[Jkkinz]

Just read this on the AOPA website and thought you would find it interesting since there was a recent thread on why not use ethanol.

As states look for alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, AOPA is making sure legislators know about the harm ethanol can do to aircraft engines.

Ethanol deteriorates seals in aircraft engines, harms fuel bladders and hoses, and attracts water, which promotes rust that can damage cylinders and pistons. It also can lead to problems in electric fuel pumps and cause inaccurate indications on fuel gauges, according to FAA studies.

"Since fuel blends, including ethanol, cannot be used in general aviation aircraft at this time, AOPA strongly supports an exemption for avgas from any legislation mandating a renewable fuel component," wrote AOPA Vice President of Regional Affairs Greg Pecoraro to legislators.

Pecoraro also recommended an exemption for automobile gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher because some aircraft have supplemental type certificates to burn this fuel.

Jim Kinsey
7A Fuselage

 

[RVbySDI]

Just read this on the AOPA website and thought you would find it interesting since there was a recent thread on why not use ethanol.

As states look for alternatives to petroleum-based fuels, AOPA is making sure legislators know about the harm ethanol can do to aircraft engines.

Ethanol deteriorates seals in aircraft engines, harms fuel bladders and hoses, and attracts water, which promotes rust that can damage cylinders and pistons. It also can lead to problems in electric fuel pumps and cause inaccurate indications on fuel gauges, according to FAA studies.

"Since fuel blends, including ethanol, cannot be used in general aviation aircraft at this time, AOPA strongly supports an exemption for avgas from any legislation mandating a renewable fuel component," wrote AOPA Vice President of Regional Affairs Greg Pecoraro to legislators.

Pecoraro also recommended an exemption for automobile gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher because some aircraft have supplemental type certificates to burn this fuel.

Jim Kinsey
7A Fuselage

I don't mean to start sounding as if I am on some type of crusade or something but I am in strong disagreement with this stand taken by EAA, AOPA and indeed most pilots I tend to be in contact with concerning the use of ethanol in fuel. The truth is that those against these changes are against it not because these terrible things will happen to our airplanes because of this alternative fuel. No, the opposition is firmly placed on the back of the fact that in order to make our aircraft function in this alternative fuel environment it will take changing out some components of our fuel delivery systems for our aircraft and perhaps changing some of the ways we do things. And that will take money. Those who are strongly opposed to ethanol are opposed because no one wants to have to spend the money it takes to make our existing airplanes work with these fuels.

I am sorry but this is the same weak argument that has existed for the last 30+ years concerning converting our measuring system to the metric system. No one wants to convert because of the effort involved in learning the new system. The fear is that the conversion will cause all kinds of problems and overcoming those problems will take money. The reality is that if the conversion is allowed to happen in a timely manner any pain involved with the conversion will be short lived and prove to really be of no great problem after all.

This is how it would be with converting to an alcohol based fuel system. Stop fretting over what the changes mean in the short term. If the final outcome proves to be better in the long term any short term problems will ultimately be ironed out. I, for one, do not want to be a hindrance to the advent of progress in this area just because I have some fears associated with changing the way I currently do things.

 

[Ironflight]

Not afraid of Change....

Steve - I think you have good points - we don't need to stand in the way of change if it is good change. My only "problem" is that no one has ever been able to tell me exactly what I have to change in my fuel system to make sure that nothing will be deteriorated by the alchohol. I'd love to have such a list, because I'd change the parts in a heartbeat, and know that I could use whatever fuel I could find in a pinch.

Ideally, someone would sell a kit.

(I must admit that there is a little, cynical part of me that wonders if anything actually has to be changed - if no one can give me a list....is this just an OWT? I'm not going to take a chance on that, but stilll...I'm always curious!)

Paul

 

[Low Pass]

......This is how it would be with converting to an alcohol based fuel system. Stop fretting over what the changes mean in the short term. If the final outcome proves to be better in the long term any short term problems will ultimately be ironed out. I, for one, do not want to be a hindrance to the advent of progress in this area just because I have some fears associated with changing the way I currently do things.

Steve -

I hear a bit of a push in your comments from the "accept change, it's good" camp. Well, from a practical standpoint, ethanol in gasoline is at best a *very* poor choice. It is there purely as an insincincere effort by the likes of corn growers and companies like ADM to make money. There's almost no good science in using (corn derrived) ethanol in gasoline or alone as fuel, despite what the pop-culture scientists would have us all believe.

But this doesn't mean we don't need to learn to adapt to the reality of (ethanol) reformulated gasoline.

