PDA

View Full Version : Ins and outs of Ethanol- a new thread for the drift from "ethanol removal"



nomocom
03-08-2012, 11:29 AM
http://eaaforums.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by nomocom http://eaaforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?p=12329#post12329)
Actually that isn't correct, unless you are simply expressing an opinion. Especially since we are on a experimental aircraft forum, how about we talk without using so many absolutes? It would be officially correct to say, "Do not use ethanol in a certified aircraft". Even then, that would be a generalization since some aircraft in Brazil are approved for ethanol and there are a few aircraft here in the US that have an STC for ethanol :-) But, in any case, +99% of the certified aircraft in the US are not.

Experimental aircraft. Do not use unless you've worked through the changes that need to be made to the aircraft. Vansairforce has some good threads on what builders have done to adapt their experimental airplanes to ethanol blends. One can read up on how ethanol and methanol is used for ADI (anti detonation injection). Reno air racers today and the powerful old radials, some of them had ADI. Also, check out the Vanguards and Greg Poe for boxer aircraft engines running just fine on ethanol. Sure, you have to make some changes, but don't we have some room for that in experimental aviation?


And Kent replied.....

Yes, of course owners of Experimentals can do what they want, but few I know would take the risk with the fuel or lubricants in their engines. ADI uses water/methanol (not ethanol) mixture that is contained in a separate tank and sprayed directly into the fuel charge; this has nothing to do with ethanol in gasoline. Poe's engine ran on 100LL for most flying and an ethanol blend during airshows. If you don't mind draining your fuel system of an ethanol blend after every flight as he did, and as the 100% ethanol users in Brazil do, then I suppose this is OK in an Experimental, assuming every component that ethanol might touch in the engine and fuel system can tolerate it. Note that Greg Poe flew for Fagen Inc., the country's largest builder of ethanol plants, so of course they would claim that there are no issues with ethanol, which is very far from the truth.

Remember too that ethanol will start destroying components even with one single batch of fuel. Switching back to pure E0 fuel will not reverse the damage already done. There is also no denying that ethanol has only 70% of the BTUs per gallon as gasoline does, so using any amount of it will lead to lower power and less range, in addition to a myriad other issues that are very well documented. What pilot would knowingly use a fuel guaranteed to lower the power that his engine would use? That's what you have with an ethanol blend.

For a good idea how ethanol blends damage millions of engines, read the statements for any given state in this survey:
http://pure-gas.org/petition

Yes, the Rotax engine is approved for E10, but talk to any Rotax repairman (like my son) and they will recommend only the use of premium, ethanol-free fuel as the best. Jabiru's were approved for E10, but the company rescinded that approval for its aircraft after experiencing serious damage to the fuel system caused by phase separation and the resulting highly corrosive water/ethanol mixture that sits in a fuel tank.

Airplanes with their open-vented fuel systems, kept in operation for 40-50 years, are not comparable to cars. Just because E10 might work in the latest generation of cars (but is still inferior to ethanol-free fuel) does not imply that it is safe to use in any airplanes. Apples and oranges.

Instead of risking their lives and property, pilots should put their effort into working with their state legislature, congressman, the EPA and others to ban the use of ethanol in premium fuel, as Mississippi State Senator Michael Watson has proposed in his state. Call too on the leaders of the EAA and AOPA to do the same. Using any amounts of ethanol in an aircraft engine is comparable to Russian Roulette, in my opinion, which is based on three years of studying and reporting on the subject, experience with my own aircraft engine (that was destroyed by the accidental use of E10), and thousands of comments from others who engines have been damaged or destroyed by ethanol blends.


Kent Misegades
EAA #520919, Homebuilder, Vintage, Aerobatics
President, EAA1114, Apex, NC www.eaa1114.org (http://www.eaa1114.org/)
Director, Aviation Fuel Club, www.AVIATIONFUELCLUB.org (http://www.AVIATIONFUELCLUB.org/)
Cary, North Carolina, USA
919-946-7096 (mobile)
919-303-8230 (home office)
kent@ufuel.com

(kent@ufuel.com)

nomocom
03-08-2012, 11:35 AM
ADI- Again, Kent, stating absolutes when there aren't. ADI stand for anti-detonation injection. Any injected material that assists in preventing detonation by definition is included. Most common is probably straight water (it's cheap after all). Other mixtures work even better. This has been known for a very long time. Look at NACA report E5H12 and #812. Water, alcohol, both methyl and ethyl, and amine mixtures are used as ADI fluids.

