X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.6) with ESMTP id 6435185 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:36:48 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=colyncase@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=XlZVKzWweQUZNjOrdqiYeBgc0xqoUJkJM4bbB3s1Yc5xvOYhekLk5XzKFO8Dzc76; h=Received:From:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:To:References:Message-Id:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [71.241.130.45] (helo=[192.168.1.24]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1VC09W-00056I-8b for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:36:14 -0400 From: Colyn Case Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-151--679384689 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Automotive fuel system cleaners? Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 00:36:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) X-ELNK-Trace: 63d5d3452847f8b1d6dd28457998182d7e972de0d01da9404d36d48e41a07385b4ec0576f26c47d1350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 71.241.130.45 --Apple-Mail-151--679384689 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 if you burned 24 gph you would be going 280 (or more) true and still = saving 9 gph vs. a turbo-prop. "Honey we saved 55 gallons on that last leg. Aren't you glad we bought = a piston?" On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:00 PM, Robert R Pastusek wrote: Doug, I am sure other LMLers will have a more technical reason, but = please don=92t do this! The fuel system has LOTS of rubber, composite = and similar parts in it that were specifically chosen to be compatible = with aviation gasoline. We know these components are not compatible with = ethanol in most auto gas these days; I think you=92d be taking a big = risk in dumping a bottle of =93injector cleaner=94 in the tank to see if = it=92s compatible with the hoses and seals=85or not. IMHO, that=92s = playing Russian Roulette with your airplane; and maybe your life. How = about compatibility with the sealant in the fuel tanks? =20 As an alternative, consider tuning your engine (to include GAMI = injectors if required) and run it lean of peak. I have 1000+ hours on my = TSIO-550 Continental/IV-P. The engine has been run LOP since break in = was completed--in about 15 hours--and is as clean as a whistle inside. I = have never fouled a plug, and have replaced them once since the airplane = first flew in 2008. I typically climb at WOT to altitude and cruise at = 30=94 MP, 2300 RPM and 15-15.5 GPH fuel flow; a bit less up in the = flight levels. That gives me 180 KIAS +/- 5 KIAS depending on the OAT = and altitude. The engine runs very cool (280-320 degrees CHT) =85and I = save a BUNDLE on gas. What=92s not to like about this method of = operation? =20 Bob =20 Doug wrote: While wandering the aisles of the local auto parts store this past = weekend, I started reading the labels on a bunch of those commercial = fuel system cleaners. You dump the container into your full auto fuel = tank, and presto, your injectors, valves, etc., are supposedly magically = cleaned and freed from harmful deposits. With all the known issues with = fouled plugs and valve deposits in our big Continental engines, is there = any reason this wouldn=92t work in our aviation systems as well? (Or is = this a taboo for some reason in our application). =20 Douglas W. Johnson, MD PA --Apple-Mail-151--679384689 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 if you burned 24 gph you would be going 280 (or = more) true and still saving 9 gph vs. a turbo-prop.

"Honey we saved = 55 gallons on that last leg. Aren't you glad we bought a = piston?"

On Aug 20, 2013, at 11:00 PM, = Robert R Pastusek wrote:

Doug, I am sure other LMLers will have a more technical = reason, but please don=92t do this! The fuel system has LOTS of rubber, = composite and similar parts in it that were specifically chosen to be = compatible with aviation gasoline. We know these components are not = compatible with ethanol in most auto gas these days; I think you=92d be = taking a big risk in dumping a bottle of =93injector cleaner=94 in the = tank to see if it=92s compatible with the hoses and seals=85or not. = IMHO, that=92s playing Russian Roulette with your airplane; and maybe = your life. How about compatibility with the sealant in the fuel = tanks?

As an = alternative, consider tuning your engine (to include GAMI injectors if = required) and run it lean of peak. I have 1000+ hours on my TSIO-550 = Continental/IV-P. The engine has been run LOP since break in was = completed--in about 15 hours--and is as clean as a whistle inside. I = have never fouled a plug, and have replaced them once since the airplane = first flew in 2008. I typically climb at WOT to altitude and cruise at = 30=94 MP, 2300 RPM and 15-15.5 GPH fuel flow; a bit less up in the = flight levels. That gives me 180 KIAS +/- 5 KIAS depending on the OAT = and altitude. The engine runs very cool (280-320 degrees CHT) =85and I = save a BUNDLE on gas. What=92s not to like about this method of = operation?

Doug = wrote:

While wandering the = aisles of the local auto parts store this past weekend, I started = reading the labels on a bunch of those commercial fuel system = cleaners. You dump the container into your full auto fuel tank, = and presto, your injectors, valves, etc., are supposedly magically = cleaned and freed from harmful deposits. With all the known issues with = fouled plugs and valve deposits in our big Continental engines, is there = any reason this wouldn=92t work in our aviation systems as well? (Or is = this a taboo for some reason in our = application).