Author: "danb_89" <danb_89@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:53 am PST Link
This is a question aimed at all of the powerplant guru's out there,
but I would appreciate anyone w/ experience on this one to respond...
At the beginning of this last week I changed FBO's (due to moving)
and commenced on finishing up my Private Ticket. As the instructor
was briefing me on the C-172 we were about to fly, he stated that
this plane and a couple others that they have use automotive fuel.
My heart went to my throat as my mind re-played warnings and
accidents I have heard of. I questioned him more on it and he
assured me that the 150 Lycoming even has a certification (I think
that was the word he used) to allow them to use auto fuel around 85
octaine. Said that the "certification" came from research done on
these engines and they had to pay a few hundred for each plane to
get that "cert". I was a bit nervous about it, but this FBO has been
around for 40+ years, the instructor seemed competent, so I went
with it. We flew without a hitch every day this week (put in about 9
hours). Then, yesterday, we were doing some pattern work and just as
I started to apply throttle after a landing and a short roll...the
engine started to sputter. The CFI took the plane, pulled the power,
and stopped us in time to roll off at the last taxi way. The
mechanic looked at it and stated that not one, but two plugs fouled
in the same cylinder...yikes!
My question...What's up with the aviation fuel in the lycoming
engine "certification"? Is this proven research? Does anyone have
info on this?
Flying by the seat of low octaine,
Dan B.
Soon to start RV-7
Author: "Kirk" <groves@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:10 am PST Link
--- Hi Dan,
Man you are going to love your RV:)sure beats a 172, I am not a
engine guru but I do have the pleasure of knowing one. The 0-320
lycoming can recieve a STC(supplemental type certificate) to use auto
fuel. The reason this engine can use low octane unleaded fuel is
because(I think anyway:) the compression in the cylinders is low i.e
7:2:1 instead of 8:5:1. I might not be correct with those exact
ratios but I believe it is along those lines. This engine produces
less power per pound of fuel than higher octane fuel, also I think
the lead in your 100LL does help to lube the engine to a certain
degree as well as help avoid fouling of the plugs, I seem to recall
hearing do not break a new engine in on auto fuel due to this.
Any way I know that there are far more knowlegable people out there
how can correct me, but hope this helps.
Have a great day!!
Kirk 81925 waiting on my wings
In vansairforce@yahoogroups.com, "danb_89" <danb_89@y...> wrote:
> This is a question aimed at all of the powerplant guru's out there,
> but I would appreciate anyone w/ experience on this one to
respond...
> At the beginning of this last week I changed FBO's (due to moving)
> and commenced on finishing up my Private Ticket. As the instructor
> was briefing me on the C-172 we were about to fly, he stated that
> this plane and a couple others that they have use automotive fuel.
> My heart went to my throat as my mind re-played warnings and
> accidents I have heard of. I questioned him more on it and he
> assured me that the 150 Lycoming even has a certification (I think
> that was the word he used) to allow them to use auto fuel around 85
> octaine. Said that the "certification" came from research done on
> these engines and they had to pay a few hundred for each plane to
> get that "cert". I was a bit nervous about it, but this FBO has
been
> around for 40+ years, the instructor seemed competent, so I went
> with it. We flew without a hitch every day this week (put in about
9
> hours). Then, yesterday, we were doing some pattern work and just
as
> I started to apply throttle after a landing and a short roll...the
> engine started to sputter. The CFI took the plane, pulled the
power,
> and stopped us in time to roll off at the last taxi way. The
> mechanic looked at it and stated that not one, but two plugs fouled
> in the same cylinder...yikes!
>
> My question...What's up with the aviation fuel in the lycoming
> engine "certification"? Is this proven research? Does anyone have
> info on this?
> Flying by the seat of low octaine,
> Dan B.
> Soon to start RV-7
Author: "JL" <arg1@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:10 am PST Link
The 'certification' is by STC (supplementary type certificate) available through Petersen or, in some cases, EAA. I had several aircraft running on mogas and no problems whatever. Our FBO on this field runs his school Cessnas on mogas for years and has experienced no problems. I have no idea why the plugs you mentioned fouled, but I'd bet it has something to do with the rich/lean settings & usage.
I'll be interested in the replies by others here.. I also am wondering what the recent changes in auto fuel oxidizers might have for effect w/aircraft.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: danb_89
To: vansairforce@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 7:47 AM
Subject: [VAF Mailing List] Powerplant Perplexed
This is a question aimed at all of the powerplant guru's out there,
but I would appreciate anyone w/ experience on this one to respond...
