180kts & mogas

210? Baron?
 
I don't think those can run on mogas.

I'm thinking many varieties of homebuilt/experimental aircraft can do that. Not too many certified.
 
Bonanza with an 0-470....but a tad shy of 180.:wink2:

...and older 310 with a pair of 0-470's?
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
Which ones can do it?
No other limitations.
Click to expand...

VariZE / LongEZ 0-200/0-320, The Vari is marginal but with the right prop, and 85HP pistons it is doable. The LongEZ with 150/160 HP is an easy do. Baggage :) UPS is your friend.
 
A group of the RVs can do it I was thinking.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Bonanza with an 0-470....but a tad shy of 180.:wink2:
Click to expand...
The only 35 series Bo's listed as approved on the Petersen website are the ones with the E-series Continentals. H35 with the O-470-G (pressure carb) and all the later injected V-tails are no-go.

Debonair/33-series Bonanzas with the 225 hp IO-470-J/K are approved.
 
Velocity and Lancair too, I suppose.
 
No MoGas STC for the 310. So if you're doing that, get one with 520s and go all out being illegal. ;)

Lancair 320/360 comes to mind and be economical to operate if you didn't need more space.
 
jaymark6655 said:
Cruise or Top Speed?
Off of Vans website.
RV-10 Top Speed is supposed to be 183 with IO-540.
RV-3 with 150hp
RV-4 with 180hp
RV-7 with 180hp
RV-8 with 180hp
I have heard of a few RVs running mogas, not sure if they had to do anything to the engines. http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=110276
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% on this, but I seem to recall that the 180hp Lycoming that is recommended for the RV's has an STC available for Mogas in other aircraft. I believe the 200hp option is not considered Mogas-compatible. But, since it's an experimental, I suppose the user could (in theory) do whatever they want, and become the test pilot for their own "STC".

I'd just love to have an RV-7… those airplanes seem like they have an awesome amount of performance and value. But, I don't have time to build one right now, and in the EAB world I'm not sure I'd trust one that was built by someone I didn't know.
 
Last edited:
A 180 HP O-360 on MoGas basically won't detonate at all. A 200 HP Lycoming on MoGas will have parts of the envelope where it will detonate if you don't pay attention to your mixture setting, similar to a Navajo on 100LL.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A 180 HP O-360 on MoGas basically won't detonate at all. A 200 HP Lycoming on MoGas will have parts of the envelope where it will detonate if you don't pay attention to your mixture setting, similar to a Navajo on 100LL.
Click to expand...

Ted, are you referring to 93 octane ((R+M)/2) or does your statement extend to other octane ratings as well?
 
Coloradokevin said:
I'm not 100% on this, but I seem to recall that the 180hp Lycoming that is recommended for the RV's has an STC available for Mogas in other aircraft.
Click to expand...

EXP can run auto with out STC paper.
 
kyleb said:
Ted, are you referring to 93 octane ((R+M)/2) or does your statement extend to other octane ratings as well?
Click to expand...

93 specifically.

Something to think about for a naturally aspirated engine is that, as you increase in altitude (and thus decrease max horsepower), your maximum required anti-knock rating decreases.

One engine I've considered building is a 12:1 engine, limited to manifold pressures in the low (maybe mid) 20s. Would have awesome efficiency in cruise, with a constant climb power from sea level to roughly 10k. Would be great for a plane like a Mooney, Lancair, etc. that loves altitude.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
93 specifically.

Something to think about for a naturally aspirated engine is that, as you increase in altitude (and thus decrease max horsepower), your maximum required anti-knock rating decreases.

One engine I've considered building is a 12:1 engine, limited to manifold pressures in the low (maybe mid) 20s. Would have awesome efficiency in cruise, with a constant climb power from sea level to roughly 10k. Would be great for a plane like a Mooney, Lancair, etc. that loves altitude.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't want anyone who recognizes you as an expert to use your initial (unqualified) statement as the rationale behind running 85 octane in their IO-540... ;-)

As to ideal methods for boosting efficiency, where does a small turbo-normalizer fit in that world? Let's say we limit it to 28" and set a critical altitude of something reasonable - say 8k'.
 
Easy peasy. 10 GPH of MOGAS
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    168.9 KB · Views: 157
kyleb said:
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't want anyone who recognizes you as an expert to use your initial (unqualified) statement as the rationale behind running 85 octane in their IO-540... ;-)
Click to expand...

You're right, my initial statement was very vague, so important to clarify. It's also worth pointing out that what many airports call "MoGas" does vary. I've seen some sell 87, 91, and 93. So, you need to know which you're getting.

Of course, it would also depend on which 540, since an IO-540-C4B5 (250 HP) vs. an IO-540-K (290 HP) are different animals.

As to ideal methods for boosting efficiency, where does a small turbo-normalizer fit in that world? Let's say we limit it to 28" and set a critical altitude of something reasonable - say 8k'.
Click to expand...

It really depends on what your goal is. A turbo adds a lot of complexity and failure modes, plus weight. A turbo allows you to force more air in and get you more power at altitude. Its real benefit is in the high teens and low flight levels, but you need an intercooler (more weight and complexity) to make it work well. The small ones I find don't really add a ton unless you're operating in a mountainous area where the extra power is helpful for takeoff and initial climb.

In the 310 (which has a wing that likes altitude), I'm generally finding myself flying in the 6-12k range, depending on duration of flight, winds, etc. If I could have my way, I'd make the engines high compression with electronic ignition and potentially limiting maximum manifold pressure depending on the specifics of what I did. I think that for the majority of us, there's more to be gained in terms of useful load and fuel efficiency than there is to be gained by brute force of a turbo.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
93 specifically.



Something to think about for a naturally aspirated engine is that, as you increase in altitude (and thus decrease max horsepower), your maximum required anti-knock rating decreases.



One engine I've considered building is a 12:1 engine, limited to manifold pressures in the low (maybe mid) 20s. Would have awesome efficiency in cruise, with a constant climb power from sea level to roughly 10k. Would be great for a plane like a Mooney, Lancair, etc. that loves altitude.
Click to expand...


Are you talking about doing the 12:1 for MoGas or just for 100LL. (It's not clear what you mean.)
 
Coloradokevin said:
I'm not 100% on this, but I seem to recall that the 180hp Lycoming that is recommended for the RV's has an STC available for Mogas in other aircraft. I believe the 200hp option is not considered Mogas-compatible. But, since it's an experimental, I suppose the user could (in theory) do whatever they want, and become the test pilot for their own "STC".

I'd just love to have an RV-7… those airplanes seem like they have an awesome amount of performance and value. But, I don't have time to build one right now, and in the EAB world I'm not sure I'd trust one that was built by someone I didn't know.
Click to expand...

I love them all, but really want to build a RV-10. I have the time, but not enough money right now. I need to pay off my school loans and a car first. I don't want to rob myself of the full experience so buying is not an option. :D
 
denverpilot said:
I just couldn't figure out when you became a fan of water injection. ;)
Click to expand...

With regular as cheap as it is, I have thought about buying a 421 and water injection to make the 87 work. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top