Sport Pilot Talk

Delete

Nomore767 wrote:CTLSi writes:-

Dave's truck tank is equally good and a great idea when you can help fellow owners/pilots who are in the same boat!
Again though, this all only works for local flying. On a cross country, you're out of luck. So do you carry empty gas cans and use the FBO car to find the nearest gas station or do you just bite the bullet and use 100LL, which in limited amounts doesn't appear to be really harmful?

Cheers, Howard.

Howard I take the truck along so I have something to drive when I get there and also refuel from it

Just kidding, I buy 100 LL and don't worry about it.

Lead in the fuel is an anti-knock compound to prevent detonation in high compression engines.

and

The lead is in the fuel to lube valve seats.

FlyingForFun wrote:Question for someone who doesn't fly a CTLSi...what is the difference in auto engines and aircraft engines that causes aircraft to need leaded fuel?

First of all, that made me laugh out loud. Thanks.

I think the primary reason for leaded fuel is that lead is an octane booster, and the high compression engines of the fleet need it to prevent detonation. Higher compression auto engines mandate premium gas, too, but are designed to use what is available at the pump. There may also be some design elements that need the lubrication provided by the lead, but I'm not sure. Most, if not all, of the lower compression engines can run fine on straight 91 to 94 octane gas (no lead, no ethanol). There are more of them in the fleet than the ones that need lead, but those that do burn the lion's share of the 100LL production.

David wrote:

Nomore767 wrote:CTLSi writes:-

Dave's truck tank is equally good and a great idea when you can help fellow owners/pilots who are in the same boat!
Again though, this all only works for local flying. On a cross country, you're out of luck. So do you carry empty gas cans and use the FBO car to find the nearest gas station or do you just bite the bullet and use 100LL, which in limited amounts doesn't appear to be really harmful?

Cheers, Howard.

Howard I take the truck along so I have something to drive when I get there and also refuel from it

Just kidding, I buy 100 LL and don't worry about it.

Taking the truck along really is a great idea!

I fully expect Dave to be the first to do air-air refueling between RV-12s! Presumably via a hose though, the 5 gallon containers can be tricky in the slipstream! Or will the truck hose reach as you slow-flight alongside?
Make sure you post pictures here Dave

Cheers, Howard

......

CTLSi wrote:Laughing, you are upset the ICON is vapor-craft?

Nope! Not at all. Don't want one; don't need one. Don't wish them the slightest bit of ill will because they're not the one and only brand that I deem to be worthy of flying. They are kinda cool looking. Stupid decision on avionics, IMO.

CTLSi wrote:The C4 is in development, unlike ICON which has no planes built or delivered to a customer. The C4 will be a certified aircraft to include the hybrid engine choices, AND the all certified Garmin glass cockpit.

Or not. With ALL certification efforts, I'll believe it when they have the certification in hand. Piper, Cessna, Beech, Mooney, Cirrus have ALL abandoned designs before they crossed the finish line. As I said before...I hope they make it. But I'll believe it when I see it.

CTLSi wrote:Flight Design, unlike ICON, has hundreds of delivered product in the field with happy owners. ICON has no owner with a product, and no one outside of ICON that has flown one, after 6 years of hype.

I don't know whether or not Icon has achieved LSA certification (or whatever the ASTM recognition is called). I know they began selling production slots at a lower gross weight, but now can go higher with the FAA's waiver in hand. Whether or not they can transition from a designer/developer to a producer is to be seen. Plenty examples exist of a company getting a design to certification, but then went bankrupt. The next guy comes along, buys the TC and other assets at firesale prices and then turns it into a viable company. Elon Musk has a boat load of money, so he can probably foot the bill, but will he want to?

......

Well... we've driven this thread away from the Original Poster's question. I'm done going down this particular rabbit hole.

I do wish them well and hope they sell a gazillion of them. I hope practically every LSA sales go up dramatically. I hope nothing but the best for the industry and won't throw mud on one just to make my favorite one look better in comparison.

Nomore767 wrote:

David wrote:

Nomore767 wrote:CTLSi writes:-

I fully expect Dave to be the first to do air-air refueling between RV-12s! Presumably via a hose though, the 5 gallon containers can be tricky in the slipstream! Or will the truck hose reach as you slow-flight alongside?
Make sure you post pictures here Dave

Cheers, Howard

Howard per your request. I will swing by and pick you up. Since I will be flying you can do the refueling, pay attention to the placards!

Gulp...well, I guess I'll go and dig my old leather flying hemet out!

You've thought this through haven't you!?

Nice pic Dave!

Cheers, Howard

Since much in this thread concerned fuel and fueling, I thought some of you might find the following mid-2012 presentation on 100LL and alternative (approved and also proposed) aviation fuels. It is very well done, offers lots of data (and very little in the way of opinion) and it presents lots of interesting (some scary) details that make it worth flipping thru.

Here are some examples of the interesting info:
-- ethanol can not be delivered to refineries by pipeline; it is too corrosive. Might want to think about that...
-- of the annual gasoline production in the U.S., 100LL accounts for .15% That's 1/6th of 1%. (The price we pay may make us feel like the refineries are making a killing. But viewed from their perspective, they no doubt wonder why they should bother with the special production and distribution hassles that 100LL causes them)
-- for those of you using E10 autofuel (approved for your LSA or not), be sure you're checked out on 'phase separation'...and have a plan in place in case you sump your tanks and find a bit of water. This is not something a manufacturer can avoid, no matter how they build their a/c.
-- for those of us relying on 100LL, there's only one remaining manufacturer of TEL (the 'LL' or lead in 100LL) and it's in the UK How long will they be around?
-- Many of us follow the '100LL replacement saga' out of self-interest because, when we fly away from home base, we're usually relying on 100LL to be available at the destination airport. For the two replacement fuels undergoing testing right now (Swift & GAMI), have you thought to ask yourself how much a gallon each would weigh? I assumed the weights would be equivalent so that never crossed my mind. My 50 gals of 100LL weighs ~300#. 50 gals of Swift's new fuel would weigh ~350#. (When we go air camping with the pooch, I already depart with less than full tanks...so that's another 50# of fuel I'll need to leave behind). For you LSA drivers who are already sweating your MTOW's, that might be a relevant issue.

Good stuff: http://flyunleaded.com/Aviation_Fuel_Update_6_2012.pdf

......

I can only repeat: If you use E10 fuel, be sure you understand the causes and consequences of phase separation. This becomes increasingly important as we move steadily into Fall weather patterns, when an overnight temperature drop can easily bring a 30F temperature swing to the fuel in one's tanks. This will occur whether you are in a hangar or out on the field. Colder fuels (E10 or other) can't hold as much water in suspension as warmer fuel and that reality can directly lead to phase separation. (BTW not all E10 fuel is 10% ethanol. Refineries receive the ethanol subsidy as a direct function of how much ethanol they add to their refined gasoline, so there's an inherent bias in favor of always making sure the blend is at least 10% ethanol but less of an incentive to prevent it from exceeding 10%. Some E10 fuels will sample out as containing 10-20-30% more ethanol than the E10 label suggests).

There are ways to mitigate some of the negative consequences of E10 fuel. E.g. for those of you in northern climates, where your flying days become increasing infrequent for multiple months, filling your tanks with E0 fuel - 100LL or an E0 mogas fuel found from a local source - will help you avoid water precipitating out of the E10 fuel and creating the bi-level/tri-level mix of liquids in your tanks.

I found this short discussion on phase separation to be helpful but I'm sure there are many similar resources:
http://fuelschool.blogspot.com/2009/02/ ... ended.html

......