Is EAA Working on an STC for Ethanol-laced MoGas?

[Jay Honeck]

If there is one thing that EAA could do to truly benefit General
Aviation, it would be to help develop STCs for the use of the
increasingly popular (and, in some states, mandated) ethanol-gasolines.


Does anyone know if this is in the works?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bret Ludwig]

At least one airplane is STC'd for E100, and reportedly the LyCon top
ends actually live far longer with this fuel.

[John Galban]

Jay Honeck schrieb:

> If there is one thing that EAA could do to truly benefit General
> Aviation, it would be to help develop STCs for the use of the
> increasingly popular (and, in some states, mandated) ethanol-gasolines.
>
>
> Does anyone know if this is in the works?

I'm not sure how marketable this would be, due to the large amount of
potential replacement componets. Starting with tank sealant and
continuing on to most of the flexible components through to the carb.

Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great to have. I just think
the cost of revamping a fuel system might scare most folks away.

My plane has an autofuel STC that I can't use anymore because of
alcohol and I don't know if I'd go the expense.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Darrel Toepfer]

Bret Ludwig wrote:
> At least one airplane is STC'd for E100, and reportedly the LyCon top
> ends actually live far longer with this fuel.

Need to read up on the ag planes flying in South American on it...

[Dave Stadt]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If there is one thing that EAA could do to truly benefit General
> Aviation, it would be to help develop STCs for the use of the
> increasingly popular (and, in some states, mandated) ethanol-gasolines.
>
>
> Does anyone know if this is in the works?

Didya call EAA?

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Denny]

There was an airplane campaigned for a couple of years around the USA
burning alcohol, in the not too distant past (old pilot with old
memory, but can't remember what I had for breakfast)... I think it was
AOPA (?)... Perhaps someone without ol AL-whuts-hiz-names disease can
pull it up...
My memory is that the program was declared officially dead and no
further interest in alcohol fuels for aircraft due to the usual
suspects (FAA regs, cost of STC's for new fuel components, liability,
etc.)... Seems to me it was a C-150... A quick Google didn't turn it
up, so I leave it for the group... But I remember the pictures of it in
the flying mags...

The other issue that ETOH enthusiasts seem to never see is that it
takes more petroleum BTU's to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get
back when when you burn the ethanol in an engine... So it is a
lose-lose situation...

The ohter point is that the oil companies love alcohol... You replace
10% of each $2++ retail gallon of gas with government subsidized ETOH
that costs them 25 cents a gallon in industrial quantities... Do the
math, what is not to love?

denny

[Denny]

At least one airplane is STC'd for E100, and reportedly the LyCon top
ends actually live far longer with this fuel.
************************************************** **************8

Just an aside::: IC engines live the longest on Propane... Just ask
any factory that converted it's gas powered fork trucks to propane...
So much for the , "ya gotta burn at least 25% 100LL to protect the
valves" crowd...

Another interesting aside is that I installed a 10KW, propane powered,
220V AC generator with automatic transfer switching, because of our
frequent power outages here in the boonies... I can also run the engine
on natural gas with no changes, but the power output drops to 7KW if I
do... No natural gas lines in the middle of nowhere Michigan, so not
an issue for me, but an interesting fact I thought...

denny

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm not sure how marketable this would be, due to the large amount of
> potential replacement componets. Starting with tank sealant and
> continuing on to most of the flexible components through to the carb.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great to have. I just think
> the cost of revamping a fuel system might scare most folks away.

I believe someone here (Jim Weir?) said the total cost of parts to replace
all the rubber in contact with fuel is less than $100.

Perhaps the fuel tanks would have to be sloshed with something ethanol
resistant? Would that even be an issue to planes that don't use rubber tank
liners?

> My plane has an autofuel STC that I can't use anymore because of
> alcohol and I don't know if I'd go the expense.

That sucks. I would fly a LOT less if I had to buy avgas.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The other issue that ETOH enthusiasts seem to never see is that it
> takes more petroleum BTU's to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get
> back when when you burn the ethanol in an engine... So it is a
> lose-lose situation...

