Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jesse Hartman on March 9, 2013 at 9:13pm

Just because you have an auto engine does not mean you have to run auto gas. If you run 100 low lead you will be fine, however you will ruin your 02 sensor from lead deposits.  Id be more worried about spending 25 grand on a out of date engine than I would  about gas.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer Rice on March 9, 2013 at 9:57pm

So you are saying 100LL does work? Just not great for it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jimmy Young on March 10, 2013 at 6:54pm

"I"d be more worried about spending 25 grand on a out of date engine than I would  about gas."

Jesse, 

What engine is it are you talking about that costs 25 grand & is out of date?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Hartman on March 10, 2013 at 7:48pm

That would be your Continental and Lycoming engines.  The engines that cost as much as a new car and will never make it to TBO without coming apart for repairs.  They are proven, and have millions of hours in the air however they are born from 40's era.  Im sure people will get all pissed off reading this and that is not my intent, just my opinion.  Why dont car manufactures use magneto's?  Why do 99% of the engines in newer cars not have push rods.  Why will 99% of the cars go 200k plus without getting pistons and valves?  The answer is because they have been built with better and updated technology.  Sorry I will NEVER "drink the kool-aid". 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jacob on March 11, 2013 at 5:51am

While I do agree that lyco and cont product development isn't overly inspiring you can't argue with their reliability and have to admire the simplicity.  I agree they could implement a few modern touches though.  The fact that a 1960's corvair engine uses a more advanced combustion chamber design than a modern aircraft engine is a bit sad.  I think the UL engine is a one of the better examples of where cont and lycoming should have been years ago I guess there just wasn't enough financial incentive and also when your making full takeoff power at a lazy 2300 rpm there is not alot of need for all of the advancements in the modern motor car engine.  I guess it's the same reason that briggs and stratton engine hasn't evolved over the years.  I think the beauty in the lycoming and cont engines is more what it does with so little.  Personally I'm a big fan of the corvair myself due to it's simplicity and the the whole old and proven over new and exciting theory William uses.  I really admire what Jan has done with the viking engine too, he seems to be on a winner as well, anything that makes aviation accessible to the masses has to be a good thing.  It's definately a good time to be a homebuilder.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ben Haas on March 10, 2013 at 6:04am

What kind of idiot would put an auto engine in a aircraft.. ???  <G>.

 

Jus kiddin... On my setup I can run either type of fuel without any harmful effects.. In the least couple of years I did add a Air/Fuel mixture gauge that uses a O2 sensor and the lead  in 100LL will eventually kill it. But since I run such hot exhaust the sensor will burn out anyway so I replace it every 200 hours or so.

 

Ben ( head idiot in the room) Haas.................... <GG>

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Griggs on March 10, 2013 at 8:25am

Corvair engines will burn 100 low lead. See William Wynne's web sites, flycorvair.net and flycorvair.com.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob McDonald on March 10, 2013 at 9:41am

On the Rotax 912 series your oil change interval goes to 25 hrs burning 100LL. It is 50 hrs burning MOGAS. AVGAS or 100LL (Lots of Lead) has 10 times the lead of MOGAS. This lead accumulates in the synthetic oil like suspended tooth paste, and this causes the problem for the engine which is the reason for the more frequent oil change interval. Basically if your on a trip and can only get AVGAS 100LL you burn it and change your oil more frequently. I'm sure a little AVGAS here & there won't hurt your engine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Spencer Rice on March 10, 2013 at 11:32am

Well that's kinda what I'm thinking. At least a trip to Oshkosh every year and maybe some little trips here and there. Mostly I would run MOGAS.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Normand Lambert on March 10, 2013 at 11:47am

Hey Spencer,thanks for the question !
I was wondering about that too!
Was kind of a concern for me and my Subaru conversion.
Thanks all for the answer, no need for me to haul my jerry cans!
Regards,
Norman
CH701

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Pustell on March 15, 2013 at 9:51pm

I would strongly discourage hauling jerry cans of gasoline around. In crash loadings, they can rupture and you get very flammable very fast. One little spark and you are a crispy critter.

• ▶ Reply