Ethanol's Effect

[robpar]

Here is the link to the EPA engine.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/presentation...-isaf-no55.pdf

They used a modified VW diesel. An interesting read.

Bob Parry

[rv6ejguy]

Even on an unmodified engine, power is always slightly higher on alcohol over gasoline, certainly on methanol which I've run many engines on, we saw 5-15% depending on injector configuration. Higher CRs naturally make more power and this is a good way to recover some lost mileage as well. Stoichiometric mixtures for gasoline are around 14.7, 9 for ethanol and 6.4 for methanol.

I think most people have come to the conclusion that making ethanol from straight corn crops is not a great idea but using the discarded cellulose from stalks, leave,s clippings etc. is a really good idea as this stuff is normally just wasted.

I'll put forth one more thought on water in ethanol fuels- I think this is a complete non-issue. Water simply stays in suspension and goes though the engine with a slight power loss. It would take a tremendous volume of water in the fuel to cause serious problems. People add alcohol here in Canada in the winter months to supposedly keep water in fuel lines from freezing. It never happens anyway but the stuff works for that purpose.

The Brazilians replaced fuel lines with stainless and installed larger injectors primarily on the Lycoming. RV fuel tanks would need some work with aluminum not great for alcohols and Proseal an unknown in prolonged contact with ethanol. Obviously the RV group who has been running ethanol for years has the answers to all this.

[robpar]

Thanks Ross for the AFR for alcohol, I did not have them at hand.

During a meeting on methanol direct fuel cells I attended it was mentioned that the only source for methanol in the quantities required for auto use is natural gas. This did not make much sense from an energy standpoint, but this also applies to making ethanol from grain, corn and other bio-waste. Another problem with converting bio mass to alcohol is the amount of water used in the process. I have read as much as 3 liters water to produce 1 liter of alcohol. Not a problem here on the wet coast but other locations it can be a big issue.

Methanol for aircraft use would be a nice alternative. The quantities are not huge (compared to automotive) and the systems could be adapted. Seals, tubing and tank lining would have to be addressed. Doable, expensive especially for existing aircraft, new production would not be a big deal at least on the experimental side.

The sooner lead is removed from the fuel the better the engines will be. I was not big on it when it was first removed from auto fuel, but it did not take long to see that the engines were better for its removal.

Bob Parry

[N1593Y]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

>...
I'll put forth one more thought on water in ethanol fuels- I think this is a complete non-issue. Water simply stays in suspension and goes though the engine with a slight power loss. It would take a tremendous volume of water in the fuel to cause serious problems.

The problem remains. There are many ways to get water into airplane gas tanks, especially since they are vented. Leaving an airplane out during the winter when it is wet, is the same problem that watercraft face. The problem is that once you reach phase separation it is irreversible and the muck that is created is even more corrosive than the ethanol gas mixture that is sitting in your tank all the time.

People add alcohol here in Canada in the winter months to supposedly keep water in fuel lines from freezing. It never happens anyway but the stuff works for that purpose.

Anybody can do that, even in an airplane. It is legal. But that alcohol mixture results in less than E1, at least that is the limit for aircraft.

>...Obviously the RV group who has been running ethanol for years has the answers to all this.

Yes, but you notice that they never document their results. I have never read anything about the conversion that was necessary to run their aircraft on high levels of ethanol. And I believe that they have never performed in those aircraft other than in the summer in the Midwest. Obviously the airplanes would be almost impossible to start in the winter. I have also heard that they have clear fuel header tanks to start the aircraft all the time and they fly between performances on clear gas, after all where could they get ethanol gas on airports on cross countries? I would love to know what they did to their airplanes if anybody has a reference.

[RV7ator]

The reason I tried E10 was simply curiosity regarding how badly it would affect performance. Too bad it's being crammed down our throats by the fools east of the Potomac. I would never seek it out in lieu of petroleum.

Someone mentioned enrichening the mixture to regain lost h.p. Wrong. I intentionally selected best h.p. EGT for gasoline. Dumping in more to accommodate the ethanol would reduce gasoline derived h.p. as well as waste fuel.

Brazil: a socialist economy that heavily subsidizes ethanol production through taxation - same as the USA except on a grander scale. (They are a net oil exporter.)

If we were serious about saving the (insert favorite Green fetish here), we'd drop tariffs that exclude importing Brazil's cheap sugar ethanol, and eliminate subsidies here that favor redirecting feed to fuel.

But why use ethanol at all? It started as an oxygenate, now no longer necessary as emission controls are so good. So now it's "renewable" and "energy independence", a chasing after the wind. African tribeswomen scrounging twigs for cooking fires are also energy independent. He who has the energy wins, and we have abundant resources other than food crops at our disposal. Innovation and market forces will save our bacon, if only the pols would get out of the way.

Energy density is the name of the game, most obvious in consumer products like cell phones, and it's the anchor restraining vehicle electrification. In aircraft it's precious. If you were to convert your bird to 100% ethanol, you'd give up useful load (.79 s.g. vs. .73 for gas), and be landing to refuel before you had to land to pee. That's really going backwards, let alone the complications of adapting infrastructure and operations to ethanol and mitigating its hazards.

