Auto Gas STC

Cap'n Jack said:
Ethanol also promotes corrosion of aluminum and damages fiberglass fuel tanks

The ADI tanks are aluminum.. in both the super Connie and the G-1 Gulfstream never had a problem..

It also tends to attract water that falls out of solution when it gets cold.
Click to expand...

That's a good thing Right?
 
Dan Thomas said:
I have two Stromberg carbs here, both with rubber-tipped needles. They're not MA-series carbs. They're the NAS-3 carb.

Dan
Click to expand...

Good for you, do you run them on a PA 28? as we have been talking about ?
 
Tom-D said:
Good for you, do you run them on a PA 28? as we have been talking about ?
Click to expand...

Go back and read what I said about the C-85 Mogas STC in resonse to Dan McCormick's question. That's where I brought up the Stromberg carb. It wasn't regarding the PA-28.

Dan
 
Only place I know of for sure in this area (mid TN) to buy ethanol free, is....



The farmers' co-op. :goofy: They proudly put one of those red circles with a bar through it over the word ethanol on their gas pumps
 
Bringing up an old topic! Just wanted some 100% clarification.

1. My 64' 235 can run 87,91 octane as long as its ethanol free?
2. All that is required is a paper stc? From where?
3. Are there any risks to my engine from running this fuel? (1500hrs on my engine)
4. Any other issues I may be forgetting?


I really appreciate any information regarding this issue.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
1. My 64' 235 can run 87,91 octane as long as its ethanol free?
Click to expand...

As long as you have the applicable STC.

2. All that is required is a paper stc? From where?
Click to expand...

Check here:
http://www.autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/Start_Here.html

and here:

http://www.eaa.org/autofuel/

There is a cost difference.

3. Are there any risks to my engine from running this fuel? (1500hrs on my engine)
Click to expand...

There shouldn't.

Some prefer to run the low compression engines on unleaded as it avoids the issue of lead-fouling of spark plugs, puts less deposits in the oil etc.


4. Any other issues I may be forgetting?
Click to expand...

- obtaining ethanol free mogas
- possible restrictions on self-fueling imposed by your airport (they can't keep you from self-fueling based on FAA grant restrictions, they CAN write a rule that requires you to fuel 100ft from the next building and to have two attendants with 100lb fire extinguishers anytime you fuel)
- obtaining ethanol free mogas
- vapor pressure of automotive gas is higher than 100LL, in hot weather or high altitude situations you may encounter bubbles in your fuel system. Many mogas flyers keep one tank with 100LL for takeoff and landing.
 
On the Piper fuel system mods, I'd be more interested if the new fuel pumps were going into the wing roots (out of the heat of the engine compartment). The only mogas problem that I ever had was vapor lock on short pit stops. Cooling stops and heat is still there.
 
I live by a lake. KADM is my home base.

There are lots of gas stations that say no ethanol. I'm assuming this is the mogas I can use?

Also, why do I have to pay for a piece of paper to run a type of fuel that has already been proven to work? That's bs.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
I live by a lake. KADM is my home base.

There are lots of gas stations that say no ethanol. I'm assuming this is the mogas I can use?

Also, why do I have to pay for a piece of paper to run a type of fuel that has already been proven to work? That's bs.
Click to expand...

Oklahoma does appear to have more than its share of ethanol free sources.

Closest to me is Gainesville, TX.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Also, why do I have to pay for a piece of paper to run a type of fuel that has already been proven to work? That's bs.
Click to expand...

Because someone went through the expense of doing a flight test with your airframe/engine combination to demonstrate that fact. They also spent time and money with a DER to draft the paperwork to be filed with the FAA. That they want to get paid for their effort is capitalism, not bs.
 
weilke said:
Because someone went through the expense of doing a flight test with your airframe/engine combination to demonstrate that fact. They also spent time and money with a DER to draft the paperwork to be filed with the FAA. That they want to get paid for their effort is capitalism, not bs.
Click to expand...

No, it's BS. In the experimental world most run mogas all the time. If there is a problem with vapor lock we redo the fuel system to eliminate it. It is not rocket science. Push fuel rather than pull it, run blast tubes to the fuel pump.

I've converted 6-8 RV's to mogas with no problems. The STC paperwork being sold for $$$ is a rip off and ridiculous.
 
Jay Honeck said:
That is completely wrong for most PA-28s. I think that's just for fuel injected PA28-181s, but I'm not sure.

Our PA28-151 and PA28-235 required nothing but paperwork.
Click to expand...

My 150 HP Cherokee 140 had the paper only STC. When the engine was rebuilt and increased to 160 HP, that STC became invalid and the one with new electric pumps would have been required.
 
weilke said:
Because someone went through the expense of doing a flight test with your airframe/engine combination to demonstrate that fact. They also spent time and money with a DER to draft the paperwork to be filed with the FAA. That they want to get paid for their effort is capitalism, not bs.
Click to expand...



