Sport Pilot

[skippydiesel]

Just received my Issue 110 SP magazine - after a quick brows - binned it!

 

This magazine is supposed to be a promotional window for RAA. This gloss & glitter publication, is so lacking in substance, it would not induce me to join (if I wasn't already in)

 

The lack of factual information is astonishing.    By way of example - check out the article on fuel, "The Lifeblood of flight" page 89. According to Mr Heath " MOGAS..... is essentially high-grade car fuel that meets aviation standards" news to me! He goes on to  state "The petrol at most service stations contains ethanol, ........" really??  The BS continues unabated op page 91 - read on, if you can avoid choking and be astonished.

Edited December 9 by skippydiesel

[Deano747]

Disagree.

Interesting reading about the new breed of aviators coming through, and the possibilities surrounding electric propulsion.

Good reminder on heat.

Good reminder on recency.

Good read from contributors and their adventures - one an around the World flight and the other from a relatively new pilot and the airmanship involved in landing on an unknown airstrip.

Oh, and all service station fuel can contain up to 1% ethanol without it being declared. If you are looking at how to waste an afternoon, delve into the Fuel Quality Standards Act.

Edited December 10 by Deano747

[Aero28]

That magazine is aimed at the top end of town, they have forgotten about entry level ultralights,  or is no one flying a single seat plane anymore?

[Thruster88]

7 minutes ago, Aero28 said:

That magazine is aimed at the top end of town, they have forgotten about entry level ultralights,  or is no one flying a single seat plane anymore?

I have and fly a single seat thruster, as cheap and fun as it gets. Not a growth segment so it is understandable that it is ignored. 

[spacesailor]

Only " dreaming of flying like eagle " .

Sitting with the engine running (so I don't have to make silly sounds myself ).

Hope I don't take off too " fast "  this time . another 3 litres of super mogas used .

spacesailor

 

[Flightrite]

RA has become just another grubby ‘boys club’! The Mag shows this!🤮

[facthunter]

How Many  LADIES on this site?  Nev

[skippydiesel]

18 hours ago, Deano747 said:

Disagree.

Interesting reading about the new breed of aviators coming through, and the possibilities surrounding electric propulsion.

Good reminder on heat.

Good reminder on recency.

Good read from contributors and their adventures - one an around the World flight and the other from a relatively new pilot and the airmanship involved in landing on an unknown airstrip.

Oh, and all service station fuel can contain up to 1% ethanol without it being declared. If you are looking at how to waste an afternoon, delve into the Fuel Quality Standards Act.

Maate!

As per usual there is a glossy/gushing, almost fact free, promo of some new aircraft.

While personal stories are great (especially the long distance travel ones) this is being used as a"calorie free" filler to bulk out the magazine.

The safety reminders, predominantly from RAA officials, are always worth while but can often be found elsewhere.

95/98 RON ULP (in Australia) is a proven fuel source for appropriate engines. I understand that E10 mainly used overseas is, with care, also a reliable fuel. Mr Heath article is full of confusing acronyms, inaccuracies, alarmist and has little relevance for RAA level aircraft and is for the most part just crap and his battery article, not much better.

 

[Deano747]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I understand that E10 mainly used overseas is, with care, also a reliable fuel. 

 

Not talking about E10 as it is appropriately labelled.

I am talking about the Fuel Quality Standards Act which allows up to 1% Ethanol without labelling and commonly found (according to the fuel companies own data) in 95 and 98 RON fuel in Oz.

 

And for the other pilots that fly legacy type aircraft that the AUF started with, perhaps an article submitted to the editor would be a way to be seen.

Or how about a suggestion to the editor about, say, a segment on 'Me and my Airplane' with a photo or 2 and a few paragraphs. They could get 2 or maybe 4 stories on a page as a monthly feature.

No point bitching about lack of content if it is not forthcoming from the readers.

I know that Editors are always scrabbling to find content......

[onetrack]

I can't see where 1% ethanol would make any noticeable difference to fuel performance. The Fuel Standards Act also makes allowances for certain levels of other fuel ingredients - even water!

Be aware that motoring fuel standards are just as much about limiting emissions, as they are about fuel quality or contaminants. Aircraft fuels do not have to meet any emissions requirements.

 

At the end of the day, fuel quality from service stations is totally reliant on the servo operators and fuel tanker drivers fuel handling abilities, and the condition of their storage tanks.

Many servos have old tanks, many have tanks that are subject to flooding. Condensation gathers in tanks and this produces rust, and rarely are either of these removed, the operators simply raise the pump suction spears above the level of the contamination.

