "gravity sucks") and pilot did not turn on boost pump. If this was the Harry S. Truman and the control rods had been dumped on all reactors, the boat would eventally come to a dead halt too, no? Another "duh", dammit...
| | - 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 |
|
_________________
From The PossumWorks... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:50 am Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
|
|
I made no claim of detailed analysis, I hear you, but....
I'll give you some better examples that spell it out, but...
just because the final determination for the power loss is
unexplained, it does not make me feel good. Fact is several
planes, all using auto fuel, had loss of power along with low
or erratic fuel pressure. Just happens it was also a hot day.
Unexplained loss of power, surging and erratic fuel pressure
on hot days, while using high vapor pressure auto fuel might
mean vapor lock is the cause (I really do think).
VL certainly is a very reasonable explanation since it
matches the symptoms. Just because OJ was not found
guilty does not mean he didn't do it. All the FAA can say
is they can't prove it after the fact, but they out and out
say it below or imply vapor lock often..
I got clever, I searched on Vapor Lock and Automotive
fuel. (69 hits)
Here they say it, out right, RV-9A auto gas and vapor lock
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06LA069&rpt=fa
some factory planes (hey if it can happen to them...)
NAVION, any more questions
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X30993&key=1
Rockwell Ag plane, FAA says....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MKC88LA141&rpt=fi
Piper PA-20, if that does not do it for Ya
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC89LA118&rpt=fi
(auto fuel has three times the vapor pressure)
Some more experimentals
Pitts Special, auto fuel and vapor lock in narrative text
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI83LA312&rpt=fi
Thorp T-18, Mazda powered, page 1, par 2 and par 4.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94LA273&rpt=fa
D-51S vapor lock, no mention of auto gas, but could be.
The vapor lock symptoms are interesting and common.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA159&rpt=fi
Velocity - very interesting. engine failure due to auto fuel?
Look at 1st-par on page 1a and 1 st-par on page 1b.
Although an engine failure, the low octane auto gas contributed
to the high compression engines demise. Also before the fatal
flight the builder/pilot had vapor lock problems and installed
additional return line and solenoid. Auto fuel was used.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW98FA165&rpt=fa
C'mon! You can deny deny deny but it's common knowledge.
So when I say keep the fuel cool any way you can you
see what I mean. I guess I am not that dumb after all.
Sometime the NTSB probable cause for vapor lock is
coded as:
-Improper grade of fuel
-fuel, system line blocked
-fuel, system pump blocked
-fluid, fuel starvation
-fuel system overtemperature
Unexplained does not mean it's not a possibility. I am
just suggesting it's possible, suspect, that auto fuel
contributed to the loss of power. You have to know what
the vapor lock signals are. Heat and low atmospheric
pressure is a recipe for VL.
Here is a link that explains vapor lock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_lock
>From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net (pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net)>
| Quote: | Subject: Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch
I only read a few of the accident reports, and none that I
read said that Auto fuel CAUSED the accident.
|
Great point, absolutly true. However when you read so
many unexplained loss of power, high ambient temps
and auto fuel, than you have to say, hummm.
Obviously dirty rusty cans and not filtering the fuel is a
dumb pilot trick. However when you handle fuel and buy
car gas, the risk of getting bad gas increases, logically.
I did not list several NTSB reports of in-flight engine failures
due to valve damage. Now that could be due to detonation.
We know a prime cause of detonation is low octane. Auto
gas has lower octane.
What scares me the most (and I found a few more since
yesterday) are the takeoff or cruise unexplained loss
of power, typically on hot days. That's scary and suggests
vapor lock.
May be I am not as big an idiot for suggesting that if you
plan on using auto gas in your tightly cowled RV, you do
everything you can to keep the fuel cool: hose insulation,
heat shields, blast tubes and vapor return line. The
mechanical pump is the biggest offender of heat into the
fuel. They make shields and blast tubes for them. Also
ceramic coated (in and out) exhaust is helpful. It might be
a good idea even if you use AVfuel.
If you plan on AVgas than less worries, it's without dispute
AVgas is far more resistant to vapor lock and engine
detonation with higher octane.
That has been my main point. AVgas give you more
margin to detonation and vapor lock. Also quality control
of getting the fuel into the plane direct from an airfield
pump or fuel truck is more higher or more secure. Clearly
from 250 accidents, many involving poor fuel handing
getting fuel into your plane, with gas cans, can cause
contamination.
