The International Cessna^® 170 Association

New lower lead avgas. Is it enough not to use TCP. Does not seem like much lead reduction.

Grade 100VLL Aviation Gasoline SAIB NE-11-55

Just enough technological gerrymandering to raise the price a bit more....

Its unfortunate that refiners keep raising the price of avgas. I suppose that goes along with everything else going up. The unfortunate thing is that while the cost of aviation fuel compared to other aviation costs probably isn't that much out of line, it is slowly pushing the casual/hobbyist flyers out of GA. Of course we account for such a small percentage of the aviation fuel market that we are probably more of a nuisance to them than a help. If they eliminated refining & distributing leaded fuel it would probably make them money in the long run. I know that my amount of going out to bore holes has been impacted to a great degree by the cost of fuel.

I know some agree and some will not. But in our area we can get non ethanol mogas. It helps with the cost. I also have a portable fueler in the hangar so no more 5 gallon cans up a step ladder. Anyways the new govt approved gas cans did not come with a 3rd hand to operate them.

Richmond, CA refinery shut down for repairs/upgrades - avgas is shipped up from Long Beach - price is going through the roof - $5.58 self serve today $6.18 off that the truck @KLVK.

Like I've been saying for the last sixty years, you're wasting your money putting av gas in the average GA airplane. Especially a stock engined C-170. My modified C-170B with a Continental IO- 360 ran beautifully on plain old 87 octane regular mogas, and the spark plugs NEVER had to be cleaned. There are certain
fiscal advantages in being a dedicated bootlegger.

P.S. The 5% ethanol here in California never bothered it either.

blueldr wrote:Like I've been saying for the last sixty years, you're wasting your money putting av gas in the average GA airplane. Especially a stock engined C-170. My modified C-170B with a Continental IO- 360 ran beautifully on plain old 87 octane regular mogas, and the spark plugs NEVER had to be cleaned. There are certain
fiscal advantages in being a dedicated bootlegger.

P.S. The 5% ethanol here in California never bothered it either.

Blasphemy I tell you!!

I fueled up on Sunday, $2.18 per litre, it sure takes the fun out of it. when I was out in Alberta in June they where charging $1.60 from truck and less at self-serve. I have used 91 octane nonleaded, no methanol gas that works just fine,but I was told there is no STC available from Petersen. They list O-360 A1A engine and C-170B airframe in their approvals but say that the two are not approved together???something about the o-360 consuming so much more fuel.You would think that the fuel consumption was addressed with Doyn STC, SA 421CE. Petersen said that if I do the airframe tests that they would provide the O-360 A1A stc. I would do the tests but not sure how to go about it up here in B.C. I may use blueldr plan as I am getting my pension soon. I will check with Transport Canada as to whats involved. PS the 91 octane costs me $ 1.15 litre in the 45 gallon drum.
CFZXO 170-B 180HP Bill

My understanding is that the new 100VLL spec. more nearly reflects what the actual TEL has been all along. There should be little or no difference in the amount of TEL. If you needed TCP before, you'll probably continue to need it.

blueldr wrote:Like I've been saying for the last sixty years, you're wasting your money putting av gas in the average GA airplane. Especially a stock engined C-170. My modified C-170B with a Continental IO- 360 ran beautifully on plain old 87 octane regular mogas, and the spark plugs NEVER had to be cleaned. There are certain
fiscal advantages in being a dedicated bootlegger.

P.S. The 5% ethanol here in California never bothered it either.

Dick, you are just living on the wrong coast. This ad is from the Junuary "Atlantic Flyer".

johneeb,
That outfit in Maine looks like my kind of an FBO. I sure hope they thrive.

P.S. I'll bet that George will never be a customer there.

I thought the new mogas issue had been sorted out. I have nothing to say about that but on ethanol I do. EAA also does as does the FAA. Fuel containing alcohol should not be used. Here is a quote out of the DeHavilland Maintenence Manual T.O. IL-20A-2 Changed January 15, 1959. This is page 12, 1-57. SERVICING "a. Alcohol will not, repeat will not, be added to aviation fuel for use in aircraft regardless of the type of fuel cells or tanks installed. Addition of approved type alcohol to the fuel system by means of the deicing system for the fuel filter and engine control and the engine water injection system is acceptable, but under no circumstances will alcohol be added to the fuel system via the fuel cells or tanks.

What the hell did those old guys know

There are several reasons for this and EAA has documented them such as :
1. Adverselly affects the volatility of autogas which could cause vapor lock
2. Is corrosive to rubber seals and other materials and can lead to fuel system break down
3. Is subject to phase seperation, which happens when the airplane is climbed to higher altitudes. The water can seperate from the fuel that has been held in solution and the bowl may not be able to handle the amount that dissipates out
4.Reduces the energy content of the fuel. Methanol has approximately 55 percent of gasoline and Ethanol 73 percent. More alcohol equals reduced range even if it is cheaper.

The last one needs to be repeated. MOre alcohol equals reduced energy which is reduced range. Do the basic third grade math...avgas is still a bargain

Uh-Oh, marathonrunner... NOW you've probably done it! bluEldr is gonna face-seperate!

Kinda makes me wish my parents had named me Peter instead of Richard. "Lucky Pichard" or "Lucky Dick" just doesn't ring like "Lucky Piere". does it.

For the four listed problems stated above:
1.Never seemed to present a problem up to 14,500 ft. The airplane didn't want to go any higher in the summer.
2.Apparently someone slipped in some secret materials since that problem never manifested itself.
3.Apparently necer happened up to 14,400 ft., and I never really needed to go much above that.
4. So 5% of the fuel was only 73% as powerful. So 1/20th of the fuel was 17/100ths less powerful. Third grade math doesnt cover that problem, but fourth grade math comes up with about 1% loss on the total. Big Deal. About like putting your hand out the window, right?

Like I say, I guess I was just born lucky, even if my name wasn't Piere.

I am not sure why it comes to mind but, as an old no longer on this earth mechanic told me once "You can to the same thing wrong for years and call it experience" Yes I would rather be lucky than good looking any day