Removing Ethanol from Gas?

[Jay Honeck]

The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
gasoline, so it seems...

On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his
fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
but that's just me...)

His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
sound particularly safe or easy.

Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
> for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
> which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
> the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
> inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
> gasoline, so it seems...
>
> On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
> successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his
> fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
> Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
> I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
> but that's just me...)
>
> His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
> the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
> been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
> sound particularly safe or easy.
>
> Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
> mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
> --


This was discussed a while back. While I'm not a chemist I would think that
what came out of the removal process would have a completely unknown octane
rating that would probably be lower than what went in.

I also think "successfully using ethanol-gas" and "ruined his fiberglass tip
tanks" really shouldn't be used in the same paragraph.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
> > mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
>
> This was discussed a while back. While I'm not a chemist I would think that
> what came out of the removal process would have a completely unknown octane
> rating that would probably be lower than what went in.

Really? Dang, I thought I had kept up here. I remember reading about
TESTING for ethanol, but never removing it... Sorry about that.

> I also think "successfully using ethanol-gas" and "ruined his fiberglass tip
> tanks" really shouldn't be used in the same paragraph.

Few planes have fiberglass tip tanks -- so I think his experience is a
fairly valid test for many aircraft owners. It seems to be "running"
just fine in his low-compression Lycoming O-540, which is exactly what
you might expect from an old 1940's-era tractor engine.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Macklin]

ECON 101

AvGas is available at X price
MoGas is available at 3/4X price
Cost to re-refine MoGas Y (why is a good choice of letter)
Cost to repair damaged engine (each) $20,000.

Cost to repair damaged fuel tanks, plumbing, pumps and
seals, unknown.

Cost of FAA violation of regulations, certificate
suspension, a lot
Cost of uninsured aircraft when your insurance is cancelled,
priceless.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
|
| "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| > The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas
STC unusable
| > for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're
okay (in Iowa,
| > which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase
untainted mogas -- but
| > the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a
nation, are
| > inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol
into ALL
| > gasoline, so it seems...
| >
| > On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's
been
| > successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's
ruined his
| > fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to
happen.
| > Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports.
(Personally,
| > I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to
$4K *apiece*,
| > but that's just me...)
| >
| > His experience has led to a more interesting (to me)
discussion about
| > the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline.
Several ideas have
| > been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water),
but none of them
| > sound particularly safe or easy.
| >
| > Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the
ethanol from
| > mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
| > --
|
|
| This was discussed a while back. While I'm not a chemist I
would think that
| what came out of the removal process would have a
completely unknown octane
| rating that would probably be lower than what went in.
|
| I also think "successfully using ethanol-gas" and "ruined
his fiberglass tip
| tanks" really shouldn't be used in the same paragraph.
|
|

[Al[_1_]]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:q0oCg.14$SZ3.7@dukeread04...
> ECON 101
>
> AvGas is available at X price
> MoGas is available at 3/4X price
> Cost to re-refine MoGas Y (why is a good choice of letter)
> Cost to repair damaged engine (each) $20,000.
>
> Cost to repair damaged fuel tanks, plumbing, pumps and
> seals, unknown.
>
> Cost of FAA violation of regulations, certificate
> suspension, a lot
> Cost of uninsured aircraft when your insurance is cancelled,
> priceless.
>
> --
> James H. Macklin
> ATP,CFI,A&P
>
There is also the issue of performance. As I understand it, alcohol
doesn't produce as much horsepower per volume as does avgas. If I use a
mogas that has alcohol in it, I don't have the "Get up and GO" that I used
to have. On that hot day at high altitude, over an obstacle, which takeoff
performance chart do I use?

Al G

[James Robinson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
> for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
> which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
> the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
> inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
> gasoline, so it seems...
>
> On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
> successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his
> fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
> Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
> I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
> but that's just me...)

Longer term, he is also risking corrosion damage to main tanks and pumps,
since ethanol, being hygroscopic, tends to join with any water, including
that from humidity in the air, and settle to the bottom of tanks. This
is a particular problem where humidity is high, and the fuel is left in
the tank for any period of time before being used.

The water content can also add to the risk of vapor lock or ice crystals
forming in the fuel where those things are already a problem, such as
where winter grade fuel is not used until the heat of the summer.

> His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
> the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
> been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
> sound particularly safe or easy.
>
> Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
> mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?

