What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Water in Fuel

Geico266

Geico266

Well Known Member
Auto Gas -v- Avgas

I would like to start a thread dedicated to water "contamination" in fuel. There seems to be an under current of discontent and arguing about mogas & airplanes. I would like to bring out the best minds and pilots here and get some real world experience with guys using Mogas in aircraft.

There are more aircraft flying on mogas than any other fuel. Rotax has more engines in the air at any one time than any other piston engine in the world. The fuel of choice for the 912 / 914 is unleaded 92 O.

I'm no expert, but to say that mogas is dangerous seems to be a stretch.

Having said that I personnaly have experenced water seperation in my 100 gallon trailer tank I tow to the airport. I mix the fuel 50/50 ( prem. car gas & 100LL). This occurs when the temperature drops and a small amount of water seperates from the fuel and settles in the bottom of the tank. It is red in color and tells me (and the fuel supply people) that it is coming from the local pipe and distribution tank farm. I sump that tank and it's taken care of. I also, tip the tank when pumping to ensure no seperated water gets into the airplane.

According to "the experts" (See links below) any gasoline can hold water. Most of the water is burned up and no harm is caused. Water can seperate at a rate of .5 tsp per gallon (no alcohol in the fuel) when the temperature changes water can seperate out and you could have a potential of 9 teaspoons of water (under worst case senerio) in your tanks.

Water phase separation (nice read):
http://www.epa.gov/OMS/regs/fuels/rfg/waterphs.pdf

If you sump your tanks before and after each flight you should get a reading on what (if any) water is present in the fuel.

Lets keep it civil, informative, and factual.
 
Last edited:
I have a question about mogas. If there is that much water in it then why arn't more cars stalling along the road? :confused:

A tank of gas (10% ethonal blend) could have as much as 1.3 cups of water in it that could seperate out in cold weather. Why arn't more cars dead on the road from water in the gas lines? :confused:

The only conclusion one can come to is the gas engine can handle small amounts of water and "burn" it up?
 
Last edited:
Good discussions on fuel. My take on the deal is this. I don't believe airport MOGAS, or the gasoline sold without additives at airports, is at great risk for water contamination. At least no more than the 100ll sold next to it. It's about the quality of care in handling and dispensing.

The tricky thing is buying automobile gasoline and using it in a plane. All the additives and the (in)consistency in handling add a lot of variables. Even a big name brand gas station can be playing games with the pumps, allowing rainwater to leak into the tanks or even bumping up their inventories with some spot-market bottom-of-the-barrel junk.

I've used some auto gas in the past - back before ADM got the gub'ment to start requiring ethanol blending. My problem was at 6-gals a can, it was a PITA to fuel the plane with car gas. Would be nice to make a 200-gal tote bin type arrgt, but the Texas Dept of Public Safety might write me a great big ticket for transporting hazardous matl improperly through The Great State of Texas.

My experience with water, across the spectrum of 100ll to car gas, has been very minimal. The only times I've had issue is when keeping a plane outdoors and the heating/cooling pulled water in through the cap.

Last, to completely address the water issue, Geico mentioned the fact that some amount of water will disolve into the gasoline. 9 tsps of water is a pretty good slug, but that would be worst case. I believe this water issue can be minimized by using known suppliers. At least when flying around home. On the road, might be a good idea to steer away from MOGAS or other "non-standard" sources. Just buy the good stuff when travelling.
 
Low Pass said:
The tricky thing is buying automobile gasoline and using it in a plane. All the additives and the (in)consistency in handling add a lot of variables. Even a big name brand gas station can be playing games with the pumps, allowing rainwater to leak into the tanks or even bumping up their inventories with some spot-market bottom-of-the-barrel junk.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this statement as it pertains to risks of using gasoline bought at the local gas station. But this really does not have as much to do with the technicalities of running water through an engine as it does in the trust factor involved in your purchase of the fuel. Basically what you are saying is that as pilots we believe that everything is always "on the up and up" at the airport and with their fuel suppliers. We trust that there is less risk of contamination when using the fuel we purchase from them because we feel they are conscientious businessmen looking out for the best interest of pilots and aviation. We don't believe that about the gas station owner and his fuel suppliers. We believe that the process for supplying the fuel to the local gas stations is not as trustworthy as the process for supplying the fuel to the airport.

