Ins and outs of Ethanol- a new thread for the drift from "ethanol removal"
http://eaaforums.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by nomocom http://eaaforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
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
Director, Aviation Fuel Club, www.AVIATIONFUELCLUB.org
Cary, North Carolina, USA
919-946-7096 (mobile)
919-303-8230 (home office)
kent@ufuel.com
Jabiru, Schempp-Hirth rescind E10 approval
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nomocom
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/2...-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.p...&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.
Facts are stubborn things - don't use ethanol
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.
