Phyrcooler

Phyrcooler

Well Known Member
Not hugely newsworthy - but just evidence that the debate continues. This from Friday's NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/automobiles/10ETHANOL.html

Notice the reference to all the other engines besides automobile. However, no reference to aircraft though - as I suppose we are a pretty insignificant user of auto fuel to date. Not to start a debate on alcohol in fuel (has that been moved to a "never ending debate" section yet?) - just keeping abreast of what is happening in the fuel industry.


Not sure what ultimate impact E-15 may have on RV-12/Rotax flyers however.


DJ
 
The biggest pain for me using E10 autofuel has been seals leaking. We have conquered all except the tank caps.
 
The caps

Have a brown seal which normally means its made of Viton...Do they not stand up to E10?

I note the Ezy flow filters (same ones that Airflow performance supplys) also have Viton orings..Do these leak too?

Thanks

Frank
 
Info on Viton and Flourosilicone

frankh said:
Have a brown seal which normally means its made of Viton...Do they not stand up to E10?

I note the Ezy flow filters (same ones that Airflow performance supplys) also have Viton o-rings..Do these leak too?

Thanks

Frank
Click to expand...

Frank,
Additives (MTBE) in unleaded fuel are bad for the common Nitrile (aka Buna N) O-rings that have been in common use for over 50 years. It can cause Nitrile components to shrink. Viton overcomes that problem. The "best" material for unleaded gas with ethanol, is flourosilicone (not silicone). On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being best)
Nitrile (Nitrile Butyl Rubber or NBR) = 4
Viton (Flourohydrocarbon) = 2
Flourosilicone = 1

The fuel injector seals on all modern car engines are made of Viton. I have not seen any problems with those O-rings yet. We've had E10 shoved down our throats here in Florida for almost a year now.
FYI, Airflow Performance makes all their FI diaphragms out of Flourosilicone.

I found an interesting article about this here. This article is rather long, but contains info about the effects of additives in unleaded fuel on Nitrile (NBR) rubber. It also explains that flourosilicones are used in the newer (2004 & up) flex fuel (can run E85) vehicles.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Devel...+meet+changing+environmental+needs-a014955386

A less technical article can be found below. Note that the 5th subject header deals with Viton and ethanol. See

http://www.pspglobal.com/v-biofuels-ethanol.html

E10 & E15 certainly won't be a problem for Viton components. Flourosilicone is superior for E85. I hope this eases your concerns.

Charlie Kuss

PS Certain grades of Viton (F, GF & GFLT) are rated 1 for ethanol. See

http://www.pspglobal.com/nfvitongrades.html
 
Last edited:
What about pro seal in the tanks?

Any long term detriment to pro seal? I have QB wings and am worried about the alcohol eating at the pro seal. Thoughts?
 
Cool

About the Viton.

As for proseal I think there is enough evidence that it stands up fine..I have been running E10 on and off for over a year..no leaks so far..
Frank
 
Trying to find data

N713R said:
Any long term detriment to pro seal? I have QB wings and am worried about the alcohol eating at the pro seal. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Ben,
I did some searching and I found the following. The first link is an application guide for applying Pro-Seal. Proper application goes a long way towards eliminating "grip" problems down the road. See

http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NR/rdonlyres/22FFA52B-AC2C-4D75-AE20-08E03ACF8EB8/0/asaguide.pdf

http://corporateportal.ppg.com/NR/rdonlyres/D3101B78-8EB0-427A-8C40-0FC801923466/0/sglssary.pdf

Page 3 of the document below details how heat and cold will reduce or extend the working life of Pro-Seal sealant. I have found that storing your unmixed Pro-Seal in a refrigerator will extend it's shelf life by a factor of 2, sometimes even a factor of 3.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/service_news_magazines/V14N4.pdf

My "net" searching turned up no solid info regarding issues of ethanol in contact with Pro-Seal 890 or Flamemaster CS 3204. I have sent an email to Flamemaster, inquiring about this issue. I will report back, once I get an answer.