Ethanol is a good ADI fluid. If you have a high octane fuel with a high heat of vaporization (cools the air as it evaporates) it is going to do pretty well. In addition the ethanol has carbon chains to break (fuel) and has oxygen for combustion. The combustion dynamics are more complicated than we need to get into, but cool, rich, high octane mixtures are less prone to detonation. That is why in Reno, those running really high manifold pressures use enormous amounts of ADI fluid. Here's a interesting write up by someone allowed into the pits and given a first hand view. Dago Red, a highly modified P-51 can consume 1000 lb of fuel and 300 lb of ADI fluid (ethanol or methanol) in a 15 minute race. http://www.supercoolprops.com/articles/gwhitegearheads.php

Kent, when you've got modified P-51 aircraft running over 4 atmospheres of manifold pressure (allowed for by the alcohol-water adi) kind of shoots a hole in the argument that that alcohols don't provide good power? Range? legitimate ding there, but power? Visit your local racetrack. Probably find someone running a blown or turbo'ed engine on E85. Why? Because it has really high octane and is less prone to detonation. Over the years, the hot rodding mags have occasionally built up some real HP beasts that run on E85. Not hard to find if you look.

Greg Poe running on 100LL? Yes, true. But someone between that fact and now, some details have been left out. I chatted again this morning with Dax Wanless, the late Greg Poe's VP and mechanic. Dax reports the 100LL was for ferry flights. It was a logistical decision to expedite moving from one show to another. They had a Bendix servo optimized for E98 and they had a servo optimized for 100LL, thus the drain of the tanks. Took a half hour to change them out. If they could reliably get E98 in route, the ethanol servo would have stayed in. Availability of fuel was the only reason, since engine testing done at Lycon showed 8% more power on E95 than 100LL, and Dax reported Greg could tell which fuel was in, by how smooth the engine ran. Smoother running on the E98.

As far as dismissing the late Greg Poe's operation because he is sponsored by Fagen? How about we not write people off because of who they are associated with? Even good products need a messenger. In the same manner, one shouldn't automatically dismiss what you say, because you are affiliated with PureGas, nor should I dismiss what a oil lobbyist says because they happen to have a job and have bills to pay. Skepticism is always necessary, but the burden is still to evaluate the facts, no?

Brazil- I don't no where you are going with the Brazilians draining tanks. It would appear you aren't familiar with Brazilian events. Years ago, many of the crop dusters were switching to ethanol because Brazil has sugar cane ethanol and the cost of operation pencilled out to be much less with the ethanol. The unauthorized modifications did not please Embraer or the authorities, but a few years later, the factory began producing an the ethanol powered model, touting less maintenance cost and higher engine power. Here are some some informative links posted by user
cdrmuetzel@juno.com (http://eaaforums.org/member.php?661-cdrmuetzel-juno.com)http://eaaforums.org/webkit-fake-url://4AAE39FF-0F68-4DF8-8094-7C79C666E1B6/user-offline.png


http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/energy/37677


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...92BXNw&cad=rja (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ethanol%20fuel%20aviation%20brazil&source=web&cd=18&ved=0CFEQFjAHOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sdcorn.org%2Fuserfiles%2Ffile s%2FNAAA%2520Aviation%2520Grade%2520Ethanol.pdf&ei=piRYT8aPLYnksQKFw4G0DQ&usg=AFQjCNHbJpuWL3J8JXRmfSgLHvoW92BXNw&cad=rja)


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...MjHL2g&cad=rja (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ethanol%20fuel%20aviation%20brazil&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CC8QFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Flegacy.icao.int%2FCAAF2009%2FDocs %2FCAAF-09_WP006_en.pdf&ei=piRYT8aPLYnksQKFw4G0DQ&usg=AFQjCNG7WEZpz2GmxPx3RqCBiDVNMjHL2g&cad=rja)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_202_Ipanema


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...vo4itA&cad=rja (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ethanol%20fuel%20aviation%20brazil&source=web&cd=43&ved=0CDgQFjACOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caddet-re.org%2Fassets%2Fno51.pdf&ei=NyZYT5zGH-2MsALd75TRDQ&usg=AFQjCNFeqfNTHVw_JbWu-52VfyUxvo4itA&cad=rja)



7% more power reported in the Brazilian Lycomings. Dax reported 8% more in Greg's aerobatic mount.


