Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Mogas versus 100LL
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Jim Baker

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Sayre, PA

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:00 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

 	  Quote: 	
		      He still had "pull" at GM and

    was running his engine in a test cell to experiment with

    some alternatives to 100LL.


	


Snip



 	  Quote: 	
		      there might be a way to

    avoid junking 100,000 or so airplanes that needed

    that fuel.


	


May I direct you attention to the following site.....



http://www.gami.com/prism.html



I've seen the system run ( I'm about 30 miles due west of ADA, 

OK ) on a TSIO540 which was switched from 100LL under high 

load to MOGAS without a tick or falter. We are constrained in so 

many ways by the set timing of our magnetos. I can imagine the 

intractability of our modern automotive engines if they were 

similarly constrained.



You ought to see the PRISM developmental sparkplugs....the ign 

harness terminal is offset to one side and the other side has a 

connection for a fiber optic pressure transducer. Quite the set-

up. Told one of the guys they'd make money just selling the 

accessory plug socket for the wrench.



Jim Baker

580.788.2779

Elmore City, OK

rparigor(at)SUFFOLK.LIB.N
Guest

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

All this talk about cause and effect of detonation.



I am going to make an attempt to "Not go there" by the use of a orderly

flow of electrons.



My Rotax 914 turbo has a ARM1 fuel Ratio Meter installed.



http://www.splitsec.com/

Click Products

Click Air/fuel Ratio Meters

ARM1



It is driven by a O2 sensor screwed into a stainless steel bung welded

just downstream of the turbo.



When you are creating a good percentage of motors potential BTUs, you want

mixture rich of 14.7



The TCU besides controlling the wastegate, controls a solenoid that

enrich-ens the mixture when boosting over 108% power. 



If the solenoid is not working perfect, there is a leak in the intake, one

or both of the carbs are not doing their job it can net a mixture a bit

too lean. I am anticipating the ARM to be a nice tool, along with a CHT on

each side of motor, and EGT on each side of motor.



I will taint the mixture just a tad rich, main jets and jet needles, and

lean just a bit to my liking. I am going to lean by introducing a

controlled leak between carb float bowl and intake manifold downstream of

the carbs.



In addition if I see things running too lean (when not leaning) because of

the distinct possibility of motorcycle type causes (carb snot, plugged

jet, leaking manifold, leaking critical hoses to fuel pressure regulator

of float bowl) I am incorporating an emergency rich button that will allow

me to activate the enrichment solenoid, reduce power and hopeful get

things in order and "Not go there" (detonation), instead of getting to

your destination probably OK, but having caused damage to your motor.



I will use primary MoGas, but the O2 sensor gives plenty of warning when

and if lead is degrading its range. I expect use in a 100% 100LL

environment, my dart throw is min of 75 hours, probably longer if using

TCP or alternative. O2 sensors will quickly loose their ability to very

fast sense 14.7 which would be detrimental if it was controlling mixture,

but a second or 2 lag for monitor is not a problem. As long as range on

power up is had, should be good to go.



I know some have said that you can only expect from a O2 sensor 14.7 and

anything else is only window dressing, but after talking to Split second,

they spent a reasonable amount of time mapping the EG01 sensor, and say

their monitor will show lean and rich of 14.7.



Anyway glance ARM1, if too much left, do something.



Will let you know how it all works out.



Ron Parigoris

George W Braly

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 15

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:04 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

 	  Quote: 	
		  >   It's been an interesting thread . . . but never did see

   any words that were trading off the features of Mogas
	


   vs. 100LL . . . I WAS interested because I don't understand

   how or why they would be compared to each other.<<



Bob, 



30% of the AVGAS is burned in 70% of the fleet aircraft.

70% of the AVGAS is burned in 30% of the fleet aircraft.



The 30% of the fleet aircraft that burns 70% of the AVGAS use engines

that REQUIRE  a fuel with the octane characteristics of Avgas.



If you want to fly higher than about 6000 feet,  100% of the fleet

requires fuel with the vapor pressure characteristics of  Avgas. 



The vapor pressure issues are almost universally overlooked. 



Going back to octane issues,  consider that 91 (R+M)/2  premium car gas

has a Motor Octane Number ( the "M" in the R +M equation) of about

87-88.