Charlie Kuss
 
Phyrcooler said:
Not sure what ultimate impact E-15 may have on RV-12/Rotax flyers however.
Click to expand...
Well, Rotax just approved E10, so I guess it's time for federally mandated E15 :confused:

The whole EtOH mandate is really unfortunate, since MoGas is currently our best shot at a replacement for 100LL, at least for a lot of airplanes. If we can't use MoGas, we have to burn lead?

TODR
 
rocketbob said:
Even the mainstream media is starting to catch on... :eek:

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm
Click to expand...

From the same people who brought us MTBE in our Gas and ground water. Thank you EPA!

Funny but I read an article that was close to the same only it was talking about Obama's passage of new fuel limits for new cars. The 20 to 30% drop in fuel mileage due to the use of Ethanol may make that goal impossible.

Are people really catching on.

As for the corn to fuel vs corn to food issue, this month's National Geographics said the world now eats more than it can grow and that the amount of corn it takes to fill a 25 gallon fuel tank can feed one person for a full year. That article is worth reading.

No thanks, corn squeezing is for drinking, not burning.
 
Last edited:
(quote)--As for the corn to fuel vs corn to food issue, this month's National Geographics said the world now eats more than it can grow and that the amount of corn it takes to fill a 25 gallon fuel tank can feed one person for a full year. That article is worth reading.

Given the industry standard of 2.5 to 2.7 gallons per bushel, I hope you enjoy eating 550 lbs of field corn each year. While it may be possible, show me one person who wants to eat only cattle feed for a year.

Ethanol is nowhere close to the perfect answer, but I think we would be farther ahead if all of the ethanol detractors spent their time looking for its replacement instead of complaining about it.

I have been using ethanol blends for years, in everything from jet skiis, snowmobiles, vehicles, and small engines. I have yet to have an ethanol-related issue with any of them. I must be the luckiest guy on earth!

Lets find a better product, and we can all move on. It seems like the last administration and this one are happy with ethanol, so I think something else is going to have to come available before any big changes happen.

Yes, I am a farmer and a corn grower--flame away, I can take it

Lance
 
No flames, just a question

lancef53 said:
(quote)snipped
Given the industry standard of 2.5 to 2.7 gallons per bushel, I hope you enjoy eating 550 lbs of field corn each year. While it may be possible, show me one person who wants to eat only cattle feed for a year.
snipped
Yes, I am a farmer and a corn grower--flame away, I can take it

Lance
Click to expand...

Lance,
No flames from me. MTBE is not great stuff, but it seems to me, it's less toxic than the tetraethyl lead, it replaces. I'm no expert, so I could be wrong. I would like an explanation of "field corn". I surmise that it's grown to feed live stock, not humans???
Charlie Kuss
city boy :D
 
Last edited:
And we

pay for Ethanol three times..One by the 50c a gallon kickback from out taxes, twice cos we have to buy the dreadful stuff and thrid because its akin to watering down the gas so we get less milage.

Oh its even debabtable whether its cost more energy to make it than we get back from it in terms of energy.

Good deal....Not!

Frank

[ed. This is one of those subjects where, when you state your opinions, back them up with links to facts (studies, published papers, etc). Too much potential for this to turn into a talk about policy, politics and raw emotion. Please keep it factual.... Thanks! dr]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes--field corn is mainly used for feed, or corn syrup. It is not like the sweet corn that we eat from the grocery store.

It is an option in North Dakota, I can buy gasoline with or without ethanol.

The current farm bill (2008-2012) is priced at 286 billion dollars, or about 58 billion per year, with approximately 30% going to farm programs, and about 70% going to nutrition programs(school lunch, food stamps, etc). That makes for an annual cost to farmers and insurance agents of about 17.5 billion. About half of that goes to farmers as program payments, with the other half split between crop insurance and conservation programs.
 
chaskuss said:
Lance,
No flames from me. MTBE is not great stuff, but it seems to me, it's less toxic than the tetraethyl lead, it replaces. I'm no expert, so I could be wrong. I would like an explanation of "field corn". I surmise that it's grown to feed live stock, not humans???
Charlie Kuss
city boy :D
Click to expand...
Charlie,

The problem with MTBE is that it migrates towards and contaminates water, where as lead can contaminate water but apparently it doesn't like to "bind" with H2O as the MTBE does.