That is what I am getting from your post. If so, then the opposition to using auto gas is based on the idea of not wanting to put our lives and the lives of our passengers at risk unnecessarily. I would contend this is the philosophy of those "anti-mogas" souls arguing against its use.


Low Pass said:
My experience with water, across the spectrum of 100ll to car gas, has been very minimal. The only times I've had issue is when keeping a plane outdoors and the heating/cooling pulled water in through the cap.
Click to expand...
And this would be the same whether one used 100LL from the airport, winter blend gasoline from the FillerUp, summer blend gasoline from said FilerUp, 90/10 ethanol blend, E85, diesel, Jet-A, etc. The problem is not the fuel itself in this case. It is the exposure to the elements that causes the contamination.

Low Pass said:
Last, to completely address the water issue, Geico mentioned the fact that some amount of water will disolve into the gasoline. 9 tsps of water is a pretty good slug, but that would be worst case. I believe this water issue can be minimized by using known suppliers. At least when flying around home. On the road, might be a good idea to steer away from MOGAS or other "non-standard" sources. Just buy the good stuff when travelling.
Click to expand...
This is a theory that again uses the assumption that buying from that airport one happens to land at because it is on our designated course maintains its fuel supply so that it always pumps out "the good stuff". Again, I think we are putting a great amount of faith that fuel bought at an airport is maintained at a much higher standard than fuel bought from a local gas station. My thought is, that is jumping to some very large assumptions.
 
Remember, that the amount of water gas can hold in solution that I mentioned is worst case senerio.
 
Last edited:
Water and MOGAS

Geico266 said:
I have a question about mogas. If there is that much water in it then why arn't more cars stalling along the road? :confused:

A tank of gas (10% ethonal blend) could have as much as 1.3 cups of water in it that could seperate out in cold weather. Why arn't more cars dead on the road from water in the gas lines? :confused:

The only conclusion one can come to is the gas engine can handle small amounts of water and "burn" it up?
Click to expand...

The reason those cars aren't stalled along the road is that they were designed with the realities of avaliable fuel designed in. When was the last time you "sumped" your car? Most tanks were designed with a bit of unuseable fuel in the bottom. If you look in the tank of a very old car there will be rust in the bottom of the tank. There is also a counter intuitive issue here. One of the "cures" for water in an automotive fuel system in the past was to add some alcohol to make the existing water a little more palatable to the engine. So, in the case of your car, some ethanol content is taking care of the water issue.

John Clark ATP/CFI
ASE Certified Master Automobile Mechanic
RV8 N18U
KSBA
 
John Clark said:
The reason those cars aren't stalled along the road is that they were designed with the realities of avaliable fuel designed in. When was the last time you "sumped" your car? Most tanks were designed with a bit of unuseable fuel in the bottom. If you look in the tank of a very old car there will be rust in the bottom of the tank. There is also a counter intuitive issue here. One of the "cures" for water in an automotive fuel system in the past was to add some alcohol to make the existing water a little more palatable to the engine. So, in the case of your car, some ethanol content is taking care of the water issue.
Click to expand...
This is my prevailing question then. "What is good for the goose should be good for the gander". If it works with the small bore water cooled engines then why can it not work for the large bore air cooled engines? If automobile engineers can design for "realities of available fuel" then why can't the aircraft engineer do the same? I am interested in reading any information on this. Pro or con can someone address these questions?
 
RVbySDI said:
This is my prevailing question then. "What is good for the goose should be good for the gander". If it works with the small bore water cooled engines then why can it not work for the large bore air cooled engines? If automobile engineers can design for "realities of available fuel" then why can't the aircraft engineer do the same? I am interested in reading any information on this. Pro or con can someone address these questions?
Click to expand...

Another automotive design factor comes with submerged high pressure fuel pumps. They deliver much more fuel to the engine than they can use, the bypassed fuel being recirculated back to the tank at high pressure and volume. I can only assume that this mechanical action tends to keep small amounts of water suspended until it can be safely burned in small amounts over time.

This is an unacceptable design risk in Van's aircraft, due to the undesirable safety issues raised while running high pressure fuel lines in the cockpit.
 
The (not so) short answer...