That's what is SO frustrating. Right now our Iowa Legislature is
considering mandating ethanol in all gas. It is SO dumb, yet -- especially
here in corn country -- it holds an almost unstoppable attraction for many.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom Conner]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:_91hf.574516$_o.318563@attbi_s71...
> > The other issue that ETOH enthusiasts seem to never see is that it
> > takes more petroleum BTU's to produce a gallon of ethanol than you
> > get back when when you burn the ethanol in an engine... So it is a
> > lose-lose situation...
>
> That's what is SO frustrating. Right now our Iowa Legislature is
> considering mandating ethanol in all gas. It is SO dumb, yet --
> especially here in corn country -- it holds an almost unstoppable
> attraction for many.

I thought the idea behind ethanol was not to make more fuel, but to be a
replacement for MTBE to reduce pollution. I seem to remember reading that
it wasn't very effective in that regard, as compared to "normal" gas, but
was done as "pork" to the corn producing states.

[Javier Henderson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I'm not sure how marketable this would be, due to the large amount of
>> potential replacement componets. Starting with tank sealant and
>> continuing on to most of the flexible components through to the carb.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong, I think it would be great to have. I just think
>> the cost of revamping a fuel system might scare most folks away.
>
> I believe someone here (Jim Weir?) said the total cost of parts to replace
> all the rubber in contact with fuel is less than $100.

Maybe the hoses and gaskets would be less than $100, but the rubber
bladders in my SKylane are $1k.

-jav

[Jay Honeck]

> I thought the idea behind ethanol was not to make more fuel, but to be a
> replacement for MTBE to reduce pollution. I seem to remember reading that
> it wasn't very effective in that regard, as compared to "normal" gas, but
> was done as "pork" to the corn producing states.

To sum up the general political mood, I think the feeling is that it's
better to pay farmers to grow corn for ethanol than it is to pay them for
growing nothing.

It's stupid, but no one can apparently figure out how to wean the farmers
off the government teat without creating a catastrophe.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ic3hf.352983$084.248638@attbi_s22...
>> I thought the idea behind ethanol was not to make more fuel, but to be a
>> replacement for MTBE to reduce pollution. I seem to remember reading
>> that
>> it wasn't very effective in that regard, as compared to "normal" gas, but
>> was done as "pork" to the corn producing states.
>
> To sum up the general political mood, I think the feeling is that it's
> better to pay farmers to grow corn for ethanol than it is to pay them for
> growing nothing.
>
> It's stupid, but no one can apparently figure out how to wean the farmers
> off the government teat without creating a catastrophe.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

The subsidies should be cut off cold turkey. It is stupid to support
archaic industries or habits. The number of people employed in agriculture
has declined 90% already which is what produced our modern economy. Why is
there so much risistance to letting it go down another 20% which is the only
way to make the remaining farmers profitable?

On Ethanol, Brazil produces ethanol and sells it as motor fuel and it isn't
subsidized although cars sold in Brazil are required to be able to run on
pure ethanol or gasoline. They do use sugar cane instead of corn in Brazil,
I'm not sure that this makes a difference. Brazil actually *profitably*
exports ethanol to the US even though the US producers are getting a $0.54
cent subsidy. The subsidies just perpetuate inefficiency.

Mike
MU-2

[Brian]

They wonder why the farmers are complaining when they are getting the
same price for wheat that they were getting back in 1975 and a loaf of
bread is no where near the price they paid for it in 1975.

[GeorgeB]

On 23 Nov 2005 06:49:09 -0800, "Denny" > wrote:

> At least one airplane is STC'd for E100, and reportedly the LyCon top
>ends actually live far longer with this fuel.
>************************************************** **************8
>
>Just an aside::: IC engines live the longest on Propane... Just ask
>any factory that converted it's gas powered fork trucks to propane...
>So much for the , "ya gotta burn at least 25% 100LL to protect the
>valves" crowd...

Yes, BUT ... the valve seats used with propane (and natural) had to be
made (or coated) with "stellite" in the earlier days to ot have wear
problems. I believe that the powdered metal used today in automobile
(and other(?)) valve seats acomplishes the same function.