At the beginning of this last week I changed FBO's (due to moving)
and commenced on finishing up my Private Ticket. As the instructor
was briefing me on the C-172 we were about to fly, he stated that
this plane and a couple others that they have use automotive fuel.
My heart went to my throat as my mind re-played warnings and
accidents I have heard of. I questioned him more on it and he
assured me that the 150 Lycoming even has a certification (I think
that was the word he used) to allow them to use auto fuel around 85
octaine. Said that the "certification" came from research done on
these engines and they had to pay a few hundred for each plane to
get that "cert". I was a bit nervous about it, but this FBO has been
around for 40+ years, the instructor seemed competent, so I went
with it. We flew without a hitch every day this week (put in about 9
hours). Then, yesterday, we were doing some pattern work and just as
I started to apply throttle after a landing and a short roll...the
engine started to sputter. The CFI took the plane, pulled the power,
and stopped us in time to roll off at the last taxi way. The
mechanic looked at it and stated that not one, but two plugs fouled
in the same cylinder...yikes!
My question...What's up with the aviation fuel in the lycoming
engine "certification"? Is this proven research? Does anyone have
info on this?
Flying by the seat of low octaine,
Dan B.
Soon to start RV-7
Online help on this group at:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vansairforce/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vansairforce-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Kevin H." <onesickpup@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:10 am PST Link
Being an auto mechanic for 24 years, there are generally only 4 reasons why a plug would foul, and the fact that you had 2 plugs foul in the same cylinder narrows it down to 2.... Either that cylinder is burning oil, and fouling plugs (high probability) or there is a mechanical problem in that cyl (I.E. exhaust valve not fully opening???) The source of fouling definitely needs determined. As a general rule, The difference between 100LL AvGas and 87 octane MoGas, is the Avgas has lead in it, to lubricate the valve seats, and the 100 octane rating describes the fuel burn... I.E. 100 octane burns slower at initial ignition, then speeds up as the burn continues. The 87 octane MoGas, has no lead in it, which requires hardened valve seats to reduce wear on the valve seats, and the 87 octane burns faster at initial ignition, then slows as the burn progresses. This is why high performance, high compression (turbo, supercharged) engines with extremely advanced timing settings, require higher octane fuel than your daily driver automobile. Using too low an octane for the application, almost always results in severe mechanical breakdowns, such as the piston tops being destroyed on the edge of the flame front.
As for your concern about using MoGas as opposed to AvGas, that shouldn't be the concern, what you really need to know, is why those 2 plugs fouled. Are the piston tops eaten on the edges, causing excess oil consumption?(if true, stop flying this airplane until O/H) Are the valve guides worn excessively, causing excess oil consumption, (keep flying, just make sure fresh spark plugs are installed) or is there a problem with the fuel delivery, or ability to expel the burnt fuel(I.E. exaust valve not opening)????
There are a number of other possible reasons and causes, but these stick out most in my mind. Since I cannot personally examine the spark plugs and engine, I am speculating. If ever in doubt, get a second or third opinion, and then run with the average. Or Build an RV-7!!! :) LOL Good luck in your flights Dan!
Sincerely,
Kevin H.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rv7or7a/join
----- Original Message -----
From: danb_89
To: vansairforce@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 7:47 AM
Subject: [VAF Mailing List] Powerplant Perplexed
This is a question aimed at all of the powerplant guru's out there,
but I would appreciate anyone w/ experience on this one to respond...
At the beginning of this last week I changed FBO's (due to moving)
and commenced on finishing up my Private Ticket. As the instructor
was briefing me on the C-172 we were about to fly, he stated that
this plane and a couple others that they have use automotive fuel.
My heart went to my throat as my mind re-played warnings and
accidents I have heard of. I questioned him more on it and he
assured me that the 150 Lycoming even has a certification (I think
that was the word he used) to allow them to use auto fuel around 85
octaine. Said that the "certification" came from research done on
these engines and they had to pay a few hundred for each plane to
get that "cert". I was a bit nervous about it, but this FBO has been
around for 40+ years, the instructor seemed competent, so I went
with it. We flew without a hitch every day this week (put in about 9
hours). Then, yesterday, we were doing some pattern work and just as
I started to apply throttle after a landing and a short roll...the
engine started to sputter. The CFI took the plane, pulled the power,
and stopped us in time to roll off at the last taxi way. The
mechanic looked at it and stated that not one, but two plugs fouled
in the same cylinder...yikes!
My question...What's up with the aviation fuel in the lycoming
engine "certification"? Is this proven research? Does anyone have
info on this?
Flying by the seat of low octaine,
Dan B.