Last, I don't think you can look at 250 accidents, almost
all involving inflight loss of power, all w/ auto fuel on board,
and not draw a conclusion? hummmmm, there is some
increased risk. What can I learn from these NTSB reports,
STC's, FAA, EAA and AOPA. Just like the TV public
service Ads, You Ought-A Know.
> "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net (jmsears(at)adelphia.net)>
| Quote: | Since George has taken offense to our discussion,
I think it best to stop this discussion, now.
|
I have been researching auto fuel for 20 years,
since the late 80's. I just don't favor it for high
compression engines and tightly cowled RV's.
it's just my opinion. Sue me.
Besides reading a lot on the topic, as a CFI, I taught a
group of pilots who owned a C-182 with a STC for auto
fuel years ago. They stopped using it for several reasons.
This is not like I just thought of this yesterday. I have
followed this from the start.
You present one side of the story, and just think
another opinon was needed to this discourse.
Jim has been 20 years flying with auto fuel.
That is a good data point. I respect that.
I recall Jim flys a low compression 150 HP Grumman Cheetah. I am going to submit the temps in the cowl
of the AA-5 are less than a RV. Also with the lower
temps and lower octane requirement of the 150 HP,
O320, the Grumman makes a good candidate for
auto fuel and better than a high compression RV.
I do not believe Jim is flying his RV yet, so not sure he
can claim auto gas RV experience, but I could be wrong.
Forgive me if I am wrong.
There are planes like the Mooney that suffer vapor lock
with auto fuel and thus can not get a STC. It is not a
stretch of logic to assume that the same issues might
face the RV.
I am NOT anti-Autogas. However I do think it is better
suited for low compression engines (80/86 octane)
and planes with big cowls and exhaust pipes that don't
run inches from the carburetor, fuel lines and gascolator.
THAT IS ALL FOLKS.
Captain AVgas over and out, ha ha ha Cheers, George
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tedd(at)vansairforce.org
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:30 am Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
|
|
That aircraft, built in 1947, would be a Navion A. They are particularly
susceptible to vapour lock, and no mogas STC has been issued for them.
Tedd McHenry
Surrey, BC
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
|
|
I read the link to vapor lock but didn't read that you can clip clothespins on the fuel line to prevent vapor lock. Have any of you auto fuel fans tried that? This is humor.
do not archive please
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
In a message dated 7/10/2006 9:52:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com writes:
| Quote: | >From: Fiveonepw(at)aol.com (Fiveonepw(at)aol.com)
| Quote: |
C'mon, is this the best you can do? Very informative,
informative, but wearily long and all of these reports that YOU
>CITED
|
I made no claim of detailed analysis, I hear you, but....
I'll give you some better examples that spell it out, but...
just because the final determination for the power loss is
unexplained, it does not make me feel good. Fact is several
planes, all using auto fuel, had loss of power along with low
or erratic fuel pressure. Just happens it was also a hot day.
Unexplained loss of power, surging and erratic fuel pressure
on hot days, while using high vapor pressure auto fuel might
mean vapor lock is the cause (I really do think).
VL certainly is a very reasonable explanation since it
matches the symptoms. Just because OJ was not found
guilty does not mean he didn't do it. All the FAA can say
is they can't prove it after the fact, but they out and out
say it below or imply vapor lock often..
I got clever, I searched on Vapor Lock and Automotive
fuel. (69 hits)
Here they say it, out right, RV-9A auto gas and vapor lock
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI06LA069&rpt=fa
some factory planes (hey if it can happen to them...)
NAVION, any more questions
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001213X30993&key=1
Rockwell Ag plane, FAA says....
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MKC88LA141&rpt=fi
Piper PA-20, if that does not do it for Ya
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ANC89LA118&rpt=fi
(auto fuel has three times the vapor pressure)
Some more experimentals
Pitts Special, auto fuel and vapor lock in narrative text
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI83LA312&rpt=fi
Thorp T-18, Mazda powered, page 1, par 2 and par 4.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX94LA273&rpt=fa
D-51S vapor lock, no mention of auto gas, but could be.
The vapor lock symptoms are interesting and common.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99FA159&rpt=fi
Velocity - very interesting. engine failure due to auto fuel?
Look at 1st-par on page 1a and 1 st-par on page 1b.
Although an engine failure, the low octane auto gas contributed
to the high compression engines demise. Also before the fatal
flight the builder/pilot had vapor lock problems and installed
additional return line and solenoid. Auto fuel was used.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW98FA165&rpt=fa
C'mon! You can deny deny deny but it's common knowledge.