Some chemist on this list might be able to give you the reasons. Based on what I have read about MTBE, the stuff seems to have contaminated more ground water than lead ever did from spills and leaking tanks. (No attack on Lance intended or implied.)

One other thing, I used to live in a state that required MTBE during the high smog months. I had a long drive to and from work and during those months I would get headaches during my commute that would last for an hour or so after arriving at my destination. During the months when there was no MTBE in the gas, I didn't have the headaches. In doing some research at the time (15 years ago), what I was experiencing was not uncommon.

Back then I worked for a company that made MTBE and they put big money into lobbing and PR (strategically placed "news" articles) for the stuff.

Commentary to see if Doug is on his toes: The above makes me wonder how much of the "good" things we hear about Ethanol is PR from the farm lobby.
 
Write to your member of congress, senators & reps both.

When I did I emphasized the engine problems ethanol can cause for cars that were only designed for E10. Then I said that any legislation should list the problems ethanol causes for cars and small engines and that there be a presumption in the law that those problems when they occur were caused by ethanol and that the ethanol industry should pay for any repairs on the list. If E15 is truly safe, then they shouldn't object. If they are blowing smoke so they can boost their profits while you carry the risk, they will fight it, which should be revealing.
 
lancef53 said:
Yes--field corn is mainly used for feed, or corn syrup. It is not like the sweet corn that we eat from the grocery store.

It is an option in North Dakota, I can buy gasoline with or without ethanol.

The current farm bill (2008-2012) is priced at 286 billion dollars, or about 58 billion per year, with approximately 30% going to farm programs, and about 70% going to nutrition programs(school lunch, food stamps, etc). That makes for an annual cost to farmers and insurance agents of about 17.5 billion. About half of that goes to farmers as program payments, with the other half split between crop insurance and conservation programs.
Click to expand...

Lance maybe you can tell us some details about corn farming- like what some normal prices are, whether you get subsidies, how much the subsidies are, whether the subsidies are different for corn grown for ethanol or non-ethanol, etc etc.

some interesting things from over here on the west- my dad grew wheat on one of his fields a 4-5 years ago. he still gets an odd support check every year (something like 30-50 dollars) for an 80 acre field even though he doesn't grow wheat right now. I don't know why. After last years record prices for hay/ alfalfa of almost any kind, prices are about half of that and supplies are pretty large. what this has to do with RVs, i don't know. but the corn subsidies relate as part of the whole ethanol politics.
 
Danny, right now cash price for corn at my elevator is $3.60 per bushel. The normal price is like the stock market, it moves up and down. Last summer, before everything went down, it was over $6.00. The last couple of years have seemed to hover in the 3-4 dollar range, before that $2.50 to $3.00 was kind of normal.

The payments are based on base acres, that is why your dad gets a odd check now and then. It is a odd system that only the government could dream up and make as complicated as it is.

The basic farm payment that I recieve isn't based on what I am planting in a current year, but a base like your dads. I could plant every acre to corn, and the payment would be the same. The payment is the same on all corn bushels, regardless of what the corn is used for. The ethanol has driven up the price of corn at the elevator, along with all of the inputs to grow it.

My direct payment is about $11 per acre, which is less than the property tax per acre. The largest part of the government assistance is thru the crop insurance program. Federal crop insurance is all run thru the government, like flood insurance. The premium is the same at every agent, and the price is fixed by the Federal government. For example, last year my total premium was $124,000, with my share being $51,000. This amount was for 70% of my proven yield, about $820,000 of a proven yield value of 1.16 million. This value is based off of my ten year yield history and prices set by the government each spring at the insurance sign up period. Crop insurance comes into play only after I have a 30% loss compared to my 10 year average.

Federal crop insurance is a goofy system, it only allows you to buy a percentage of your proven yield history, anywhere from 50% to 80% of your average yield. The government subsidizes the 65-70% rate the most, so that is the most utilized around here.

To put it into perspective, imagine having a 1.16 million dollar home, but only being able to insure it for $820,000, for a premium of $51,000.

Sorry for the long post, this is getting waaaay off topic!!
 