The short answer is time, money and weight. The number of light aircraft produced world wide is so small compared to the production of automobiles that the research/development money is very thin. Add to this the cost of certification and the fact that if you "improve" something people line up to sue the manufacturer on the grounds that they got it wrong the first time. Automobiles have become a commodity, people expect them to perform flawlessly for years. For the most part they do. One advantage of an automobile is that the tank is usually buried in or under the car. The thin aluminum wings of an airplane are going to react to temperature changes much more than a plastic tank in the bowels of your average SUV. When a manufacturer finds a market and builds a couple of hundred thousand light airplanes a year development will increase.

Back to the question. You could put a large sump under the tanks of your RV adding weight (unuseable fuel) and complexity. Perhaps you could adapt some diesel technology and have an electronic sensor that detects the water and opens the drain. Or you could check the quick drains during preflight. I'll take the latter, thanks. On the issue of "small bore" vs "big bore" I really don't think that is the issue. The choices are to get the water out of the system or make pass through the engine.

By the way, in 200+ hours of flying my RV8 I have found exactly ZERO water during preflight.

John Clark
 
Yukon said:
Another automotive design factor comes with submerged high pressure fuel pumps. They deliver much more fuel to the engine than they can use, the bypassed fuel being recirculated back to the tank at high pressure and volume. I can only assume that this mechanical action tends to keep small amounts of water suspended until it can be safely burned in small amounts over time.

This is an unacceptable design risk in Van's aircraft, due to the undesirable safety issues raised while running high pressure fuel lines in the cockpit.
Click to expand...
There are several fuel injected systems that are requiring a fuel return line for fuel be plumbed back to the fuel tank(s). I currently am planning to use this type of system with the ECI IO340. Is this the same type of system you are referring to or are you talking about something different?
 
RVbySDI said:
There are several fuel injected systems that are requiring a fuel return line for fuel be plumbed back to the fuel tank(s). I currently am planning to use this type of system with the ECI IO340. Is this the same type of system you are referring to or are you talking about something different?
Click to expand...

No, different. I'm refering to submerged, in-tank pumps as used in cars. I'm not expert on that system, but I think the return fuel will be of lower volume and pressure.
 
Perfectly OK by me

Yukon said:
This is an unacceptable design risk in Van's aircraft, due to the undesirable safety issues raised while running high pressure fuel lines in the cockpit.
Click to expand...

Depends who its undesirable to...I have no issues in doing as you say fact this is exactly what I did. The fuel pumps are in the wing roots and the pressure relief return goes back to its own tank.

Rationale
1) Leaking fuel is not a ruptured fuel line...Usually shows up as a drip and a strong smell.

2) I'd rather have a leak out than sucking air in.

3) A leak is not automatically a fire.

4) If yout going down one would hope you've turned the fuel pumps off.

Works for me

Frank
 
frankh said:
Depends who its undesirable to...I have no issues in doing as you say fact this is exactly what I did. The fuel pumps are in the wing roots and the pressure relief return goes back to its own tank.

Rationale
1) Leaking fuel is not a ruptured fuel line...Usually shows up as a drip and a strong smell.

2) I'd rather have a leak out than sucking air in.

3) A leak is not automatically a fire.

4) If yout going down one would hope you've turned the fuel pumps off.

Works for me

Frank
Click to expand...

To each his own Frank. It's a standard of the industry not to run high pressure fuel in the passenger compartment. Heck, car manufacurers don't even do it. Why would I want it in my airplane?
 
Yukon said:
To each his own Frank. It's a standard of the industry not to run high pressure fuel in the passenger compartment. Heck, car manufacurers don't even do it. Why would I want it in my airplane?
Click to expand...
I agree with the idea of not running high pressure fuel in the passenger compartment. I really don't like the idea of any fuel lines in the cockpit at all. So, then I ask the question of design. Why plumb fuel lines in the cockpit in the first place. I know, I know. I know about the convenience of location and such in relation to having a control mechanism accessible to the pilot and such. But why not (lets think outside the box shall we?) come up with some way to plumb the fuel lines outside the passenger compartment like they do in automobiles? Surely there are ways to go about doing this. What do you think?
 
Fair enough

But do remember with a FI'd engine you have the high pressure pump and one third of the total line length is high pressure and in the cabin.

Dealing with a leak/rupture will still be the same event, except i have more line length than the std installation.