One can ding ethanol on btu's per unit of mass. What is the mission of the aircraft? If I want fly long distances while carrying as little fuel weight as possible, ethanol is not high on the list of desired fuels. Jet, diesel, and kerosene are highly dense, followed by gasoline a bit farther down the list. Interestingly, if an engine is built with running ethanol in mind, the high compression can improve the BSFC a great deal, making up for much of the lower fuel density.


I did look at your link to comments about ethanol. Some of the reports ring true in the sense that we know natural rubber and fiberglass are not compatible with ethanol blends. Some of the other comments, it is hard for me to come up with a mechanism for failure. Lacking more details, it is hard to do anything with the information. However, you mentioned you had an engine fail related to ethanol. Please explain how ethanol damaged your engine. I'm curious to hear a chain of events.

Ethanol Hydroscopic qualities. This is an issue in extreme cases. If I'm going to put an airplane on the ramp in a rainy climate, subject it to extreme temperature swings, not fly it much, and tolerate leaky fuel caps, that is a recipe for water in the tank. Petroleum has an advantage here, in that you can park your airplane for a long time, not fix leaky caps, and one can still sump enough of the water out to most likely salvage the fuel. Especially, if you sump, then put fresh fuel on top of it. Combustion will likely be just fine.

However, for the people that have an opportunity to fly occasionally and fix items like leaky fuel caps, the risk is minimal. The ethanol might even make the situation safer, after all, pilots have on occasion forgot to sump tanks and put themselves at risk for taking on a slug of water. That scenario is very unlikely to happen with ethanol blends. Why? What is the "approved" method for removing water that isn't removable from sump drains? Alcohol! http://www.lycoming.com/support/publications/service-instructions/pdfs/SI1070Q.pdf Remove water from your fuel system by adding up to 1% isopropyl alcohol. I find this humorous. Some claim the sky is falling, ethanol will adsorb any moisture out of the air (how it will do that through a 1/8 inch or smaller vent isn't explained), yet when it comes time to clean out your fuel system, what do you use, an alcohol! What a minute! Does alcohol cure moisture or create it? Can't we decide?

Fundamentally, fuels need to match the mission. If I'm flying cross country- trying to minimize refueling, I'm going to seek high btus per unit of mass fuels. High ethanol blends don't fit that mission well. The mission they do meet well is high performance, as in producing higher horsepower without detonation. Possibly a very good fuel fit for many experimental aircraft. If you want to build a high compression engine, fly for sport, and are willing to put the effort into sorting out the compatibility issues, then ethanol would be a good fuel.

I agree with you there is a need for ethanol free fuel. However, why not make your argument based on the real weakness of the ethanol. Less BTU's per gallon is a range issue. Second issue is the inability to easily drain extremely wet fuel from seldom flown and improperly managed aircraft. Third issue, which in some cases is easily curable, the elastomeric compatibility. Harder to fix is a genuine compatibility problem if you have fiberglass tanks. http://www.eaa.org/lightplaneworld/articles/1003_warning.asp The only option here is petroleum only or tank replacement.

I haven't had time to look into the Jabiru ethanol history, but I will. Appreciate you bringing it up.

Frank Giger
03-09-2012, 03:12 AM
I'm building my plane with the assumption that my ethanol-free premium mogas is going to be spiked with alcohol.

So the tank is aluminum, I'll try to keep it drained if I won't be flying it for awhile, and definately be taking a very close look at what is in the gascolator on pre-flight. Lined lines in the cockpit, automotive line on the other side of the firewall (since it's alcohol resistant). Change fuel filter every 100 hours.

What would be most interesting would be a discussion on how to ethanol-proof one's homebuilt...

