Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.166.39] (account <marv@lancaironline.net>)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.1.1)
  with HTTP id 2535581 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:32:01 -0400
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: MoGas and altitude
To: lml
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.1.1
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 21:32:01 -0400
Message-ID: <web-2535581@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <063c01c3677a$96e0c5d0$f004fea9@new>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Cy Galley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>:

Sorry to burst your bubble. 100/130 avgas hasn't been produced for many
years.  What we have now is car gas juiced up with TEL and other octane
enhancers to yield 100 octane.
I repeat No 100/130 anymore as the airlines and military have gone to mostly
turbine or jet.  The few converted civilian planes that need gas are happy
with the 100LL.

Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley@qcbc.org or experimenter@eaa.org

Always looking for articles for  the Experimenter


> I would probably still burn aviation grade 100/130 or 100/130LL.