>Another interesting aside is that I installed a 10KW, propane powered,
>220V AC generator with automatic transfer switching, because of our
>frequent power outages here in the boonies... I can also run the engine
>on natural gas with no changes, but the power output drops to 7KW if I
>do... No natural gas lines in the middle of nowhere Michigan, so not
>an issue for me, but an interesting fact I thought...

I thought I was going to be able to find good information via Google
to support you, but it isn't easy. Natural is mostly methane, and
that is lighter than propane but I cannot find better details ...
DARN.

[[email protected]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> If there is one thing that EAA could do to truly benefit General
> Aviation, it would be to help develop STCs for the use of the
> increasingly popular (and, in some states, mandated) ethanol-gasolines.
>
>
> Does anyone know if this is in the works?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

EAA conducted flight tests in the 1980's in an attempt to certificate
automotive gasoline (ASTM D4814) with 10% ethonal added. Other
universities and airframe manufacturers conducted research with this
fuel, as well. Unfortunately EAA was unable to certificate an aircraft
to a fuel containing 10% ethonal. The aircraft that was tested failed
several of the required tests. In addition the fuel systems in current
aircraft also failed the material compatibility testing.
EAA concluded that the modificiations needed to address the issues we
discovered would be excessively expensive and even after the
modifications were made the aircraft may still fail the requered
certification tests.
To assure you that EAA does not have some kind of biasis against
ethonal fuels the same test concluded that an aircraft with some
modification the aircraft could be certificated to a 100% ethonal fuel.

The chemistry of a 10% ethonal 90% gasoline fuel is a dificult one to
deal with in the environment that aircraft are certificated to operate
in. Particularly when you are dealing with exsisting aircraft that
were not originally designed to operate on these fuels. A newly
designed aircraft could be designed to use such a fuel but there is no
incetive, from the manufacturers standpoint, to design such an aircraft
at this time.
Also the group should know the problems with this fuel are related to
hot temperature operations and material compatibility so one may use
such a fuel once and mistakenly think there are no issues with this
fuel only to find the problems over time or during a hot day on
takeoff.
In flight fire is another very real outcome of the problems with this
fuel. One test showed corrosion in electronic bost pumps that lead to
eletrical arching in the pump itself. This condition discovered during
tests and to EAA's knowldge has not ever occured on an certificated
aircraft but I share this information to let you understand why the
fuel has not been certificated.
The testing EAA has done in this area has lead us the conclusion that
we should consitrate our efforts on in other areas. EAA continues to
work with many on the development of aviation fuels. In addition EAA
continues to be active on the ASTM committee that writes and maintains
both avaition and automotive fuels specificaitons. I currently serve
as the secretary of the avaition gasoline subcommittee.
I hope everyone who reads this understand that it is not practicle to
operate an older aircraft on a autogasline with 10% ethonal at this
time and that EAA does continue to explore ways to make fuel more
afordable, accessable and safe for recreational aviaiton. EAA
understands and has taken more action than any other organization to
make fuel more afordable for recreational aviation. The Autogas STC's
has saved aircraft owners millions of dollars over the years and EAA
will continue to explore ways we can continue these savings.

Earl Lawrence
EAA
V.P. Industry and Regulatory Affairs

[JJS]

snip
> The testing EAA has done in this area has lead us the conclusion that
> we should consitrate our efforts on in other areas. EAA continues to
> work with many on the development of aviation fuels. In addition EAA
> continues to be active on the ASTM committee that writes and maintains
> both avaition and automotive fuels specificaitons. I currently serve
> as the secretary of the avaition gasoline subcommittee.
> I hope everyone who reads this understand that it is not practicle to
> operate an older aircraft on a autogasline with 10% ethonal at this
> time and that EAA does continue to explore ways to make fuel more
> afordable, accessable and safe for recreational aviaiton. EAA
> understands and has taken more action than any other organization to
> make fuel more afordable for recreational aviation. The Autogas STC's
> has saved aircraft owners millions of dollars over the years and EAA
> will continue to explore ways we can continue these savings.
>
> Earl Lawrence
> EAA
> V.P. Industry and Regulatory Affairs
>