Long live petroleum. I hope this ethanol nonsense is only temporary on the way to developing what's already known, and in the labs, for energy that's truly sustainable, clean, cheap, and chock full of btu's.

John (I hate ethanol) Siebold
Boise, ID

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by N1593Y

The problem remains. There are many ways to get water into airplane gas tanks, especially since they are vented. Leaving an airplane out during the winter when it is wet, is the same problem that watercraft face. The problem is that once you reach phase separation it is irreversible and the muck that is created is even more corrosive than the ethanol gas mixture that is sitting in your tank all the time.



Anybody can do that, even in an airplane. It is legal. But that alcohol mixture results in less than E1, at least that is the limit for aircraft.


Yes, but you notice that they never document their results. I have never read anything about the conversion that was necessary to run their aircraft on high levels of ethanol. And I believe that they have never performed in those aircraft other than in the summer in the Midwest. Obviously the airplanes would be almost impossible to start in the winter. I have also heard that they have clear fuel header tanks to start the aircraft all the time and they fly between performances on clear gas, after all where could they get ethanol gas on airports on cross countries? I would love to know what they did to their airplanes if anybody has a reference.

My goodness, I hope you don't treat your RV like this. If you reach phase separation, you simply sump the tanks just like with gasoline- which you should be doing anyway.

I think I was discussing using higher proportions of ethanol here rather than E10. Obviously there is no ethanol fuel infrastructure in place for aircraft at this time. This could change if people wanted it to.

Aircraft engines with updraft carbs would be difficult to start below 10C most likely. Fuel injected engines, no problem. As I said, I drove two cars for about 3 years running M85 winter and summer -35C to +35C. Worked just fine. Had to use a block heater below -10C for about 20 minutes though. I had to change the rubber line from the fuel pump to the supply line because of swelling. I went to a stainless fuel filter as the methanol attacked the glue on the original paper element. Water and corrosion were never an issue in either car.


The auto OEMs offer flex fuel cars these days capable of running on gasoline or E85. Obviously they know exactly what is involved to make it work under all conditions. Not rocket science, there are hundreds of thousands of these vehicles driving around today and I see little difference applying it to aircraft. People just whine that it is too hard. Building an airplane is hard. Converting an engine to run on alcohol is comparatively easy. I think we could learn a lot from the ethanol RV squadron, especially about tank mods- they are actually doing it. I'm always amazed at the resistance to new ideas. Burning ethanol IS being done successfully on a massive scale already.

Technical issues aside, the big question is does it make sense? The energy density of petroleum is superior so range will suffer but we would still get to fly at least if there was no more petroleum around. We could produce gasoline from coal as Sasol is doing now with jet fuel but it still isn't renewable. Petroleum is a superior fuel for weight critical applications like aircraft- no argument there. The waste biomass cellulose ethanol isn't a bad idea for the environment but lots of infrastructure would need to be put in place to make this change. Realistically, I don't think there is the will to make this happen.

If governments in North America would stop screwing around and take the environment seriously, they'd just commit the billions needed to launch the industries to build solar and wind facilities to generate enough power for ground use and leave the petroleum based stuff for mobile transportation like cars, aircraft, ships and trains. For the amount we spend on imported oil, we could be self sufficient for ground use in less than a decade. If anyone here believes that oil is not heavily subsidized already in one way or another by the Canadian and US governments- please remove your rose colored glasses. We continue to do what we do because it is easy and it is again, for the moment, relatively cheap. We'll have to wait for oil to top $120+ a barrel again before panic sets in again about finding alternate energy sources. I don't get it...

[N941WR]

There will be other, better, fuels available when the time comes.

Here is an example of a Designer Aviation Fuel May Provide Cleaner, Greener, Cheaper Alternative: SwiftFuel© is comprised of synthetic hydrocarbons derived from biomass.

Designer Aviation Fuel May Provide Cleaner, Greener, Cheaper Alternative
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Swift Enterprises Ltd. has unveiled a new general aviation fuel that is less expensive, fuel-efficient and environmentally friendlier than any on the market, said co-founder John Rusek.

The general aviation industry includes all flights other than military and scheduled airline flights, both private and commercial. Data on Swift Enterprises’ 100 percent renewable general aviation fuel was presented April 28 at an annual meeting of an international committee that oversees aviation fuel standards. Unlike current biomass fuels, SwiftFuel© is comprised of synthetic hydrocarbons derived from biomass. Rusek said it can provide an effective range (distance between refueling) greater than petroleum while its projected cost is half the current petroleum manufacturing cost.

The innovation by Swift Enterprises’ propulsion and energy researchers meets or exceeds the standards for aviation fuel as verified by nationally recognized laboratories, said Rusek, a professor in Purdue University’s School of Astronautics and Aeronautics Engineering.

