AUTO FUEL - The ethanol problem is now beyond Oregon

Here is some disturbing news concerning auto fuel. In the two main cities in the state of Arizona, we’re led to believe that auto fuel contains ethanol from Nov 1 to April 1. In the past, we wait till April 1 and then go ahead and switch to auto fuel.

Not so any more.

On April 10, I purchased auto fuel and put it my 9A. The engine we built has 7.2 compression pistons. It was a brand new Superior O-360 and I specifically confirmed it was suited for auto fuel before I dropped $20k for the build-it-yourself kit.

On AV Gas the 9A pulls 1550 fpm and, despite the outside heat, idles OK on rich setting during flare and landing. But the first thing I noticed with my first tank of auto fuel was during takeoff. Performance was definitely less. During flare and idle settings, the engine seemed rough and having built auto engines for 30 years, I can detect an engine anomaly a mile away.

After 4 touch and goes, I did a full stop but during taxi, the engine stalled. It was running too rich and black smoke was coming out of the pipes. In 59 hours, that engine never stalled, never exhausted black smoke. The only way to keep it running was to lean it... a lot.

Sure enough, using the handy dandy test jar ethanol test routine, I confirmed that some form of alcohol was in the auto gas. I actually tested it before usage but my methods must have been flawed.

BOTTOM LINE: Be suspicious that EVERY state may now include ethanol in their fuel despite state legislation and advertisement otherwise. Apparently, ethanol is cheaper than reg fuel, and obviously, no one cares what happens to unsuspecting pilots who read the sign on the pumps and are aware of governing legislation.


But the problems I experienced with auto fuel are not limited to the destruction ethanol may inflict.

EMPTY TANK TEST: I drained the auto fuel from the right wing and dumped it into my wife's car. Once the right wing was empty, I taxied to the local AV Gas pump using the empty right wing. WHY? The airplane & engine have only 59 hours on it and I wanted to see how it acted when it ran out of fuel. Better to experiment on the ground than the air. The first thing that happened was the Dynon computer alarms went off and reported high rates of fuel flow as high as 94 gph. The electric fuel pump was pushing vapor, not fuel. Of course, I turned the electric pump off.When it finally ran erratically I switched to the left tank.

IN FLIGHT WITH AUTO FUEL: During straight and level flight, the gph with auto fuel was much higher than AV GAS. Whereas I normally see 8 gph, I was seeing 15 gph. It made no sense to me at the time, but after the EMPTY TANK TEST, I see a parallel between the two episodes. Today's auto fuel must have lots of vapor in it and that vapor is producing crazy gph readings and/or getting past the needle valve. Remember, all parts are only 59 hours old. Nothing rebuilt, all new.

IN FLIGHT WITH AV GAS: During subsequent straight and level flight, the gph went back to original readings after the auto gas was replaced with AV Gas. The engine does not stall.

I ordered Peterson Aviation's vapor tester and alcohol tester. It should be here tomorrow (Weds) and I will test the fuel for vapor and post the results to anyone whose interested.

This morning I removed the auto gas from the left wing too. After 18 months of building, I am not going to chance breaking my new toy. For those who are still building, it's worth the pain and suffering. Take it from me, the 9 is a wonderful airplane.

On a related note, friends who use diesel drive to Nogales Mexico and buy diesel for $2.50 a gallon. Why America is paying obscene prices is probably the same reason we pay the most for pharmaceuticals and too much else.

Barry
Tucson

I feel your pain...but here in California I quit using autogas years ago. Instead I use 100LL + TCP.

They hit us in FL too

Yep, Florida just jumped on the bandwagon and it has a lot of boaters pissed off. Here's a short excerpt from a news story:

MELBOURNE -- A fuel additive designed to be more environmentally friendly is causing concern among the boating industry.

Ethanol is a grain alcohol that is being blended with gasoline, similar to the fuel you fill up your car with at the pump.

The 10 percent additive is overall seen as safe for boat engines, except those built before 1980, when fiberglass gas tanks were used.

Ethanol can eat away at the resin in the fiberglass and damage the engine.

Another issue is the alcohol content of ethanol attracts moisture and puts larger amount of water in tanks.

Dave Cesario, the Melbourne Harbor dockmaster, says he's concerned after his fuel supplier says he heard of at least five boat engines being ruined.

