The International Cessna^® 170 Association

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/1443/cont ... front.html

It seems to be just over the horizon.............

Yes pretty soon we will all be using the dreaded MOGAS. Go figure.

BTW I heard one of the hold ups was they needed to come to a consensus as to how much MMO to put in it.

Bruce is only joking, of course, as the 94UL is really what I've been promoting all along... 100LL sans lead. It would be a near-perfect fuel for us as it would also get rid of the TCP I feel is necessary with 100LL.
Alcor has now gone back to their original packaging and tripled their price and ....VOILA... it's suddenly available again! Decalin responds by doubling theirs.

The question is: Now that they will no longer include a costly ingredient in the fuel... will the price change favorably....to US? (right. sure.)

George,

Will our valves be ok with no lead in the fuel or will we need to add something else to the fuel?

Hoo-Boy! That's a subject that's near and dear to my heart, Steve!

Lead was never added to fuel for the benefit of the valves and seats. (In fact it contributes to sticking valves and valve-stem wear.) The ONLY reason lead was ever added to fuel was to increase apparent octane.

Trouble is, manufacturers being cheap and lazy, used lesser quality materials wherever they could get away with it and so soft/inferior valves/seats were regularly used because the leaded fuel accomodated it. Many engines that were never identified/confined to using special fuels (avgas) had hardened valves and seats and therefore never had any problem whatsoever with unleaded fuel. All diesels are that way. So are all modern automobiles since 1974 when unleaded fuel was introduced on the street. Heck, my 1939 9-N Ford tractor has hardended valves and seats and never needed anything other than white gas (unleaded gas) or pure ethanol to run just fine for 60-plus years, likely with the exact same valves. (When I finally "overhauled" it 5 years ago I didn't touch the valves, I only replaced the cylinder-sleeves, pistons/rings, conn-rod bearings. They're still running just fine.)

I imagine that there will be some engines which will be used to blame unleaded fuel for valve problems, but I expect phosphorus or some other additive will be on the market in accompaniment with the new fuel. Meanwhile, it won't take long for all cylinder and valve mfr'rs to install hardened valves/seats and do away with the (non) problem. Even older cylinders have valves and seats which are replaceable by any cylinder-shop, and hardened parts will be seen as an entirely new product-line....even tho' they've been around for 80 years. I welcome unleaded fuel.

Jus imagine how much money Aircraft Spruce can make developing a fuel additive that adds lead to the new unleaded fuel

George wasn't aviation grade MOGAS 82UL? Don't recall 94UL. I think 94UL is a new specification.

And I'm sure I heard that MMO thing somewhere.

There was a "toying" with an 82 UL for low-compression engines that went on a couple years back. It wasn't "mogas" but was an aviation-grade of gasoline of lower octane for the small engines (like ours, etc.) But it was unsuitable for turbocharged engines.
This latest experiment is with a higher-octane version of 82UL. It uses higher quality (i.e. higher cost) ingredients than the previous 82 oct experiment, and is probably a response to the oil industry's reluctance to go back to distributing two different types of aviation fuel. (The fact is, a large part of the risk/liability and therefore cost of producing avgas is it's delivery network and if the market will accept a one-size-fits-all aviation grade of fuel then the cost will be less for everyone.)
MMO is still unapproved for certificated airplanes. (But a little light oil with red dye and perfume is OK if you call it fuel-system assembly-lube.)
I think a few ml's of diesel will probably do the same thing and be just as illegal a lot cheaper.

Just did a google search on 82UL and found this: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/ ... 3-013.html

I thought 82UL was MOGAS but appearantly not though according to this article could be made form the same stock. (probably is MOGAS )

Thanks for explanation George!

I do hope my O300B does not have soft/inferior valves/seats as I am not ready to replace a bunch of cylinders or valves.

By the time they get it perfected I will probably be ready for an overhaul anyway.

N9149A wrote:Just did a google search on 82UL and found this: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/ ... 3-013.html

I thought 82UL was MOGAS but appearantly not though according to this article could be made form the same stock. (probably is MOGAS )

This article is from over ten years ago and look how far they have come.

lowNslow wrote:

N9149A wrote:Just did a google search on 82UL and found this: http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/ ... 3-013.html

I thought 82UL was MOGAS but appearantly not though according to this article could be made form the same stock. (probably is MOGAS )

This article is from over ten years ago and look how far they have come.

Ten years ago Mogas would probably "shelf" longer than the crap we have now.