Swift Enterprises, founded seven years ago at Purdue Research Park, is led by Rusek and his wife, Mary, who have been involved in the field of energy more than two decades. The meeting was held by the Coordinating Research Council of ASTM International in Alexandria, Va. ASTM International is one of the largest voluntary standards development organizations in the world.

“Our fuel should not be confused with first-generation bio-fuels like E-85, which don't compete well right now with petroleum,” Rusek said. “For general aviation aircraft, range is paramount. Not only can our fuel seamlessly replace the aviation industry’s standard petroleum fuel, it can outperform it.”

The general aviation industry each year uses nearly 570 million gallons of 100LL aviation fuel, which is toxic, increasingly expensive and non-renewable. In contrast, testing has shown SwiftFuel© is 15 to 20 percent more fuel efficient, has no sulfur emissions, requires no stabilizers; has a 30-degree lower freezing point, introduces no new carbon emissions, and is lead-free, John Rusek said. In addition, he said, the components of this fuel can be formulated into a replacement for jet/turbine fuels.

The aviation industry has been the only form of transportation to use leaded fuel (tetraethyl lead) since an Environmental Protection Agency ban went into effect 30 years ago. However, that lead-free exemption will cease in less than two years.

“The general aviation industry, both domestic and foreign, is demanding a solution to this dilemma,” said Mary Rusek, Swift Enterprises’ president. “Our new, patented technology can provide the 1.8 million gallons per day required by the industry in the U.S. by utilizing only 5 percent of this country’s existing bio-fuel plant infrastructure.”

“John and Mary Rusek have devoted their lives to coming up with practical, renewable energy,” said Joseph B. Hornett, senior vice president, treasurer and chief operating officer of the Purdue Research Foundation, which manages the Purdue Research Park. “This fuel could change aviation history and be an economic boon for the state of Indiana and the Midwest, where we can abundantly grow the resources to produce SwiftFuel©.”

Swift Enterprises officials are in discussions with the Federal Aviation Administration, which has initiated a cooperative agreement with the company to evaluate the fuel.



Contacts
For Swift Enterprises Ltd.
Cynthia Sequin, media relations, 765-494-4192
765-413-6013 (mobile)
casequin@prf.org
OR
Swift Enterprises Ltd.
John and Mary Rusek, 765-464-8336
john.rusek@swiftenterprises.com
mary.rusek@swiftenterprises.com

[the_other_dougreeves]

Originally Posted by RV7ator

But why use ethanol at all? It started as an oxygenate, now no longer necessary as emission controls are so good.

Sadly, the answer is "politics". Making ethanol, particularly from corn, is a high dollar business and spends a lot of money to lobby. EtOH isn't really needed for on-road vehicle emission control any more, but vehicles seem to able to run on E5/E10 without major problems, just reductions in MPG. It doesn't really do anything for our aircraft engines with 1950s era emissions controls (basically none).

As for airplanes, I don't see the positives that EtOH brings, and it has problems with its use, particularly with older airframes and engines. IMHO, we should be focusing our efforts on getting a replacement for 100LL, which is a more pressing problem. I don't see how using EtOH helps us achieve that goal.

TODR

[az_gila]

Originally Posted by RV7ator

.......
Brazil: a socialist economy that heavily subsidizes ethanol production through taxation - same as the USA except on a grander scale. (They are a net oil exporter.)

If we were serious about saving the (insert favorite Green fetish here), we'd drop tariffs that exclude importing Brazil's cheap sugar ethanol, and eliminate subsidies here that favor redirecting feed to fuel.
......

Brazil is a net oil exporter because they actually have been drilling more holes in the ground (more precisely in the ocean floor), something that is not really happening in the US - and yes, the Brazilian oil is "offshore oil", just like a lot of the US oil.

Oil production has almost doubled in the last 10 years, and they are #2 producer in S. America, rapidly catching up with Venezuela.

The ethanol they are producing is for mainly for autos - the countries internal consumption of oil is six times greater than that of ethanol - IIRC, their trucking industry is still diesel based.

Some actual figures here....

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Brazil/Oil.html

-- check the Brazil oil consumption vs. production curves, it appears they were a net oil importer in 2007 - if they became a net oil exporter since then, I'm sure it's because the production bit went up...

gil A - believing in the drill here, drilll now theory.... -- just like Brazil

[JDRhodes]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

I was reading an article in Aviation Week recently where Embraer converted a Lycoming IO-540 over to run on E96 ethanol for their EMB 202A AG plane. Resulted in 20 more hp but a 40% reduction in range. Price of the fuel there is 1/4 that of avgas. This is the only production aircraft to use alcohol fuel and over 60 have been produced now. Initial tests indicate cooler running and very clean chambers, valves plus very lower carbon contamination rates on the oil. (Pierre, this thing has a 2094 lb. hopper capacity and electrostatic spray system).

That's less than 300 gallons in the hopper.
We build 'um lot's bigger in the USA!
http://www.airtractor.com/at-802a
And it'll run on Jet A, diesel, and probably french fry oil.