UNLEADED refinery builds of otherwise conforming AVGAS have a MON of

about 92 to 95.



There is a  HUGE  difference in an 88 MON gasoline and a 92 MON gasoline

in terms of how much horsepower one can obtain out of the engine before

the onset of detonation.



It is important to keep in mind that virtually all major advances in

aviation have revolved around improvements in the power to weight ratio

of the power plant along with improvements in the brake specific fuel

consumption. 



The use of 88MON gasoline in an engine that requires 92 to 95 MON

gasoline will cause the power to weight ratio to have to change by about

30% in the wrong direction.  And it gets worse if you think of 100

octane fuels. 



But just the change from 92-95 MON back to 88 MON gasoline effectively

undoes all of the advances in aircraft piston engines going back to

about 1935.



Into the future,  there is normally only going to be one gasoline

storage tank at the typical airport used by general aviation.  It needs

to contain a fuel that will run ALL of the engines.



Regards,  George 



PS.  Let's leave no engine on the ground!

planepubs(at)ev1.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

And let me add that after attending the Advanced  Pilot Seminar last weekend and actually seeing exactly how MOGAS affects our  current engines (watching the real time data of an engine running it), I'm  dropping any inclination of using that stuff in any real aviation engine.   Regardless of how many tankfuls one may have run through their engine, and how  well it has performed, we're just not ready to think that MOGAS is  better.  In time, when our engine systems become smarter, I'll welcome its  use and hope they change the smell of it.

 Al

  

  

On 09/25/2006 8:02:37 PM, George  Braly (gwbraly(at)gami.com (gwbraly(at)gami.com)) wrote:

[quote]  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "George Braly" <gwbraly(at)gami ([email]gwbraly(at)gami[/email]).

 com>

 

  

 

 >>

 It's been an interesting thread . . . but  never did see

 any words that were trading off the features of  Mogas

 vs. 100LL . . . I WAS interested because I don't

  understand

 how or why they would be compared to each  other.<<

 

 Bob,

 

 30% of the AVGAS is burned  in 70% of the fleet aircraft.

 70% of the AVGAS is burned in 30% of the  fleet aircraft.

 

 The 30% of the fleet aircraft that burns 70% of  the AVGAS use engines

 that REQUIRE  a fuel with the octane  characteristics of Avgas.

 

 If you want to fly higher than about  6000 feet,  100% of the fleet

 requires fuel with the vapor pressure  characteristics of  Avgas.

 

 The vapor pressure issues are  almost universally overlooked.

 

 Going back to octane  issues,  consider that 91 (R+M)/2  premium car gas

 has a Motor  Octane Number ( the "M" in the R +M equation) of about

 87-88.

  

 UNLEADED refinery builds of otherwise conforming AVGAS have a MON  of

 about 92 to 95.

 

 There is a  HUGE   difference in an 88 MON gasoline and a 92 MON gasoline

 in   [quote][b]

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:08 am Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

At 08:02 PM 9/25/2006 -0500, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



 >>   It's been an interesting thread . . . but never did see

    any words that were trading off the features of Mogas

    vs. 100LL . . . I WAS interested because I don't understand

    how or why they would be compared to each other.<<



Bob,



30% of the AVGAS is burned in 70% of the fleet aircraft.

70% of the AVGAS is burned in 30% of the fleet aircraft.



The 30% of the fleet aircraft that burns 70% of the AVGAS use engines

that REQUIRE  a fuel with the octane characteristics of Avgas.



If you want to fly higher than about 6000 feet,  100% of the fleet

requires fuel with the vapor pressure characteristics of  Avgas.


	


    Not sure I understand the above . . . but yes, Mogas can't

    be dropped into many airplanes without a new plan and it

    may well be that no new plans are possible for some

    airplanes.



    If it were easy, everyone would be doing it. Since it's not

    easy (and perhaps not cost-attractive compared to what's

    available/popular now) a paradigm shift will be needed to

    keep many of the current fleet flying at a cost the owners

    are willing to pay.



    The fuel will be different, the fuel system will be different

    and there may be operating limitations. But one thing is sure:

    how we THINK the magic bullet(s) are shaping up today is probably

    wrong.



    Bob . . .

