S

Steve_Mullin

I'm New Here
I was watching a show yesterday on the Science Channel called Coolfuel.
There was a man from North Dakota who had monified his stock engine on his Mooney to burn pure ethanol. Says he gets more then 30 mpg and with ethanol running less then $1.30 (at the time that the episode was filmed) was alot cheaper then Avgas. Engine also ran alot cooler on ethanol.

Anyone know of an engine for RV's that can run on ethanol? Would be great to have this option for the future as ethanol becomes more available.
 
There is a formation group in South Dakota that flies RV-4's that burn ethanol, just a modified lycoming afaik. They are called the Vanguard squadron.

Nathan Larson
N217JT RV9e flying 550+ hours
 
Last edited:
Ethanol

Steve, I got excited about the ethanol possibilities a while back and did some research. Unfortunately, the bottom line right now is that you don't gain any practical advantage using ethanol these days. The reason is that aviation-grade ethanol is actually MORE expensive than avgas (as a function of BTUs, not gallons). I encourage you to research it, though - maybe you'll come to a different conclusion. Here's a place to start: AGE 85

Cheers,
 
Ethanol

In the show "Cool Fuel" that aired yesterday, the pilot strongly stated that the ethanol he was using was pure grain alcohol, but did have some oil mixed in to help lubricate the engine, which may be similare to the E85 you use in the flex fuel cars. His ethanol was far cheaper then the avgas in the area.
But it may be cheaper up there then other places because they have plants to process corn into ethanol in those areas that grow lots of corn then in other areas that don't. That's why you don't see E85 all over the US as of yet due to supply.
 
WSJ.com - Some Boat Owners With Gunky Motors Sing Ethanol Blues

http://users1.wsj.com/article/SB115716049999352474.html?mod=mostpop

unfortunately, the above link requires subscription. I did the google search on "ethanol boats site:wsj.com" and it came up as the top link.

I read this WSJ weekend edition article from a couple weekends ago. it talked about how some boat owners on the east coast were having engine problems, that they attributed to the ethanol being added to their fuel. Ethanol absorbed the moisture from the air gunking up their engines. Also, the Ethanol leached out the resins from their composite fuel tanks, which also contributed to their engine problems.

The boat owners were talking about hauling ethanol free avgas to use in their expensive boats and boat engines because of their problems.

Jae
 
Steve_Mullin said:
In the show "Cool Fuel" that aired yesterday, the pilot strongly stated that the ethanol he was using was pure grain alcohol, but did have some oil mixed in to help lubricate the engine, which may be similare to the E85 you use in the flex fuel cars. His ethanol was far cheaper then the avgas in the area.
But it may be cheaper up there then other places because they have plants to process corn into ethanol in those areas that grow lots of corn then in other areas that don't. That's why you don't see E85 all over the US as of yet due to supply.
Click to expand...
I don't think proximity to corn crops is a real reason for availability for ethanol (at least it shouldn't be). Ethanol can be made from a great variety of products. In fact one of the most practical is cellulose, the fiberous parts of any plants. Thus, it is possible that you can use grass clippings from your yard to produce ethanol.

Although the fact that, currently, plants are being built in the "corn belt", future ethanol plants should be able to be built pretty much anywhere. The question I would have is whether we allow the current distribution model for fossil fuels to dictate how we distribute a readily available commodity such as alcohol. Will we continue to be reliant upon others to produce the stuff because we don't want to or don't want to know how to do so? Or, will we take back some of our freedoms that have been eroded away in the past by producing our own?
 
Dave Cole said:
Do you grow your own food?
Click to expand...
As a matter of fact I do! Bar none, there is no comparison to the taste of fresh homegrown vegetables or fruit to any that are bought in the produce section of a grocery store.

Growing my own food is just a natural part of my life. It is as much second nature for me to want to grow my own food as it is for me to pump my own water out of the ground, operate my own sewage processing plant, and if I can manage it, generate my own electricity. All are just natural everyday necessities in life if one chooses to live outside those monstrous cities that the majority of the world must obviously think one must live in to survive in this world.

So why do you ask? Does it have some significance when discussing the production of ethanol? Is producing your own alcohol a far fetched idea that is unobtainable or something? I am afraid I do not understand the significance of this question.
 
Although the fact that, currently, plants are being built in the "corn belt", future ethanol plants should be able to be built pretty much anywhere. The question I would have is whether we allow the current distribution model for fossil fuels to dictate how we distribute a readily available commodity such as alcohol. Will we continue to be reliant upon others to produce the stuff because we don't want to or don't want to know how to do so? Or, will we take back some of our freedoms that have been eroded away in the past by producing our own?