?If the water level is too high, the ethanol absorbs it and it sinks to the bottom of the tank, and that's where your fuel pickups are, and the fuel is more ethanol and water and goes through your carburetor and causing engine problems and blowups,? said Cesario.

Complete lack of representation on this issue is most appalling

jmartinez443 said:

Yep, Florida just jumped on the bandwagon and it has a lot of boaters pissed off. Here's a short excerpt from a news story:
MELBOURNE -- A fuel additive designed to be more environmentally friendly is causing concern among the boating industry.
Ethanol is a grain alcohol that is being blended with gasoline, similar to the fuel you fill up your car with at the pump.
The 10 percent additive is overall seen as safe for boat engines, except those built before 1980, when fiberglass gas tanks were used.
Ethanol can eat away at the resin in the fiberglass and damage the engine.
Another issue is the alcohol content of ethanol attracts moisture and puts larger amount of water in tanks.
Dave Cesario, the Melbourne Harbor dockmaster, says he's concerned after his fuel supplier says he heard of at least five boat engines being ruined.
?If the water level is too high, the ethanol absorbs it and it sinks to the bottom of the tank, and that's where your fuel pickups are, and the fuel is more ethanol and water and goes through your carburetor and causing engine problems and blowups,? said Cesario.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the single most irritating aspect of this is the complete lack of consideration and concern for anyone who's not operating a 2002 Ford with fuel injection. These changes to fuel are made w/o advertisement (all too often) leaving no recourse for the affected parties.

Yeah, I know, write my congressman. What a joke that is. What I will do is write Phil Boyer and the head of EAA. Boyer seems to work hard at advocacy which is lot more than I can say for the 545 "so called" representatives in Washington.

Barry
Tucson

Riciculous prices? what a joke!

Your are talking about ridiculous prices ?

At the moment we are paying around 2,25 EUR/litr for Avgas in Europe. That is 13,20 $/gal,..... tell me about ridiculous !

Regards, Tonny.

Two things that need to be done here. One, educate the public, writing to officials will do nothing, they are the ones that brought this in. The public, or the medea needs to act on this stuff.

Second, we need to bring in fuel that is for aircraft WITHOUT the lead for the experimental engines. The Rotax, Subaru, and others, need fuel without the lead. My new Superior engine will run without the lead, so why not. We need to push for an alternative fuel at the fuel pumps without lead, and of course without the alki.

Write & communicate with everyone who will listen!

allbee said:

Two things that need to be done here. One, educate the public, writing to officials will do nothing, they are the ones that brought this in. The public, or the media needs to act on this stuff.

Second, we need to bring in fuel that is for aircraft WITHOUT the lead for the experimental engines. The Rotax, Subaru, and others, need fuel without the lead. My new Superior engine will run without the lead, so why not. We need to push for an alternative fuel at the fuel pumps without lead, and of course without the alki.

Click to expand...

Amen brother. I plan to write Phil Boyer and anyone else who will listen. It did not occur to me that our friends with boats were similarly threatened by the lack of publication that ethanol is in our fuel, year round.

I also plan to compose a well written, generic letter to the editor that anyone in any state is free to copy and publish under their own name. Like many others, I believe the representative process is an abysmal failure. Our ability to counter Exxon and the folks in Washington they own is slim to none. But as you say, if we can educate fellow pilots to the danger, switch to NO lead and therefore endear ourselves to the clean air crowd, perhaps we can create critical mass. The cost of fuel is killing GA.

Ideally, one of the devices that allege to create fuel from biomass will actually work and we can free ourselves from the oil industry. I believe in American ingenuity. Given the opportunity, ingenious people rise to the occasion and I can think of no more ingenious & innovative group than those who build their own airplanes.

Barry
Tucson
RV9A, O-360, D100, D180, Lowrance, SL30 (60 hours and loving every one of them).

Legal Action

I wonder about possible legal action to ensure continued availability of mogas without ethanol - a class action suit or something. If my airplane requires it, and the state takes it away, then then they have taken away the value of my airplane. It seems like I ought to be compensated for my loss.

But maybe I don't understand how things really work.