Mike M
03-09-2012, 07:22 PM
What would be most interesting would be a discussion on how to ethanol-proof one's homebuilt...

seems like you just laid out how to do it, Frank.

nomocom
03-11-2012, 07:57 PM
Kent reported Jabiru retracted the ethanol approval.
Here is the US service bulletin JSA-006 prohibiting ethanol and advising against mogas. http://www.usjabiru.com/uploads/JSA-006_Auto_Fuel_Bulletin.pdf
(http://www.usjabiru.com/uploads/JSA-006_Auto_Fuel_Bulletin.pdf)
One of the chemicals they mention as "oxygenates which may have unknown effects on Jabiru’s fuel tank sealant"is toluene. This is a real problem since first, toluene isn't a oxygenate, so they are showing a basic lack of chemical knowledge, second because by the time you get to the end of the document, it sounds like the only thing OK to use is 100LL. 100LL commonly has toluene. Chevron's Aviation Fuel Technical Review, page 67. http://www.cgabusinessdesk.com/document/aviation_tech_review.pdf

If Jabiru USA really has a problem with toluene, then one can only conclude the fuel tanks aren't appropriate for any available fuel.

I'd encourage you to read the US Jabiru guidance and compare to this document from Jabiru's Australian headquarters. http://jabiru.net.au/Service Bulletins/Engine files/JSL007-4_Fuel_Guidance.pdf

The Australian guidance has research and understanding behind it. In addition, they took the time to proof read it.

Both appear to be the latest on fuel from each. Fascinating the differences!

deej
03-13-2012, 11:34 AM
Here is a good reference concerning water in E10 and phase separation: http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/rfg/waterphs.pdf

(http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/rfg/waterphs.pdf)

kmisegades@bellsouth.net
03-15-2012, 05:26 PM
http://eaaforums.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by nomocom http://eaaforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://eaaforums.org/showthread.php?p=12329#post12329)
Actually that isn't correct, unless you are simply expressing an opinion. Especially since we are on a experimental aircraft forum, how about we talk without using so many absolutes? It would be officially correct to say, "Do not use ethanol in a certified aircraft". Even then, that would be a generalization since some aircraft in Brazil are approved for ethanol and there are a few aircraft here in the US that have an STC for ethanol :-) But, in any case, +99% of the certified aircraft in the US are not.
(kent@ufuel.com)


This is a blog, which is a place for people to voice opinions, which I have done. If one's purpose in homebuilding is to experiment with fuels, fine, but this must be far less than 1% of the EAA homebuilding community. Reports on the use of ethanol in aircraft in Brazil are sometimes overstated. I have spoken with the people of Aeroalcool in Brazil on this and they told me that they have not been able to sell their STCs since pilots there use ethanol without bothering to pay for them. I guess they do not have trial lawyers in Brazil? If you are an ethanol producer, your fuel is nearly free and it might make sense to jump through all the hoops to use 100% ethanol. I think this is a non-starter in the US however.

But why use a fuel with all its known problems and that has 30% less energy? It's certainly not cheaper than autogas, and who knows what the future of ethanol in general will be with the subsidies now eliminated and the FOE now working to change the ethanol mandates? It must be far easier for aviation to increase the use of autogas at airports since the TCs and STCs are mostly all there and the fuel has a great, 30 year track record since the first STC in 1982.

kmisegades@bellsouth.net
03-15-2012, 05:30 PM
Kent reported Jabiru retracted the ethanol approval.
Here is the US service bulletin JSA-006 prohibiting ethanol and advising against mogas. http://www.usjabiru.com/uploads/JSA-006_Auto_Fuel_Bulletin.pdf
(http://www.usjabiru.com/uploads/JSA-006_Auto_Fuel_Bulletin.pdf)
One of the chemicals they mention as "oxygenates which may have unknown effects on Jabiru’s fuel tank sealant"is toluene. This is a real problem since first, toluene isn't a oxygenate, so they are showing a basic lack of chemical knowledge, second because by the time you get to the end of the document, it sounds like the only thing OK to use is 100LL. 100LL commonly has toluene. Chevron's Aviation Fuel Technical Review, page 67. http://www.cgabusinessdesk.com/document/aviation_tech_review.pdf

If Jabiru USA really has a problem with toluene, then one can only conclude the fuel tanks aren't appropriate for any available fuel.

I'd encourage you to read the US Jabiru guidance and compare to this document from Jabiru's Australian headquarters. http://jabiru.net.au/Service Bulletins/Engine files/JSL007-4_Fuel_Guidance.pdf

The Australian guidance has research and understanding behind it. In addition, they took the time to proof read it.

Both appear to be the latest on fuel from each. Fascinating the differences!

Call the folks at Jabiru USA as I did and ask why they rescinded the approval for Jabiru aircraft (but left it in place for engines). It is based on actual field experience with their aircraft in the US. Ethanol is far less common in fuels in Australia than in the US, so on this topic, I would trust the opinions from Jabiru USA over their parent company. Both are fine organizations however and have made a prudent decision.

Stemme aircraft of Germany also rescinded approval for ethanol blends in their self-launching gliders last year. This is not an isolated incident.

kmisegades@bellsouth.net
03-15-2012, 05:40 PM
ADI- Again, Kent, stating absolutes when there aren't. ADI stand for anti-detonation injection.



I was referring to the ADI system developed by Todd Petersen and now being reintroduced by Air Plains of Wellington, KS. In their system, a small amount of methanol is used to prevent the water from freezing. This is a water injection system to prevent detonation, nothing more.

Associated with PureGas? They are one of dozens of groups/airports/pilots/EAA chapters that a few of us help - for free - in our off-hours as part of our free Aviation Fuel Club. Fagen by contrast builds ethanol plants, and Poe's plane was one of the stunts the ethanol lobby has used to form public opinion in recent years. Judging from the general negative opinion of the public, and even environmental groups now, towards ethanol, I'd say that Fagen wasted his money.

It is a pity about Greg Poe though, a fine fellow and heckuva pilot.

Awhite
03-15-2012, 05:54 PM
Why would one want to do that? As an A&P I have seen the effects on fuel system components, but in other non aviation aplications the damage is even more dramatic. I tell my customers "never use ethanol gas in anything you plan to own for more than a week."
Also, when all related energy is included, a gallun of ethanol requires one and a quarter gakkon of refined petroleum to create and move to market. For this investment we receive 47% less energy per finnished gallon, along with dramaticly inflated food prices and transportation costs. Ask anyone who has ever filled his "Flex Fuel" vehicle with E85 and compared mileage with real gas. This farce is the biggest fraud forced on the American public since the "TEMPORARY" income tax.

nomocom
03-15-2012, 09:18 PM
Why would one want to do that? As an A&P I have seen the effects on fuel system components, but in other non aviation aplications the damage is even more dramatic.

Ok, half the second sentence has to do with ethanol operations. Can you add anything? What was the material that failed? How long exposure time? Age of the hose?

Plenty of other places to discuss politics and energy policy.

Bill Greenwood
03-15-2012, 09:35 PM
I never knew Greg Poe, but Ron Fagen is a friend and a fine pilot and a good guy; apart from any issue about ethanol. And he has brought restored several great classic planes and brought them to Oshkosh for all to see.

And while there are or may be ethanol problems in aircraft engines, it's overdone to say that "in non aviation the damage is even more dramatic." Like most people, I fill up my car, an 1991 Mercedes with whatever gas is sold at the service station and I have been doing it for years. The pump usually says that ethanol is added and I have never had any problems, the car starts and seems to run just as before, as do other cars that I drive or rent a cars.

gpsmurf
03-15-2012, 10:30 PM
I have been working on a project to remove ethanol from auto fuel and have been having good luck removing it by (1) Testing for percentage of ethanol in pump gas. (2) If present, I mix in the appropriate amount of H2O (Yes - WATER) (3) Letting it combine with with the ethanol,by agitating it. (4) When it mixes and settles to the bottom of my mixing tank, I drain it off an pour it into my truck (which has E-85 capability). I then go through the process again. When it tests as having no ethanol (I haven't had to run it through the de-ethanolation process a 2nd time.) I pour it into my storage tank and run it in my antique motorcycle.
Once I get my new aircraft engine broken in I'm going to start mixing it into my aircraft fuel and plan to run it as a blend with LL-100 at a ratio of 4 to 1 [To get the lead for valve lubrication.]). Based on the fact that I check my tanks for water before use, I think it will work fine.
The removed ethanol zips through my trunk (and it's extra water filter), without a hic-up I figure I lose a little ethanol and my cost of pure gasoline for other uses (motorcycle and airplane) only increases about 5 to 10%.
Yes, it is slightly labor intensive (I'm retired and have more time than money.) but, when avgas costs over $5/gallon and my converted (ethanol free) auto fuel costs $3.75/gallon so, I save a fair bit of money.
Comments?
Smurf

kmisegades@bellsouth.net
03-16-2012, 06:49 AM
Associated with PureGas?