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

...I am in strong disagreement with this stand taken by EAA, AOPA and indeed most pilots I tend to be in contact with concerning the use of ethanol in fuel. The truth is that those against these changes are against it not because these terrible things will happen to our airplanes because of this alternative fuel. No, the opposition is firmly placed on the back of the fact that in order to make our aircraft function in this alternative fuel environment it will take changing out some components of our fuel delivery systems for our aircraft and perhaps changing some of the ways we do things. And that will take money.

There's two issues here: (1) Certain people are resisting the use of EtOH, which you note. (2) There is no compelling reason to use EtOH.

With respect to EoTH in whatever fuel you're using in your airplane (MoGas, AvGas, etc), let's ask these three basic questions:
1. Does it improve safety? No. It allows more water to dissolve in your gas, increasing corrosion and water contamination.
2. Does it help the environment? No. Ethanol is in MoGas to satisfy EPA requirements for oxygenates in gasoline, which helps reduce CO emissions from cars. It does not reduce emissions from your aircraft, nor does it produce less pollution to manufacturer and transport.
3. Does it reduce cost? No. Most EtOH is the US is produced from corn. Corn costs a lot to grow. Why do we grow it from corn? AgriBiz, in particular ADM. There's also the issue that making aircraft and fueling infrastructure compatible with EtOH will cost money.

Ok, so why, again, do we want to use ethanol-containing fuels in our airplanes? I don't, so I'm in favor of granting AvGas and 91 octane MoGas exemptions from EtOH requirements. My Rotax will accept 5% EtOH, but why should we put it in gas to begin with?

Sorry to be so grumpy here - just got back from a bumpy MD80 ride from LAX and WX looks poor for flying myself tomorrow - but I have yet to see a good reason to use EtOH as a component of fuel for an aircraft. Yes, certain people / groups may have profit-driven motives for pushing back against EtOH, but I don't care, because I don't see EtOH as a good thing for aviation.

Doug

 

[David-aviator]

Sorry to be so grumpy here - just got back from a bumpy MD80 ride from LAX and WX looks poor for flying myself tomorrow - but I have yet to see a good reason to use EtOH as a component of fuel for an aircraft. Yes, certain people / groups may have profit-driven motives for pushing back against EtOH, but I don't care, because I don't see EtOH as a good thing for aviation.

Doug

Nor is it a good thing for autos. It will take more of it travel a mile and in the end it will cost at least as much as relatively cheap Mideast oil. The government would like to stop corn subsidies. That in turn will make the cost even higher.

If there is any good in the technology, it is reducing a dependence on foreign oil but even that is a stretch - we need so much of it.

 

[Ron Lee]

Ethanol

My limited understanding of this subject is that ethanol is just another "feel good" attempt to solve a non-problem. It also may cost more total energy than just using gasoline. When do-gooders start walking or riding everywhere then they can talk about screwing things up for everyone else.

 

[dsyvert]

Ethanol (a little off subject)

This may be a little off subject, but some of the ethanol benefits are not good for the environment. Consider the amount of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere. 31 bbls of oil from Saudi results in a net 30 bbls of usable fuel at your gas station . I can't remember the source for this but it is probably close when you consider transportation, refining, etc.

Now consider this from the following website. http://www.ethanolfacts.com/quickfacts.html.

"Ethanol production results in a net energy gain?producing 67 percent more energy than it takes to grow and process the corn into ethanol."

If you do the math, starting off with two bbls you end up with around one bbl. Just think about all of the CO2 that went into the atmosphere to produce energy from corn.

I'm not opposed to corn or any other alternative that reduces dependence on foreign oil, however, ethanol is not a panacea and alot more work needs to be done. It is part of the solution, but not a total replacement.

Sorry about the rant, I just find environmentalist a bit insincere where their arguments are emotional rather than fact based.


Dsyvert

 

[ddurakovich]

If you do the math, starting off with two bbls you end up with around one bbl. Just think about all of the CO2 that went into the atmosphere to produce energy from corn.

I agree we have a ways to go. I have a fudamental problem with people starvng to death in the world while we take food and put it in our cars!

However, the issue of CO2 is not a good rallying point..... the growing of corn, through photosynthesis, utilizes more CO2 than is produced, and then some during final combustion. Crude oil will never, ever come close.

But, I still think the priority is feeding people.

Now, if you want to talk nuclear energy.....

 

[Low Pass]

........Now, if you want to talk nuclear energy.....

what about it? Anyone true to the (socialist agenda) proposition that humans are a major contributor to "global warming" would agree that nuclear power is the only viable energy source available today that can produce the quantity of energy necessary and not produce CO2. Ever wonder why the French are pushing the Kyoto protocol so hard? Might have something to do with the fact that somewhere around 75% of their total generation is nuclear fueled.

