Member Support

  • Advertisement
0

100LL vs. AutoGas

Everything aviation & seaplane related as well as personal subjects...

100LL vs. AutoGas

Unread postby TriPacer » Wed May 04, 2016 12:40 pm

Hi everyone - sorry I've been away. I've missed you! Truth be told, I took on a new role at work and have been insanely busy for several months. But, with the conclusion of an unexpected engine overhaul (whoops) and the floats back on the Force, it's time to pester you all again...

Anyways, I'm going to open a barrel of monkeys here I'm sure, but, in all my flying, I've never run into someone that didn't like using auto gas in their plane (assuming they could, anyways). We got the STC and have been running it for almost 2 years with no issues that I know of. In any case, the shop that did our overhaul sent back a notice saying that their warranty is void if you use auto gas. Also, our A&P was against its usage as well. I'm curious to know the opinions here and, if anyone has data that indicates one is truly better than the other, can they point me in that direction?
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: 100LL vs. AutoGas

Unread postby KlausNW » Wed May 04, 2016 2:37 pm

Your plane has a Lycoming doesn't it?

Lycoming has changed their Service Instruction 1070 to include Auto Fuel, many overhaul shops have included this service instruction in their warranty. I would push these guys a little to do the same.

http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/techpublications/serviceinstructions/SI1070T%20Specified%20Fuels.pdf
Klaus Marx - Piper Pacer Pilot
Juneau, AK & Wenatchee, WA . . . . . . Click on Link Bar to view the 'non-profit' group.
Image Image
Image
User avatar
KlausNW
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest

Re: 100LL vs. AutoGas

Unread postby cubdriver2 » Wed May 04, 2016 3:40 pm

I've burned over 17,000 of mogas in the last 20 years. But I always break an engine in with 100LL for the first 50 hrs

Glenn
cubdriver2
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:01 pm

Re: 100LL vs. AutoGas

Unread postby RKittine » Thu May 05, 2016 9:52 am

The only time I have had any concerns about Non-Ethanol Auto Gas is if it will be sitting for a long period of time. 100LL will last almost for ever, while Auto Gas will not. I used Auto Gas in the Chief when I owned it, ran it in the Champ (that had been owned by Glenn, so I am sure much of those 17,000 gallons went into it) and currently use it in the 172, which has a Continental 300.

At Warwick we do not sell enough fuel to keep the prices low and are still working off $5.25 a gallon inventory. If we did get a load of Auto Fuel we would probably not be able to use it quickly enough. At other local airports the price for 100LL is around $4.00 a gallon, but Auto Gas, even High Test, which is all that is usually available without Ethanol is about $2.40 a considerable savings. When flying around, I usually top with 100LL so probably running a mix of about 1/3 100 LL to auto most of the time.

Bob
SUPPORTING MEMBER

Bob
West Nyack Aviation, L.L.C. New York, New York - East Hampton, New York & Warwick, New York 631.374.9652
rkittine@aol.com WA2YDV
User avatar
RKittine
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 11:02 am
Location: Manhattan and Sag Harbor, New York

Re: 100LL vs. AutoGas

Unread postby KlausNW » Thu May 05, 2016 1:10 pm

Back when the common engines of today where developed (40's, 50's) 80/87 or 100/130 distributors were very far and few between. Most of the pilots who I've talked to that actively flew in the 20's through 60's would tell me that auto gas was the only option throughout the country. It wasn't until the 70's before the petroleum industry propaganda pushed: "Aviation fuel is the only safe fuel".

In the early 80's the 100/130 went away and 100LL took over without any of this FAA dragging out approval that is happening now. Over all the years I've studied aviation, the stories were the proper octane fuel causing an engine problem or premature wear are related to the excessive amount of lead fouling internal workings of the engine. 100LL has a third more Tetraethyl lead than 100/130 did.

Problems reported by operators and overhaul shops from use of 100LL - Fouled Plugs, Propeller pitch oil pathway choked off, oil passages plugged, Piston rings stuck, piston and cylinder head having "hot spots" causing "dieseling" and "detonation", stuck crankshaft dynamic dampeners, valves sticking and sludge clogging oil pump intake screen.

Problems related to auto gas - Inside of engine gets black, Oil becomes dark quicker, Smells bad and shellac in carburetor. The carburetors had the biggest problems because they changed over to parts that where designed to fail when exposed to auto gas. Billions of dollars of law suites forced the carburetor companies to go back to parts that don't intentionally fail.
Klaus Marx - Piper Pacer Pilot
Juneau, AK & Wenatchee, WA . . . . . . Click on Link Bar to view the 'non-profit' group.
Image Image
Image
User avatar
KlausNW
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon May 03, 2010 9:33 pm
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest

Re: 100LL vs. AutoGas

Unread postby TriPacer » Mon May 09, 2016 2:17 pm

KlausNW wrote:Your plane has a Lycoming doesn't it?

Lycoming has changed their Service Instruction 1070 to include Auto Fuel, many overhaul shops have included this service instruction in their warranty. I would push these guys a little to do the same.

http://www.lycoming.com/Portals/0/techpublications/serviceinstructions/SI1070T%20Specified%20Fuels.pdf


This is great, Klaus - thanks! We do have an O320-E2D. It'll be worth sharing with my A&P and shop. I know a large argument was always that the engine manufacturers never overtly approved the use of Mogas, so this is a big deal.
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: 100LL vs. AutoGas

Unread postby TriPacer » Mon May 09, 2016 2:22 pm

cubdriver2 wrote:I've burned over 17,000 of mogas in the last 20 years. But I always break an engine in with 100LL for the first 50 hrs

Glenn


Pretty much what we're doing now - we'll be flying all summer on 100LL.
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: 100LL vs. AutoGas

Unread postby TriPacer » Mon May 09, 2016 2:24 pm

RKittine wrote:At Warwick we do not sell enough fuel to keep the prices low and are still working off $5.25 a gallon inventory. If we did get a load of Auto Fuel we would probably not be able to use it quickly enough. At other local airports the price for 100LL is around $4.00 a gallon, but Auto Gas, even High Test, which is all that is usually available without Ethanol is about $2.40 a considerable savings. When flying around, I usually top with 100LL so probably running a mix of about 1/3 100 LL to auto most of the time.

Bob


Yeah the cost differences are pretty staggering. Our base, which carries 100LL, is pretty low right now but at 6-7 gal/hr, any savings adds up fast.
TriPacer
Owner Of The Force
Image
From Minnesota, where men strangle bears and children fly helicopters!
User avatar
TriPacer
Supporting Member
Supporting Member
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:43 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests