Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Flex Fuel engines

  1. #11
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    since when is wanting to spend less money a "screw you" attitude?
    That's not what I was getting at and you're combining two separate points. Some folks in the aviation community tend to have the perception that they need to thumb their nose at the FAA/manufacturers/etc as much as they can. A lot of these folks (at least around here) tend to be the same ones who crow about how they love running gasoline so they aren't under the "thumb" of the 100LL racket. That is, right up until their engine pukes or their fuel lines start leaking. Then it's a massive government conspiracy which is about the time I start to tune them out. These guys tend to rapidly move off the local airport to a grass strip when they realize that the cost of having a separate system for their automotive gasoline at the field is prohibitive in many cases (in other words, they get pissy with the airport management for not catering to their minority and either leave or are told to do so because of their hostility; one guy here was escorted off the premises in cuffs by the local PD because of he was being so bellicose) or otherwise remove themselves from the local pilot population.

    Not everybody has to tanker in auto gas
    I know a lot of people who have to run off the airport to get it and bring it back to their plane. It seems like a lot of extra work for something that's likely to damage the seals, gaskets, etc of the aircraft.

    You haven't made the least bit of technical explanation as to why people should NOT deviate form 100LL.
    You mean besides the fact that the fuel systems and most of the engines were designed to utilize 100LL and that the ethanol in gasoline is causing problems? That's a pretty good set of them in my book. That's not to mention it's a heck of a lot easier to just taxi up to the 100LL pump and fill the tanks. I'll pay a little more for the convenience factor alone.

    What you call a "screw you" and "get away with it" attitude is the the experimental aviation idea of innovation and independence.
    Well, when the same stuff isn't working and people are complaining about the damage it's doing, that doesn't exactly sound like "innovation" to me. When you're ruining your engine, that's not really "independence" now is it? Aviation has never been "independent" but we sure like to tell ourselves that (just like how we like to blow smoke about it politically, etc). Show me a plane with a motor that can be literally built by someone (not a corporation) with no input from an outside source and isn't beholden to the oversight and input of numerous other folks and then we will talk "independence".

    Ethanol in gasoline isn't going anywhere anytime soon and instead of grousing about it maybe folks should start building their aircraft to accommodate it rather than trying to skate by with the older designs. How many of the folks do you see on these threads that are developing modifications to their fuel tanks, lines and engines to run the stuff without destroying them? I can't recall any of them. Instead, we get people whining about politicians and how they need to be booted out of office for supporting this. The problem is the next crop will go right into the pockets of the ethanol lobby, the oil lobby, etc. I might be a little less pessimistic about the automotive gas as an aviation fuel crowd if they banded together and said "Here's the problem, here's the practical solution we need to make this work. Let's get to it" instead of sitting around howling like a bunch of cats in a room full of rocking chairs and licking their wounds. If we're supposed to be "innovating" and "independent" then damn it, people need to start acting like it instead of just talking about it.

    We need more folks who have the education, knowledge and experience to fix these issues. The problem is that the average homebuilder is chasing his tail by not innovating. In one way, this is good because most of us (including myself at the moment) are not engineers or expert mechanics. In another, it makes the "idea of innovation and independence" little more than a slogan and has caused us to stagnate into a bunch of copycats. Very few people in "experimental aviation" are really experimenting. It's simply called that because of historical context and the FAA classification of our aircraft. The average homebuilder buys a kit or a set of plans and build someone else's design. Sure, it's an "experiment" by definition but unless they did something really boneheaded, most aircraft will fly. I love the RV series and the rest of the popular kit aircraft are great too but the average homebuilder isn't innovating at all. Trying to pin that medal on every last one of our lapels is doing a disservice to aviation as a whole. Recognize those who are and hold them out as an example (which is why Rutan was honored a couple of years back at Oshkosh). The rest of us need to abide by the old Chrysler marketing slogan: "Lead, follow or get out of the way".
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  2. #12
    FlyingRon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NC26 (Catawba, NC)
    Posts
    2,627
    You keep making unsubstantiated claims and bouncing around. Nobody is seeing damage to seals or gaskets from (non-ethanol) auto fuel. There's just nothing you have said that makes any credible statement why people with the STC or experimentals which have been reasonably determined to be in a similar situation, should not run autofuel.

    The jury is out on 10% ethanol. For certain, it is illegal under the STC. There are mixed evaluations on certain things like gascolator gaskets, but a lot of the other alleged issues are pretty much unsubstantiated.

    What makes you think people are NOT working on higher-concentration ethanol tolerant designs? It's not true that it's not happening. There's a group of guys that were flying RVs on 100% ethanol. But you don't get that by jumping up and down and arguing you shouldn't ever put anything other than 100LL in a Lycont or that a experimental owner shouldn't be allowed to tinker with their designs.

