If a guy has a plane with the Auto fuel STC and upgrades the engine to one that is approved for Auto fuel, do you need a new STC. An example would be a Stinson 108-2 165 hp that has an O-470 upgrade.

Tim

There is actually an approval for the airframe, and one for the engine. Not all O-470's were approved, also I think the upgrade would negate any previous stc. Google peterson aviation in Minden Kansas . Good guy that will definately help.
-luck

qmdv

I believe the STC is specific for that plane and engine. My STC lists the aircraft number and engine number specifically. They may not charge you the full amount to change the engine on your STC. Call them.
It is worth whatever it takes. I think.


flyer

I believe the STC is specific to your engine.

I have a STC for my 182 with the O-470-L, however I just put a new carb on last week. The warrenty for the carb is void if used with auto fuel. Also it's been a bit hard to start lately? But I haven't used any auto fuel for the last 8 hours. So who knows.

Fly safe, Bub

In Feb 2000 I bought the 182B with an O-470L. Came with the Auto STC. In June had the engine overhauled by a Millennium Shop with the full monty so I ended up with a Millennium Engine. Millennium said auto gas voided the warranty.

I called Peterson and they said BS that auto fuel ws OK. I ran all the auto fuel I could.

Tim

qmdv

The warranty on your engine and other things is probably void when using auto fuel.

That does not make the auto fuel STC invalid. It is still legal to use auto fuel but realize these warranties will be voided.

flyer

flyer wrote:

The warranty on your engine and other things is probably void when using auto fuel.

Would you think that applies to a factory reman. When the stc's were approved I think that the engine manufacturers put in their 2 cents at that time.

Tim

qmdv

I am not positive. I think any manufacturer can set up most any requirements for their warranty. That is their right. I do not think that Lycoming warranties their engines when auto fuel is used. Call them.

You are still legal to use auto fuel if you have the STC and fulfill its requirements.



flyer

I'm sure there are plenty of Supplemental Type Certificates issued to both airframes and engines that the original Type Certificate holders don't like. Therefore if it's a warranteed item they could void the warranty if they choose, but the STC is still airworthy and legal in the eyes of the FAA. Could be the same with auto STC depending on who overhauled the engine.

flyer wrote:qmdv

I am not positive. I think any manufacturer can set up most any requirements for their warranty. That is their right. I do not think that Lycoming warranties their engines when auto fuel is used. Call them.

flyer

I asked the Lycoming Rep this specific question at last year's Alaska Aviation Trade Show and was told that MOGAS invalidates their warranties.

Don

When I got the Millennium engine there was nothing in their literature or written warranty about mogas. After I had about 100 hrs on the engine and was talking to them they let me know that there warranty was invalid with mogas.

Well BS. I told them that they cannot change the warranty after delivery. They said that the engine had to be run as per original manufacturers specs. Nobody really knows what is really right unless it went to court and a legal rulling was handed down..

Tim

An interesting question. I have the Peterson STC for my Stinson and it has two parts - one for the airframe and one for the 165 Franklin. The O-470 I am installing is also eligible for the autogas STC, but I assume I will have to fork over some more scratch to Peterson to get the paperwork for that engine as well. The upside is that when I sell the Franklin the STC goes with it.

And on the mogas voiding the warranty question, there is a notorious shop in Nebraska that rebuilds Franklins that will not warranty their engines if mogas is used - STC or not. So much like superior, it is not a question of it being legal to run in that particular engine, just a question of what they are willing to cover.

Vick

I understood that when Petersen or the EAA get these STCs, they have to do rigorous testing, altitude and temperature, etc., with each engine and airframe combination.

I am surprised that you have separate STCs for the airframe and the engine. Every combination has different issues. I would check with them.

flyer

I was under the impression that it's not so much about the combination of airframe & engine as it is about certifying that all components of the fuel system in the airframe are compatible with the autofuel and then separately certifying the engine for the same. When I got the Peterson it came with an SA (single use STC with the aircraft serial number on it) and an SE (single use STC with theh engine serial number on it) - one entry for each logbook. I'll give Peterson a call soon though to find out what I need to do about my new engine and post an update here.

Vick

I think you are correct. I checked and I also have separate STCs.
I stand corrected, I think.
This flying is very complicated. I get confused.

flyer

I have the EAA STC for my 170. It is 2 separate STC's: SA762GL for the airframe, & SE693GL for the engine. Included was an airplane flight manual (AFM) supplement for my airplane, tailnumber specific. Approval paperwork was a single 337, documenting both STC's.
I seem to remember 2 separate 337's when I did the Petersen STC on my last airplane, one for the engine STC and one for the airframe STC. But I wouldn't swear to it.

Eric

In my case I fly a 182B that is stc'd for auto fuel. I have not checked mine but I do believe that there is a separate stc for the engine. Now that there are a bit over 1500 hrs on the engine and if I trade it in for a factory reman, do I need a new stc for the engine since it will have a different serial number.

It just gets better and better.

On second thought, I will just keep quiet and ask for forgiviness instead of permision.

Tim

qmdv wrote:In my case I fly a 182B that is stc'd for auto fuel. I have not checked mine but I do believe that there is a separate stc for the engine. Now that there are a bit over 1500 hrs on the engine and if I trade it in for a factory reman, do I need a new stc for the engine since it will have a different serial number.

It just gets better and better.

On second thought, I will just keep quiet and ask for forgiviness instead of permision.

Tim

You are right sir. And I also believe that if an engine is run on Mogas in an aircraft that has all the proper STC's for such a thing is removed from that aircraft and is going to be installed into an aircraft without the Mogas STC's, it has to be overhauled even though there is no intention to run Mogas in the new aircraft.
Why simplify something when you can unnecessarily complicate it.
On edit, I thought the Mogas STC was an airframe STC. I didn't know that some were airframe and engine.

a64

I do not think an engine, previously run on mogas, would have to be overhauled if run on another aircraft to be FAA legal. If the new aircraft did not have an autofuel STC, you could not, obviously run auto fuel.
I do not believe that you would have to overhaul it just to be FAA legal.
I have been wrong before but I would like to see where you got this information.

flyer