Agree to disagree. I think its rediculous, but we have our opinions.

Im not gonna continue to pay Alexander Bell to use my phone when I already pay a company to have that phone.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Agree to disagree. I think its rediculous, but we have our opinions.

Im not gonna continue to pay Alexander Bell to use my phone when I already pay a company to have that phone.
Click to expand...

Every time you pick up the phone, your charges pay for a multitude of intellectual property and licensing fees, not to Bell but the companies that have invested into getting phone and data services to where they are now.

Experience from the experimental crowd is irrelevant. If you have a type certificated aircraft and you want to use a non-approved fuel, you need the STC (or a 337).

STCs and the IP like protection they enjoy are the reason we have 'nice things' in aviation. Take away the financial incentive to license these improvements and we will be stuck with whatever the manufacturer thought to be necessary to sell the thing.

Of course, if the manufacturer just amended the TC to include certain fuels, there wouldn't be a reason for the STC.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Agree to disagree. I think its rediculous, but we have our opinions.

Im not gonna continue to pay Alexander Bell to use my phone when I already pay a company to have that phone.
Click to expand...

So that people that do the research and testing to prove the safety of running mogas are doing it for free?
 
Bob Noel said:
So that people that do the research and testing to prove the safety of running mogas are doing it for free?
Click to expand...


If you do research to have a product to make money from it. Get a patent and sell a product. Not a piece of paper that says I can run fuel. Thats rediculous.

"oh I tested that fuel and it worked for me, if you want to run that fuel you gotta pay me because I risked my life to find out if the fuel worked"

No, sorry. DISAGREE

Every time you pick up the phone, your charges pay for a multitude of intellectual property and licensing fees, not to Bell but the companies that have invested into getting phone and data services to where they are now.
Click to expand...

I dont have proof to refute this, but I'd like to see data supporting your statment.
 
Graueradler said:
Local Shell station claims no ethanol in mid-grade and premium.

Russellville, AR
Click to expand...

Buyrealgas.com

Pure-gas.org

Are both good places to start but I've found (and corrected) errors on both so be careful out there.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
If you do research to have a product to make money from it. Get a patent and sell a product. Not a piece of paper that says I can run fuel. Thats rediculous.

"oh I tested that fuel and it worked for me, if you want to run that fuel you gotta pay me because I risked my life to find out if the fuel worked"

No, sorry. DISAGREE
Click to expand...

Two words: intellectual property
 
Two words: bull fecies.



Seriously, that's fine if your defending the stc. I believe without question that it's a disgusting abuse of regulation. A lot of the reason flying isn't more popular. Will I purchase an stc to run Mogas, yea I'm forced to because some guy thought if he tested it he could get paid for his time or "intellectual property".

But hey, I digress. I'm thrilled to know I can run 3.25$ gas in my plane without worry. Not happy about simply not being able to fill up over a piece of paper, but I'll leave you to support people who thrive off of parasitic practices. Karma is a ***** :) I can't wait to send off my 1.50$ per HP to get my placards that will tell me what you fine folks have already told me! I'll sleep easier and they'll be able to justify risking their ass!
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Two words: bull fecies.



Seriously, that's fine if your defending the stc. I believe without question that it's a disgusting abuse of regulation. A lot of the reason flying isn't more popular. Will I purchase an stc to run Mogas, yea I'm forced to because some guy thought if he tested it he could get paid for his time or "intellectual property".

But hey, I digress. I'm thrilled to know I can run 3.25$ gas in my plane without worry. Not happy about simply not being able to fill up over a piece of paper, but I'll leave you to support people who thrive off of parasitic practices. Karma is a ***** :) I can't wait to send off my 1.50$ per HP to get my placards that will tell me what you fine folks have already told me! I'll sleep easier and they'll be able to justify risking their ass!
Click to expand...

I'd rather support the people developing STCs then parasites that would steal IP.
 
Bob Noel said:
I'd rather support the people developing STCs then parasites that would steal IP.
Click to expand...

Yea I'd rather support people who siphon money from everyday folks too. Vs. support information that is trial and error based.

How much do you pay to pay to make a sandwich? Oh, you mean you only buy the material it takes to make one? I mean, someones IP is getting stolen because someone took the time to figure out that meat between two pieces of bread was actually a good idea. Go ahead and send that sandwich stc via PayPal to my account, your overdue as well by an estimated 50,000 sandwiches @.75 cents a slice of bread.
 
Last edited:
You are not paying the fee in order to be able to run the fuel, you pay the fee to remain compliant with a regulation. The safety of flight is entirely unaffected by the presence or absence of the placards and flight manual supplement. You are of course free to fly mogas, Unleaded or waste vegetable oil in your plane without obtaining an STC. Unless a FAA inspector walks up to you while you are pouring mystery liquid into the tanks, the chances of getting dinged for it are probably small (unless you crash of course).