Soon to start RV-7
Online help on this group at:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vansairforce/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vansairforce-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:21 am PST Link
Tell your instructor (who undoubtedly has never owned & operated his own
plane/engine) that the plane doesn't fall out of the sky if you pull the red
lever back... I friggin' hate how most flight schools will teach you to fly
these days.
Lean aggressively when on the ground.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "danb_89" <danb_89@...>
To: <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 4:47 AM
Subject: [VAF Mailing List] Powerplant Perplexed
> This is a question aimed at all of the powerplant guru's out there,
> but I would appreciate anyone w/ experience on this one to respond...
> At the beginning of this last week I changed FBO's (due to moving)
> and commenced on finishing up my Private Ticket. As the instructor
> was briefing me on the C-172 we were about to fly, he stated that
> this plane and a couple others that they have use automotive fuel.
> My heart went to my throat as my mind re-played warnings and
> accidents I have heard of. I questioned him more on it and he
> assured me that the 150 Lycoming even has a certification (I think
> that was the word he used) to allow them to use auto fuel around 85
> octaine. Said that the "certification" came from research done on
> these engines and they had to pay a few hundred for each plane to
> get that "cert". I was a bit nervous about it, but this FBO has been
> around for 40+ years, the instructor seemed competent, so I went
> with it. We flew without a hitch every day this week (put in about 9
> hours). Then, yesterday, we were doing some pattern work and just as
> I started to apply throttle after a landing and a short roll...the
> engine started to sputter. The CFI took the plane, pulled the power,
> and stopped us in time to roll off at the last taxi way. The
> mechanic looked at it and stated that not one, but two plugs fouled
> in the same cylinder...yikes!
>
> My question...What's up with the aviation fuel in the lycoming
> engine "certification"? Is this proven research? Does anyone have
> info on this?
> Flying by the seat of low octaine,
> Dan B.
> Soon to start RV-7
> Online help on this group at:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Author: "Scott Achelis" <Achelis1@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:21 am PST Link
Dan-
Add me to the list of folks looking at taxi/ ground operation without
sufficient leaning. Adding a couple of m/l TEL to fuel is unsurpassed in
raising octane, reducing fuels tendency to ignite or burn under pressure.
A/C engines are designed as short stroke engines with large bores... which
limits RPM and keep props turning at sub-sonic speeds. At ignition the
flame spread moves toward center of the cylinder area from both plugs, and
the unburned fuel is subject to great pressure... hence the need for lead.
BTW- The 2nd plug is not so much for redundancy, but rather the use of dual
plugs/ cylinder is to create a more even "burn" in a large area (think two
"waves" rather than one big one). That's why there's a 150 rpm drop during
mag check.
Scott A.
95RV 6-A 550 hrs
>From: "danb_89" <danb_89@...>
>Reply-To: vansairforce@yahoogroups.com
>To: vansairforce@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [VAF Mailing List] Powerplant Perplexed
>Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:47:17 -0000
>
>This is a question aimed at all of the powerplant guru's out there,
>but I would appreciate anyone w/ experience on this one to respond...
>At the beginning of this last week I changed FBO's (due to moving)
>and commenced on finishing up my Private Ticket. As the instructor
>was briefing me on the C-172 we were about to fly, he stated that
>this plane and a couple others that they have use automotive fuel.
>My heart went to my throat as my mind re-played warnings and
>accidents I have heard of. I questioned him more on it and he
>assured me that the 150 Lycoming even has a certification (I think
>that was the word he used) to allow them to use auto fuel around 85
>octane. Said that the "certification" came from research done on
>these engines and they had to pay a few hundred for each plane to
>get that "cert". I was a bit nervous about it, but this FBO has been
>around for 40+ years, the instructor seemed competent, so I went
>with it. We flew without a hitch every day this week (put in about 9
>hours). Then, yesterday, we were doing some pattern work and just as
>I started to apply throttle after a landing and a short roll...the
>engine started to sputter. The CFI took the plane, pulled the power,
>and stopped us in time to roll off at the last taxi way. The
>mechanic looked at it and stated that not one, but two plugs fouled
>in the same cylinder...yikes!
>
>My question...What's up with the aviation fuel in the lycoming
>engine "certification"? Is this proven research? Does anyone have
>info on this?
>Flying by the seat of low octane,
>Dan B.
>Soon to start RV-7
_________________________________________________________________
Find a broadband plan that fits. Great local deals on high-speed Internet
access. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200360ave/direct/01/
Author: dan b <danb_89@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 1:17 pm PST Link
Dan C., As I would sincerely like to learn better technique, would you explain in RPM terms just how much more agressivley I should lean? I have been taught to lean until I get a drop in RPM and then turn it back up to what my max RPM was reading b-4 it droped (about 1-2 turns). Are you saying I should keep it leaned back at a lower RPM than max? If so, how much?