MrNomad said:

>.... What I will do is write Phil Boyer and the head of EAA. Boyer seems to work hard at advocacy which is lot more than I can say for the 545 "so called" representatives in Washington.
Tucson

Click to expand...

You will get no support whatsoever from either AOPA or EAA. I have written both of them repeatedly about the fuel problems we are having out here in the west, California with ethanol in all of their gas, but with no labels on the pumps, Oregon with a mandatory E10 law spreading across the state, Washington with a partial mandatory E10 law being implemented. There is only one public use airport in Oregon with mogas, one in Washington, none in CA, MT, ID, UT, NV, AZ. Self fueling has disappeared in CA, and OR, is disappearing in WA, thousands of STCs have been rendered worthless. AOPA and EAA could care less.

This is my last go round with Phil Boyer:

==========================================================

Dean ...

I am reading both your emails and Robs' replies. At this point we will have to agree to disagree.

To answer your last idea ... until the universe of those planes burning mogas becomes a significant number - almost at least 1/2 of the fleet - in terms of gallons purchased (keep in mind mogas Burning planes take on lower amounts of fuel) there is no way the business community of FBO's on the majority of airports will buy, store and service the fueling of mogas.

--Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Billing [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 2:49 AM
To: Boyer, Phil
Cc: Hackman, Rob; Cebula, Andy; Rudinger (Bailey), Melissa
Subject: Maybe this will make more sense. I think it is one of those
good ideas you are looking for.

Mr. Boyer -

I just finished answering an email from Mr. Hackman. He said that you asked him to answer an email that I had sent you last week. It appears I am having difficulty getting my ideas across to AOPA. Let me see if I can simplify this.

Phil, I have framed your "Would you take 5 minutes .... and tell us what you'd do?" appeal. I answered the ideas questionnaire online. But you make one statement that keeps nagging at me, "And rest assured that no good idea will be overlooked."

Here is my good idea. Start a campaign to encourage all airports that have fuel concessions to include mogas. Here is why this is a good idea that has both positive economic and environmental implications.

I have an airplane that has an engine that was certified for 80/87. That is the recommended gasoline. My airplane was not certified to use 100 LL. It is only recommended as an alternative fuel to use for a short time until I can get to an airport with the approved fuel that my engine was certified for.

I bought an EAA STC for my airplane. Unleaded auto fuel without ethanol is now the recommended fuel for my airplane. The FAA approved it after the EAA spent a lot on engineering and testing.

Now the state of Oregon has made it impossible for me to get the recommended fuel for my airplane because the state passed a mandatory E10 law. Where I live near Bend, OR there is no source of unleaded gasoline without ethanol in it. There is only one airport in the whole state that pumps mogas on the airport.

California has made it impossible for anyone with an EAA or Petersen mogas STC to get the recommended fuel for their airplane because the CARB made an agreement with the EPA to oxygenate all the fuel in California with 5.7% ethanol. There are no airports in the whole state that have mogas available.

Washington is following suit with a mandatory ethanol law. There is only one airport in the whole state that pumps mogas on the airport.

Most new LSA use the Rotax 912 engine. The recommended gasoline for the Rotax 912 is unleaded auto gas. As with my engine the Rotax engine is not certified to use 100 LL, it is only recommended as an alternate fuel. If you are forced to use 100 LL full time in the Rotax it greatly increases the cost of flying and maintenance thus defeating the key advantage of the LSA program.

Why is it so difficult to understand that when airplane owners can't refuel their aircraft conveniently with the recommended fuel for their engine, that they might just be prone to stop flying? If mogas was widely available on airports, the cost of flying would not rise quite as fast as it is rising now, so it might be better for the economy. And GA would be able to argue that it is helping the environment by burning less leaded fuel. Finally it would be one less hassle for pilots, and you have to admit not being able to fuel you aircraft is a BIG hassle.

But then maybe more AOPA members will learn this lesson when TEL suddenly disappears as it could any day if the single factory that makes it burns down or decides to go out of business for one reason or another. Of course if we had mogas on most of our airports a very large segment of GA could continue flying and contributing to the economy while the alternative is found.

Regards -- Dean Billing

=========================================================

I apologize for the length of this post. I hope you will write to Phil, but don't expect much of a response unless thousands of AOPA members deluge him with emails.