You want to end dependence on foreign petroleum sources, build about 100 pressurized water nuclear reactors and use the electricity to charge battery powered cars and to produce H2 and O2 for fuel cells. Use domestic petroleum production for aircraft, heavy truck and train fuels. Problem solved.

 

[joeboisselle]

this topic is hot!

I agree we have a ways to go. I have a fudamental problem with people starvng to death in the world while we take food and put it in our cars!

Not to be a smart ***, but as a corn farmer, the type of corn used to make ethenal is field corn, also used to feed livestock... doubt you want to eat that for dinner. And the amount actually used to make fuel from this corn is only a small percentage of all the field corn produced. I doubt I'll ever use any "ethenal gas" in my airplane, the stuff runs like **** in my car!

 

[Harvey L. Sorensen]

ethonal

As another not to be smart farmer,--After you take out the ethanol from the corn you still have around 80% of the feed left for livestock. And it is a better feed. I (we) use 10% ethanol in any of our equipment that uses gas except aircraft. Gasahol goes out of condition in a few weeks to months depending on weather and temp.

 

[airguy]

Hey, I was raised eating field corn! Sweet corn was a rare treat when I was kid....

 

[ddurakovich]

what about it?

You want to end dependence on foreign petroleum sources, build about 100 pressurized water nuclear reactors and use the electricity to charge battery powered cars and to produce H2 and O2 for fuel cells. Use domestic petroleum production for aircraft, heavy truck and train fuels. Problem solved.

Actually, I'm not convinced that global warming is reality. The only thing I am relatively sure about is that fossile fuels are being depleted, at least until we replenish the supply in another 20 or 30 million years.

At lot of things might contibute to the answer, but we will never replace the 10,000,000 barrels per day of crude that we currently import with anything out there at present, with the possible exception of nuclear. Yeah we could be more conservative drivers, smaller cars, lighter feet on the accelerator, but we need to come up with 1.5 gallons per day reduction for every man, woman and child in this country. Call me a cynic, but I just don't think we can pull it off by reducing consumption, at least until there is nothing left to consume.

I realize that at present (until I get that doggone -4 finished!) I am somewhat of an exception. My personal use of petroleum products is less than 1.5 gallons per day total for both flying and driving, so someones going to have to jump in and cut back to cover for me

 

[Harvey L. Sorensen]

1.5 gallons

I (we) will cover for you Dave. In our business I (we) use around 80 gallons per day over a year average.

 

[Ron Lee]

Energy credits

Dave, I will pay you $1 for your unused annual energy allocation. Of course I am not up to Harvey's useage so he may outbid me and pay you $2.

Now I think I will go open a can of Freon and pay homage to the ozone gods.

 

[rv8ch]

Call me a cynic, but I just don't think we can pull it off by reducing consumption, at least until there is nothing left to consume.

...

"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right."
Henry Ford

Hmmm....

 

[RScott]

Steve's argument that we just don't want to spend the $, time and energy to convert our fuel systems to allow ethanol overlooks a huge obstacle to doing so: Certificated aircraft, which still form the bulk of the fleet. You might get an STC for a C-152, but what about a Bellanca, a Stinson 10A, L-5 or my Interstate Cadet? After Cessna, Piper, Beech and a couple others, most remaining aircraft represent small numbers and many very fine aircraft are virtual orphans. Someone with expertise would have to evaluate all the components in the fuel system, determine mods needed and somehow the replacement components will have to be designed, approved, manufactured and the installation inspected and approved.

The FAA isn't going to issue blanket approval for the mod for all aircraft.

 

[prkaye]

building for change

Getting back to one of the original questions posted... what are some of the things we as builders can do to our systems to make them more flexible in terms of what fuels they will tolerate? ARE there simple and effective things we can do, or are the problems fundamental compatability issues with the engines themselves?

 

[RVbySDI]

Steve's argument that we just don't want to spend the $, time and energy to convert our fuel systems to allow ethanol overlooks a huge obstacle to doing so: Certificated aircraft, which still form the bulk of the fleet. You might get an STC for a C-152, but what about a Bellanca, a Stinson 10A, L-5 or my Interstate Cadet? After Cessna, Piper, Beech and a couple others, most remaining aircraft represent small numbers and many very fine aircraft are virtual orphans. Someone with expertise would have to evaluate all the components in the fuel system, determine mods needed and somehow the replacement components will have to be designed, approved, manufactured and the installation inspected and approved.