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:12 am Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

At 08:28 PM 9/25/2006 -0500, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  And let me add that after attending the Advanced Pilot Seminar last 

weekend and actually seeing exactly how MOGAS affects our current engines 

(watching the real time data of an engine running it), I'm dropping any 

inclination of using that stuff in any real aviation engine.  Regardless 

of how many tankfuls one may have run through their engine, and how well 

it has performed, we're just not ready to think that MOGAS is better.  In 

time, when our engine systems become smarter, I'll welcome its use and 

hope they change the smell of it.

Al




	


  Ominous words my friend but not very enlightening. I don't

  think anyone has said that mogas is "better" . . . it would be

  just super-cool with most owners if we could buy AV80 a the

  FBO pump. The philosophy of current mogas usage suggests it's

  an acceptable substitute for some situations demonstrated by

  no small amount of research, flight testing and field history.



  Can you share any downside data you've been made aware of?



  Bob . . .

      ---------------------------------------------------------

      < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >

      < the authority which determines whether there can be   >

      < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of   >

      < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests     >

      < with experiment.                                      >

      <                            --Lawrence M. Krauss       >

      ---------------------------------------------------------

Jim Baker

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 181
Location: Sayre, PA

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:27 am Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

 	  Quote: 	
		       Not sure I understand the above . . . but yes, Mogas can't

     be dropped into many airplanes without a new plan and it

     may well be that no new plans are possible for some

     airplanes. 


	


True. That's why you'll see that some engines are capable but 

the airframe is the limiting factor (fuel system design, line 

routings, etc). Most MOGAS STCs address not just the engine 

but the system as well.



http://www.eaa.org/education/fuel/autogas_vs_avgas.pdf



Now if you're an OBAM, do as you will.



 	  Quote: 	
		       The fuel will be different, the fuel system will be different

     and there may be operating limitations. But one thing is sure:

     how we THINK the magic bullet(s) are shaping up today is probably

     wrong.


	


There is no inherent difficulty in running an aircraft engine on 

MOGAS if the system can be instrumented, monitored, and 

adjusted to follow the fuel's inherent characteristics. Cars do it all 

the time (yeah, prunes and pears) with lean burn, altitude and 

load adjustments. It can be done.

Jim Baker

580.788.2779

Elmore City, OK

trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:50 am Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

 	  Quote: 	
		     ready to think    that MOGAS is better.  In time, when our    engine systems become smarter, I'll welcome its use and hope they change    the smell of it.

	
 By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the  gasoline for cars?

  

 Regards

 Carlos

    [quote][b]

George W Braly

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 15

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:33 am Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

 	  Quote: 	
		  Bob,



30% of the AVGAS is burned in 70% of the fleet aircraft.

70% of the AVGAS is burned in 30% of the fleet aircraft.



The 30% of the fleet aircraft that burns 70% of the AVGAS use engines

that REQUIRE  a fuel with the octane characteristics of Avgas.



If you want to fly higher than about 6000 feet,  100% of the fleet

requires fuel with the vapor pressure characteristics of  Avgas.


	


    Not sure I understand the above . . . but yes, Mogas can't

    be dropped into many airplanes without a new plan and it

    may well be that no new plans are possible for some

    airplanes.



       ***********************



Bob,



One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS is

the vapor pressure issue.



This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather.



It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly.



It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very

much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer.



If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel -

- we will still need a "special"  fuel for piston engines due to the

vapor pressure issue.



It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the

dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires.  But it will

still be a special fuel - - and not car gas.



Regards,  George

robh(at)hyperion-ef.us
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:50 am Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

It is an idiomatic use of English (that probably won’t translate to Portuguese).    

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

AViation GAS is contracted to AVGAS and MOtor GAS becomes MOGAS.  In English we probably use the word MOTOR in this contraction instead of AUTOMOBILE or AUTO, and GAS rather than FUEL, simply because it sounds better to say MOGAS rather than MOFUEL and there is one less syllable than AUTOFUEL.  We also would rather be consistent and call both gas instead of calling one gas and the other fuel.    