TThurston said:

I wonder about possible legal action to ensure continued availability of mogas without ethanol - a class action suit or something. If my airplane requires it, and the state takes it away, then then they have taken away the value of my airplane. It seems like I ought to be compensated for my loss.

But maybe I don't understand how things really work.

Click to expand...

I was told by an AOPA lawyer that you have no legal recourse when a state passes a mandatory ethanol law for mogas, because they aren't targeting you, you are just collateral damage.

However, every pilot has a right to get the gas that is certified for his airplane ... on an airport. No state can pass a law that reformulates fuel ordered by a commercial establishment on an airport. Gasoline on an airport is a Federal matter and since auto fuel made to ASTM D 4814, without ethanol, is a recognized aviation fuel, no state can pass a law denying a commercial operation from the ability to order it, if a supplier has it. Otherwise the state is interfering in interstate commerce. Your only recourse is to convince an FBO to install a mogas operation or do it yourself, as we are finding out in Oregon. There are a few other subtle hitches in the supply and demand process, but from what I understand this is our only recourse.

Don't blame EAA or AOPA

Before ethanol was an issue for airplanes, it was an issue for cars. Cars get much lower MPG on gas which is watered down with ethanol, and this has been well known for a dozen years. The American Automobile Association (AAA) with millions of members, was unable to do anything to prevent this situation. What makes you think that EAA, with it's 170K or so, has the clout to walk in to Washington and demand that we stop watering down our gas?

EAA/ AOPA are powerful lobbying organizations, but they are not omnipotent, and certainly don't have the resources to go head to head with ADM et all. This situation is not their fault.

Having sat in on some of the administrative meetings in Oregon, I can tell you that some of the problem lies in profit (the oil companies make more money selling you ethanol in the gas than not), some of it lies in sound bite leadership (the young crowd of 20 somethings in the meeting that were just gleeful they were solving global warming) and part of the problem lies in risk aversion on the part of the oil companies...they are fine selling you mogas to use in your airplane if they don't know it's being used in your airplane...but when they KNOW it's going to an airport...every company present said they (not only) had no interest in supplying non-ethanol mogas for aircraft, and would not do it. Lastly, I know of more than one "branded" FBO who was threatened with losing their liability insurance copay (the part that the their supplier contributes to their liability insurance coverage) if they brought in a line of non-ethanol mogas. What brought the whole "stickerpatch" problem in focus for me here in Oregon was when the state's administrators brought in the state lawyers for an opinion, and the state's lawyers concluded that since there was nothing in the law that specifically prohibited FBO's from selling non-ethanol mogas, there was really no problem. As far as they were concerned, their administrative rules had no effect on aircraft!!! At the end of all of this, the result was...mogas without ethanol goes away, except in those rare instances where an FBO is able to swing a deal with a small supplier willing to (and able to supply a dedicated "non-ethanol" truck) deliver non-ethanol fuel. That's where we are.

Bob,

But we are making progress. At the hearings for SB 1079 in February, the first thing the legislators said was that they had screwed up big time when they passed the ethanol requirement in HB2210. This was because of all those letters, phone calls and emails from pilots and others that they received. They then passed 1079, allowing retailers to sell uncontaminated gas for off road and aircraft, which was a feel good measure on their part and was announced as a test to see if that would work. They said they would revisit the issue during the 2009 session. We need to challenge them to come up with a list of stations that supply exempt gas to show them their silly SB1079 is not the solution.

The State Dept. of Aviation or the Ag. Department, who administers the ethanol program, should list on their websites sources for exempt fuel, but they haven't done so yet because there are so few places it's embarrassing.

As far as the gas companies are concerned, their 51 cent per gallon subsidy for ethanol may be reduced with new legislation coming out of Washington, so it won't be as attractive to them to use it.

And in Lebanon OR, the 100LL supplier told the FBO they wouldn't sell him 100LL if he was going to sell mogas. Larry Knox told them where to go & they then backed off. He now sells mogas & 100LL, just 30 miles or so down the road from you.

Meantime, more and more objections to ethanol are accumulating from deforestation in the rain forests of the Amazon to increased food prices worldwide and more anecdotal evidence of gas mileage reductions equivalent to or greater than the 10% ethanol added to the gas. If we keep up the pressure and keep the faith, we'll reverse or at least water down this requirement yet.

