Av fuel changed?

Cap'n Jack

Cap'n Jack

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
8,783
Location
Nebraska
Display Name
Display name:
Cap'n Jack
Last flight I took, I sumped the fuel. Found no water, the fuel was bright blue, but it smelled like automobile gas. The smell was like it contained more aromatics (compounds containing benzene rings) and alkenes in it. It smelled enough like mogas that I checked the color again.

The FBO had a sign indicating they are a Phillips distributor. Other than the change to 100VLL (and this may be a response to that), has anyone heard about a change to Avgas?

It is a rental plane (C-150) and there is a Mogas STC for this model, but I don't think this plane has the STC. I don't see a renter going far out of their way to buy Mogas either as the plane is a "wet" rental
 
Contaminated fuel shipments have been known to happen... if you care enough, you could try to track down where it was refueled and ask that FBO to send a sample out for analysis.
 
Maybe there was a cross country rental and they stopped at a QuickTrip? :)

Or somewhere that has mogas, if there are any around. I haven't looked.
 
I run 75% Mogas and 25% 100LL.. The fuel looks just like the blue 100LL and smells mostly like Mogas with a hint of the aviation fuel smell... My bet is there was Mogas added somewhere in that plane recently... Good for you to be so diligent to even notice the smell... Most pilots sump and dump without ever taking a whiff...
 
Thanks- the consensus seems to be there was MoGas in there somehow.

Ben- I think I had good teachers that taught me to beware of Jet-A contamination. The fact I work in a lab most days with these solvents doesn't hurt either. I recently finished a couple of projects, one for a petroleum customer and one for buckminsterfullerene. Both used toluene. One project used carbon disulfide as a solvent, best described as smelling like an old fart.
 
The Continental O-200 was originally designed to run on 80/87 (red) = MOGAS Regular.
So, if there was contamination with Mogas, there is no problem
 
AvGas is delivered with an analysis sheet and a specific gravity check is normally performed by the receiving FBO which has to be within an allowable deviation from the specific gravity at the terminal loading the transport truck.
 
oldShar said:
The Continental O-200 was originally designed to run on 80/87 (red) = MOGAS Regular.
So, if there was contamination with Mogas, there is no problem
Click to expand...

Sure, the engine will burn it fine, but the fuel system (tanks, pump, hoses, seals) aren't always ok with the ethanol in modern mogas. Still, one tankful that has some contamination will probably be ok.
 
pericynthion said:
Sure, the engine will burn it fine, but the fuel system (tanks, pump, hoses, seals) aren't always ok with the ethanol in modern mogas. Still, one tankful that has some contamination will probably be ok.
Click to expand...
True, assuming it was filled with MoGas, I hope they found some without ethanol.
 
What was the date of that flight Jack?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
25 March.
Click to expand...
On March 22 I pumped in about 8 or 9 gallons of 100LL in Fairbury,NE into it. I also flew it again on March 24 - I can't remember if we put fuel in it or not...if we did it was the local FBO that filled it. Between the time that I flew it on the 22nd and when you flew it I highly doubt anyone but Silverhawk put gas into it.
 
My understanding of VLL is it was just a name change allowing that the current formulation's lead content was low enough below the allowable they changed the name.
 
jesse said:
On March 22 I pumped in about 8 or 9 gallons of 100LL in Fairbury,NE into it. I also flew it again on March 24 - I can't remember if we put fuel in it or not...if we did it was the local FBO that filled it. Between the time that I flew it on the 22nd and when you flew it I highly doubt anyone but Silverhawk put gas into it.
Click to expand...
And Silverhawk refilled the plane before I sumped it. maybe we just got a batch with 30% toluene in it :dunno:
 
Henning said:
My understanding of VLL is it was just a name change allowing that the current formulation's lead content was low enough below the allowable they changed the name.
Click to expand...

Essentially, it was the avgas manufacturers trying to take some of the heat off of their product. "See, we've reformulated it to have even less lead."

The problem is that the anti-lead contingent will never be satisfied with "less". The only solution acceptable to some of them is "no".
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
Essentially, it was the avgas manufacturers trying to take some of the heat off of their product. "See, we've reformulated it to have even less lead."

The problem is that the anti-lead contingenty will never be satisfied with "less". The only solution acceptable to some of them is "no".
Click to expand...


I'm one of them. Lead is the most destructive thing to my engines at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top