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

As is typical for spoken English, we say MOGAS only when referring to the fuel when it is used in an aircraft engine.  When we use it in a car it is just plain gas.  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

 AUTOTEXTLIST  \s "E-mail Signature" <![endif]-->Best regards,  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

Rob Housman  

A070  

Airframe complete  

Irvine, CA  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

<![endif]-->DO NOT ARCHIVE  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

-----Original Message-----

 From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo

 Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 10:46 AM

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Mogas versus 100LL  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

     

ready to think that MOGAS is better.  In time, when our engine systems become smarter, I'll welcome its use and hope they change the smell of it.  

  

By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the gasoline for cars?  

   

Regards  

Carlos  [quote]<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>          - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -   -->               - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -   -->               - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -   -->              - List Contribution Web Site -  Thank you for your generous support!                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.   --> <![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>[b]

sales(at)6440autoparts.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

I suppose it would'nt need an STC if it we're an experimental 

aircraft.



Randy



---

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 11:50 am Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

Bob,



One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS is

the vapor pressure issue.



This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather.



It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly.



It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very

much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer.



If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel -

- we will still need a "special"  fuel for piston engines due to the

vapor pressure issue.



It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the

dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires.  But it will

still be a special fuel - - and not car gas.



Regards,  George



_Nope I can't agree with that George.



It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel

system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it

currently is.



To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good

reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at

modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be

reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is

bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank thru

some restictions to gurantee your early death.



The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put

them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest

place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the

fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank.



My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I

gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000

feet...Unlikely.



The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you get

struck by lightening?



For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would

agree its hardly ideal though.



Frank

sales(at)6440autoparts.co
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

So Frank are you still getting 6.7 gph running lop ?



Randy



---

frank.hinde(at)hp.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

I tried it on Sunday morning briefly and yes 6.7GPH at about 135 to 140

knots IAS is what I saw...runnig 2300rpm and 22"MP...i think?



I have done very little LOP because I don't have my injection system

balanced yet and I'm still running hard for break in...I.e running 75 to

85% power which means 100F ROP...Actually  a bit more cus I go over 400F

CHT on my #4 cylinder.



That needs to be worked on...>Still running 100LL for now.



Frank 



--

trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

Thanks Rob

 for your crystal clear explanation!

  

 So, every MOGAS is unleaded fuel, right?  

 Hence the vapor pressure problem, is  it?

 Can I conclude that all we need is to find an  additive other than lead, to have the ideal aviation fuel?

  

 Carlos

  

 [quote]   ---

planepubs(at)ev1.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

auto MO bile GAS

  

 On 09/26/2006 12:46:24 PM, Carlos Trigo (trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt (trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt)) wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		    ready to think that MOGAS is better. In time, when our engine systems

  become smarter, I'll welcome its use and hope they change the smell of  it.

 By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the gasoline for cars?

  

 Regards

 Carlos


	


 Do not archive

   [quote][b]

robh(at)hyperion-ef.us
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 4:48 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

That works for me.  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

 AUTOTEXTLIST  \s "E-mail Signature" <![endif]-->Best regards,  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

Rob Housman  

A070  

Airframe complete  

Irvine, CA  

<![endif]--><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

-----Original Message-----

 From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of A DeMarzo

 Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:35 PM

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL  

<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>  

auto MO bile GAS  

   

On 09/26/2006 12:46:24 PM, Carlos Trigo (trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt (trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt)) wrote:

 > ready to think that MOGAS is better. In time, when our engine systems

 > become smarter, I'll welcome its use and hope they change the smell of it.

 > By the way, why do you call MOGAS to the gasoline for cars?

 > 

 > Regards

 > Carlos  

Do not archive  [quote]<![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]><![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>          - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -   -->               - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -   -->               - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -   -->              - List Contribution Web Site -  Thank you for your generous support!                              -Matt Dralle, List Admin.   --> <![if !supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]>[b]

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

At 11:35 PM 9/26/2006 +0100, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o = 

"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w = 

"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word">

Thanks Rob

for your crystal clear explanation!



So, every MOGAS is unleaded fuel, right?

Hence the vapor pressure problem, is it?

Can I conclude that all we need is to find an additive other than lead, to 

have the ideal aviation fuel?


	


   It isn't the TEL (tetraethyl lead) that controls vapor pressure

   but the ingredients in the mix of hydrocarbons used to make up

   the fuel. It's analogous to evaporation rates. Blow a breeze

   over hands wet with water produces a cooling effect that ultimately

   dries the hands. Blow the same breeze over hands wet with alcohol

   and the cooling effects are stronger, the drying rate faster. Alcohol

   has a much higher vapor pressure than water.



