Avgas vs Autogas

[Karl Rigdon]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

Remember the small Cont. engines were designed for 73 octane fuel which to my knowledge was unleaded. I am told there was much worry when they started to put lead compounds in the avgas. The 73 octane fuel of those days probably would not get todays autos out of the driveway without pinging. Knock sensors equiped engines may be a excption.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

ITs easy bill dont use the crap! .
and its not legal stc void . im just coming clean lot of pilots are still gambling . what i ment by soft loses of power 16-1800 rpms .for as the policeman crap be a ass may be you have abig ago or maybe you have small feet i have none im a bad speller yes but im hell of a pilot have a nice day sir . im going flying and fishin .

Awww simmer down Mac, this is all in fun. Yeah, I got a big ego, but I can usually laugh at myself and my faults too numerous to mention here.

[flyguy]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

Well for here the difference is only a buck a gal after prices settle down, but the main reason for me to be interested in auto gas is to get the lead out.
It is nice if it cost less, kinda makes up for the trouble of fueling, but it isn't the main thing for me. I wish I could just ignore what lead deposits do to engines and just fly on oblivious, but I know too much now.

BACK TO THE SUBJECT: I wonder, here in California, if all the pilots of aircraft that will burn 87 octane auto gas (AOPA guy tells me that is 75% of the GA fleet), got organized if we could get supplies of ethanol free produced and distributed.

The formal aviation community isn't real interested because we only burn 25% of the gas. Their problem is the "BIG" boys that require 100 octane and there is a lot of pressure mounting, from all directions, to do something about the lead in Avgas. Not a hint of a workable solution so far as I have heard.

I suppose, as always, it will only happen when someone can figure a way to make a bunch of bucks on the deal.

Personally, I could probably foot the bill on setting up a tanker operation at our field (we do get a lot of traffic when our prices are low), if I could get a source. It has already been sounded out and the operator here (city) does not have a monoply, per the FAA.
DC

[Ragwing nut]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

Remember the small Cont. engines were designed for 73 octane fuel which to my knowledge was unleaded. I am told there was much worry when they started to put lead compounds in the avgas. The 73 octane fuel of those days probably would not get todays autos out of the driveway without pinging. Knock sensors equiped engines may be a excption.

73 octane was leaded. Unleaded did not show up until late 70's early 80's.

[VictorBravo]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

For goodness sakes Darryl, do it! I'll fly up there to fill my tanks just for the sake of doing it. You would, of course, be forced to let me buy you a burger while I'm there.

Personally, I could probably foot the bill on setting up a tanker operation at our field (we do get a lot of traffic when our prices are low), if I could get a source. It has already been sounded out and the operator here (city) does not have a monoply, per the FAA.
DC

[flyguy]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

It might not be as difficult as one would think as there are several refineries over by the SF bay, on this side, and I remember there were several tankers still parked at Castle AFB. I haven't had a close-up of them so they may be way too large, as they were likely for B-52's. The thought had gone through my mind when I first saw them.
Anyway I will at least do some phone calls on the fuel.
Darryl
Whoa--that is a thought, sell auto gas at Castle from larger tankers and distribute it to local airports in smaller quantities. One large truck load from the refiners to a big tanker at Castle. Hmmmm.
DC

[Ron Coleman]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

Back in the '30's when we went fishing and took our Colman lanterns we had to buy "white gas" (the lead in auto fuel would clog the jets in the lanterns) or else we bought "no-lead" gas, in any octane from any of the gas companies that bragged about being "no-lead". This low octane no-lead has been available in this part of the country for as long as I can remember. That was the gas REQUIRED in most Briggs, Clinton, and as I reacall Reo small mower and washing machine engines. Lead would foul the plugs and screwup the valves and guides as well as fill the crank cases with a gray mud like sludge (lead residual). That is where the sludge came from in my '33 Ford, '50, '53, '55, 'etc., Studebaker, '62 Fury, '32 Indian etc., etc.

This is a discussion with no end, if you try it and your engine doesn't like it, and you survive, don't use it in your new airplane.

RonC

[Ron Coleman]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

I am only going to admit to having used auto gas in my airplanes since the STC became available, and have onlly ever use 3 gal of 100 LL in all of those years. I should probably use a little more, by why mess with success.

RonC

Like the incomprehensible man said "I used to be one hell of a great pilot, but I'm smarter now".

[Ron Coleman]

Re: Avgas vs Autogas

Back in the '30's when we went fishing and took our Colman lanterns we had to buy "white gas" (the lead in auto fuel would clog the jets in the lanterns) or else we bought "no-lead" gas, in any octane from any of the gas companies that bragged about being "no-lead". This low octane no-lead has been available in this part of the country for as long as I can remember. That was the gas REQUIRED in most Briggs, Clinton, and as I reacall Reo small mower and washing machine engines. Lead would foul the plugs and screwup the valves and guides as well as fill the crank cases with a gray mud like sludge (lead residual). That is where the sludge came from in my '33 Ford, '50, '53, '55, 'etc., Studebaker, '62 Fury, '32 Indian etc., etc.

This is a discussion with no end, if you try it and your engine doesn't like it, and you survive, don't use it in your new airplane.

RonC