Mogas Poll (All Aircraft Owners Please)

If your airport had mogas, would you use it?

  • Yes

  • My plane can run mogas (stc available), but I still wouldn't run it

  • My plane cannot run mogas, and cannot possibly be approved for it

  • I would like to, but my airplane hasn't been approved to run it yet, but is a candidate

  • My airport has it, and I do use it

Results are only viewable after voting.
OkieFlyer

OkieFlyer

En-Route
Joined
May 16, 2011
Messages
3,225
Location
Lindsay, OK
Display Name
Display name:
Andrew L.
After some discussion in another thread about making mogas more available, I'm just curious how many folks would actually use the stuff if you had it available to you.

Let's assume 91-93 octane premium unleaded that is cheaper than avgas.

Here's a link to Peterson Auto Fuel STC Approved Engine/Airframes:
http://www.autofuelstc.com/approved_engines_airfames.phtml

Andrew
 
Last edited:
I said yes, but only if it was about the same price as the ethanol-free 93 octane mogas I can buy on the way to my airport.

ROTAX-powered Light Sport Sky Arrow, BTW.
 
Another LSA owner/pilot here. I rent a Remos GX and am a partner in a Aeropilot L600, both using a Rotax 912ULS. I prefer MOGAS though I can use 100LL.
 
My 912 Rotax will self-destruct on MOGAS (87 octane). I wish all MOGAS would change to 91 octane, in which case I'd certainly use it any time away from home. At home, it would have to compete with local filling stations, but I'd pay a modest premium for the convenience of on-airport 91 octane.
 
My Bonanza can't use it, but if it could, I would use it in a heartbeat, especially if it were priced lower than 100ll.
 
I was trying to keep the poll fairly simple. I didn't specify what octane rating, but I would think if we were going to push for more mogas availability, it would have to be 91-93 octane to include the most people possible. Personally, I mostly use 87 octane from the fillin' station down the road in my C182, but I would certainly pay the going rate for premium unleaded, plus maybe a little extra to have it on the airport. Premium ethanol free unleaded is still well over $1/gal cheaper than the very cheapest avgas near me, and more than that most places.
 
JOhnH said:
My Bonanza can't use it, but if it could, I would use it in a heartbeat, especially if it were priced lower than 100ll.
Click to expand...

Is it a high compression engine, or is it just one of the ones that has yet to be approved?
 
JOhnH said:
High compression.
Click to expand...
edit: At least I think that is the reason, although I have read of some IO520s being considered. The ones I read about were in Barrons.
 
I'd use it. Already have the STC and near zero availability in a State in love with ethanol.
 
I've heard you're more susceptible to vapor lock and carburetor icing with mogas. Vapor pressure for avgas is strictly controlled to be within 40 to 50 kPa. With Mogas it can be anywhere from 48 kPA to 100 KPa. You're kind of at the mercy of the formulation of whichever batch you have. You're also not guaranteed the octane you need. With cars it's not a big deal with knock sensors the ECU can retard timing as needed to deal with a less than optimal batch.

I have no experience using mogas though. If others are using it and have had no bad experiences perhaps the quality control aspect is overblown.
 
denverpilot said:
I'd use it. Already have the STC and near zero availability in a State in love with ethanol.
Click to expand...

I'm really fishing for two things with this poll.

1. Do you want it
2. Do you have it available

In talking with people around her, I find that many people would like to run mogas, but it's not available. Those who do use it, haul it in from the gas station like me, but this is not a great option for those of us with airplanes that hold a bunch of gas. Even in a very pro oil and gas, anti-ethanol state like Oklahoma, I'm not even sure there is mogas available at any airports.
 
Cavorter said:
I've heard you're more susceptible to vapor lock and carburetor icing with mogas. Vapor pressure for avgas is strictly controlled to be within 40 to 50 kPa. With Mogas it can be anywhere from 48 kPA to 100 KPa. You're kind of at the mercy of the formulation of whichever batch you have. You're also not guaranteed the octane you need. With cars it's not a big deal with knock sensors the ECU can retard timing as needed to deal with a less than optimal batch.

I have no experience using mogas though. If others are using it and have had no bad experiences perhaps the quality control aspect is overblown.
Click to expand...