Frank
 
RVbySDI said:
I agree with the idea of not running high pressure fuel in the passenger compartment. I really don't like the idea of any fuel lines in the cockpit at all. So, then I ask the question of design. Why plumb fuel lines in the cockpit in the first place. I know, I know. I know about the convenience of location and such in relation to having a control mechanism accessible to the pilot and such. But why not (lets think outside the box shall we?) come up with some way to plumb the fuel lines outside the passenger compartment like they do in automobiles? Surely there are ways to go about doing this. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I guess the easy answer to that is the fuel valve needs to be accessable to the pilot. I guess a torque tube arrangement to a firewall mounted valve is a good alternative. Might be worth some effort.

If you want to scare yourself, take a good look at the close proximity of the battery and contactors to the fuel system in our airplane. Land short, land long, engine failure, what have you, and the firewall components get all squished together for an easy fireball. I'm thinking an aft mounted battery, with contactors on the inside of the cabin might be a better solution.
 
Yukon said:
I guess the easy answer to that is the fuel valve needs to be accessable to the pilot. I guess a torque tube arrangement to a firewall mounted valve is a good alternative. Might be worth some effort.
Click to expand...
Ok trying to think outside the box again. Why do we need to have a fuel valve accessible to the pilot? I have never driven a car that needed to have an on/off valve for fuel on it. Yes, I do know that there are multiple fuel tanks in our planes but I have driven many a pickup that had dual saddle tanks underneath the bed. Switching from one tank to the next involved pushing a button on the dash. I am assuming this activated an electrical switch of some kind that then activated a servo motor to open and/or close a valve somewhere in the fuel line. These pickups had no fuel lines in the cab but were still able to accomplish the act of switching fuel tanks on the fly.
 
RVbySDI said:
Ok trying to think outside the box again. Why do we need to have a fuel valve accessible to the pilot? I have never driven a car that needed to have an on/off valve for fuel on it. Yes, I do know that there are multiple fuel tanks in our planes but I have driven many a pickup that had dual saddle tanks underneath the bed. Switching from one tank to the next involved pushing a button on the dash. I am assuming this activated an electrical switch of some kind that then activated a servo motor to open and/or close a valve somewhere in the fuel line. These pickups had no fuel lines in the cab but were still able to accomplish the act of switching fuel tanks on the fly.
Click to expand...

Steve, you are thinking like a driver, you must now start thinking like a pilot. A truck pulls over to the side of the road when the electrical mechanism/valve fails. You balance your fuel load 2-3 times per flight, so there's lots of chances for that valve to fail. Also continues to work with a failed electrical system. Also, old valve system works quite well with carbed a/c and some F/I.

Remember, all aviation design is with the worst case scenario in mind. When it comes to aviation, Murphy is an optomist!
 
Yukon said:
Steve, you are thinking like a driver, you must now start thinking like a pilot. A truck pulls over to the side of the road when the electrical mechanism/valve fails. You balance your fuel load 2-3 times per flight, so there's lots of chances for that valve to fail. Also continues to work with a failed electrical system. Also, old valve system works quite well with carbed a/c and some F/I.

Remember, all aviation design is with the worst case scenario in mind. When it comes to aviation, Murphy is an optomist!
Click to expand...
Yes, I am aware of the failure issues associated with the mentioned switching mechanism. But I think there should be some way to take the fuel out of the cockpit. I was simply using that example to say that there should be some way to accomplish what we need to do (get the fuel out of the cockpit) in order to eliminate these issues we are saying are the problems associated with burning lower octane fuel. If we can eliminate vapor lock with emersed fuel pumps, high pressure lines, etc but the concern of using such systems is the issue of plumbing these fuel lines into the cockpit then why not solve the problem not by altering the fuel (using high octane fuel to avoid vapor lock) but by altering the fuel delivery (moving all fuel lines outside the cockpit) so that using lower octane fuel is not a problem.

I know this is a simplistic view but if the true argument against using the mechanisms in aviation that are currently in place on every automobile manufactured stem from the design constraints we have placed on the airframe of the aircraft then why not change that design rather than say it cannot be done?
 
John,
I think you might find that the reason most cars run submerged pumps and return lines is that it is much better from a vapour lock situation to push the fuel from its source rather than pull it (pressure vs suction) and return any bubbles back to the tank.
In my case, I mounted the gascolator upstream of the boost pump and placed both in the wing root. Much cooler, and the fuel is filtered prior to the pump.
I also fitted a restricted return line from the carb back to the tank to keep a constant flow through the engine driven pump to keep it cool. That and fire sleeving every line has meant no vapour lock and a clean running engine for the past 300 hours using a mix of 50/50 unleaded mogas and 100LL, and that is in ground temps up to 45 C.