Mr. Lawrence,
Thanks for weighing in. Can you provide some links where the results of these tests are archived? I'd like to learn
more about ethanol as a fuel. A previous poster mentioned an exhibition airplane running on ethanol. I also recall
this bird and it seems I saw it fly at Oshkosh, circa 1997. It seems that it was a black fabric biplane with green
trim? I also ran across this: "But MOTHER's researchers weren't the only ones at the 1980 Fly-In who were piloting
vehicles powered by renewable fuel. Paul Poberezny (the EAA's "chief") was there to greet us with his "Pober Pixie"
airplane, which had been converted to ethanol the previous summer. " while doing a Google search. It seems that
corrosion issues can be handled with additives.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Doug]

Theoretically, it is trivial to make a gasoline engine run off of
ethanol. For many years Indy 500 racers ALL ran off ethanol. There is a
dragster class that is ethanol based. Older carbureted cars could be
made to work off ethanol with just rejetting the carb. Maybe some of
the dragster folks could help you out. Perhaps there is a link. There
may be some issues with rubber hoses and possibly vapor lock, I don't
really know.

[[email protected]]

> The other issue that ETOH enthusiasts seem to never see is that it
> takes more petroleum BTU's to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get
> back when when you burn the ethanol in an engine... So it is a
> lose-lose situation...

I am not a strong ethanol enthusiast by any means, but this statement
is absolutely false.

Here are a list of studies of the *net* energy value of ethanol,
including the energy costs not just in the manufacture, but also the
transportation, etc. In fact, some studies even figure in the gas
burned in the combine that collects the corn, even the energy used to
make the steel that went into the combine:

Shapouri, et al. (1995) - USDA : +20,346 btu (HHV)
Lorenz and Morris (1995) - Institutde for Local Self Reliance: +30589
btu (HHV)
Agri. and Agri-Food, CAN (1999): +29,826 btu (LHV)
Wang, et al. (1999) - Agorne Lational Labs: +22,500 btu (LHV)
Pimentel (2001), Cornell University: -33,562 btu (LHV)
Shapouri, et al, Update (2002) - USDA: +21,105 btu (HHV)
Kim and Dale (2002) - Michigan State, +23866 to +35463 btu (HHV)
Shapouri, et al. (2004) - USDA: +30,258 (LHV)

(The difference between LHV and HHV has to do with whether the H20
output of combustion is considered as steam or water)

As you can see, only one study, by Pimentel shows a negative net energy
for ethanol. The other are in the 20,000 to 30,000 btue range and the
discrepancies come obviously not from differences in measuring the heat
output in burning ethanol, but in considering the heat input in its
manufacture.

I personally think that E100 and E85 are currently not economic, for
many of the same reasons stated elsewhere in this thread, but it's just
not supportable to say that more petroleum energy is used to make E
than you get out of it.

Happy Thanksgiving!

-- dave j
-- jacobowitz73 --at-- yahoo --dot-- com
-- PP-ASEL + Instr.
-- grad student in energy policy

[George Patterson]

Doug wrote:

> There is a dragster class that is ethanol based.

I thought they were running nitro-methanol.

George Patterson
We don't stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop
playing.

[RST Engineering]

Earl, while I respect and admire you for your work in the EAA and on the
ASTM committee on the the autogas subject, as the secretary (whose mission
statement is generally to accurately report the proceedings of the group) I
respectfully note:



> automotive gasoline (ASTM D4814) with 10% ethonal added. Other

ethanol


> to a fuel containing 10% ethonal. The aircraft that was tested failed

ethanol


> EAA concluded that the modificiations needed to address the issues we

modifications


> modifications were made the aircraft may still fail the requered

required


> To assure you that EAA does not have some kind of biasis against

bias


> ethonal fuels the same test concluded that an aircraft with some

ethanol


> modification the aircraft could be certificated to a 100% ethonal fuel.

ethanol


> The chemistry of a 10% ethonal 90% gasoline fuel is a dificult one to

ethanol difficult


> in. Particularly when you are dealing with exsisting aircraft that

existing


> incetive, from the manufacturers standpoint, to design such an aircraft

incentive manufacturers'