  3. #13
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    Nobody is seeing damage to seals or gaskets from (non-ethanol) auto fuel
    Yeah, but good luck finding gasoline without ethanol in large swathes of the country. Around here, I can't tell you the last time I saw a pump that didn't have one of those "contains up to 10% ethanol v/v" stickers. There are a couple of motorcycle shops that specialty stock the stuff but it's more expensive than 100LL because they know they can gouge the RUBs.

    For all intents and purposes in the Midwest, gasoline is going to equal 10% ethanol blend unless you really go out of your way to find the few places that stock the old blend. That's why I think you're looking at me like I've got my head on backwards. When I say "gasoline" that's what I'm talking about not the pure gas blend that is going the way of the dodo bird.

    What makes you think people are NOT working on higher-concentration ethanol tolerant designs?
    There are a few folks working on it no doubt just as there are a few of us working on designs intended for increased safety in the event of a crash. The point I am trying to make is that if even half or a third of the people whining about the subject on this forum would put the same amount of effort into fixing their aircraft to make them function just fine , we would probably have a solution to it in very little time.

    . But you don't get that by jumping up and down and arguing you shouldn't ever put anything other than 100LL in a Lycont or that a experimental owner shouldn't be allowed to tinker with their designs.
    I said it's probably not a good idea given all the issues with ethanol that people keep pissing and moaning about. If they want to do the homework and put in the effort, go for it. It's the people who are looking for the easy way out when there probably isn't one (either politically or from an engineering standpoint) and whine when this is pointed out. The easy solution for those who can't or don't choose to refit is 100LL (or whatever unleaded replacement for it comes down the pike). You don't write regulations or make suggestions to the smartest or most dedicated person out there. Think about the guy who can't be trouble to check his fuel for water before takeoff and then can't figure out why he had to put it down in a field right after takeoff. You really think he is thinking about the effects of the cheaper gas (as in ethanol/gas blend) on the gaskets, etc? There's a guy at one of the local airports here that has a death pool among his fellow pilots on when his poor judgment is going to cause him to bite it.

    but a lot of the other alleged issues are pretty much unsubstantiated.
    A lot of them seem to be more or less a convenient excuse for shoddy maintenance or the result of the owner trying a "home brew" to remove the ethanol from gasoline. I'm not enough of an "engine guy" to try anything other than calling my friends who are A&Ps and following the manufacturer's recommendations. My own distrust of my abilities and knowledge of anything firewall forward is a major reason why I honestly wonder anyone would chance it when there is an easy alternative that doesn't have any of these reputed problems.

    that a experimental owner shouldn't be allowed to tinker with their designs.
    I'm advocating for people tinkering with the designs (within reason of course). I pointed out that most of us don't which is why you see a ton more RVs and VariEzs than you do the one off designs that used to really warrant the term "experimental aircraft".
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  4. #14
    Dana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    927
    Steve, I think you're missing a couple of points:

    The autogas STC's weren't just thrown out there because somebody in the FAA found the paperwork in order. There was a lot of testing by various groups, under a wide range of conditions, before the STC's were approved.

    The STC's do not allow autogas with ethanol. Period. Any arguments about the safety of ethanol in a certificated and STC'd aircraft engine are moot because you can't do it (legally).

    Autogas (without ethanol, of course) is a lot closer to the 80 octane fuel those older engines were designed for than 100LL. The A-65 my Taylorcraft simply required "73 octane minimum". And there are still a lot of those engines operating today.

    Autogas without ethanol is admittedly hard to find today. It depends on the state, of course, but many states only mandate it for highway vehicles. Depending on the local distribution system, airports, marinas, etc. may be able to get ethanol free gasoline or they may not.

    On non certified engines like Rotax, etc. ethanol may be used, though people debate about it. Rotax allows up to 10% ethanol. These engines suffer from lead fouling on 100LL; they're made for autogas. 2-strokes need a jetting adjustment since ethanol runs leaner, an owner who doesn't adjust the jetting may blame ethanol for problems. I've seen no problems that I could relate to ethanol in any of the 2-strokes I've operated.

  5. #15
    steveinindy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,449
    The autogas STC's weren't just thrown out there because somebody in the FAA found the paperwork in order. There was a lot of testing by various groups, under a wide range of conditions, before the STC's were approved.

    The STC's do not allow autogas with ethanol. Period. Any arguments about the safety of ethanol in a certificated and STC'd aircraft engine are moot because you can't do it (legally).
    Oh, I know how difficult it is but at the same time a lot of people seem to forget (or ignore) the point you and Ron both brought up: that the presence of ethanol negates the STC. This is one of the problems here locally and it seems to be causing problems with the various "gaskets". Which ones, I'm not sure...the mechanics just talk about the ethanol messing with "the gaskets" and that pilots often chime in with "but the engine is STCed for this!".

    an owner who doesn't adjust the jetting may blame ethanol for problems
    Yeah, I saw that during my time flying ultralights. It's like the old squawk list joke about the problem not being with the headset but rather what's between it.

