Mogas

Clark1961 said:
I’d tend to agree but don’t paint the tanks a dark color and don’t run below a quarter tank on a hot day with a circulating fuel system such as a Continental. If you somehow managed to get +80F fuel above 10k there could be problems in a gravity fed system. Not saying there would be problems, just could be.
Click to expand...
This is why Canada forbids it above 5000'
 
Clark1961 said:
Most rednecks know corn ain't fer eatin. Corn is for mash. Mash is fer distillin'.
Click to expand...

No sir, those are hillbillies. We don't really do that here.

However, I must clarify a bit. Most corn here is grown for livestock feed. You feed the corn to a beast of some sort for a while, kill it, cut it up into smaller bits, then eat of it's flesh, cooked to your liking. Corn is fer eatin'.
 
Clark1961 said:
You made claims by inference. Distillation would not work because too many hydrocarbons would also boil. Fractionation would be the only way to "mostly" separate the ethanol because the properties are similar to hydrocarbons in the gasoline mixture. Even with fractionation the end product would not be gasonline components and ethanol, it would be some gasoline components and a hydrocarbon-ethanol mixture.
Click to expand...


Hmm. I'm just a simple ol' redneck, but I reckon you just get ya a pressure vessel of some kind, fill it with the gas, heat her up to about 212 deg at 200 psi or so, catch the vapors, cool and condense it, and pump it back in the top as reflux while it's flashing. That-a -way you can hold that isobutane in thar without blowin' it out tha top with the C2. I reckon you could get a pretty good cut. (tobacco spit) You prolly still gonna blow out some butane, but you don't need it all. Just add some lighter fluid on the back end.
 
Clark1961 said:
Most rednecks know corn ain't fer eatin. Corn is for mash. Mash is fer distillin'.
Click to expand...

Most rednecks know certain kinds of corn are for eating and other kinds are for burning, and the farm up the road is getting one hell of a subsidy to grow the non-eating kind and not to rock the boat, or the neighbors will lose their farm.

Or that’s what I hear from the family running farms in Kansas anyway. Their kids didn’t really get the farming gene so I suspect they’ll be retiring and letting some mega-company / Co-Op farm their land, if they haven’t already.

Haven’t talked to them in a while but the elder farmer is pushing the underside of 70 now and amongst the locals who actually farmed their own land, he was considered the youngster in town.

They had a good run and have no regrets but there won’t be anyone left in the extended family who’s farming in the next generation.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Hmm. I'm just a simple ol' redneck, but I reckon you just get ya a pressure vessel of some kind, fill it with the gas, heat her up to about 212 deg at 200 psi or so, catch the vapors, cool and condense it, and pump it back in the top as reflux while it's flashing. That-a -way you can hold that isobutane in thar without blowin' it out tha top with the C2. I reckon you could get a pretty good cut. (tobacco spit) You prolly still gonna blow out some butane, but you don't need it all. Just add some lighter fluid on the back end.
Click to expand...
Sheeit, ain’t no C2 in there to start with, not much C4 fer sure. What you tawlin’ ‘bout? If’n ya gots lighter fluid ya should just be burnin’ that. It’ll ping a good bit at full power, prolly won’t make TBO.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
That appears to have been changed over 2 decades ago, unless you have a more recent reference showing the altitude limit was reinstated.

See: http://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/ca-certification/mogas.pdf
Page 2, section 2.3
Click to expand...
Thank you I did not know that, I was going with what the flight school at Abbotsford told me a few years ago.

Did you also note the Canadians have separated the US mo-gas and Canadian mo-gas, and note that Canadian mo-gas is more stable than US mo-gas, thus the reason to eliminate the restriction.
What I couldn't glean from that article is, does the restriction still apply to US mo-gas? they aren't specific.
Interesting article, did you note para 3.1
 
Last edited:
Clark1961 said:
Sheeit, ain’t no C2 in there to start with, not much C4 fer sure. What you tawlin’ ‘bout? If’n ya gots lighter fluid ya should just be burnin’ that. It’ll ping a good bit at full power, prolly won’t make TBO.
Click to expand...

Yeah well, it was late and I was tired from a 12 hr shift of compressing, dehydrating, refrigerating, condensing, fractionating, distilling, and stabilizing hydrocarbons. Pardon any inaccuracies. ;)
 
OkieFlyer said:
Yeah well, it was late and I was tired from a 12 hr shift of compressing, dehydrating, refrigerating, condensing, fractionating, distilling, and stabilizing hydrocarbons. Pardon any inaccuracies. ;)
Click to expand...
If'n ya wanna brag 'bout passin' gas you shoulda been one of them anesthesiologists...
 
Tom-D said:
Thank you I did not know that, I was going with what the flight school at Abbotsford told me a few years ago.