I recently vacated a factory unit that was integral with 11 other factory units, and a truck parking yard with a servo and workshop, as the landlady closed it all down for sale of the industrial land.

The landladys employees sold off the remnant fuel (petrol and diesel) cheap, as the yard and factories closed. Then the employees advised me there was approximately 1500 litres of fuel left in the bottom of the tanks, that couldn't be extracted, as it was contaminated with water, dirt, and rust! The tanks had been there for probably 40 years or more. 

[Blueadventures]

25 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I can't see where 1% ethanol would make any noticeable difference to fuel performance. The Fuel Standards Act also makes allowances for certain levels of other fuel ingredients - even water!

Be aware that motoring fuel standards are just as much about limiting emissions, as they are about fuel quality or contaminants. Aircraft fuels do not have to meet any emissions requirements.

 

At the end of the day, fuel quality from service stations is totally reliant on the servo operators and fuel tanker drivers fuel handling abilities, and the condition of their storage tanks.

Many servos have old tanks, many have tanks that are subject to flooding. Condensation gathers in tanks and this produces rust, and rarely are either of these removed, the operators simply raise the pump suction spears above the level of the contamination.

I recently vacated a factory unit that was integral with 11 other factory units, and a truck parking yard with a servo and workshop, as the landlady closed it all down for sale of the industrial land.

The landladys employees sold off the remnant fuel (petrol and diesel) cheap, as the yard and factories closed. Then the employees advised me there was approximately 1500 litres of fuel left in the bottom of the tanks, that couldn't be extracted, as it was contaminated with water, dirt, and rust! The tanks had been there for probably 40 years or more. 

Its not cheap to dig out a no longer need ex servo below ground fuel storage tank in Queensland.

[Deano747]

On a positive, the sulphur content has to reduce to the rest of the World's levels - so that's the end of Australia's fuel being among the dirtiest in the World.

[facthunter]

Sulphur is bad stuff in any fuel.. 'Ships engines designed to run ot Bunker fuel, Essentially Crude oil ,run at    Nevinternal  temperatures that enable the engine to handle it But I still stinks to High Heaven  and is only used More than 200 NM from shore. (in theory). 

[skippydiesel]

"Not talking about E10 as it is appropriately labelled.

I am talking about the Fuel Quality Standards Act which allows up to 1% Ethanol without labelling and commonly found (according to the fuel companies own data) in 95 and 98 RON fuel in Oz."

 

If there happened to  be up to 1% of ethanol in my 98 RON would I or anybody else notice???

 

The way fuel is transported (mostly tankers) in Australia, it makes sense to allow for very small levels of harmless contamination. It is impractical to expect otherwise.

 

The question is, will this sub 1% actually result in free water contamination or any other performance inhibiting characteristics??? - the answer is no!

 

The lead in AvGas is likly to have a more damaging effect, particularly on Rotax engines.  Despite this, there are many advocates of AvGas (in Rotax) without a shred of evidence to suggest any improvement in performance below 10,000ft and only a marginal one above.😈

 

 

Edited December 11 by skippydiesel

[turboplanner]

4 hours ago, onetrack said:

I can't see where 1% ethanol would make any noticeable difference to fuel performance. The Fuel Standards Act also makes allowances for certain levels of other fuel ingredients - even water!

Be aware that motoring fuel standards are just as much about limiting emissions, as they are about fuel quality or contaminants. Aircraft fuels do not have to meet any emissions requirements.

 

At the end of the day, fuel quality from service stations is totally reliant on the servo operators and fuel tanker drivers fuel handling abilities, and the condition of their storage tanks.

Many servos have old tanks, many have tanks that are subject to flooding. Condensation gathers in tanks and this produces rust, and rarely are either of these removed, the operators simply raise the pump suction spears above the level of the contamination.

I recently vacated a factory unit that was integral with 11 other factory units, and a truck parking yard with a servo and workshop, as the landlady closed it all down for sale of the industrial land.

The landladys employees sold off the remnant fuel (petrol and diesel) cheap, as the yard and factories closed. Then the employees advised me there was approximately 1500 litres of fuel left in the bottom of the tanks, that couldn't be extracted, as it was contaminated with water, dirt, and rust! The tanks had been there for probably 40 years or more. 

There is another thread on here which started out much the same way as this one and there was a lot of shooting from the hip in the beginning with people referring to fuels which were not refined or distributed in Australia. You're right about the 1% not being noticable; I've raced on pure methanol where the engine put out more power than it did on petrol.