N941WR said:
Some chemist on this list might be able to give you the reasons. Based on what I have read about MTBE, the stuff seems to have contaminated more ground water than lead ever did from spills and leaking tanks. (No attack on Lance intended or implied.)
Click to expand...
zzz...zzz...zzz...*snork* huh? Chemist? Oh...

MTBE is highly water soluble. When gasoline is spilled, MTBE will get into the groundwater. The big problem with MTBE is that it smells bad. No, really, it's more of a smell and taste issue than any kind of health issue. People will usually complain about water that tastes or smells funny but not over water that has carcinogens in it. At higher concentrations, MTBE causes health problems, but it's uncommon that it's present in drinking water at levels that cause health impacts.

But, hey ... is anyone surprised that when gasoline is spilled, we have environmental problems? Anyone? The problem isn't MTBE, it's that we had leaking gasoline tanks. Oxygenated gas was required in the 1980s, and that's when EPA started requiring inspection and replacement of leaking underground storage tanks (LUST - no, I'm not making that up). All USTs had to be inspected and replaced with double wall tanks. LUSTs had to be dug up and the soil remediated. MTBE was the oxygenate of choice in the 1980s, and IMHO, MTBE took the blame for the LUST problem. Ethanol is less toxic when spilt, but there is plenty of health problems even with low water soluble compounds like benzene.

Anyway, more than you wanted to know. Back to my nap....

TODR
 
Last edited:
Has your plane been drinking

Has Your Airplane Been Drinking? (From the FAA newsblast)

We surely hope not. While the cost-savings of using autogas in your aircraft may be enticing, it is important to ensure it doesn?t contain ethanol, a mix that can be extremely dangerous inside your engine. Among the primary concerns for using ethanol in airplanes not designed for its use are vapor lock, incompatibility with certain engine parts, and its tendency to absorb water. To learn more about the dangers of using ethanol in GA aircraft, see Peter Rouse?s article ?Why Does My Airplane Smell Like It Has Been Drinking?? in the May/June 2009 issue of FAA Aviation News. For a live presentation on this important topic, you can catch Rouse at the Virginia Regional Festival of Flight in Suffolk, Virginia, May 30 and 31. The important thing to remember: The aircraft owner is ultimately responsible for determining autogas does not contain ethanol.
 
I was reminded again why I HATE ethanol.

I took my wife's Honda on a 35 mile trip to visit a friend. When I got in it there was 1/4 tank of gas. Three miles from my friend's house I had to stop and fill it up.

Boy do I ever feel like I've been fleeced by the ethanol lobby!
 
941WR, at least there is something American in your Honda:)

35 miles on a 1/4 tank? Is that a bit of a stretch? 140 miles to a tank, I hope for your sake that it has a 5 gallon tank.
 
lancef53 said:
941WR, at least there is something American in your Honda:)

35 miles on a 1/4 tank? Is that a bit of a stretch? 140 miles to a tank, I hope for your sake that it has a 5 gallon tank.
Click to expand...

I wish it were a stretch but it wasn't. It is possible that the last tank she got was more than 10% ethanol. (What if an airplane got a miss-mixed batch?) Either way, that stuff shouldn't be used for fuel. With the science behind ethanol constantly flipping back and forth, it is obvious to me there is no clear advantage to using or producing it. (BTW, when I am forced to run 10% ethanol in my full size pickup truck I see my highway mileage drop ~ 26%.)

Since the Honda was made here in the States, there is a lot of American in my wife's car. Unless Ohio is nolonger part of the US. More than I can say for a lot of "American" made cars and trucks. Simply put, there is no such thing as an "American made" any longer. Parts come from all over the world.

The last "American" truck I bought wasn't even built in the States. And no, it wasn't a rebadged Japanese car. What a real POS that was and it is the reason I haven't bought "American" in over 20 years. I wasn't so upset at all the problems I had with that truck as much as I was with the way the company handled (or didn't handle) the problems. (Things like the steering shaft wearing out at 27K miles, the fuel tank springing a leak at 10K miles, and the thing needing to be repainted due to rust in less than six months. The list goes on.)

Do I feel bad for all the auto works that are losing their jobs? Having grown up in Michigan, I should probably feel something but I don't. After having been stung by their junk I hope never to go back. It bothers me that the American people are forced to own part of a company who make products that over 50% of us wouldn't buy.
 