Pure-Gas.org is a web site maintained by Sam Hokin, vintage BMW bike owner in Madison, WI. His bike pukes on ethanol, so he set up the Pure-Gas.org web site to help others find ethanol-free fuel. Sam is deadset against making any money off this after-hours effort, so you won't find any ads or requests for donations there. One Pure-Gas user created a nice app for iPhones, too. People like Sam have done more to help all those who can not use ethanol blends. People like Mr. Fagen, on the other hand, by funding biofuel lobbies such as Growth Energy, has done his best to adulterate our gasoline with ethanol and remove choices from the gas pump. Ironically, this forces pilots to use more leaded fuel, exacerbating the problem we already had with environmental groups.
Artificial markets such as biofuels, a creation of legislation driven by crony capitalism, eventually collapse under their own weight. Solyndra is one example; ethanol is another.

kmisegades@bellsouth.net
03-16-2012, 06:57 AM
I have been working on a project to remove ethanol from auto fuel and have been having good luck removing it
Smurf

This is where this thread started. Play with your life on the highway if you wish, but please do not use this concoction in an airplane. If you must though, make sure you take no passengers, and stay away from congested areas. When your aircraft goes down in flames, make sure everyone knows you were using an experimental fuel so that the homebuilder community does not get a black eye.

Seriously, why not put effort instead to join forces with other pilots and boaters, find a fuel transporter who will haul small loads of ethanol-free fuel from a terminal (there are plenty in Texas with the correct fuel), and use this in your airplane instead. Sell it to anyone who wants it and make some money in the process. At the same time, educate your legislature on the many problems with ethanol in fuels and ask them to at least exclude premium fuel from ethanol blends. You live, after all, in a state that has politicians who do not always bend over when it comes to legislation from D.C. Remember too that the mandates that now give us E10 are actually intended to swamp our fuel with E85; there is no E10 mandate - it is an E85 mandate. There are a variety of reasons why we do not yet have E15/E30/E85 at all our stations, but that is the ultimate goal of the EPA and their friends in the biofuel industry. 'Washing' ethanol from E10 is not only dangerous, but is an admission of impotence when it comes to poor legislation. We're Americans, not sheep.

nomocom
03-16-2012, 01:27 PM
We have a focus problem (not unusual in unmoderated forums). On this thread my plan was to respect the original posting about separation, by taking the discussion that began on operations to another thread. Now we've got separation postings over here.....and we've got posters bringing in politics, production efficiencies, and so forth.

What I do like. Ken's perspectives on engine operations are interesting to discuss. We are going back and forth on ADI, Jabiru's experiences with ethanol, Brazilian use, and other topics related to operations.

Awhite and everybody else that wants to share political theory and economic theory. If you want a rant about government and business where will that take us? Sure, I can rant about energy policy, oil company reps getting in the sack with government regulators, on and on and on. I could rant either side, actually. I don't have time or the desire, and it is being done elsewhere. I'm not here for politics or energy policy. Airplanes are being flown on ethanol every day. If one cant' have an open enough mind to even discuss ethanol operations in an airplane, and we are off talking politics or how your lawnmower won't run, I got ask, is this an attempt at bullying, or is the situation so emotional for you, that ya just gotta tell us your political views or about your neighbors lawnmower that died?

end of my rant..

My next post will probably be about an interesting ADI application during WWII. Maybe more on the Jabiru situation.

steveinindy
03-16-2012, 01:43 PM
This is where this thread started. Play with your life on the highway if you wish, but please do not use this concoction in an airplane. If you must though, make sure you take no passengers, and stay away from congested areas. When your aircraft goes down in flames, make sure everyone knows you were using an experimental fuel so that the homebuilder community does not get a black eye.

Thank you.


end of my rant..

That's a rant? There's way too much logic and rational thought for that to be a rant, at least according to internet standards.

steveinindy
03-16-2012, 01:45 PM
Comments?

I have some life insurance paperwork I would like you to sign for me. My design and building project could use an infusion of large amounts of cash in the near future.

steveinindy
03-16-2012, 01:53 PM
Artificial markets such as biofuels, a creation of legislation driven by crony capitalism, eventually collapse under their own weight.

What's your take on biodiesel? It seems to be the only alternative to jet fuel and it's not ethanol based so far as I am aware or are your comments directed solely at the gasoline side of the biofuel efforts?

kmisegades@bellsouth.net
03-17-2012, 04:32 AM
What's your take on biodiesel? It seems to be the only alternative to jet fuel and it's not ethanol based so far as I am aware or are your comments directed solely at the gasoline side of the biofuel efforts?