The FAA isn't going to issue blanket approval for the mod for all aircraft.

As I said. MONEY is driving this opposition. Economics are a critical component to every decision we as individuals make and definitely a part of every decision a corporation and a government makes. The question then becomes is the MONEY issue going to be addressed in the short term or over the long term? We Americans do not believe in evaluating in the long term. All you have to do is look at the deficit issue, the Social Security issue or any number of other issues involving money. The reality is that we are unwilling to make the hard decisions that may make our futures better because it means we have to face tough situations here and now. When the government has to make those type of decisions it will stumble on itself and debate the issue into the ground because no one wants to take the responsibility (or blame for all the cynics out there) for that tough decision.

Yes all those certificated aircraft are going to have to have those components evaluated and changed if needed. That is the part that I was talking about concerning the money involved to change things. Since those owners of certificated aircraft cannot make such changes without the bureaucratic consent of the FAA then we are left with a government entity that fits this exact mold. I can guarantee you that no one in that bureaucracy is interested in taking that responsibility on so it is easier to just let things be the way they currently exist. And all those owners who also don't want to have to mess with it either are more than happy to say "Yes, I also think it is a bad idea to make these changes!"

 

[RVbySDI]

Getting back to one of the original questions posted... what are some of the things we as builders can do to our systems to make them more flexible in terms of what fuels they will tolerate? ARE there simple and effective things we can do, or are the problems fundamental compatability issues with the engines themselves?

As far as the engine components themselves, the primary changes need to be with any of the gasket and rubber materials that fuel contacts. I cannot remember the specific types of materials but there were some previous posts in other threads that mentioned the material used to replace rubber and other gasket materials when using alcohol based fuels.

 

[RVbySDI]

Steve -

I hear a bit of a push in your comments from the "accept change, it's good" camp. Well, from a practical standpoint, ethanol in gasoline is at best a *very* poor choice. It is there purely as an insincincere effort by the likes of corn growers and companies like ADM to make money. There's almost no good science in using (corn derrived) ethanol in gasoline or alone as fuel, despite what the pop-culture scientists would have us all believe.

But this doesn't mean we don't need to learn to adapt to the reality of (ethanol) reformulated gasoline.

Well that is surely a cynical way to view the use of ethanol fuel. The corn producing farmers and the corn processing companies and the ethanol manufacturing companies I am sure intend to make as much money as they can from their product. And this is different from the oil drilling companies, the oil refinery companies, the oil delivery companies, the gasoline transportation companies, the gasoline pumping station companies, etc. etc. etc. how?

Sure they are in it for the money. But as far as the use goes I do not see this group of people as the driving force behind this new push to use ethanol based fuels. The push is coming from the Americans who believe that we can do things differently than we have been, which is relying on foreign oil to fuel our society. If we can produce our own fuel from renewable sources then we are going to be able to forget about the turmoil we have to be involved with when dealing with foreign entities. This is the true driving force behind this idea of wanting to change over to alternative fuels such as ethanol.

This may be a little off subject, but some of the ethanol benefits are not good for the environment. Consider the amount of CO2 that is released into the atmosphere. 31 bbls of oil from Saudi results in a net 30 bbls of usable fuel at your gas station . I can't remember the source for this but it is probably close when you consider transportation, refining, etc.

Now consider this from the following website. http://www.ethanolfacts.com/quickfacts.html.

"Ethanol production results in a net energy gain?producing 67 percent more energy than it takes to grow and process the corn into ethanol."

If you do the math, starting off with two bbls you end up with around one bbl. Just think about all of the CO2 that went into the atmosphere to produce energy from corn.

I'm not opposed to corn or any other alternative that reduces dependence on foreign oil, however, ethanol is not a panacea and alot more work needs to be done. It is part of the solution, but not a total replacement.

Sorry about the rant, I just find environmentalist a bit insincere where their arguments are emotional rather than fact based.

As far as the use of corn to produce ethanol. The truth is that corn is not a good raw resource for ethanol. There are much better materials that we should be using and that if we really do get involved in a new paradigm shift concerning the source of our fuel we most certainly should be looking at other raw material sources. The Brazilians are almost 100% ethanol based. They are using sugar cane as the raw material for their ethanol production. This sugar has a much higher energy content than corn.

The reality is that cellulose based materials serve our needs much better when used to produce ethanol than does corn. One of those cellulose based materials is called switchback grass. Where corn can yield just around 2 units of material for producing ethanol switchback grass can yield just under 6 units of material. Your statements about the amount of energy consumption compared to the amount of energy output would imply that this is always the case when producing ethanol. That is just not so. If different materials are used we are going to see different ratios.

