new member - howdy!

[Subcanis]

Some of you may remmber me asking about running 100LL in my KLR. No? Recap: I work at my local airport, and we have to sump all our fuel trucks daily. I have anywhere from 55 to 165 gallons of 100LL at my disposal every week. We cant sell it, and all of our fuel trucks are. So, I decided to try it (against some of the advice I got on here). Runs fine. No, runs GREAT. It runs cooler and I get better MPG. The plug shows no sign of lead fouling whatsoever. Valves look just as they should. I havent been running it straight, I tend to run half a tank down, then top off with 100LL, then run it down half again, fill with pump 88, so its about 50/50 (just to reduce the lead content). So yeah, Im going for a ride. Chris in WY

[Adam]

Chris, I am no expert but from what I understand it only hurts in high performance applications when people try to substitute it for a racing fuel because it burns slower. I would run it, especially if it was FREE. The KLR motor wont know the difference, heck you could probably pee in the tank and it would be ok. I have run some weird fuel (Mexico mobile roadside fuel stations) or better known as a drum in the back of a pick up with no problems. In short, I would run it and the small amount lead in the fuel will make your valves very happy. Adam 04 KLR650 04 KTM450MXC

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Subcanis" wrote: > > Some of you may remmber me asking about running 100LL in my KLR. No? > > Recap: > I work at my local airport, and we have to sump all our fuel trucks > daily. I have anywhere from 55 to 165 gallons of 100LL at my disposal > every week. We cant sell it, and all of our fuel trucks are. > > So, I decided to try it (against some of the advice I got on here). > Runs fine. No, runs GREAT. It runs cooler and I get better MPG. The > plug shows no sign of lead fouling whatsoever. Valves look just as > they should. I havent been running it straight, I tend to run half a > tank down, then top off with 100LL, then run it down half again, fill > with pump 88, so its about 50/50 (just to reduce the lead content). > > So yeah, Im going for a ride. > Chris in WY >

[afmcg1]

I already did this reply, but I'm new to the group, so I guess I just sent it to the original poster, here it is for everyone else... My buddy runs 100LL in his CRF450. When he did the top end after ~40hrs, the combustion chamber was full of yellowish deposits, including on the exh valve stems. It looked terrible to me, I have some pics on my comp at home. Granted, I don't think he diluted it, and the 450s burn a bit of oil, so those may have been contributing factors. This was enough to keep me from using it, and I run pump 91 in my KLR and KLX, and pump 100 in my CRF450. If the 100LL is free...I guess it depends on how comfortable you are with deposits. Maybe you won't have any issues.

--- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" wrote: > > Chris, > > I am no expert but from what I understand it only hurts in high > performance applications when people try to substitute it for a > racing fuel because it burns slower. I would run it, especially if > it was FREE. The KLR motor wont know the difference, heck you could > probably pee in the tank and it would be ok. I have run some weird > fuel (Mexico mobile roadside fuel stations) or better known as a > drum in the back of a pick up with no problems. In short, I would > run it and the small amount lead in the fuel will make your valves > very happy. > > Adam > > 04 KLR650 > 04 KTM450MXC > > > --- In DSN_KLR650@yahoogroups.com, "Subcanis" wrote: > > > > Some of you may remmber me asking about running 100LL in my KLR. > No? > > > > Recap: > > I work at my local airport, and we have to sump all our fuel trucks > > daily. I have anywhere from 55 to 165 gallons of 100LL at my > disposal > > every week. We cant sell it, and all of our fuel trucks are. > > > > So, I decided to try it (against some of the advice I got on > here). > > Runs fine. No, runs GREAT. It runs cooler and I get better MPG. > The > > plug shows no sign of lead fouling whatsoever. Valves look just as > > they should. I havent been running it straight, I tend to run > half a > > tank down, then top off with 100LL, then run it down half again, > fill > > with pump 88, so its about 50/50 (just to reduce the lead > content). > > > > So yeah, Im going for a ride. > > Chris in WY > > >

[revmaaatin]

> On Aug 3, 2006, at 8:27 PM, revmaaatin wrote: > > > I see in your link, it appears the med-helo is a single-engine,

two-

> > blade Bell-212 (UH-1), BELL-412 is a dual-engine, etc....

Hello list, I got a note-4-correction from our friend Clint: SNIP-SNIP On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:09 , Clinton Kendall sent:

>A Bell 212 (UH-1N) is also twin-engine.

UNSNIP-SNIP I responded: Hi Clinton, You sir, are correct, mostly sort of. I went back to the 'book' and took another look. I am looking at page 147 of the Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation dtd 1980, and it indeed shows a picture, description: " Bell Model 212 Twin Two-Twelve" (word for word), "developed initially for a Canadian requirement." The picture is a working model over an oil platform. So to be painfully correct, a UH-1N (which I have actually flown, 3.3 hours I think; 66 hours of Bell 212) is most correctly described as a Bell 212 Twin Two Twelve, accoridng to Jane's. Thus ends another round of stump-the-chump! or the USMC cruise game of choice: min-usha trivia for $20! Thanks. I learned something today. END OF REPLY Where else can you get useful KLR information, and, a lesson in aircraft identification, for the same price? revmaaatin. sometimes correctly ID'ing an aircraft is like trying to determine the sex of a cat. Only useful if you want more/less cats