> fuel. One test showed corrosion in electronic bost pumps that lead to

boost


> eletrical arching in the pump itself. This condition discovered during

electrical arcing



> tests and to EAA's knowldge has not ever occured on an certificated


knowledge occurred



> we should consitrate our efforts on in other areas. EAA continues to

concentrate


> both avaition and automotive fuels specificaitons. I currently serve

aviation specifications


> as the secretary of the avaition gasoline subcommittee.

aviation



> I hope everyone who reads this understand that it is not practicle to

understands practical


> operate an older aircraft on a autogasline with 10% ethonal at this

auto gasoline ethanol



> afordable, accessable and safe for recreational aviaiton. EAA

affordable aviation



> make fuel more afordable for recreational aviation. The Autogas STC's

affordable STCs



> has saved aircraft owners millions of dollars over the years and EAA

have saved


>
> Earl Lawrence
> EAA
> V.P. Industry and Regulatory Affairs


Jesus Murphy, my EAA dues are going to pay a VP of EAA as illiterate as
this? Not only that, but he is my representative on the ASTM autogas
committee? No wonder we are in the bind that we find ourselves.

I want a public answer from the EAA management why a person of this dubious
literacy is allowed to represent me and my fellow members on high level
government committees and task forces.

Jim

[Doug]

Depends on class. Top fuel runs nitro, but there is an alchohol class.
They burn about 10 gallons in 7 seconds, BTW. High pressure and BIG
nozzels. The reason for alchohol is cost. Not of the fuel, but of the
engine. Engines that can run nitro are very expensive to build and
maintain. Any garage mechanic can work up an alchohol engine, well
maybe not any, but it puts in within the reach of a hobbyist with
limited bux.

[George Patterson]

Doug wrote:

> Depends on class. Top fuel runs nitro, but there is an alchohol class.

But isn't it methanol, not ethanol?

George Patterson
We don't stop playing because we grow old. We grow old because we stop
playing.

[Morgans]

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Depends on class. Top fuel runs nitro, but there is an alchohol class.
> They burn about 10 gallons in 7 seconds, BTW. High pressure and BIG
> nozzels. The reason for alchohol is cost. Not of the fuel, but of the
> engine. Engines that can run nitro are very expensive to build and
> maintain. Any garage mechanic can work up an alchohol engine, well
> maybe not any, but it puts in within the reach of a hobbyist with
> limited bux.
>
His point was that the subject is ethanol, and dragsters run on methanol.
Both alcohol, but not equal.

I hope I haven't consumed any methanol today, anyway!<g>
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

>
> Mr. Lawrence,
> Thanks for weighing in. Can you provide some links where the results of these tests are archived? I'd like to learn
> more about ethanol as a fuel. A previous poster mentioned an exhibition airplane running on ethanol. I also recall
> this bird and it seems I saw it fly at Oshkosh, circa 1997. It seems that it was a black fabric biplane with green
> trim? I also ran across this: "But MOTHER's researchers weren't the only ones at the 1980 Fly-In who were piloting
> vehicles powered by renewable fuel. Paul Poberezny (the EAA's "chief") was there to greet us with his "Pober Pixie"
> airplane, which had been converted to ethanol the previous summer. " while doing a Google search. It seems that
> corrosion issues can be handled with additives.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