I do not follow bio jet fuel as closely as ethanol issues, but most recent articles on bio jet show the per gallon cost at $15-$30, which for me is a non-starter. I am not aware of any bio jet effort that was not the recipient of massive government funding, again, a non-starter.

Biofuels, especially ethanol, are intrinsically tied to politics, you can not discuss one without the other. For thousands of examples how ethanol alone has cost billions in property damage and risks our daily lives, see the comments in this poll (enter any given state): http://pure-gas.org/petition

I have nothing at all against biofuels, provided the government is not involved. It needs to stand completely on its own two feet without taxpayer support, mandates, or coercion through the enviro fear-mongers out there. Given the amazing results of fracking technology in our country in recent years, I predict a major drop in the price of oil-derived aviation fuels. I also suspect that in a few years biofuels will be seen as one of the worst of the many failed government policies of the past two administrations.

The best government is a tiny one. This goes for aviation regulations, TSA, energy policies, etc.

nomocom
03-18-2012, 11:00 AM
Call the folks at Jabiru USA as I did and ask why they rescinded the approval for Jabiru aircraft (but left it in place for engines). It is based on actual field experience with their aircraft in the US. Ethanol is far less common in fuels in Australia than in the US, so on this topic, I would trust the opinions from Jabiru USA over their parent company. Both are fine organizations however and have made a prudent decision.

I don't doubt at all that the folks at Jabiru USA have seen fuel compatibility problems, are concerned, and want to do something about it. It's great that they want to do something about it, however in life we are evaluated on our actions, not on intent. My fundemental problem with the Jabiru USA statement is it looks like someone wrote it on their lunch break and didn't have time to run spell check. When the author labels toluene an oxygenate (sorta like calling a Mustang a Chevy for those not chemically inclined) that is a revealing statement. Another glaring example, "keytones" are what you hear when you press a button on a telephone. Ketones are a class of compounds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketone) that are common in fuels. And they expect to be considered a credible source?

Wanting to help isn't the same as having something useful to add to the conversation. Contrast their effort to the Jabiru folks down under. A clear discription of the different type of fuels and compatibility information between each fuel system component and fuel (including ethanol). It is a professionally done document. Jabiru USA would do everyone a service if they directed owners to the Jabiru factory document, and if needed add a USA addendum that was RESEARCHED, describing why the US is different than international.

nomocom
03-18-2012, 04:38 PM
Stemme aircraft of Germany also rescinded approval for ethanol blends in their self-launching gliders last year. This is not an isolated incident.

link to a source document? I'd like to take a look at it.

kmisegades@bellsouth.net
03-19-2012, 06:59 AM
link to a source document? I'd like to take a look at it.

Jabiru reacted to actual experiences of leaking composite fuel tanks in the US. See this report:
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2011/02/15/jabiru-rescinds-approval-for-ethanol-blended-fuel-in-its-aircraft/

Spell checkers are also part of this blogging system but are apparently not used in this thread.

Schempp-Hirth (my error, not the much smaller glider-maker Stemme) approves E5 in Solo self-start engine, but not E10:
http://www.schempp-hirth.com/index.php?id=172&L=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=229&tx_ttnews[backPid]=171&cHash=40780b5aee

One major EASA (European FAA) study two years ago warning against the presence of ethanol in aviation fuels, indicated that half of the fuel burned in piston-engine aircraft in Germany (#1 country for GA in Europe) was ethanol-free autogas. I suspect another 25% is 94UL, this latter volume increasing with 100LL decreasing.

These warnings are primarily an issue in the US, as ethanol-free is generally available at airports in Europe and gas stations in most countries other than in the US, where Congress has forced mandates on us leaving us no choice in many instances.