Cheers

Martin in Oz
 
Sounds like a good system Harvey. Only problem I can think of is the possibility of the pump suction sucking air through the sump valves. Ever had a problem with that? Also, no filtering after the pumps in the remote chance they start making metal. Other than that, sounds good!
 
<<(using high octane fuel to avoid vapor lock)>>

For the record, octane is a measure of knock resistance, not vapor pressure.
 
Mogas

For what it's worth I have been mogas in my Cessna 120 for the last 2 1/2 years. No water, no problems, in fact the airplane seems to run better on mogas than avgas. But keep in mind the little engine is very low compression, I not sure I would trust it in a 9.0:1 engine. I only buy "top teir" rated gas from well maintained gas stations also.
Randy
 
As far as keeping fuel lines out of the cockpit, it could be done but it would likely offend the aesthetic tastes of most builders. You would have fuel lines running under the fuselage and would have the fuel selector valve hanging down in the breeze with a long handle extension up into the cabin. I don't think the water seperation issue is much of a problem with straight mogas any more than it is with 100LL because you can sump it out. If you add EtOH to the mix, then things change. There are many things that work fine in autos that aren't such a good idea in airplanes. Phase separation in autos is usually a non-event because temperatures tend to change gradually, bringing the water out a little at a time. In an airplane you can potentially get a fairly large temp change in a short time, resulting in a more rapid phase separation and more water to deal with at one time. We also have the problem of multiple tanks which most autos don't have. Say you fuel up, take off and climb to altitude on one tank and cruise along for an hour. If you get phase separation in the tank your burning from, it is probably occuring gradually enough that it just burns through the engine unnoticed, or is easily handled by the gascolator. Then you switch tanks and all the water that has seperated out all goes to the carb at once, easily shutting down the engine. Add below freezing teperatures and ice crystals and you compound the problem further. I know many here think this is not a real problem, but research by the FAA, EAA, and others tends to support the view that this is a real problem.
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
<<(using high octane fuel to avoid vapor lock)>>

For the record, octane is a measure of knock resistance, not vapor pressure.
Click to expand...
My misstatement. I was really trying to discuss the issue of vapor lock in terms of using mogas instead of 100LL. Since mogas has a lower octane rating than does 100LL I was using that as a reference to the two fuels. My statements were only addressing the problems of vapor lock and whether avoiding it by pressurized fuel flow would be a means to avoid vapor lock while using mogas. If pressurized fuel lines in the cockpit are a problem then can we eliminate that problem by getting the fuel out of the cockpit.
 
RVbySDI said:
My misstatement. I was really trying to discuss the issue of vapor lock in terms of using mogas instead of 100LL. Since mogas has a lower octane rating than does 100LL I was using that as a reference to the two fuels. My statements were only addressing the problems of vapor lock and whether avoiding it by pressurized fuel flow would be a means to avoid vapor lock while using mogas. If pressurized fuel lines in the cockpit are a problem then can we eliminate that problem by getting the fuel out of the cockpit.
Click to expand...

The original plan with theSubaru high pressure fuel system was pumps forward of the firewall. This meant bringing static pressure fuel forward through the cabin as per Van's plan - actually it is being sucked forward due to the elevation of the fuel tank pick ups.

This worked except fuel entering the engine compartment was at risk of vapor lock before being picked up by the pump due heat and suction. Once fuel is under 28-30 psi, it will not lock up but the short run to the pumps in that high temp area was at risk.

Some guys developed ram air cooling to the area, I installed a temp gage to monitor what was going. But I never felt comfortable with the situation, especially during hot summer ops. So, after a great deal of thinking about the pros and cons of the situation, the pumps were moved out of the engine compartment to the cabin floor just forward of the valve. Now fuel going forward to the engine compartment is under pressure and a vapor lock up front is most unlikely. But I do have about 15" of fuel line in the cabin under high pressure. It is a calculated risk, but from my perspective less risky than it was.

In a perfect world, we would have the pumps submerged in the tanks and the line running forward outside the cabin. It could be done with lots of work but would not look great.
 