Corn is currently being used because it is a product that we were already producing in quantity. Transitioning to another raw material source may prove to be just as difficult as the very transition we are now discussing as it will mean a lot of people shifting from doing what they already are doing and know about to something (growing switchback grass or sugar cane) they don't currently know much about or are currently doing.

I hear a bit of a push in your comments from the "accept change, it's good" camp.

Yes, opposition to this "new alternative fuel issue" is due to the ever present human nature of resisting change unless there is no alternative but to accept the change.

 

[RScott]

Well, in the big picture it will all be moot anyway, as there is no way we can produce enough ethanol to meet even a 10% blend for all the gas the nation uses, even if acreage of corn production is expanded. And the jury is still out on whether ethanol can provide a net energy gain over the energy used to produce it--respectable studies give conflicting results. Brazil does it, but they make ethanol from sugar cane, a more efficient source and they have fewer cars per capita, driving fewer miles. Ethanol wil be a boon to farmers, has already displaced corn otherwise grown for food production, raising some food prices and will be used in some fuel blends, but not all because we just can't supplly enough. The AOPA stance that it should be left out of higher octane fuel is one way to divvy up the supply and something like that will most likely be what we will see. What we won't see is all the gas having ethanol, unless they come up with a better source and more efficient production.

Dick Scott
RV-9A Wings

 

[the_other_dougreeves]

Yes, opposition to this "new alternative fuel issue" is due to the ever present human nature of resisting change unless there is no alternative but to accept the change.

I'll agree that EtOH from cellulose is a good idea for many types of uses. However, I don't see it as a good fit for GA at this time. How does it enhance safety? It is not compatible with a significant percentage (perhaps most) of the existing fleet. In addition, EtOH is more volatile than the components of AvGas and will volatilize more quickly, leaving you with less than desirable gas within a month or so.

How does it encourage fuel efficiency? How does it reduce cost? How does it benefit the environment? I see the answers to most of these at this time to be "it doesn't".

Maybe someday down the road, when everyone is building aircraft with fuel systems that are tolerant of EtOH we can look at blending it into AvGas, but until then, no thanks.

 

[Low Pass]

Well that is surely a cynical way to view the use of ethanol fuel. ......

Yes it is. Corn derrived ethanol to replace petroleum fuel - even the auto sector - is way off the mark. The only known technology that could be implemented today and succeed would be nuclear power and electric cars.

An additional thought on nuclear. Right behind petroleum and almost as serious is the shortage of fresh water. One proposal would have a network of nuclear power plants near the coasts powering desalinization facilities then pumping fresh water inland. One way or another, nuclear fission will have to be considered if we are to continue with the rate of growth and prosperity.

Windmills, photovoltaic, hydro, geothermal, etc, etc. will only provide a small fraction of the demand in the coming 50 years. Something else will have to be used, and there's nothing else even close (fusion is many decades away), despite what Algore, Bill Nye and the other feel-good, pop-culture "scientists" say.

 

[RVbySDI]

Yes it is. Corn derrived ethanol to replace petroleum fuel - even the auto sector - is way off the mark. The only known technology that could be implemented today and succeed would be nuclear power and electric cars.

An additional thought on nuclear. Right behind petroleum and almost as serious is the shortage of fresh water. One proposal would have a network of nuclear power plants near the coasts powering desalinization facilities then pumping fresh water inland. One way or another, nuclear fission will have to be considered if we are to continue with the rate of growth and prosperity.

Windmills, photovoltaic, hydro, geothermal, etc, etc. will only provide a small fraction of the demand in the coming 50 years. Something else will have to be used, and there's nothing else even close (fusion is many decades away), despite what Algore, Bill Nye and the other feel-good, pop-culture "scientists" say.

Hmmmm, Al Gore a scientist? Well then please feel free to call me Steve the astronaut!

 

[Low Pass]

Hmmmm, Al Gore a scientist? Well then please feel free to call me Steve the astronaut!

Well, didn't he invent the Internet or something?!

 

[Kahuna]

There is a group of RV formation flyers in South Dakota called the Vanguard Squadron. They fly on ethanol and use 100ll when traveling long distances. IF anyone wants to know what to do to use this stuff, contact those guys. They have been doing it for years. A google of them will lead to all kinds of info on em. This has also been discussed on these forums and can be searched easily.

I recall them mentioning their jetting is different. I recall cause on a large formation takeoff from Osh a few years back, they all stalled out when throttling up for departure. Every engine quit. They mentioned their jetting issues running 100LL during the debrief. They got them all started and joined us over the lake.