AUTO FUEL - The ethanol problem is now beyond Oregon

[MrNomad]

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

[rfinch]

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

[jmartinez443]

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.

[MrNomad]

Originally Posted by jmartinez443

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.

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

[Pilottonny]

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.

[allbee]

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.

[MrNomad]

Originally Posted by allbee

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.

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).

[TThurston]

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.

[N1593Y]

Originally Posted by MrNomad

>.... 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

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:dean@laptop4hire.com]
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.

[N1593Y]

Originally Posted by TThurston

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.

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.