Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

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

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by kmisegades@bellsouth.net View Post
    Call the folks at Jabiru USA as I did and ask why they rescinded the approval for Jabiru aircraft (but left it in place for engines).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 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.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by kmisegades@bellsouth.net View Post

    Stemme aircraft of Germany also rescinded approval for ethanol blends in their self-launching gliders last year.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.

  3. #23

    Jabiru, Schempp-Hirth rescind E10 approval

    Quote Originally Posted by nomocom View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    rosiejerryrosie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    392
    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.....
    Cheers,
    Jerry

    NC22375
    65LA out of 07N Pennsylvania

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    central Texas
    Posts
    4
    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...

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    central Texas
    Posts
    4
    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!

  7. #27

    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.

  8. #28
    EAA Staff / Moderator Hal Bryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wisconsin, United States
    Posts
    1,296
    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.

    Hal Bryan
    EAA Lifetime 638979
    Vintage 714005 | Warbirds 553527
    Managing Editor
    EAA—The Spirit of Aviation

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •