Regarding the differences between 100 LL and the "80/87 of old". Would someone please post info as regards actual differences in the two ? Aside from the octane , what is the actual difference ? Thank you all.
---------- > From: Maynard Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Denny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Coupers mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Low pressure in Kansas: > Date: Thursday, May 27, 1999 10:15 AM > > Denny wrote: > Maynard, > Yesterday I checked the airplane again and found two cylinders down on > compression. One with a definite exhaust leak and one apparently headed > that way. So my Son and I decided perhaps a top overhaul is in order. > After rereading the history of the engine in the logs I become convinced > this is the best way to be sure of what we have. I blame most of these > problems on running 100LL. How I wish we had our old 80/87 fuel of > yesteryear. > Anyway, I hope your repair continues to hold for you and thank you > again. > Denny-----N93990-----Shawnee,Ks > ----------------------------------------------------- > Denny: > Sorry to hear about your problems. The reasoning behind my doing the > repair the way I did was the lack of time on the engine. It only had > about 60-65 hours (spread over 8.5 years) SMOH. I am still in a quandary > as to why the exhaust valve was leaking. The valve was nice and free > in the guide and there did not appear to be any deposits on the > valve face. This engine had been fed a steady diet of 100LL but I > don't think that was the cause. > From the sound of things in your note I think I would opt for a top > overhaul also. > As far as the lack of 80/87 fuel in your area, have you considered > using a blend of 100LL and Auto fuel. I seem to recall reading somewhere > that this was a viable alternative to the high lead content in "100 LOW > LEAD". Maybe some of you more knowledgeable people out there would care > to comment on this. > Maynard, N99843 (with about 15 hrs on M.M.repair & fingers crossed) >
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