And last month, we invited a legislator to our chapter meeting (902), where he heard all about ethanol with a heavy dose of info about the Young Eagle program (for PR purposes) as well as about Van's Aircraft, which is in his district. He was impressed and asked for a tour of Van's, which happened last week and he brought a state senator along, also. You can invite a legislator or candidate to your 292 meetings, too.

Keep the faith, keep up the pressure.

Pilottonny said:

Your are talking about ridiculous prices ?
At the moment we are paying around 2,25 EUR/litr for Avgas in Europe. That is 13,20 $/gal,..... tell me about ridiculous !

Click to expand...

Can't do anything else than agree with you. And it (that price) still hasn't stop me for flying...

Bob Brown said:

>... and part of the problem lies in risk aversion on the part of the oil companies...they are fine selling you mogas to use in your airplane if they don't know it's being used in your airplane...but when they KNOW it's going to an airport...every company present said they (not only) had no interest in supplying non-ethanol mogas for aircraft, and would not do it.

Click to expand...

That turned out to be b-s. See below.

Lastly, I know of more than one "branded" FBO who was threatened with losing their liability insurance copay (the part that the their supplier contributes to their liability insurance coverage) if they brought in a line of non-ethanol mogas.

Click to expand...

I have heard this too but it is probably just a herring. There are plenty of airports east of the Rockies that sell mogas and 100 LL on the same airport. I talked to an AOPA lawyer and he doubted the excuse, which he had heard before, he said the FBO just doesn't want to lose any 100 LL sales to another type of fuel. I called the airport manager at ARCO, ID who has installed a mogas tank and pump and he said his Chevron distributor has no problems with delivering both 100 LL and mogas to the airport.

What brought the whole "stickerpatch" problem in focus for me here in Oregon was when the state's administrators brought in the state lawyers for an opinion, and the state's lawyers concluded that since there was nothing in the law that specifically prohibited FBO's from selling non-ethanol mogas, there was really no problem. As far as they were concerned, their administrative rules had no effect on aircraft!!!

Click to expand...

I believe that the lawyer concluded that the state has no authority over what is sold on an airport. It is a Federal matter. Since gasoline made to ASTM D 4814, without ethanol, is a type of aviation fuel approved by the FAA, the state cannot prohibit a commercial entity on an airport from ordering it.

At the end of all of this, the result was...mogas without ethanol goes away, except in those rare instances where an FBO is able to swing a deal with a small supplier willing to (and able to supply a dedicated "non-ethanol" truck) deliver non-ethanol fuel. That's where we are.

Click to expand...

This is no longer a rare instance. I was told a couple of months ago by Bend Oil, one of the main distributors in central Oregon, that there was no way he would deliver unblended mogas on an airport, his insurance didn't allow it. I called the airport manager at Bend airport and asked if it would be possible to install a mogas operation on the airport. She said give her a proposal and she would work with us to get it approved. This was the key, she said that any public airport that accepts money from the FAA cannot discriminate against any business on an airport if they have already approved a similar business on the airport, and that similar business is the FBO who already sells fuel. (That FBO has given us the excuses cited above.) So I called up Bend Oil yesterday and asked him if he would deliver unblended gas to a new commercial SB 1079 operation on Bend Airport. His answer was "Yes". Don't know what caused the 180, but ever since Larry Knox got this going and has ODAv behind it, the whole attitude has changed.

I have also spoken to the airport manager at John Day and he is very much in favor of getting mogas on the airport and one of the John Day airport committee members has contacted me in favor of the idea.

I also found out that the truck is not an issue, even with 100 LL. I had heard that the 100 LL trucks have to be dedicated tanks, turns out that is a ruse. There is no requirement for dedicated trucks to any kind of fuel. I got this from tank truck drivers that all they have to do between shipments of diesel, unleaded gasoline or leaded gasoline is put in 25 gallons of the new product and drain it.

The status quo on creeping ethanol is simply not an option.

So let me see if I can summarize this dismal situation.

1)Most of us, including me, were fat, dumb, and complacent when we thought that the problem with ethanol was limited to our unfortunate friends in Oregon. Now that the problem is nationwide (or soon will be), complacency is no longer an option. I apologize for my personal complacency but after my new 9A started to run rough on final, I got off my fat butt.