You accuse the EAA and Peterson to be 'parasites' yet it is you who wants to use their work without paying for it ? :dunno:
 
weilke said:
You are not paying the fee in order to be able to run the fuel, you pay the fee to remain compliant with a regulation. The safety of flight is entirely unaffected by the presence or absence of the placards and flight manual supplement. You are of course free to fly mogas, Unleaded or waste vegetable oil in your plane without obtaining an STC. Unless a FAA inspector walks up to you while you are pouring mystery liquid into the tanks, the chances of getting dinged for it are probably small (unless you crash of course).

You accuse the EAA and Peterson to be 'parasites' yet it is you who wants to use their work without paying for it ? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Call it what you want. It's bs. It's monopoly in real life.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Call it what you want. It's bs. It's monopoly in real life.
Click to expand...

You can feel free to finance someone to come up with a competing mogas STC. It's probably about 5-10k to do the paperwork flight-tests and documentation. Once you have obtained it, you can then issue the STCs for free out of the goodness of your heart.
 
Jhernandez04 said:
Bringing up an old topic! Just wanted some 100% clarification.

1. My 64' 235 can run 87,91 octane as long as its ethanol free?
2. All that is required is a paper stc? From where?
3. Are there any risks to my engine from running this fuel? (1500hrs on my engine)
4. Any other issues I may be forgetting?


I really appreciate any information regarding this issue.
Click to expand...

Two negatives I haven't seen mentioned: Auto gas doesn't store as well nor has the same quality control as Av gas.
 
weilke said:
You can feel free to finance someone to come up with a competing mogas STC. It's probably about 5-10k to do the paperwork flight-tests and documentation. Once you have obtained it, you can then issue the STCs for free out of the goodness of your heart.
Click to expand...

You're quite the character. Have a good day!
 
Is this something that Jhernandez could get a field approval on instead of buying an STC?
 
JoeSelch said:
Is this something that Jhernandez could get a field approval on instead of buying an STC?
Click to expand...

Once there is an STC for a particular modification, the FAA typically requires you to use the STC instead of the major alteration process.
 
weilke said:
Once there is an STC for a particular modification, the FAA typically requires you to use the STC instead of the major alteration process.
Click to expand...

<carson>
I did not know that.
</carson>
 
weilke said:
You can feel free to finance someone to come up with a competing mogas STC. It's probably about 5-10k to do the paperwork flight-tests and documentation. Once you have obtained it, you can then issue the STCs for free out of the goodness of your heart.
Click to expand...

And he has to carry liability insurance for 18 years after the last sale of an STC, too, right? 'Cause sure enough some bozo is going to sue after his mogas-fuelled engine quits because he didn't sump the water out of the tanks.

It's not cheap to get an STC and I don't know why anyone should have to give it away. The real problem is over-regulation, but even then the various airframe and engine combinations would still need to be checked for compatibility with Mogas.

Some folks who don't work in aviation simply don't understand it one bit.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
And he has to carry liability insurance for 18 years after the last sale of an STC, too, right? 'Cause sure enough some bozo is going to sue after his mogas-fuelled engine quits because he didn't sump the water out of the tanks.
Click to expand...

The alternative is to be sufficiently broke (which is no problem, if you dont charge for use of your STC, you ARE going to be broke in short order).

That liability is probably the leading reason why so many STCs are unavailable. Not enough money in them to justify the exposure.

There was a Cessna P210 that was loaded up with 2 adults, hunting gear and a dead elk. As expected, the plane crashed on takeoff in the Idaho backcountry. The fact that the plane had been modified with an STC (silver-eagle conversion) was used as a wedge to get around GARA as it was 'basically a new aircraft' after the conversion. Cessna and O&N had to settle.
 
JoeSelch said:
<carson>
I did not know that.
</carson>
Click to expand...

Even the FAA respects IC. Besides I suspect that the field approval would cost more than $1.50 a HP.

You'll have to prove the fuel has no negative affect on ANY and EVERY part of the fuel system from the cap to the tail pipe then you must prove that the engine makes the same HP while maintaining detonation margins at all operating temperatures.
 
FWIW

There is another issue with ethanol fuels in airplanes. All our fuel delivery systems are set up to deliver x fuel for y air. Alcohol lowers the BTUs/gal of the fuel meaning that the same x:y ratio would now be too lean if ethanol was added to the fuel.

O2 sensors and FADEC could be programmed to eliminate the issue.

Yes the EAB crew is using the fuel, but they don't carry the certification burden for STCs of zero negative impact. Wanna give up a few HP? Peachy, have fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top