   Bob . . .

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:36 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

At 02:46 PM 9/26/2006 -0500, you wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  

<frank.hinde(at)hp.com>





Bob,



One of the largely unappreciated but very REAL issues involving MOGAS is

the vapor pressure issue.



This gets to be a real problem even with AVGAS during hot weather.



It is a much worse problem with MOGAS - - unacceptable, frankly.



It is one thing to get away with using MOGAS in the winter - - and very

much different to try to do that in Prescott, Az in the summer.



If we can find technology that allows us to eliminate the TEL in fuel -

- we will still need a "special"  fuel for piston engines due to the

vapor pressure issue.



It will be cheaper to distribute because it will not require the

dedicated trucks and facilities that leaded fuel requires.  But it will

still be a special fuel - - and not car gas.



Regards,  George



_Nope I can't agree with that George.



It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel

system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it

currently is.



To explain...The FAA hate anything electrical...With some good

reason...I.e things electrical used to be unreliable...But look at

modern day autos....They all use electric pumps. So they must be

reliable. Trouble is the very worse place you can put a fuel pump is

bolted to the back of a hot engine sucking a long way from the tank thru

some restictions to gurantee your early death.



The reason the auto manufacturers use electric pumps is they can put

them in the "hydraulically correct" place...Which is both the coolest

place and the place that avoids sucking on the fuel...I.e INSIDE the

fuel tank...OK, some are right next to the tank.



My RV has an electric pump in each wingroot for that very reason...I

gurantee it will never vapour lock unless I fly to more than 20,000

feet...Unlikely.



The only real problem with an electric pump is what happens when you get

struck by lightening?



For this reason you can use the mechanical pump as the backup...I would

agree its hardly ideal though.


	


    Which goes directly to the statements I offered earlier. There's

    an obvious need to discover and understand limits to what ever

    fuel is proposed and then craft a system that overcomes those

    limits. Having the fuel delivery system pressurized from tank

    to injectors is one solution that comes to mind for overcoming

    the vapor lock issues. No doubt other problems will arise too.

    For 99.9% of us, we'll have to wait until someone in the 0.1%

    (that were too dumb to know it couldn't be done) will offer the

    next greatest thing. We'll all have the choice of trying to adapt

    to the new order . . . or sit in our airplanes with dry tanks

    waiting for someone to drive by with some 100LL.



    The big picture for this discussion isn't whether MOGAS in its

    present form is or will ever be the replacement for 100LL. The

    big picture shows what systems can be crafted to accommodate

    the least expensive and most environmentally friendly fuel for

    acquisition and operating costs we're willing to pay. The

    fuel MIGHT be MOGAS, it might not. The airplane WILL be

    different in significant ways. If we're lucky, the technology

    will be suitable to retrofit older machines lest they ALL be

    relegated to museums or recycled for beer cans.



    Bob . . .

George W Braly

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 15

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:04 pm Post subject: Mogas versus 100LL

 	  Quote: 	
		  >_Nope I can't agree with that George.


	


It does not need to be a special fuel, much easier to design a fuel

system that is modified to not be the appaling vapour lock risk that it

currently is.<<

In an ideal world in which the 90% of the general aviation fleet that is

already flying were able to have their entire fuel system including the

wet wing fuel tanks re-designed - - then your disagreement with the

problem and issues that we are discussing would, in my opinion, be well

founded.



But the reality is that the "fuel problem" is not a problem whose

solution is going to be decided by the experimental community's desires.



The reality is that a solution to the "lead in the fuel" issue will need

to be resolved in a manner that is consistent with, among others, the

following considerations:



1) It will leave no engine in common use "on the ground";

2) It will not require major redesign of aircraft fuel, electrical, or

plumbing systems;

3) It will not require that any engines be "de-rated" due to lower

octane;

4) It will not require re-certification of whole groups of aircraft or

restrict them to benign environmental conditions (ie, you can still

takeoff from Bullhead City, Az, in August.)



The concept of using "in tank" electric boost pumps (however desirable

and however good an idea that may be) is inconsistent with 2, above.



Regards,  George

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:

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