I can not provide a internet link to the test data, some of the tests
were EAA tests, some FAA tests, other tests have been published in SAE
papers, and still others are published in ASTM research reports none of
these are available on-line. The black fabric aircraft you saw
previously was Max Schauck's aircraft in the late 1990's he was running
the aircraft on ETBE and ether made from ethanol. The aircraft was
flown from show to show on 100LL and then he would do the show using
the ETBE. This was done, the use of 100LL, as you just can not pull up
to the pump at an airport and get ETBE. Max also did a significant
amount of work on certificating aircraft engines to 100% ethanol which
as I pointed out is different from gasoline with 10% ethanol. As far I
as know no one has ever certificated an engine or an aircraft to use a
gasoline with 10% ethanol.
EAA and Cessna completed research on the use of ETBE as an aircraft
fuel and all tests indicated is was an excellent fuel. But ETBE and
MTBE have no been outlawed in many parts of the US do to concerns of
contaminated water sources from ethers such as MTBE.
I will repeat to readers of this thread that EAA has never said that
one cannot convert an aircraft engine or an airframe to use 100%
ethanol. What we have said is that we were unable to certificate an
aircraft with the use of a gasoline with 10% ethanol. Aircraft and
aircraft engines have been certificated to use 100% ethanol. Also
remember getting an aircraft to work using a particular fuel is not the
same as getting it certificated to use that fuel. Certification
testing covers a wide range of conditions that some aircraft may never
see but must be addressed if we are going to let Type certificated
aircraft use the fuel. Remember an STC for a fuel would allow that
aircraft to fly with paying passengers at night, IFR in bad weather, in
the most extreme conditions e.g. Alaskan winter or Saharan Summer, so
the STC tests must cover all know operating conditions.
Earl Lawrence

[[email protected]]

Jim
It is good to see your manners are as good as they always have been.
Happy thanksgiving.
Earl

[Doug]

Uh oh, methanol vs ethanol thing. You know, I'm not sure.....

[Doug]

Drag racers run on methanol.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article . com>,
"Doug" > wrote:

> Drag racers run on methanol.

But drag racers usually tear everything down after one or a few more
races! That is not the same as exposing fuel systems to constant
immersion in alcohols.

--
Remve "_" from email to reply to me personally.

[Paul Stuart]

Mr Weir
Sometimes you carry that EAA chip on your shoulder to truly ridiculous
levels. Mr Lawrence has posted a detailed, informative and totally
understandable reply to the questions raised. He did so on
Thanksgiving Day... If you can't find it within yourself to recognize
that these are actually COMMENDABLE traits in an EAA employee, for
goodness' sake don't go on the attack about it. You really do come
across as a keyboard warrior of the pettiest kind.
Paul Stuart

[john smith]

> > A previous poster mentioned an exhibition airplane running on ethanol. I also recall
> > this bird and it seems I saw it fly at Oshkosh, circa 1997. It seems that
> > it was a black fabric biplane with green trim?

The State of Illinois flew a yellow and green aircraft around the
airshow circuit to promote ethanol. I always suspected Archer Daniels
Midland was the wizard behind the curtain, but I never saw any credit
claimed in print.

[Morgans]

"Paul Stuart" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Mr Weir
> Sometimes you carry that EAA chip on your shoulder to truly ridiculous
> levels. Mr Lawrence has posted a detailed, informative and totally
> understandable reply to the questions raised. He did so on
> Thanksgiving Day... If you can't find it within yourself to recognize
> that these are actually COMMENDABLE traits in an EAA employee, for
> goodness' sake don't go on the attack about it. You really do come
> across as a keyboard warrior of the pettiest kind.
> Paul Stuart

When he chose to comment, or even if he chose to comment, is no concern to
me, or of anyone else reading the letter. If Thanksgiving was a bad day to
be writing, then he should have waited until a better time.

A person in a position of leadership, in an organization such as EAA, is
accountable to it's members. In this case, the membership and non
membership public reading a letter in an open forum will carry away an
impression directly related to the quality of said presentation. He only
had one chance to make a first impression, and the impression carried away
by members, and the public in this case, could only be one questioning the
competence, ability and intelligence of the person writing the letter.

A typo here and there, or a *few* grammatical errors is not a good thing,
but is somewhat forgivable. The quantity of errors contained in the letter
goes *way* past that level.

Missing the spelling of a key technical term that the author was in charge
of researching, and the obvious total lack of proofreading is past
acceptable, and he deserves admonishment.

That is my opinion, and I would think other's as well. YMMV.
--
Jim in NC
EAA member, also questioning if the research undertaken on ethanol was
supervised in a competent manner.

[RST Engineering]

The book on me has always been that I do not suffer fools graciously.

Thanksgiving is generally capitalized.