So when I say keep the fuel cool any way you can you
see what I mean. I guess I am not that dumb after all.
Sometime the NTSB probable cause for vapor lock is
coded as:
-Improper grade of fuel
-fuel, system line blocked
-fuel, system pump blocked
-fluid, fuel starvation
-fuel system overtemperature
Unexplained does not mean it's not a possibility. I am
just suggesting it's possible, suspect, that auto fuel
contributed to the loss of power. You have to know what
the vapor lock signals are. Heat and low atmospheric
pressure is a recipe for VL.
Here is a link that explains vapor lock.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_lock
>From: linn Walters <pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net (pitts_pilot(at)bellsouth.net)>
| Quote: | Subject: Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch
I only read a few of the accident reports, and none that I
read said that Auto fuel CAUSED the accident.
|
Great point, absolutly true. However when you read so
many unexplained loss of power, high ambient temps
and auto fuel, than you have to say, hummm.
Obviously dirty rusty cans and not filtering the fuel is a
dumb pilot trick. However when you handle fuel and buy
car gas, the risk of getting bad gas increases, logically.
I did not list several NTSB reports of in-flight engine failures
due to valve damage. Now that could be due to detonation.
We know a prime cause of detonation is low octane. Auto
gas has lower octane.
What scares me the most (and I found a few more since
yesterday) are the takeoff or cruise unexplained loss
of power, typically on hot days. That's scary and suggests
vapor lock.
May be I am not as big an idiot for suggesting that if you
plan on using auto gas in your tightly cowled RV, you do
everything you can to keep the fuel cool: hose insulation,
heat shields, blast tubes and vapor return line. The
mechanical pump is the biggest offender of heat into the
fuel. They make shields and blast tubes for them. Also
ceramic coated (in and out) exhaust is helpful. It might be
a good idea even if you use AVfuel.
If you plan on AVgas than less worries, it's without dispute
AVgas is far more resistant to vapor lock and engine
detonation with higher octane.
That has been my main point. AVgas give you more
margin to detonation and vapor lock. Also quality control
of getting the fuel into the plane direct from an airfield
pump or fuel truck is more higher or more secure. Clearly
from 250 accidents, many involving poor fuel handing
getting fuel into your plane, with gas cans, can cause
contamination.
Last, I don't think you can look at 250 accidents, almost
all involving inflight loss of power, all w/ auto fuel on board,
and not draw a conclusion? hummmmm, there is some
increased risk. What can I learn from these NTSB reports,
STC's, FAA, EAA and AOPA. Just like the TV public
service Ads, You Ought-A Know.
> "Jim Sears" <jmsears(at)adelphia.net (jmsears(at)adelphia.net)>
| Quote: | Since George has taken offense to our discussion,
I think it best to stop this discussion, now.
|
I have been researching auto fuel for 20 years,
since the late 80's. I just don't favor it for high
compression engines and tightly cowled RV's.
it's just my opinion. Sue me.
Besides reading a lot on the topic, as a CFI, I taught a
group of pilots who owned a C-182 with a STC for auto
fuel years ago. They stopped using it for several reasons.
This is not like I just thought of this yesterday. I have
followed this from the start.
You present one side of the story, and just think
another opinon was needed to this discourse.
Jim has been 20 years flying with auto fuel.
That is a good data point. I respect that.
I recall Jim flys a low compression 150 HP Grumman Cheetah. I am going to submit the temps in the cowl
of the AA-5 are less than a RV. Also with the lower
temps and lower octane requirement of the 150 HP,
O320, the Grumman makes a good candidate for
auto fuel and better than a high compression RV.
I do not believe Jim is flying his RV yet, so not sure he
can claim auto gas RV experience, but I could be wrong.
Forgive me if I am wrong.
There are planes like the Mooney that suffer vapor lock
with auto fuel and thus can not get a STC. It is not a
stretch of logic to assume that the same issues might
face the RV.
I am NOT anti-Autogas. However I do think it is better
suited for low compression engines (80/86 octane)
and planes with big cowls and exhaust pipes that don't
run inches from the carburetor, fuel lines and gascolator.
THAT IS ALL FOLKS.
Captain AVgas over and out, ha ha ha Cheers, George
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com]Great rates starting at 1¢/min.[/url] |
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UFOBUCK(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
|
|
I have a '40 Ford coupe with a flathead V8 and 3 wodden clothespins on the fuel line to the carb. IT WORKS.
| | - 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 |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