There are certainly a bunch of airplane/engine combos that don't like the mogas. I'd really like to find out just how many of us can and would use mogas if availability was there. I heard somewhere recently that up to 80% of the GA fleet could safely run mogas, but I don't know how reliable that number is. I'll try to find the article. All I know for sure is that high compression engines will detonate with low octane gas. I've seen the effects myself and it ain't good. I wish I could find some good hard numbers that tell us how many can and how many can't run mogas.
 
OkieFlyer said:
I'm really fishing for two things with this poll.

1. Do you want it
2. Do you have it available

In talking with people around her, I find that many people would like to run mogas, but it's not available. Those who do use it, haul it in from the gas station like me, but this is not a great option for those of us with airplanes that hold a bunch of gas. Even in a very pro oil and gas, anti-ethanol state like Oklahoma, I'm not even sure there is mogas available at any airports.
Click to expand...

The answers are nuanced here.

1. Yes.
2. Yes, 30+ miles from the airport only open at certain times and 40+ miles to a regular 24/7 gas station that has it.

A co-owner built a tank trailer but there's little motivation to drag it to a special supplier who's only open on certain days and times who has non-ethanol stuff. Especially when the airplane has 80 gallon tanks and the trailer holds 100. 60-80 miles round trip isn't worth the time.

Trailer probably isn't legal and the airport authority technically says no trailers on the field, while not writing in any specific exceptions for the tanker trucks that drive on it, regularly, filling the 100LL farm. Using it much would attract unwanted attention. It could be done but it'd be likely to be an exercise in "How long until someone whines..."

And the loudest whiners would probably be the competing sellers of 100LL who've divvied up the airport such that one companies trucks aren't even allowed to come to our hangar. As if that's actual competition... depending on where you're located on the airport you can call for a truck from one or the other, or you can taxi to somewhere else on the airport to call them from... or you can taxi to the self-serve that only one of them operates.

In other words, you get to decide how many airplane starters you buy over the long haul, because wearing out the starters on the fuel trucks instead, wouldn't be nearly as advantageous to the fuel vendors or smarter for the aircraft owners.
 
Would be nice for many people if it were available, but I voted #2: my plane isn't a candidate for approval (IO-360).
 
denverpilot said:
The answers are nuanced here.

1. Yes.
2. Yes, 30+ miles from the airport only open at certain times and 40+ miles to a regular 24/7 gas station that has it.

A co-owner built a tank trailer but there's little motivation to drag it to a special supplier who's only open on certain days and times who has non-ethanol stuff. Especially when the airplane has 80 gallon tanks and the trailer holds 100. 60-80 miles round trip isn't worth the time.

Trailer probably isn't legal and the airport authority technically says no trailers on the field, while not writing in any specific exceptions for the tanker trucks that drive on it, regularly, filling the 100LL farm. Using it much would attract unwanted attention. It could be done but it'd be likely to be an exercise in "How long until someone whines..."

And the loudest whiners would probably be the competing sellers of 100LL who've divvied up the airport such that one companies trucks aren't even allowed to come to our hangar. As if that's actual competition... depending on where you're located on the airport you can call for a truck from one or the other, or you can taxi to somewhere else on the airport to call them from... or you can taxi to the self-serve that only one of them operates.

In other words, you get to decide how many airplane starters you buy over the long haul, because wearing out the starters on the fuel trucks instead, wouldn't be nearly as advantageous to the fuel vendors or smarter for the aircraft owners.
Click to expand...

Well, I meant do you have it available without having to haul it yourself. ;)
 
OkieFlyer said:
Well, I meant do you have it available without having to haul it yourself. ;)
Click to expand...

Then the answer is no... unless the airport across town still has it. One did for a while when an LSA / Rotax flight school was based there, but I wouldn't trust that the fuel use there is high enough anymore since that school left and went to an airport across town, to safely want to use it if they're even still filling the tank.

I'll happily fly a few minutes to get it for a long XC or something if time isn't a problem. But not from a place where it looks like a ghost town and it's been sitting in the tank for way too long.
 
I was a Harley Davidson dealer during the time they changed to unleaded gas and there were an extraordinary number of things that were tested and supposed to work but did not.

I have no doubts that there are parts in my Lycoming IO-320 that are supposed to work but would not.

I am currently training someone with a Rotax 914 powered aircraft and it would be much happier with unleaded. He hauls in Mogas in the trunk of his car. I am not able to get him to ground the tanks properly when filling so I make certain he fills it well away from the hangar.

I flew a similar 914 powered aircraft for a year (400 hours) mostly using 100LL and changing the mineral oil more often. The floats sank using unleaded causing an engine out in Kingman, Az. and vapor lock was an occasional challenge when the temperature topped 100 degrees on a hot startup.

