skippydiesel

Okay no problem - From aged memory, I recall this matter being discussed, in significant detail - Conclusion - There is no problem with refreshing "stale" fuel. There is a lot of hysteria/urban myth about fuel deterioraton. Moneybox has demonstrated its a reasonable strategy & I support him in this. As stated, some judgement is advised. Use a little bit of common sense- Its not unusual for RAA aircraft to not be used for several weeks at a time (weather / domestic demands / work commitments / etc) Are you going to drain the tanks when this happens?? It depends (how much time has passed / type of fuel). Drain or add a significant dose of fresh (shandy). I have been clear all along - this is not a long term (6 months?) storage strategy. In my case, I have refreshed my "stale" 98 RON, with fresh 98, after about 8 weeks - noticed no impact on starting or performance. I know of a Rotax 912ULS powered aircraft, on my field, that is being run on AvGas at the moment. Its only flown about twice, since the beginning of this year - starts first time and flies normally If in doubt, use the "stale" fuel it in your mower/etc😈

It has been known, for some considerable time, that "stale" fuel can be revived, to near fresh condition, by adding fresh. I don't know what time span or condition, constitutes "stale" - may be a subjective assessment by pilot but it is certainly a viable option. Nor do I know of a formula for the mix, however would not like to go much below 50:50. Perhaps length of storage, storage type (open to atmosphere/sealed container/temperature/etc) and stored fuel type (AvGas, 90-98 RON) may all come into the shandy ratio. The reviving of "stale" fuel has been mentioned many times in this Forum and at least once in this Thread and as Moneybox can attest - worked for him😈

Why not?😈

Its kind of ironic that EV's are being charged by diesel powered generators.😈

Once again - While you live, you learn (I hope). Seems a tad inconsistent though. Why allow further training in a home built, if not initial?😈

Thanks Thruster - That's almost as I have ben advised, by the CFI at Hedlow. His advise is to go to Cale Keppel and then to the Koorana Crocodile Farm . Tried to make contact with Rockhampton Aero Club (still listed) but apparently went "belly up" a few years ago😈

You didnt answer my question. If its a home built aircraft, your CFI will not have the choice - (unless rules have changed) you can not receive instruction, in a homebuilt, that you did not build.😈

"They are not safe to store petrol in our climate." I guess Cue would get a tad hot in summer. Over here in the East, where I am (Gods Country), we only get the occasional 45C day. I only mention this because I have all my 98 RON in Bunnings Aero Space 20L cheepo plastics x 5 and x 2 10L plastic ex oil containers. Have been using these for about as long as Bunnings has been operating (?years). So far, no complaints but then I don't sleep with them. I agree that, compared with metal fuel containers, they can not be as safe.😈

There you go. While you live you learn - "Stabile" used in marine craft? I have never had anything much to do with boats - love the look BUT don't have the "sea legs". Did you mention your knowledge of boats before? - cause the only "stabil" that I have seen is in the mower shop. "It's not uncommon for boats to have 50 to 150k worth of outboards hanging off the back so I would hope it is not detrimental to the fuel system parts." Now there is an assumption and a half!! 😈

Is the Zodiac a home or factory build?😈

Friend - BrendAn, "Completely unfounded guesswork on your part. You need to do some research then make an informed comment." See below for foundation of guess work; I am sure that somewhere out there "stabil" can be purchased in larger pack/ quantities, than I see at my Australian mower shop, which are designed for comparatively small (mower etc) fuel systems. I am just using observation/logic to guess that "stabil" needs a certain ratio of product to fuel to be effective. I assume (possibly incorrectly) that a powered aircraft, that can carry a human, is likly to have a significantly larger fuel capacity than say a mower, ergo a lot more than one bottle required. Further - "stabil" & other fuel preserving products, would seem to have mixed user reviews, in N America (where it seems to be widely used) ie questionably efficacy, hence my word of caution. I have also read that, for best efficacy, these products should be used all the time. This could be a sales strategy and / or the actual need for quite a high concentration in the fuel. Lastly - aircraft fuel systems somewhat diffrent to those of mowers etc. What is in "stabil" ? Could it start attacking your tank liner/carburettor seals/etc? Damage to an aircraft fuel system likly to be a tad more costly to repair/replace than that of a mower. Do you have a problem with the above rational? 😈

I would be super cautious about "....a bottle of stabil from BCF or supercheap" and it would likly take more than a bottle to treat an aircraft system (no matter how small). "Why does avgas last for years, what do they put in it" Google has some answers for you. If you want to combine storage with easy return to service - It seems to me that; AvGas may offer some of the solution Complete draining of the fuel system is the most reliable long term solution to fuel deterioraton. Proper "pickling" of the engine should also be looked into - I believe Rotax have a chapter on this. 😈

I imagine it would have similar handling characteristics to landing on water. You would always land/TO into wind. Stopping may involve reverse thrust and /or reducing the aircushion height to increase drag/friction with the ground. While the idea does not seem to have found favour, I can see how it may be helpful for freight landings/TO on unconsolidated (soft) surfaces😈. The extra weight of the inflation system, would likly reduce payload considerably.😈

Not as time reliable but have you considered hitching a ride with a pilot wanting to do Nav's? (a little cost sharing may "sweeten" the deal)😈

Using 98 RON, in engines that can not benefit from the higher octane rating, will do no damage other than to your finaces. Expensive 98 RON is for high compression petrol engines. Cheaper 91 RON at the other end of the scale is for (relativly) low compression engines. The practical effects of using a low RON fuel, in a high compression engines ( usually sport cars/Rotax 100 hp & up) is the potential for destructive "knock". For optimum cost/effect - use the fuel grade recommended by the engine maker😈