Newly overhauled "0" time 0300

Dave Clark · Post by **Dave Clark** » Sun Sep 07, 2003 10:48 am

And you might wonder why I'm posting less these days.

Post by **GAHorn** » Sun Sep 07, 2003 11:36 pm

N3243A wrote: It's about convenience and availability as well. If you fly Alaska and the Canadian Arctic enough (especially off the beaten path), there are times when mogas is your only choice. If you are comfortable using mogas, the experience won't be so traumatic and in fact will be anticlimactic!

Nuff said, Bruce

If I was in a place where my choice was mo-gas or no-gas I'd certainly not have any problem putting it in my airplane, which is exactly why I'm happy to have the autogas STC and paperwork in my airplane. We're not in as much opposition on this topic as some seem to think, and that's why I wish it didn't ruffle feathers whenever someone makes a factual statement about the matter that happens to point out a shortcoming in one fuel or the other.
Here we are talking about having a p---ing match when all that was said was a factually accurate statement using common vocabulary. Someone is unnecessarily sensitive about this topic, despite the best efforts to be factually accurate in a non-critical manner. What other word could I have possibly used to describe the contamination of one fuel with the other that would have been less offensive? My synonym tool in my word processor suggested either: befoul, stain, corrupt, debase, profane, dirty, and soil. Would any of those have been any more acceptable? I simply selected the word which seemed to describe the situation in context.
I'd prefer us to resolve to get along on this subject. It's not worth the time we waste on it.
Anyway, I'll beg forgiveness friends, if I've been over-the-top on this subject, and I'll also compliment Bruce for pointing out to avgas die-hards that mogas has it's place other than just purchase price, especially in the outback.

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:59 am

George,to paraphrase the Petersen STC,they recommend burning a tankful of 100LL every 50 hours or so,or mixing 100LL with car gas. For round engines,as I recall,they recommend a mix of 75% cargas & 25% 100LL.
The EAA STC paperwork does indeed recommend using leaded fuel (100LL) immediately after engine service involving the valves--"field information no. 308",revised 5/20/96.

Eric

Post by **GAHorn** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:12 pm

Thanks, Eric!
I was actually hoping for exact wording, but I can contact them directly for it, if necessary.
If it's a "recommendation" then it might be someone associated with the STC holder simply trying to be helpful (albeit misguidedly, in my opinion.)
If it's not a requirement, then I wouldn't do it.
BTW, and FYI, ...my STC is the earlier EAA STC which is in the public domain. It does not make any such recommendation. The later EAA STC requires a payment to EAA for each aircraft rather than blanket approval. Judging by the revision date you gave, I'm guessing your STC must be the later STC, developed by EAA when they realized they'd boo-boo'd and weren't making any money from their earlier STC's "donations"?

zero.one.victor · Post by **zero.one.victor** » Tue Sep 09, 2003 4:28 am

George,I'm glad that you've come around to our way of thinking,and adopted "mogas or no gas!" as your creed!

Eric

susang777 · Post by **susang777** » Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:00 am

For what it's worth: We have one of the old STCs for mogas, and we haven't had any difficulties with our engine or its performance. We follow our most experienced instructor's guidelines (he has over 3000 tailwheel hours, and dozens of 170 hours). He suggested that we use one 100LL tank for every eight tanks of gas in the plane. However, if we're taking a trip, it's nearly impossible to find mogas, so we just use whatever we need of 100LL with no additives, then go back to the usual 1-in-8 ratio when we get back from the trip.