Please - a little education if you will - aren't there submersible pumps available that will fit in the wing root? I'm thinking specifically of the 12V fuel pumps that Chevy (and I'm assuming others as well) are so fond of putting in the bottom of their pickup fuel tanks. The pump motors are cooled by fuel being pulled through them, completely submerged, and develop decent pressure. I've had a couple of these pumps that lasted quite a long time - one was sold operating at 187,000 miles and another sold operating at 193,000. I've also had one fail at about 90,000 miles and another around 130,000 (I drive a lot for business). Those are respectable hour ratings.

Opinions?
 
MOGAS vs 100LL

I believe a bigger issue than suspended water in the fuel is the issue of vapor pressure.

I have owned a G35 Bonanza STC'd for Autofuel, a 150 HP C150 also STC'd for Autofuel, and now an RV9A with a 150HP 0-320.

Both the G35 and the 150/150 ran on pure autofuel with no avgas blended. Both ran reliably for years.

The RV9A does require a blend of Avgas with the premium autofuel. Not to address octane, but to provide a greater margin of safety against vapor lock caused by the significantly greater heat inside the very tight cowling of an RV when compared to either the Bonanza or the 150/150.

Fuel vapor pressure and the potential for vapor lock is the reason that one aircraft using a specific engine may be STC'd for auto fuel while another aircraft using exactly the same engine can not.

Keith
N355RV
RV9A
 
In the tank

airguy said:
Please - a little education if you will - aren't there submersible pumps available that will fit in the wing root? I'm thinking specifically of the 12V fuel pumps that Chevy (and I'm assuming others as well) are so fond of putting in the bottom of their pickup fuel tanks. The pump motors are cooled by fuel being pulled through them, completely submerged, and develop decent pressure. I've had a couple of these pumps that lasted quite a long time - one was sold operating at 187,000 miles and another sold operating at 193,000. I've also had one fail at about 90,000 miles and another around 130,000 (I drive a lot for business). Those are respectable hour ratings.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Some Cessna 300 series twins had electric (boost) pumps in the tanks. The modern in-tank automotive pumps do perform well but are expensive and, in a vehicle, a miserable thing to replace. Oh, yeah, they also produce some very impressive pressures for the EFI systems, over 100 PSI.

An in-tank installation would answer a few needs and create some interesting problems.

John Clark
RV8 N18U
KSBA
 
I've bought two of those in-tank pumps, for about $200 each (OEM, with float sender unit and pickup sock, lifetime warranty). I'm thinking $400 and a little FWF insulation is a (relatively) low price to pay for vapor lock insurance - especially if the owner wants to run 92UL.
 
What about fuel injection?

Most of the information I read concerning vapor lock has to deal with using carburetors. Are vapor lock problems still a problem when using fuel injection? Is having the return fuel lines to the tank a way to eliminate this risk? If you do not pressurize the fuel from the tank but pull it with a fuel pump somewhere in the line after the tank but before the intake of the engine will the return fuel lines be adequate to decrease the vapor lock risk?
 
I run 93UL from my local gas station which I know sells at a high volume.
I would never buy mogas from any airport because they just don't sell enough & can't be trusted to have water or tank setiment.

While away from my home base, I use 100LL.

My engine can run either/or a blend.
 
This last summer while at Oshkosh I avoided perhaps the worst storm of the week by ducking into a tent that belonged to the University of South Dakota. While there helping hold the tent up against the wind I got to listen to a research professor expound on the benefits of burning straight Ethanol alcohol denatured with 17% Isopentane. One of the benefits he spoke of was that he, in the name of research, put three gallons of water in each tank then filled to the top with the alcohol blend. He expressed getting a smoother higher performing (compared to an engine running the alcohol blend and no water) engine out of the deal. I put this here only for information and don't make claims myself one way or another. Gasoline is an entirely different bird. Oh and by the way, the planes they were making these tests with were RV4's.
 
Sounds interesting, I wouldn't try it in my -4 though. A junker car perhaps. Where do you get Isopentane, and get it to mix with alcohol without it evaporating? Sounds highly flamable, but like ice in a cocktail, I suppose the water would denature it down. hmmmm...
 
Water, Gascolators, and Fuel Samples during pre flight

Back to original post of this thread, gascolators are very good at collecting water, as is the sump/bottom of the fuel tank BEFORE the airplane is moved, flown. If you keep finding water or debris in your fuel, need to find out why. Incidentally, Van's supplied fuel caps tend to leak after being exposed to heavy rain with airplane stationary, or direct pressure from wash hose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top