 

What you do notice is the white powder which dries out on the walls of the galleries in a carburettor and particularly on the cheaper units with blind galleries, settles on the walls and sets like concrete.

 

The technique to avoid this in race cars is to drain the fuel tank of methanol after the races have finished, hook up a litre bottle of petrol and run the engine dry. That's enough to wash all the Methanol out of the system.

 

That's would also be  practical on an aircraft at the home base which used fuel with ethanol, but given that a blockage in the air means a forced landing and possible fatality no fuel containing ethanol should be used. 

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Turbo;

 

Are you really comparing a possible up to 1% ethanol contamination of 95-98 RON, with straight methanol????????

 

I remind you that Rotax approve up to 10% ethanol, subject to the rest of the fuel system being compatible. I don't think Rotax would do this if there was some possibility of this fuel causing a blockage/engine failure.😈

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

Turbo;

 

Are you really comparing a possible up to 1% ethanol contamination of 95-98 RON, with straight methanol????????

 

I remind you that Rotax approve up to 10% ethanol, subject to the rest of the fuel system being compatible. I don't think Rotax would do this if there was some possibility of this fuel causing a blockage/engine failure.😈

1.        The average person would notice very little difference if the same grade of petrol had 1% ethanol.

2.        The average person would notice very little difference if the same grade of petrol had the maximum legal blend of ethanol.

3.        I can design a race engine running on 100% pure Methanol, or a Blend of Methanol and Acetone to     make less power than                   when it is on petrol or more power than when it is on petrol.

So a power analogy isn't really relevant.

 

4. Rotax may well make an engine which is compatable with ethanol, but:

(a) That doesn't mean that everyone does. That doesn't mean the carb galleries aren't going to clog up after the engine has been sitting with fuel in it, but it might mean the blind galleries have been tapped and plugged each end so you can blow them out with compressed air or scrape them clean with a brass brush kit, and as we saw in the last big thread, owners reported how their fuel lines failed and had to be replaced and which replacements were best.

Ethanol is just another hazard you have to learn about when building and operating an aircraft.

 

Edited December 11 by turboplanner

[Kyle Communications]

The latest Rotax SB says 98 is now the minimun to be used for all 912 915 and 916 engines

 

 

[spacesailor]

I lost most of my garden engines to ethanol.  94 octane ethanol blend .

Once evaporated from the carbies,  they wouldn't run if you eventually got them started .

spacesailor

[BurnieM]

1 hour ago, Kyle Communications said:

The latest Rotax SB says 98 is now the minimun to be used for all 912 915 and 916 engines

Is this correct because I cannot locate a minimum octane in the SB ?

 

They did say that in certain circumstances 98 is recommended but their description of those circumstances is still not clear to me.

 

Edited December 11 by BurnieM

[skippydiesel]

My limited understand is;

95 RON has a narrower safe (non knock)  rpm/MAP band. Is still okay to use subject keeping within the recommended rpm/MAP

98 RON has a much wider  rpm/MAP band so will tolerate operating over a wider rpm/MAP range without fear of destructive knock (pre ignition)

[Flightrite]

I run only BP 98 in all my donks, Jab, Rotax & Lycoming, never had an issue! 

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, Kyle Communications said:

The latest Rotax SB says 98 is now the minimun to be used for all 912 915 and 916 engines

 

 

I spent about $6,000.00 researching the US blends and names for our last major discussion on this subject, and that was the conclusion there. I adopted it in all engines and the stationary engines/garden engines, chainsaw failures stopped.

[skippydiesel]

I run 98 RON in my Rotax 912ULS - the last ULS, on away trips, occasionally, used 95 RON and once maybe twice, AvGas. The 95 & AvGas would have been plus whatever 98 RON was still in tanks (a shandy). Can't say I ever noticed a change in performance.

 

I use 91 RON in my many mowers, chainsaws, sundry brushcutters, etc and a Suzuki paddock basher - Never a problem.

 

My understanding has always been - use the grade of petrol that the manufacturer recommends. Sure you can go for the highest RON, if it makes you feel good - there is no performance or service life advantage/disadvantage. Of course you will pay more for the feel good factor.

 

To get the best (take advantage of higher energy yield) from a higher octane fuel, the engine needs to have a higher compression ratio. 

 

I don't think the advice on this matter has ever changed.

[spacesailor]

It wasn't the ' running ' on ethanol.  It was the half tank of fuel , that evaporated 

through the carburettor.  When layed up for winter .

Next spring would only start on " Start ya Bastard " ..

When spray stopped.  Motor stopped , but would also keep running if petrol was ' sprayed into the carbie .

spacesilor