2)Phil Boyer and the EAA were no help. 170k pilots are not enough of a force.

3)Changing federal legislation is all-but-impossible because of the ?ownership? ADM & the K Street lobbyist gang has on our government.

4)Rotax owners will be grounded because they cannot run on av gas indefinitely. Therefore, all of the LSA manufacturers and the investors who backed those companies are screwed.

5)As soon as TEL (I assume this means lead) is forcibly removed from av gas by the well-meaning greenies, the octane will drop.

6)The number of av gas users is small so they don?t represent enough of a lobbying force. AV gas is next to disappear.

7)Boat owners whose boats have fiberglass tanks are destroying their engines.

8)The public?s cars get worse mileage thanks to ethanol.

9)Food costs are skyrocketing due to the use of ethanol.

10) Cost is much higher in Europe, but somehow that does not leave me ready to acquiesce to tyranny from the oil companies here in America.


Aside from pre-1980 boat owners and pilots, who else is getting screwed by ADM? If coalition building is in mind, who are the logical allies?

Some friends of mine, also pilots, were successful in getting legislation (unrelated to this issue) passed in AZ. They claim that they know the process and believe it?s worth a try. If we?re successful in one state, perhaps that state can serve as a model.

WHAT should we propose as legislation for state government? Are local fuel distributors the actual entities who mix the ethanol into the gas they receive?



If so, should we seek legislation that permits/compels them to sell to qualified consortiums which agree to use the non ethanol fuel off road, in pre-1980 boats, and airplanes?

Several years ago, the antique car crowd created legislation in this state to exempt classic cars from emissions inspections if they are driven few miles. Can we create legislation in one state and then use it is a model elsewhere?

Can Doug help us with his excellent website by facilitating communication by state to all persons who will be similarly affected?

I apologize for asking so many questions, but the status quo is simply not an option.

Barry
Tucson
520-797-0265

MrNomad said:

>...
1)I apologize for my personal complacency but after my new 9A started to run rough on final, I got off my fat butt.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the fight.

2)Phil Boyer and the EAA were no help. 170k pilots are not enough of a force.

Click to expand...

AOPA and EAA are going to do nothing until they hear from a lot of effected people. So far they have only heard from a few of us gadflys in OR. We could use some help. They should hear from you too. All of "you" need to realize, politicians and leaders in these alphabet organizations react to numbers of complaints statistically. They log the communications, and if they see a trend, they begin to realize that each person usually represents X number of people who would write too, but are lazy or don't know how. Email AOPA and EAA, they will hear you, even if they don't answer. I had to barrage Phil Boyer and the lackies he assigned to answer my questions until he finally emailed me back personally.

3)Changing federal legislation is all-but-impossible ...

Click to expand...

Pretty much. Federal mandatory ethanol failed in 2005 or 2006. Died in the Senate, in no small part to AOPA and EAA lobbying according to them. So ADM, Cargill and Monsanto have taken a different tack, go directly to the states and get them to pass mandatory E10 laws. So far it has worked in six states, Minnesota, Missouri, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, which is implementing a partial mandatory ethanol law now and Montana which has a law that needs a trigger, which may never come. All of these states have exceptions in those laws for aircraft and usually some other users too. The most insidious part of federal law is the recent push to increase ethanol production in the next few years and use blending credits to slyly jam it down our throats. I don't think you will see many more states passing mandatory E10 laws because then they have to hold hearings and grant exceptions. It is easier to go directly to the Air Resources Boards in states and get them to mandate oxygenates. This is what happened in CA and there are no exemptions for anybody ... as the boat owners are disastrously finding out now: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-boat15apr15,0,2271802.story

4)Rotax owners will be grounded ...

Click to expand...

This is the one I really don't understand. LAMA is doing nothing ... and nobody in CA can self fuel, let alone there aren't any airports anymore with mogas. I talked to a gentleman at Redmond airport who has designed a new LSA and is in the process of certification and he had to beat up on the president of LAMA at Sun-N-Fun to make him understand the situation out here.

5)As soon as TEL (I assume this means lead) is forcibly removed from av gas by the well-meaning greenies, the octane will drop.

