X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [142.165.20.172] (HELO misav02.sasknet.sk.ca) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1146398 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:39:18 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.172; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.72.22]) by misav08 with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:38:23 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0J0J00ELTVJZLV50@bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:38:23 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.24] (Forwarded-For: [24.72.101.251]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:38:23 -0600 Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 10:38:23 -0600 From: Heidi Johnson Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Water in Gasoline To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-id: <5b48de68ede7.4487fe1f@sasktel.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.20 (built Feb 27 2006) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal ----- Original Message ----- From: Ernest Christley Date: Thursday, June 8, 2006 6:15 am Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Water in Gasoline > David Carter wrote: > > > My first impression of the technical paper was that the writer > was off > > by an order of magnitude on the amount of water that can and > does > > condense on inside of, for example, Cessna 172 or 182 fuel tanks > in > > humit Gulf Coast areas, with cooling of air during the night, > and > > water condensing out inside the tank. > > . . . Of course that is the main reason that "good airmanship" > says, > > "Top off the tanks before putting the plane to bed for the night > (or > > longer)." > > . . . However and notwithstanding, there are times when the > tanks may > > not be topped off and then you'll get more water. > > > > These comments don't detract from or relate to Barry's excellent > > "first take" summary. I'm simply saying I think the author of > the > > paper is way low on his estimates and desensitizes his analysis > of > > effects of condensation of water out of humid air. > > I also thought the point that .5% water in the gasoline will only > make > it .5% less efficient. Water will act as a quenching agent, > throwing > the whole engine works off and having a disproportionate effect > for it's > volume. > Ernest Christley Ahha.. maybe this is why people claim you can run higher power settings on engines running this stuff... its like a built in ADI, accept.. its getting injected all the time.. I would think the biggest 'gott-ya' is when you climb up to higher alt.'s and the water precipitates out and freeze's into the lines.. it wouldn't supprise me to start hearing of mysterious crash's where the fuel system is inspected and "fuel is present in the tanks and plumbing" with "no indication of water contamination was found, cause of crash undetermined ".. scary thought... Jarrett