Produce your own for .99 a gallon 200 proof!!! Please check this link out http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/ Many are doing it already in the midwest, not surprised, and it is really easy. The only thing I suggest Is DO NOT USE CORN, use the sweet potato, way more sugar and way more fuel!. Remember, to get 200% you need to buy a special bead that takes out the last 2% of water and they are reusable.

If we are to really to consinder this option, it must be a grass root effort on all out parts, the oil companies do not want you to know that you can do it and market it your self. All you need is a permit. Perhaps GA can really make the difference.

Also. Lycoming is producing engines for Brazil that run on ethanol, just approved a few months ago, but you will not hear about in the USA. Ponder That for a while :eek:
 
Homebrew ethanol

The question was to satisfy my curiosity about your committment to self-sufficiency. Based on your reply, it is evident that you are indeed the kind of person who is likely to homebrew your own fuel. Actually, I'm surprised you aren't already doing so. Of course, it's not for everybody.

I've never looked into it, but, apart from paying a road-fuel tax (we all have to support the highway system), is there anything keeping you from producing your own fuel?
 
Something to keep in mind is that even though ethanol has less latent energy a significant loss in range may not occur. The flame front is cooler and has somewhat different characteristics, so typically engines can be run leaner and with higher compressions and still have a decent detonation margin.

In the AGE-85 effort (see the link provided above) I believe that they changed the pistons and prop out on their modified Mooney, ending up with more total BHP and very close BHP on similiar flows to 100LL on the unmodified plane.

What I find interesting about ethanol is that it gets us off lead ('low lead' is a bit misleading) and requires surprisingly little change to existing engines (it doesn't have some of the vapor pressure problems of MoGas). I've heard some other interesting suggestions (like leaving the lead out of 100LL and dynamically adjusting ignition timing). But most seem like they would require some significant engine changes

-jjf
 
ethanol in brazil

Neiva company, a subsidiary of embraer is using ethanol in lycoming engines to be used in the Ipanema aircraft for agriculture applications. I believe they also sells a conversion kit, but i believe it doesn't worth the extra cost.

Anyway, Just for those who are interested,here is the link to the company site, the only problem is that i didn't saw a link to the website in english, so i guess some of you will need to use a translator.

http://www.aeroneiva.com.br/site/content/produtos/produtos_ipanema_vant_alc.asp


Henrique Castro
 
ethanol powered C180

Texas Skyways, in Boerne, Texas has been researching and flying an ethanol powered Cessna 180 for several years. I don't know if they still are doing it or not, since I haven't seen it out lately.
You could probably call them and ask about it.
 
Alcohol carries about half the BTU's per liquid gallon as gasoline.

I rented a Mooney for many many hours, and like most would flight plan at 160 kts and 11 gph...about 16 mpg.

Yes, you may be able to run leaner (in terms of stoich), but the required power will be determined by the thermal efficiency of the engine and BTU's per gallon.

In short, there is no way that a guy is getting the 30mpg. Ethanol fuel give dramatically lower, not higher mpg.

A mere conversion to fuel did not double the thermal efficiency of the airplane, so left with the same airframe, and the nature of alcohol....well you get the point.

may be worth the tradeoff, but keep it real.
 
The question I would have is whether we allow the current distribution model for fossil fuels to dictate how we distribute a readily available commodity such as alcohol.
Click to expand...
I suspect market forces will dictate that. Fossil fuels offer the best mix of convenience, BTUs and availability for now. As soon as they no longer do, you can bet that buyers will start looking for alternatives and if the price of oil is high enough for long enough, widespread distribution of the best alternatives will prevail.

It might be better to think of oil companies as energy companies. They will move and adapt to market pressures. When it makes financial sense for them to meet a market need with alternative fuels vs. fossil fuels, you can bet that they will apply their expertise in distribution and refining to make it happen. They just have to be able to make enough of a buck doing so to make it worthwhile to shareholders.

In fact, if you look at the funding chain for some alternative fuels, you will find oil companies as frequent donors to the research effort. Nothing will happen until the consumer can get from home to work and back again on alternative fuels while saving enough coin to make it worth converting their dino burner or buy a new one. Industry will figure out how to provide what buyers want when the business case makes sense. With oil prices dropping, the chances of that happening this year or next drop as well.