I particularly didn’t like switching back and forth between 100LL and Mogas.

It is my observation that the Mogas they are selling around here has a shorter shelf life than 100LL. It seems to leave more deposits in the fuel system.

100LL appears to leave more deposits in the engine.

I have found there is very little Mogas available in Arizona, Nevada, Utah and California. I have stopped in Hurricane, Utah and it was nice to have the Mogas. It is eighty eight cents per gallon cheaper than 100 LL at the same airport ($3.86 vs $4.74).
 
Our airport went to the trouble to set up for mogas a couple years ago. They advertised the fact that it was here fairly well, but during the more than year-long trial period, I think it was around 2% of non-jet fuel sales.

I've had one engine-out that I (personal view) attribute to vapor lock due to mogas. Shortly after the STC's came out, I had one for a Warrior I owned. It was based on a grass strip that I also owned. Fueled with mogas for the trip to OSH (sweltering late July, early August in NW IL), and left it out in the sun while we loaded up. Took off to the South due to wind, did a 180 to head to OSH, and a couple miles North of the strip at 3K it all of a sudden got real quiet. Dead-sticked back in (thank you South wind)...no harm, no foul. Sumps were clean. After OSH we went thru everything and found nothing else we could attribute it to.

Our Citabria actually has a mogas STC, but it hasn't been used since i've had it. Wouldn't consider it for the 182. ymmv!

Jim
 
Last edited:
Our club planes could run Mogadishu, but none on the field. I think we'd switch for lower price, since we run them enough it would never get stale


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
IO520, no mogas for me :(
 
My plane only burns 2gph, so it's not worth the hassle of bringing gas cans to the airport to save a few cents. Besides, ethanol free mogas isn't available anywhere around here.
 
Dana said:
My plane only burns 2gph, so it's not worth the hassle of bringing gas cans to the airport to save a few cents. Besides, ethanol free mogas isn't available anywhere around here.
Click to expand...

?

So using ruff math, you're packing what, 30HP?
That's 1/10th of my plane.

What type of flying contraption is this?
 
I've had a 172 that I burned Mogas in all the time. It seemed to like it better. Never had any problems with it. Could fly for $18 per hour with it. Was sweet.
 
Jim Rosenow said:
Wouldn't consider it for the 182. ymmv!
Click to expand...

Older Continental 182, or newer Lycoming?

The O-470 was built to run on nearly identical stuff as non-ethanol mogas. Ours still has the old stickers near the filter caps with the new 100LL ones also there for legalities...

Relatively low compression and most of the octane in 100LL is totally wasted on that engine.
 
denverpilot said:
Older Continental 182, or newer Lycoming?
The O-470 was built to run on nearly identical stuff as non-ethanol mogas. Ours still has the old stickers near the filter caps with the new 100LL ones also there for legalities...
Relatively low compression and most of the octane in 100LL is totally wasted on that engine.
Click to expand...

'86 182RG with a Lyc 0-540-J3C5D....and I don't disagree with your comment on the older ones.

Consider this please...The mogas our airport had set in the truck for well over a year and was still for sale. It went back to the supplier and assumedly out the auto pumps. Probably not the only place this has happened. Know your sources :)

Jim
 
Last edited:
Jim Rosenow said:
Our airport went to the trouble to set up for mogas a couple years ago. They advertised the fact that it was here fairly well, but during the more than year-long trial period, I think it was around 2% of non-jet fuel sales.

I've had one engine-out that I (personal view) attribute to vapor lock due to mogas. Shortly after the STC's came out, I had one for a Warrior I owned. It was based on a grass strip that I also owned. Fueled with mogas for the trip to OSH (sweltering late July, early August in NW IL), and left it out in the sun while we loaded up. Took off to the South due to wind, did a 180 to head to OSH, and a couple miles North of the strip at 3K it all of a sudden got real quiet. Dead-sticked back in (thank you South wind)...no harm, no foul. Sumps were clean. After OSH we went thru everything and found nothing else we could attribute it to.

Our Citabria actually has a mogas STC, but it hasn't been used since i've had it. Wouldn't consider it for the 182. ymmv!

Jim
Click to expand...