Thanks,
Dan B
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: dan b <danb_89@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:03 pm PST Link
A big thanks to all who responded! I now have a better idea of what is acceptable and some steps I can take in the future to determine if I want to fly the same spam can. I will be having a chat with the mechanic next time I go in.
Dan
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Dave White" <talewinds@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:03 pm PST Link
Dan, it wasn't the auto fuel that caused the plug to foul. It has no lead.
It is most certainly a bad cylinder, letting oil get to the plugs. Not the
fault of the fuel.
----- Original Message -----
From: "danb_89" <danb_89@...>
To: <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 7:47 AM
Subject: [VAF Mailing List] Powerplant Perplexed
> This is a question aimed at all of the powerplant guru's out there,
> but I would appreciate anyone w/ experience on this one to respond...
> At the beginning of this last week I changed FBO's (due to moving)
> and commenced on finishing up my Private Ticket. As the instructor
> was briefing me on the C-172 we were about to fly, he stated that
> this plane and a couple others that they have use automotive fuel.
> My heart went to my throat as my mind re-played warnings and
> accidents I have heard of. I questioned him more on it and he
> assured me that the 150 Lycoming even has a certification (I think
> that was the word he used) to allow them to use auto fuel around 85
> octaine. Said that the "certification" came from research done on
> these engines and they had to pay a few hundred for each plane to
> get that "cert". I was a bit nervous about it, but this FBO has been
> around for 40+ years, the instructor seemed competent, so I went
> with it. We flew without a hitch every day this week (put in about 9
> hours). Then, yesterday, we were doing some pattern work and just as
> I started to apply throttle after a landing and a short roll...the
> engine started to sputter. The CFI took the plane, pulled the power,
> and stopped us in time to roll off at the last taxi way. The
> mechanic looked at it and stated that not one, but two plugs fouled
> in the same cylinder...yikes!
>
> My question...What's up with the aviation fuel in the lycoming
> engine "certification"? Is this proven research? Does anyone have
> info on this?
> Flying by the seat of low octaine,
> Dan B.
> Soon to start RV-7
> Online help on this group at:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Author: "Harvey Sigmon" <rv6hes@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 3:04 pm PST Link
Dan: I will try my hand at explaining leaning using auto fuel. Usually auto fuel burns cleaner than 100LL. My experience tells me you had a cylinder problem and it would not have made any difference what fuel you used. My Flight Engineer experience on Big round engines tell me that any time when both plugs stop firing something is wrong with the cylinder, usually lead or oil fouled or worse. When both plugs stop firing it is usually impossible to get the cylinder to get hot enough to burn off the plugs. On big engines this is usually indicated by a Double shorted secondary on the Ignition analyzer. But now back to the auto fuel situation. My bad experiences with auto fuel has been with low wing airplanes at outside temps above 90 degrees F. It seems like the fuel heats to the point of causing vapor lock, especially on an engine with a fuel pump. The times I had it to happen the fuel pressure would start to fluctuate and as max power was reached the engine would start to run rough. Some times it could be cured by leaning back some, but in my case continuing take off was not safe. Usually on high wing airplanes where you do not use a fuel pump and the fuel gravity feeds it works very well. Also as the season changes the oil companies put additional additives for the winter, so summer fuel works best. I hope I did not ramble on too much, no flame intended.
Harvey Sigmon N602RV
----- Original Message -----
From: danb_89
To: vansairforce@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 7:47 AM
Subject: [VAF Mailing List] Powerplant Perplexed
This is a question aimed at all of the powerplant guru's out there,
but I would appreciate anyone w/ experience on this one to respond...
At the beginning of this last week I changed FBO's (due to moving)
and commenced on finishing up my Private Ticket. As the instructor
was briefing me on the C-172 we were about to fly, he stated that
this plane and a couple others that they have use automotive fuel.
My heart went to my throat as my mind re-played warnings and
accidents I have heard of. I questioned him more on it and he
assured me that the 150 Lycoming even has a certification (I think
that was the word he used) to allow them to use auto fuel around 85
octaine. Said that the "certification" came from research done on
these engines and they had to pay a few hundred for each plane to
get that "cert". I was a bit nervous about it, but this FBO has been
around for 40+ years, the instructor seemed competent, so I went
with it. We flew without a hitch every day this week (put in about 9
hours). Then, yesterday, we were doing some pattern work and just as
I started to apply throttle after a landing and a short roll...the
engine started to sputter. The CFI took the plane, pulled the power,
and stopped us in time to roll off at the last taxi way. The
mechanic looked at it and stated that not one, but two plugs fouled
in the same cylinder...yikes!