Did you also note the Canadians have separated the US mo-gas and Canadian mo-gas, and note that Canadian mo-gas is more stable than US mo-gas, thus the reason to eliminate the restriction.
What I couldn't glean from that article is, does the restriction still apply to US mo-gas? they aren't specific.
Interesting article, did you note para 3.1
Click to expand...
Please keep in mind that document is a over a quarter century old, including the amendments, and things have changed. For example, MTBE (methyl t-butyl ether) isn't used anyplace any more in North America in gasoline to the best of my knowledge. I didn't read the the Canadian MoGas was more stable, but rather, there was less variation in volatility (ability to evaporate) than the USA gasoline. This makes sense since we produce gasoline for use over a much wider climate range than they do; sub-tropics to the arctic circle and everything in between.

The question about USA MoGas being restricted is, I suspect, academic since it will be replaced with Canadian with the first refueling up there.

I did note the warning about carb icing.
 
I know a business must make a return on their investment to stay in business but, wow, $3500. That makes for quite the extended payback. And, if you lose the paperwork, I assume Petersen will charge 50% the original cost to replace it (like they do on their other STCs) instead of a nominal processing fee like EAA does...I mean, you know, because you already paid for it once?

Edit: okay, this one is more than paperwork, so maybe there is a bit more justification of the price. But, wow, at prox $4500 installed cost for the 24v version, I doubt they'll be selling many.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
I know a business must make a return on their investment to stay in business but, wow, $3500. That makes for quite the extended payback. And, if you lose the paperwork, I assume Petersen will charge 50% the original cost to replace it (like they do on their other STCs) instead of a nominal processing fee like EAA does...I mean, you know, because you already paid for it once?

Edit: okay, this one is more than paperwork, so maybe there is a bit more justification of the price. But, wow, at prox $4500 installed cost for the 24v version, I doubt they'll be selling many.
Click to expand...

I don't know what Petersen's annual operating costs are (salaries, rent, etc), how much extra they spent convincing the FAA to issue this STC, or how many PA-28-161/181 STCs they reasonably expect to sell, so I have no idea of how big their profit margin will end up being.

From my PoV, knowing that it exists is security against a more-extended 100LL shortage than we had in Canada this winter, or even the end of 100LL. I know that my Warrior II will still be able to fly.

That doesn't mean I'm actually going to buy it right now; it's just nice knowing that it's there.
 
denverpilot said:
Most rednecks know certain kinds of corn are for eating and other kinds are for burning, and the farm up the road is getting one hell of a subsidy to grow the non-eating kind and not to rock the boat, or the neighbors will lose their farm.

Or that’s what I hear from the family running farms in Kansas anyway. Their kids didn’t really get the farming gene so I suspect they’ll be retiring and letting some mega-company / Co-Op farm their land, if they haven’t already.

Haven’t talked to them in a while but the elder farmer is pushing the underside of 70 now and amongst the locals who actually farmed their own land, he was considered the youngster in town.

They had a good run and have no regrets but there won’t be anyone left in the extended family who’s farming in the next generation.
Click to expand...

Same with my son-in-laws family. They have the sixth oldest family owned farm in the state. They have been farming it since the late 1600's.
The father sold off all the livestock 10 years ago, hasn't put a crop in the ground in 8 years. He drives a school bus. None of the kids have any interest in the farm. They are all went to college and got into high tech industries and make 6 figure salaries, more than the best year anyone ever had with the farm, and weather doesn't affect the bottom line. My grandkids know less about farming than I do. It's sad, but inevitable.
 
Consider this, you can recoup the fuel road taxes on auto gas bought at a gas station at the end of the year if you use it in a aircraft.
 
Shepherd said:
Same with my son-in-laws family. They have the sixth oldest family owned farm in the state. They have been farming it since the late 1600's.
The father sold off all the livestock 10 years ago, hasn't put a crop in the ground in 8 years. He drives a school bus. None of the kids have any interest in the farm. They are all went to college and got into high tech industries and make 6 figure salaries, more than the best year anyone ever had with the farm, and weather doesn't affect the bottom line. My grandkids know less about farming than I do. It's sad, but inevitable.
Click to expand...
Farming since the 1600's? Quite a legacy. :) Just kidding, pretty sure that's a typo.

My extended family farming experience is different. My Uncles/Aunts/Cousins on my mom's side have been corn/wheat farmers in Nebraska for a long time. The area is seeing a lot of the co-op/corporate farms sprouting up, as mentioned above, but none of my relatives have done anything but buy more land over the years. And they have made good money farming (and are rich from the appreciation in value of the farmland). The big problem with family farms, in their case(and a lot of others), is that when you have 3-5 kids, there really isn't a living for 3-5 families from one farm. You might be able to split it and make two viable family farms, but that still leaves several kids with nowhere to go. And it is nearly impossible to start up a family farm by buying property; buy-in capital is just too high.
 
timwinters said:
Actually, since he's in NY, likely not if it's the 6th oldest in the state.
Click to expand...
Nope, not a typo. The family has been farming the property since about 1695. The "official" settlement of the area was in 1709(?)by the British, but when they got here they found the Danes, Dutch and Germans already settled in.
 
I stand corrected. Showing my ignorance of history. When was Jamestown, again...? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top