From what I've read (no real experience) that the difference is gravity fed vs fuel pump fed when discussing problems with vapor lock. Some planes needed an extra fuel pump or something in order to run mogas, but gravity fed engines that aren't high compression have no problems running mogas. Think I read that on the Peterson website.

http://www.autofuelstc.com/stc_specs.phtml

"In some airframes equipped with suction lift fuel systems (pump fed systems), different electric fuel pumps may need to be installed to insure adequate fuel flow, and/or the fuel pump locations must be moved. The STC for the PA-28-160, -161, -180, -181 requires the removal of the factory installed electric pump. This pump is replaced with two completely different pumps and a revised fuel system forward of the firewall. Installation on this airplane takes between four and six hours, approximately double that on 24 volt PA-28's. "
 
"
Lead content in grams of lead per gallon:

  • 100LL = 2
  • 80/87 = 0.5
  • Regular Auto Fuel = 0.1
  • Unleaded (Premium or Regular) = .001
Until January 1986, regular auto fuel contained a maximum of 1 gram of lead per gallon. It now contains a maximum of 0.1 of a gram per gallon. No minimums were established under the new lead content regulations, so it is possible to obtain regular with the same lead content as unleaded (.001 of a gram per gallon).

We recommend you use one tank full of 100LL every 75 hours to replace lead on the valve seats.By doing so you will be supplying adequate lead for these parts. Also, during break-in following an overhaul or replacement of a cylinder, you should use 100LL for 25 hours in order to supply lead during the break-in process. A mixture of 75% unleaded and 25% 100LL yields a lead content equivalent to 80/87 octane avgas (0.5 gram per gallon). Radial and Franklin engines should use this mixture at all times if possible because they are dependent on lead to prevent valve seat recession."



Interesting...
 
The small flight school where I trained uses mogas exclusively, and has for several years. They employ two C-150s, a C-172 (Lyco O-320), a Cherokee 140, a Piper Apache for twin training, and an Ercoupe for LSA training. No negative effects have been observed in thousands of hours of operation in these birds. These planes operate in SW Oklahoma where temps can be 100+ for a good portion of the summer, I've not heard of any vapor lock issues in the low wings. There is no bulk mogas on the field, but they have their own fuel truck that has to be re-filled every few days from a local distributor.
 
The mogas around Denver is 87 octane. One advantage is it is lead free. If you use it the STC says to run one tank of 100LL every 20 tanks. The Lycoming 0-360 A1P (I think thats right) they put in Super Cubs with STC runs fine on it and makes hours beyond TBO. No difference in performance.
 
UngaWunga said:
From what I've read (no real experience) that the difference is gravity fed vs fuel pump fed when discussing problems with vapor lock. Some planes needed an extra fuel pump or something in order to run mogas, but gravity fed engines that aren't high compression have no problems running mogas. Think I read that on the Peterson website.

http://www.autofuelstc.com/stc_specs.phtml

"In some airframes equipped with suction lift fuel systems (pump fed systems), different electric fuel pumps may need to be installed to insure adequate fuel flow, and/or the fuel pump locations must be moved. The STC for the PA-28-160, -161, -180, -181 requires the removal of the factory installed electric pump. This pump is replaced with two completely different pumps and a revised fuel system forward of the firewall. Installation on this airplane takes between four and six hours, approximately double that on 24 volt PA-28's. "
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, when the incident occurred, we were running under, and properly configured for, the mogas STC for the airplane...don't remember if it was Petersen's or EAA's, tho, after all these years. I can't definitively say it was vapor lock, nor attribute the direct causs to mogas. Supposition only, based on an observed lack of other causative factors.... :)

Jim
 
rtk11 said:
Another LSA owner/pilot here. I rent a Remos GX and am a partner in a Aeropilot L600, both using a Rotax 912ULS. I prefer MOGAS though I can use 100LL.
Click to expand...

Hi RTK.
Is Mogas available where you fly? I would think you may be in KFUL, the only place that they may have a Remos GX, but I am not sure if that outfit is set up as an FBO, insurance wise etc.?

When you say you use 100LL do you have to change your maintenance schedule or any other changes?

Aeropilot L600 that you own, does it have a distribution center in USA?
Is that the same acft. that crashed about a month ago, at KFUL, gear collapsed? Do you know any more details about why?
Thanks.
 
James331 said:
Not bad! That's aviating for the sake of aviating.

Aerobatic?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a fun plane and super cheap to fly, but sadly not aerobatic, and I miss that. :( So I'm sorta keeping my eyes open for a good deal on a Smith Miniplane, Baby Lakes, or maybe an S1C...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top