Dave
 
Last edited:
David Johnson said:
Nothing will happen until the consumer can get from home to work and back again on alternative fuels while saving enough coin to make it worth converting their dino burner or buy a new one. Industry will figure out how to provide what buyers want when the business case makes sense.
Click to expand...
I agree. Change never happens unless that change can positively affect the individual's pocket book or it makes things easier or more simple for the consumer. Unless a government entity intervenes and forces the change, people will only change if they save a significant amount of money while doing so or if the change makes it more convenient for someone to make the change.

Save the world campaigns can scream that we are destroying the world with this activity or that activity but until it is cheaper or easier to stop destroying the world, we will not change our ways. This is evidenced with those of us in aviation who are adamant about not changing our ability to use 100LL. Environmentalists and others have addressed the toxicity of lead in our fuel for decades. There has been no new element come along to replace lead that is convenient or cheap so we hang on to this toxic substance and preach our right to use it long past the time when the "save the worlders" have had their say about using lead. Finally the FAA (that government entity) forces the change. We continue to scream "foul, foul"! We must have our lead in our fuel. We fight tooth and nail trying to hold onto what we know and resist the new ways we don't yet understand.

Human mindset says that we fight change with ever increasing ferver until finally we are forced into giving into the change. At that point we succumb to the realization that the change is not such a big deal after all. Then we accept the new standard and take charge of it as if it were always meant to be this way. We then refuse to alter it when some new thing comes along to threaten the stability of this "new" standard.

Go figure the reasoning of the human mind. Human nature is a very fickle thing!
 
Well-said David... couldn't agree more.
One thing to consider is that we are probably a few years, maybe a decade, away from this shift to an alternative to start happening. Whether it's ethanol, or unleaded gasoline, or diesel, or something else. Because of this timing those of us investing in airplanes now are forced to make a bit of a gamble. Do we invest in high compression engines that are well-suited to AGE-85? Or do we invest in low-compression engines that can run lower-octane fuels, or do we even go with a diesel option? Or just hope that AVGAS sticks around for a few more decades and make our choice just as we would have 20 years ago? Any way you slice it, we have to try to predict the future, and when it comes to aviation fuel, I dare say there has never been a more uncertain time to try to do this.

This is why I am scared about the engine choice i will eventually have to make, and am almost tempted to deliberately build very slowly so that the path becomes more clear by the time I have to make that choice!
 
Fitz said:
(it doesn't have some of the vapor pressure problems of MoGas).

-jjf
Click to expand...

It doesn't.

I bought a gallon of E85 to check its vapor pressure. It came in at 58 kPa's. 100LL usually comes in at 62.

The mogas I use runs anywhere from 34 to 50, depending on the time of year. Winter fuel in late spring can be a big problem and needs to be checked before every flight.

dd
 
Jconard said:
Alcohol carries about half the BTU's per liquid gallon as gasoline.

I rented a Mooney for many many hours, and like most would flight plan at 160 kts and 11 gph...about 16 mpg.

Yes, you may be able to run leaner (in terms of stoich), but the required power will be determined by the thermal efficiency of the engine and BTU's per gallon.

In short, there is no way that a guy is getting the 30mpg. Ethanol fuel give dramatically lower, not higher mpg.

A mere conversion to fuel did not double the thermal efficiency of the airplane, so left with the same airframe, and the nature of alcohol....well you get the point.

may be worth the tradeoff, but keep it real.
Click to expand...

One thing to keep in mind is that most existing aviation engines are largely thermally limited. That is why we have to run so much richer than Best Power (say .85-.86 lambda) WOT.

Also, in a combustion engine we are not just looking for the best thermal reaction (stoichiometric ratio), but the best combination of heat and vapor to push the piston (which is why Best Power is rich of lambda 1.0).

Ethanol and gasoline do not combust identically. For example, the complex hydrocarbons in gasoline can support essentially a double burn. First generating CO, then creating CO2. That is why CO emissions soar ROP, because there is no excess oxygen left. (It also partially explains why Best Economy is LOP).

My point is really just that you can't look solely at the BTU content of the fuel. In testing it appears that with minimal mods, ethanol fuels offer about 20% less range by volume in aviation. With more extensive mods, like timing and compression, the difference drops to about 8-14%

FWIW, I find the 30 mpg claim pretty suspect. Though, if you get fuel distribution even and run in the best economy range (say 1.05 lambda) you can do quite a bit better than 16 mpg in a 201J using avgas.

David-aviator: Thanks for the measurements!

-jjf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.