I have many talents but I can’t speak for all the other people in the world. If I were to be so bold as to address the question then I would have to respond with a yes. It is possible that someone has seen Henning and TomD in a room. I cannot and will not address the likelyhood or probability of the existence of such a witness.
I’d tend to agree but don’t paint the tanks a dark color and don’t run below a quarter tank on a hot day with a circulating fuel system such as a Continental. If you somehow managed to get +80F fuel above 10k there could be problems in a gravity fed system. Not saying there would be problems, just could be.Way back, 2002 or so, when I had my 172 (which had the STC) and I was originally researching MoGas use, I called down to one of the refineries in Oklahoma and spoke with one of their "formula-ists" (or, whatever they're called). He talked with me for a LONG time. By the length of our conversation I could tell he was a lab nerd that was very happy to have interaction with another live body!
Anyway, we got onto the topic of vapor pressurization and he told me that under 10,000' or so, it shouldn't be an issue in MOST any plane, high wing, low wing, gravity feed, pressure feed, etc.
I have no idea if that was true or not, @Clark1961 might chime in, he's the expert in this area.
It's an interesting thought exercise, and (as has been pointed out, in some cases somewhat harshly) an opportunity for learning. However, I would venture to say that any potential solution for small scale "de-ethanolization" of E10 auto fuel would probably remove any cost incentive to use auto fuel in the first place. If you don't have a local source of ethanol-free gasoline, and don't have an airplane that can run E10, you'll just need to burn 100LL until Swift fuel becomes more widely available.
FTFY...
Here is a little bit more.
I can't compete with Henning, he pegged the meter on posts.
Henning pegged the meter on a lot of things, as I recall.
Heck you could drive over to Binger and get some of that natural gasoline...or you could prolly get that from your plant. The engine may ping a bit on departure but that'll settle right down after the throttle is pulled back a bit. Maybe some of the octane booster from O'Reilly's would also help with the pinging...
He pegged one of the monitor's meter for sure.
We used to run it straight from the stock tank. Just keep yer foot out of the throttle and change oil often. It'd prolly plug the cats these days.
That IS interesting. Do you run 93/E10 regularly? Do you mix it with 100LL? When researching certified STCs, I had read that the 0-320/150hp was OK with mogas and the 160hp version was not. Also I noted that vapor pressure problems were more likely with low wing airplanes due to lower line pressures upstream of the carb. The combination of that, plus the fact I'm now in an "E10-only / 91 octane max" region, more or less ended my inquiries into using mogas. I know that I can do pretty much what I want, legally, but to be conservative, I was looking for a reasonable track record - e.g., a near identical engine/fuel system configuration with many thousands of hours of cumulative successful use...
And besides price, I've found another advantage: my plane starts easier when cold.
In my admittedly limited knowledge on the topic, it is my understanding that the ethanol will increase octane and reduce fuel economy. So fuel burn should increase resulting in reduced range. I think this would be a more important concern than power loss. I am not sure of the impact on power but it should be minimal if at all. Someone feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
10%? Are you sure about that? Since the ethanol only makes up 10% of the fuel, I would think it would be more like between 1 and 2 percent.
The reference I found (here) would seem to indicate less than 2% difference in fuel consumption for the same HP. I could be misinterpreting.
Who cares about fuel milage when you can't clear the trees at the end of the runway?
No. I did the math in my head. Never a good thing.
Put it another way: a 2% difference in fuel consumption for the same HP would also mean, roughly, a 2% change in HP at the same fuel flow. So let's assume for a moment that your plane will clear the trees with its full 160 HP. If you think you're going to die with only 156 or 157 HP, maybe you should re-think whether it's smart to take off at all. A knot or two off on the airspeed and you're toast.
Well, I'm not saying I'm right either... math was never my strong suit, and some days it seems like I'm wrong more often than right. Especially when my wife is home.
Yeah, well, what will she do with your plane?
You make a good point about the trees being too close for comfort, but the point I was making it is the horse power we should be thinking about. And of course we will have shorter legs on our trips.
Most rednecks know corn ain't fer eatin. Corn is for mash. Mash is fer distillin'.I see a lot of math and stuff here. That's all well and good, but here's the real argument. Corn is fer eatin, and dino gas is fer burnin'. Burning food when there plenty of dino juice left is just stupid.
Blue gas is expensive and has nasty stuff in it. If your bird don't need it, and there's way cheaper stuff available, then burning expensive stuff that you don't need is just stupid.
Forgive me, for I'm just a simple redneck.