My question...What's up with the aviation fuel in the lycoming
engine "certification"? Is this proven research? Does anyone have
info on this?
Flying by the seat of low octaine,
Dan B.
Soon to start RV-7
Online help on this group at:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vansairforce/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
vansairforce-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: rjdickensheets@... Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:03 pm PST Link
I am not Dan C., however...
The technique you have been taught is mostly correct. Leaning the mixture on
a normally aspirated engine with altitude increase is mostly guesswork if you
do not have an EGT. The technique is popular with flight schools because it
tends to err on the side of richness and supposedly better engine life. I say
supposedly because there is a growing camp out there who run their craft on the
lean side of peak EGT/RPM. The reasons are numerous and somewhat technical in
nature. These folks tend to run fuel injection because fuel
monitoring/distribution becomes more accurate.
During taxi, aggressive leaning is harmless due to the low load on the
engine, and cooling is rarely an issue for a typical taxi to a runway. The increased
temps during these low power regimes actually may help keep lead deposits
from forming on plugs.
This technique however is not so popular with our flight schools. It seems
that we teach full rich for the sake of simplicity. It makes sense too, most of
your primary training is low alt stuff and all the ups and downs make tweaking
the mix useless and distracting. Couple this with the fact that most of the
spam can trainers do not have an EGT AND AND AND AND the instructors who
command them do not really know any better if they are low time guys like most are.
I'm not bad mouthing CFI's, I used to make a living as one!
Anyway, the RV is not a trainer and should not be flown as one. Gain some
experience and knowledge, then equip your craft to exploit it. This is what RVers
do best.
Ryan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Author: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 5:28 pm PST Link
In flight, follow your operating handbook or whatever you think is best.
The process you described sounds more like how to set mixture prior to
takeoff.
But what I was referring to before was all the time spent on the ground
(which as a student is a fair amount). On the ground, lean it until it
stumbles, and then enrich it just enough so that it run smoothly again.
There's really no RPM correlation per se. It's kinda of a feel thing. Some
people describe it as "just barely enough mixture to run...you can't hurt it
when you lean it on the ground."
I've seen lots of people taxiing around with the mixture firewalled, and
that's a great way to foul plugs.
Something like that. I'm no expert. Ask your instructor about proper
ground leaning procedures. If he can't give you a good answer, why would
you expect him to teach you how to operate your plane? 8^)
)_( Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "dan b" <danb_89@...>
To: <vansairforce@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [VAF Mailing List] Powerplant Perplexed
> Dan C., As I would sincerely like to learn better technique, would you
explain in RPM terms just how much more agressivley I should lean? I have
been taught to lean until I get a drop in RPM and then turn it back up to
what my max RPM was reading b-4 it droped (about 1-2 turns). Are you saying
I should keep it leaned back at a lower RPM than max? If so, how much?
> Thanks,
> Dan B
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Online help on this group at:
> http://help.yahoo.com/help/groups/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
Author: "dimplemaster" <johnsiebold@...> Time: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:20 pm PST Link
Dan (and other respondents),
I just gotta jump in. Regarding auto fuel, look at eaa.org for why it's a great
substitute for 100LL. Also Petersen Aviation has STCs covering the higher
compression mills (8.5:1). Google for their web site. You do not need an STC for an
experimental aircraft/engine.
Next, read the many articles written by Jim Deacon on the AvWeb.com site. Splendid
info on gasolines and the combustion process and how to run your engine.
Borrowing from Jim and addressing old wives' tales repeated in some of the
responses:
Lead's purpose is solely to surpress detonation. Period. There's a whole lot of
chemistry other than lead's contribution that affects valves. Also, lower octane fuels
have all the BTUs of higher octane. Gas is gas (kind of an oversimplification, but most
of the different characteristics come from the additives). It's the lead that allows for
higher compression to make more efficient use of the BTUs.
Lead will gag many low (and high) compression engines (100LL has 4 times the lead
of 87 used to certify those old designs). So leaning aggressively is a good idea.
Again, read Deacon about how to lean, on the ground and in flight. I can tell from the
plugs in my 172 if I run much 100LL (I use mogas as much as possible) because of
the deposits. BTW, he is a proponent of cruising lean of peak. (That should start a
whole new thread!)
Operationally, if you lean for taxi, lean so much that the engine barely runs. You
can't hurt it. That way, you can't take off with insufficient power - a stumbling engine
will remind you that you forgot to enrich for TO.
Best wishes and keep on trucking towards the private.
John Siebold
Baffles on a 7