Click to expand...

Yes TEL is Tetra-Ethyll-Lead and it is the lead component in 100 LL. The Friends of the Earth perennially petition the EPA to do it's job and get the lead out of 100 LL. We are only one successful lawsuit away from losing 100 LL. But that is not the worst of it. There is only one plant in the world that makes TEL, and it is not in the US. The octane will drop to about 91/98 which would be 100 LL (ASTM D 910) without lead.

6)The number of av gas users is small so they don?t represent enough of a lobbying force. AV gas is next to disappear.

Click to expand...

Leaded avgas should have disappeared long ago, but the 30% of the piston fleet that needs it represents about 70% of the 100 LL consumption.

7)Boat owners whose boats have fiberglass tanks are destroying their engines.

Click to expand...

Affirmative. Not a lot of boats are affected, but if your boat was built before about 1985 with a fiberglass tank, ethanol will turn the resin to goo.

8)The public?s cars get worse mileage thanks to ethanol.

Click to expand...

In a lot of cases and what is ironic is nobody can explain what the computer in your car is doing when it see ethanol. Some do nothing or aren't effected, yet others are greatly affected, seeing more than 10% mileage decreases, some over 20%. This is why I think the oil companies no longer fight against mandatory ethanol laws, they pocket the blending credit and laugh all the way to the bank when cars get more than 10% mileage decreases because now you are burning more gasoline than before.

9)Food costs are skyrocketing due to the use of ethanol.

Click to expand...

A lot of people claim there is a cause and effect.

10) Cost is much higher in Europe, but somehow that does not leave me ready to acquiesce to tyranny from the oil companies ...

Click to expand...

Now you get to acquiesce to the ethanol companies too.

>... If coalition building is in mind, who are the logical allies?

Click to expand...

Watercraft, antique and classic cars, classic motorcycles, anything powered by a 2 cycle engine and racing cars, the classes that are usually exempted by mandatory ethanol laws.

Some friends of mine, also pilots, were successful in getting legislation passed in AZ. ...

Click to expand...

You need to convince the pilots in the legislature to get behind an exceptions bill. Cultivate newspaper and TV reporters who write articles about ethanol problems. We deluged those reporters here in Oregon. Every time we saw an article that was a puff piece for the ethanol industry we criticized them and when they wrote something that was accurate we thanked them. Eventually they will ask you questions when they are preparing an article which really helps. Whenever you email a legislator, cc the media people you are cultivating.

WHAT should we propose as legislation for state government?

Click to expand...

Ask for a blanket exception for premium unleaded. This is the Missouri model. It insures that there is a usable supply of unblended gasoline available for everyone who needs it, aircraft, watercraft, cars, 2 cycle engines. It is overkill for most of them, but it covers everybody.

Are local fuel distributors the actual entities who mix the ethanol into the gas they receive?

Click to expand...

Rarely, unless they are a large terminal operator with what is called a "rack". The rack can be right outside a refinery or can be the major location at the end of a pipeline as it is here in Oregon. They get the $0.51 / gallon of ethanol blended, credit.

If so, should we seek legislation that permits/compels them to sell to qualified consortiums which agree to use the non ethanol fuel off road, in pre-1980 boats, and airplanes?

Click to expand...

If your state has no mandatory E10 law, all you need is a blanket exception for premium unleaded. Gives everybody a choice and you can point to Missouri as the model.

>... Can we create legislation in one state and then use it is a model elsewhere?

Click to expand...

Oh, if we were so lucky. State legislators are truly myopic, egotistical individuals. Oregon legislators didn't even bother to look at what any other state did. My most common question to the legislators was do you know how to use Google?

Can Doug help us with his excellent website by facilitating communication by state to all persons who will be similarly affected?

Click to expand...

You should use every Internet forum you can find. I started an Internet forum www.iflyit.net when I learned that my local EAA chapter in Bend, OR had no clue how to communicate with any other chapter in Oregon. Plus there are other state aviation organizations that should be involved. Just about every state has a state pilots organization. None of them talk to each other. So I have structure www.iflyit.net with boards for each organization, hope they start using them someday. There is a list of the Internet forums that I know of here: http://iflyit.net/index.php?topic=550.0
Just about all of them have had ethanol threads.