Jim




> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jim
> It is good to see your manners are as good as they always have been.
> Happy thanksgiving.
> Earl
>

[RST Engineering]

>
> I can not provide a internet link to the test data, some of the tests
> were EAA tests, some FAA tests, other tests have been published in SAE
> papers, and still others are published in ASTM research reports

semicolon added ,\; none of
> these are available on-line.


The black fabric aircraft you saw
> previously was Max Schauck's aircraft in the late 1990's he was running
> the aircraft on ETBE and ether made from ethanol.

Run on sentence.

he was running

> the aircraft on ETBE and ether made from ethanol.



The aircraft was
> flown from show to show on 100LL and then he would do the show using
> the ETBE. This was done, the use of 100LL, as you just can not pull up
> to the pump at an airport and get ETBE.

These sentences make no sense at all.


But ETBE and
> MTBE have no been outlawed in many parts of the US do to concerns of
> contaminated water sources from ethers such as MTBE

These sentences make no grammar sense at all. Wanna try again?



> the STC tests must cover all know operating conditions.
> Earl Lawrence

How about KNOWN operating conditions.

Jim

[Dave Stadt]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Stuart" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Mr Weir
> > Sometimes you carry that EAA chip on your shoulder to truly ridiculous
> > levels. Mr Lawrence has posted a detailed, informative and totally
> > understandable reply to the questions raised. He did so on
> > Thanksgiving Day... If you can't find it within yourself to recognize
> > that these are actually COMMENDABLE traits in an EAA employee, for
> > goodness' sake don't go on the attack about it. You really do come
> > across as a keyboard warrior of the pettiest kind.
> > Paul Stuart
>
> When he chose to comment, or even if he chose to comment, is no concern to
> me, or of anyone else reading the letter. If Thanksgiving was a bad day
to
> be writing, then he should have waited until a better time.
>
> A person in a position of leadership, in an organization such as EAA, is
> accountable to it's members. In this case, the membership and non
> membership public reading a letter in an open forum will carry away an
> impression directly related to the quality of said presentation. He only
> had one chance to make a first impression, and the impression carried away
> by members, and the public in this case, could only be one questioning the
> competence, ability and intelligence of the person writing the letter.
>
> A typo here and there, or a *few* grammatical errors is not a good thing,
> but is somewhat forgivable. The quantity of errors contained in the
letter
> goes *way* past that level.
>
> Missing the spelling of a key technical term that the author was in charge
> of researching, and the obvious total lack of proofreading is past
> acceptable, and he deserves admonishment.
>
> That is my opinion, and I would think other's as well. YMMV.

It isn't my opinion and I would request you not assume that you speak for
me.

[JJS]

snip
> I hope I haven't consumed any methanol today, anyway!<g>
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Not to worry. The antidote for methanol poisoning is grain alcohol.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Morgans]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote

> It isn't my opinion and I would request you not assume that you speak for
> me.

For my statement to be true, all I have to find is at least one person
sharing my opinion. I think that is safe to say. No, let me rephrase that;
I KNOW it is safe to say.

Furthermore, I would never ASSume to be speaking for you. You seem to be
very capable of ASSuming yourself.

Good day.
--
Jim in NC

[john smith]

> > That is my opinion, and I would think other's as well. YMMV.

> It isn't my opinion and I would request you not assume that you speak for
> me.

You guys are wound too tight.
What's wrong, did your football teams lose?
This is aviation, we're allowed to disagree... civilly, of course. ;-))

[Ed Sullivan]

>same as getting it certificated to use that fuel. Certification
>testing covers a wide range of conditions that some aircraft may never
>see but must be addressed if we are going to let Type certificated
>aircraft use the fuel. Remember an STC for a fuel would allow that
>aircraft to fly with paying passengers at night, IFR in bad weather, in
>the most extreme conditions e.g. Alaskan winter or Saharan Summer, so
>the STC tests must cover all know operating conditions.
>Earl Lawrence
>
You mention 10% alcohol, what about 5.7% alcohol as is required in
California Fuels?