This is not the America I once knew. The EAA remains generally silent on ethanol, and autogas, despite its having achieved the first autogas STC 30 years ago. This is also not the EAA I once knew.

rosiejerryrosie
03-19-2012, 07:50 AM
Both EAA and AOPA (I've communicated with both of them) have apparently "knuckled under" to the ethanol lobby in the US. They have either not addressed the issue where it will do any good, or conceeded that "the ethanol lobby is too powerful - there is no way we can defeat them". It would appear that, with all the uproar about doing away with 100LL, they have forgotten the most immediately available solution - get the ethanol out of MoGas and you also get the lead out of much fuel used in aviation.... But that's too simple a solution.....

gpsmurf
03-19-2012, 02:54 PM
Maybe getting the ethanol out of mogas is simple for you but, if I don't personally take it out, it ain't gonna happen...

gpsmurf
03-19-2012, 03:28 PM
If this "concoction" tests as having no ethanol in it, then it doesn't have any ethanol in it. So, what is wrong with it? I learned this in 7th grade science class. How about buying an ethanol testing kit to see what is in your gas? See this process in action. Please don't go jumping to conclusions and insinuating that this would would cause you to "go down in flames". Please be an adult and a real experimenter.
Trying to deal with politicians is a whole lot harder for me, than doing a simple science project. (After all these politicians passed "Obama Care and and some are "T-Party" members.) How do you know that "washing" ethanol is dangerous?
BTW - There is a requirement to display that "gasoline may contain up to 10% ethanol" on the pump in the state of Texas. I haven't tested any as having more than 10% and I have tested many as having 0% ethanol. Those that test 0%, just go straight into my motorcycle and haven't caused a problem.
Also, do you use a gascolator on your aircraft? Then you've been exposed to science in action!

kmisegades@bellsouth.net
03-20-2012, 05:45 AM
Washing ethanol from E10 - More reasons why this is a dumb, dangerous idea:

1. You will never get 100% of the ethanol out of the blend by 'washing' it with even more water. It does not take much of the stuff to attack materials in an engine and once this starts there is no stopping it, even if you switch back to E0. Remember too that gasoline (and 100LL) absorbs a certain amount of water, so why add add it to fuel?

2. In many instances, ethanol is being added to BOB, Blendstock for Oxygenate Blending, a sub-octane fuel that is not a legal, 'finished' fuel. Oil companies pump this junk through pipelines, knowing that the addition of ethanol bumps the AKI rating up to the required level at the pump. Take the ethanol out of the blend and you just reduced your octane rating, increasing the likelihood of detonation. Most autogas STCs and the very popular Rotax 912 series require 91+ AKI. Premium E10, once 'washed', will be 89 or less AKI. If the source of your blend is dishonest (some retailers are), and have punched the fuel beyond E10, you'll have even lower octane once the ethanol is removed.

3. What do you do with the highly-corrosive concoction that come from washing? Ethanol + water is nasty stuff, you can not simply dump this in the sewer.

4. The mandates that have adulterated our nation's gasoline supply with ethanol are designed to have E85 in all our pumps, not E10, not E15. What do you do when your blend is 85% ethanol? Good luck washing all that out. You're then throwing away 85% of the gallon you bought? Doesn't make much sense to me.


Politics -it is a sad day in America when voters just bend over and take poor legislation, such as the EISA 2007 law that has given us ethanol and a nanny-state law telling us what light bulbs we choose to use.

I for one believe in the right, and obligation of every American to change poor legislation, which ought to include repeal of EISA 2007's RFS ethanol mandates. A group of concerned EAA members - sadly with little support from headquarters - has worked hard, in their spare time, on their own nickel, to educate pilots and airports on the many advantages of autogas as a lead-free aviation fuel. We have done the same with environmental groups such as the FOE and the CEH, who - unlike the aviation alphabets who we pay to represent us - now understand that autogas represents the only real lead-free alternative to 100LL and that ethanol policies in the US need to be changed to protect this fuel.

Washing ethanol out of gasoline may be fine for a lawnmower or weed-whacker, but responsible pilots should refrain from using it. Put your effort instead in educating your state legislature, your EAA leadership, your Congressmen on the pros of autogas and the cons of ethanol. Join with other who prefer ethanol-free fuel, find a supplier and bring it to your area. Many airports are doing this, some shipping it over 400 miles if necessary.

Experiment with airframes and engines, but unless you are a chemist, Todd Petersen or Cesar Gonzalez, don't mess with fuels.

We do not have the luxury as pilots to ignore politics - most would simply prefer to take away our rights to fly, look at DHS for plenty of examples. The solution to problems with all politicians may be found in your mirror.

Hal Bryan
03-20-2012, 01:34 PM
This thread has run its course, and, in the case of a few posts (a couple of which I removed, which I really don't like doing), crossed the line in terms of insult and personal attack. This isn't the place for that, period.