At 03:40 PM 12/17/98 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >FAA accident data indicates that aircraft flying on autogas have a lower >accident and field landing rate than those running on 100LL. This is >attributed not to the fuel but to the fact that auto fuel is handled primarily >in 6 gallon cans by the pilot and when you put the fuel in you kind of know >that you can fly for one hour per can.
It seems just as likely that the reason is that the 80-octane engines
are more reliable on auto-fuel than they are on 100LL.
Make no mistake about it, lead fouling (and 100LL has a LOT of lead in
it to make it '100') stops motors. Or makes them go rough, very rough.
And high quality auto fuel has both adequate anti-knock and valve-cooling
compounds to make up for the absence of lead. The lead in 100LL on the
other hand, does positive harm to engines which were not designed to
evaporate it and spit it out.
The argument about Reid Vapor-Pressure no longer holds, as
a) good auto fuel is as good as 80-octane avgas was 20
or 30 years ago
b) most 80-octane aircraft stay pretty low much of the time
>From a mechanical point of view, mogas is asserted by bodies such
as the EAA to be a boon, not a bane, to reliability in aircraft
designed for 80 Avgas and for which there is no other impediment
to using it.
Greg
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