[[email protected]]

Ed
Testing that Cessna completed indicated 3.5% ethanol to be the limit of
acceptable content in conventional gasoline for use in existing Cessna
aircraft. However, my understanding of the tests is that they were
conducted to determine acceptable levels of anti-ice additive in 100LL,
80/87 and 82UL aviation gasoline. The tests were not conducted to
determine what the acceptable level of ethanol in automotive gasoline
would be for use in an aircraft. If you did not know, the anti-ice
additive that is used in gasoline is primarily ethanol. This, the
anti-ice additive, is an acceptable fuel additive listed in some Cessna
aircraft manuals.
For your information California gasoline, with the exception of the
ethanol additive, complies with both the 80/87 and the 82UL aviation
fuel specifications limits. For those of you who do not live in
California, California gasoline must comply with a special CARB
(California Air Resources Board) fuel specification over and above ASTM
and national EPA requirements.
Earl

[Jay Honeck]

>> If there is one thing that EAA could do to truly benefit General
>> Aviation, it would be to help develop STCs for the use of the
>> increasingly popular (and, in some states, mandated) ethanol-gasolines.

> EAA conducted flight tests in the 1980's in an attempt to certificate
> automotive gasoline (ASTM D4814) with 10% ethonal added.

Thanks, Earl, for chiming in here with the official EAA info.

Respectfully, I would ask that EAA continue to put its collective nose to
the grindstone on this issue, as it is only a matter of time before our
auto-gas STCs aren't worth a plugged nickel. The increasingly mandated
usage of ethanol-laced gasoline is (in my opinion) the biggest threat to
grass-roots aviation on the horizon, and we truly need EAA's leadership and
clout on this matter.

Although it may currently be prohibitively expensive to modify an aircraft
to burn ethanol at current gas prices, those prices are only headed upward
in the long run. When Avgas hits $5 per gallon, burning ethanol is going to
look mighty attractive. We need EAA to be in the forefront, ready for this
turn of events, not sitting in the background, telling us that "we tried
that in the 1980s and it didn't look good."

Thanks again!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Jay
Your comments are appropriate and are not falling on deaf ears. I am
currently exploring two initiatives that could directly address your
comments. I am not elaborating on them here, as they need significant
more work before I can claim I am doing anything substantial for the
community on this subject. I only mention the effort, as I want to
acknowledge your concerns and let you know that I am still on the job.
As I am sure you know it is not enough to have a workable solution but
one has to be able convince a significant part of the community that it
is a solution worth pursuing. This is often a harder effort than the
technical barriers involved.
Earl

[nrp]

We have to recognize that a 10% ethanol mix is going to be very
difficult to get approved since unlike the older autofuel STCs, we are
dealing with about a 5% reduction in certified engine power output.
This will show as a more substantial penalty (maybe 10%?) to the
maximum climb performance of the certified airframe.

Even if we could get around the vapor lock and materials compatibility
issues, think of what else would still have to be done to accommodate
the reduced max power. Maybe we could certify to a lower gross weight
etc to maintain climb angle etc? The fuel system would have to be
recalibrated to retain an optimum mixture for even the 95% power
performance. What do you do then about av-auto fuel mixtures? It will
really get messy, being perhaps like trying to find a lead-free
substitute for 100LL.

In Minnesota we have enough boats antique cars etc that there is a
distribution system for pure gasoline even though gasahol is otherwise
mandated for cars etc. Don't other states have any such provisions?

[Montblack]

("nrp" wrote)
[snip]
> In Minnesota we have enough boats antique cars etc that there is a
> distribution system for pure gasoline even though gasahol is otherwise
> mandated for cars etc. Don't other states have any such provisions?


http://makeashorterlink.com/?G48521A3C
(Same link as below ...wait for it)

<http://www.msra.com/NonOxygenatedFuel/NonOxygenated%20Fuel%20List%2010.01.05.pdf>
"These are the stations that provide non-oxygenated (ethanol-free) gasoline
in the state of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Please stop by and thank them for
their participation during cruising season, continue to patronize them with
your daily drivers and remind them that our collector cars count on them for
the non-oxygenated fuel."

<http://www.msra.com/NonOxygenatedFuel/Non-OxyFuel.htm>
List comes from here...


Montblack