Response from FlameMaster

chaskuss said:
Ben,
I did some searching and I found the following. The first link is an application guide for applying Pro-Seal. Proper application goes a long way towards eliminating "grip" problems down the road.

snipped

My "net" searching turned up no solid info regarding issues of ethanol in contact with Pro-Seal 890 or Flamemaster CS 3204. I have sent an email to Flamemaster, inquiring about this issue. I will report back, once I get an answer.

Charlie Kuss
Click to expand...

After almost 3 weeks, I finally got an email response from FlameMaster regarding the effects of auto fuel and auto fuel with ethanol on CS 3204 (the fuel tank sealant sold by Vans) See below:

Linda,
I am building an experimental Vans Aircraft RV-8A. I have searched the
Internet and your web site. I would like to know if the ethanol in E10
gasoline would cause problems for an aluminum fuel tank sealed with
Flamemaster CS 3204 There are a lot of opinions on the various builders
lists, but no solid data. I thought I would ask at "the source". Thank you
in advance.
Charlie Kuss

I have forwarded your inquiry to our Technical Department. Due to your
concern I want to be sure you get expert information. Unfortunately, he is
out of the office.

Regards,

Linda Smith
Mgr. Customer Relations
Sales Department
Flamemaster Corporation

Dear Mr. Kuss

Flamemaster makes no recommendation on sealant compatibility issues regarding the use of alternate fuels either as a substitute for Aviation Gasoline (AVGAS) or as a blend with AVGAS.

Motor Gasoline, such as E-10 vary by producer as to additional additives which can effect corrosion properties also ethanol combines freely with water and if sufficient water is present can be subjected to phase separation taking the octane with it. Conceivably as many variations of E-10 exist as there are producers.

Flamemaster does not warranty the performance of fuel tank sealants or coatings subjected to fluids or fuels other than those specified by the applicable specification." "It is the responsibility of the user to determine the suitability for use utilizing the information contained in the applicable specification."

All Flamemaster sealants including CS-3204 (specification AMSS8802) are tested using JRF (Jet Reference Fluid) as a reference medium. The custodian of the specification chooses the particular JRF type and this may differ between custodians. The JRF used for AMSS8802 references Aviation Gas and Turbine Fuel.

Actual fuels including Aviation Gas, Motor Gas with or without Alcohol, and various Jet Fuels JP4, Jet-A are not used for either qualification or acceptance testing of specific sealant compositions.

The following information is presented without conclusion as to suitability for use
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests conducted independently by a major operator during 2003

A material compatibility study to determine if a 50/50 mix of AVGAS and 89-octane auto fuel adversely affected (CS-3204 B-2) that is normally exposed to the AVGAS. Testing occurred between February 2003 and March 2003.

Mechanical testing included tensile strength and elongation, volume swell, and peel strength determination. All testing was conducted in accordance with the established ASTM and SAE test procedures outlined below. Thermal aging of all materials was conducted for 7 days at 120?F in one of three fluids: AVGAS, 89-octane auto fuel, or a 50/50 mix of AVGAS and auto fuel (which effectively has an octane rating of 91)

Peel Strength SAE AS5127/1
Tensile Strength & Elongation ASTM D 412 , SAE AS5127/1
Volume Swell ASTM D 471, SAE AS5127/1

The tensile strength of the CS-3204 B-2 material, aged for seven days at 120?F in a 50/50 mixture of AVGAS and auto fuel, was reduced by 38% as compared to the results of the thermal aging in just the AVGAS.

The volume swell results were ?2.2% in the AVGAS and +15.0% in the 50/50 mixture.

The peel strength results for this polysulfide fuel tank sealant were 40 lbs / 100% cohesive failure for those specimens exposed to AVGAS and 31 lbs / 100% cohesive failure for those specimens exposed to the 50/50 mixture during thermal aging.

All results observed were within the parameters of the specification AMSS8802

This test data has been received from sources outside of the company, it is provided without any warranty expressed or implied regarding its correctness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to call or Email if you wish to further discuss this issue.

Respectfully,

Ken


-- Kenneth F. Chenard
Flamemaster Corp
Nadcap AS9100 ISO9000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.