    I've seen no problems that I could relate to ethanol in any of the 2-strokes I've operated.
    Neither have I but then again my n=somewhere between 300 and 400 hours in mostly 2-stroke powered aircraft is a drop in the bucket compared to some.

    Autogas (without ethanol, of course) is a lot closer to the 80 octane fuel those older engines were designed for than 100LL. The A-65 my Taylorcraft simply required "73 octane minimum". And there are still a lot of those engines operating today.
    One of my acquaintances has a little L-bird and I can't remember which model but it takes the lower octane fuel. The stuff isn't apparently easy to find around here and he jokes that it will soon be cheaper to figure out how to put a turbine on it and base it at IND (where Jet-A is something like $7.00+ a gallon). The one marina I know of here that has it happens to be really close to an airport and they peg their prices to the price of 100LL to take advantage (as in "bend over and grab your ankles") of the pilots who want to buy ethanol free mogas.

    The guys who need a lower octane fuel are the ones who are really getting screwed over here. The rest of have other options for the most part.
    Unfortunately in science what you believe is irrelevant.

    "I'm an old-fashioned Southern Gentleman. Which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-***** when I want to be."- Robert A. Heinlein.



  6. #16
    Aaron Novak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wi
    Posts
    361
    Anyone that thinks automotive fuels are "the greatest thing since sliced bread", apparently know little about them, and dont realize what a luxury a fuel like 100LL is. Not from the chemistry perspective per se, but from a control standpoint. Auto fuel is all over the map, and ethanol is only one of the variables. It is some of the nastiest, most uncontrolled buch of garbage ever made. From an engine designers perspective, I wish all fuels were 100LL or 98UL.

  7. #17
    Why is it that anytime someone asks a simple question concerning ethanol we seem to get the same people saying the same things. Every single one of these types of threads on the various forums end up with the same pi$$ing and moaning matches with the pros and cons coming from the different proponents of these fuels. Can't we ever have a thread that doesn't drift into these spats?

    Can anyone just answer Bighorns question with a direct answer?

    Willie....I have an O-235 in one of my planes as you know and I have burned auto fuel in it when I had to but I always bought non-oxygenated so it was sans ethanol.
    Now in my O-300 powered plane I unknowing used some fuel with ethanol in it for quite a while and never had an issue. This happened in a southern state many years ago when the pumps there were not marked as the fuel containing ethanol. I was lacks in checking because when I had asked the fuel station if they had ethanol they had said the state did not have it in any of the gas. I had checked and he was correct. Well, over the next few months it had been phased in an I didn't know it had been done so was still buying my fuel at the same place as always. One of the other pilots at the airport I was based at informed me the local station was now getting their fuel with ethanol and had been for several months. I quit using it because the STC states I can't......but the engine never knew it had it nor did I have any problems.
    I feel as long as a person plans for its use in an experimental and makes all the appropriate modifications to the fuel system there shouldn't be any issues.
    Keith

  8. #18
    Aaron Novak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wi
    Posts
    361
    Keith,
    Simple answer to your question is this, Passion Without Education, or PWE for short. Seems to crop up frequently on the internet.
    -Aaron

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14
    [QUOTE=WWhunter;16171]Why is it that anytime someone asks a simple question concerning ethanol we seem to get the same people saying the same things. Every single one of these types of threads on the various forums end up with the same pi$$ing and moaning matches with the pros and cons coming from the different proponents of these fuels. Can't we ever have a thread that doesn't drift into these spats?

    Can anyone just answer Bighorns question with a direct answer?


    Thanks WW

    As you know I have been looking at LSA or ELSA and just was wondering what was allowed for options. I do agree that 100LL stores for some time longer. Going forward does one look at the newer style engines that may be easily adapted to other fuels or the good ol standbys like your o-235 that are tried and true.
    Didn't mean to open up a can of worms just looking at what is....and someday may be.

    Thanks again

  10. #20
    Aaron Novak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Oshkosh, Wi
    Posts
    361
    BigHorn,
    To answer your qustion simply, the engine is not in itself the issue, but the application and operating conditions are. "Flex Fuel" opens up so many variables that while not critical to automotive use, could be real issues in aviation. Big differences are the storage intervals, ambient pressures and temperatures etc. Right now there are so many serious long term durability issues with ethanol blends its not funny, and the non-aviation engine manufactures are doing everything they can to try to make things work well enough to get by. Its not as pretty as it appears on the "outside".

Posting Permissions

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