Without directly answering the question, also keep in mind that ethanol
is an octane booster. If it is removed from E10 fuel, as an example,
there is a loss of 2 or 3 points of octane. (This is also a problem
where the ethanol has combined with water and dropped out of the gasoline
mix.)

An engine like a Rotax turbo approved for use of Mogas requires a minimum
of 91 or 92 octane, and that is the rating for premium fuel. Thus, if
the ethanol is removed, even from premium fuel, the octane wouldn't be
high enough to use in the engine. The only possibility would be to start
with Sunoco Ultra, which is a 94 octane fuel, which I understand is 93
octane without the ethanol. Perhaps Sunoco will offer it as mogas
without the ethanol.

One way of removing ethanol would be to mix water with the fuel, and let
it sit for a while. The ethanol would combine with water, then you could
drain both off, (along with any other soluble compounds in the fuel).

[Jim Macklin]

It's is like the guy who spent $25,000 on tools to build
furniture for his house, to save 25% on the furniture.
During WWII the Army published flight manuals for fighters
(and bombers) for different grades of fuel, 80/87, 91-96,
100/130 and 115/145 being refined. But some battlefields
did not have supplies of all grades. So you might have a 54
In Hg. MAP with 115/145 and only 40 inches with 100/130.

But what octane do you get from home refined mogas?



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Al" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:q0oCg.14$SZ3.7@dukeread04...
| > ECON 101
| >
| > AvGas is available at X price
| > MoGas is available at 3/4X price
| > Cost to re-refine MoGas Y (why is a good choice of
letter)
| > Cost to repair damaged engine (each) $20,000.
| >
| > Cost to repair damaged fuel tanks, plumbing, pumps and
| > seals, unknown.
| >
| > Cost of FAA violation of regulations, certificate
| > suspension, a lot
| > Cost of uninsured aircraft when your insurance is
cancelled,
| > priceless.
| >
| > --
| > James H. Macklin
| > ATP,CFI,A&P
| >
| There is also the issue of performance. As I understand
it, alcohol
| doesn't produce as much horsepower per volume as does
avgas. If I use a
| mogas that has alcohol in it, I don't have the "Get up and
GO" that I used
| to have. On that hot day at high altitude, over an
obstacle, which takeoff
| performance chart do I use?
|
| Al G
|
|

[john smith]

In article >,
"Al" > wrote:

> There is also the issue of performance. As I understand it, alcohol
> doesn't produce as much horsepower per volume as does avgas. If I use a
> mogas that has alcohol in it, I don't have the "Get up and GO" that I used
> to have. On that hot day at high altitude, over an obstacle, which takeoff
> performance chart do I use?

Today's Wall Street Journal has an chart of pickup trucks and cars and
gas milage with gasoline and E85.
Gas E85 Gas E85 Annual E85 Costs+
City City Hwy HWy Cost /Savings-
Chevy Silverado 1500 AWD 15 11 19 14 $2813 -$10
Chevy Impala 21 16 31 23 $1877 +$40
Chevy Tahoe 1500 AWD 14 11 18 14 $2813 +$223
Ford Crown Victoria 17 12 25 18 $2250 +$353
Ford F150 FFV AWD 14 10 18 13 $3002 +$311

based on 45% highway/55% city, 15,000 mpy

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:12:00 -0700, "Al" >
wrote:
> On that hot day at high altitude, over an obstacle, which takeoff
> performance chart do I use?

The one that says, "stay on the ground and have a beer"?

[M[_1_]]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> We, as a nation, are
> inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
> gasoline, so it seems...

I don't think there's nearly enough ethanol manufacturing capacity to
do a nation wide mix of E10. That's a huge amount of ethanol to be
made from corn or other plants, plus the cost and the energy in
distillation.

[[email protected]]

The best way to remove ethanol from gas is for us to affect legislation
that would otherwise mandate ethanol in all gasoline, even that used
for off-road use. Most congress people are completely unaware that auto
fuel is used successfully by a large number of aircraft owners and that
ethanol poses a significant safety risk. There are some very powerful
lobbying forces behind the new mandates. It's important that we be
heard, i.e., we participate. Boaters are also affected by ethanol
mandates so it may be helpful to join forces with that community.

Ethanol is usually blended at the time of being loaded on a tanker
truck, so if the local or state law allows, it is very easy to order a
tanker full of auto fuel without ethanol. It's not added at the
refinery.



Jay Honeck wrote:
> The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
> for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
> which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
> the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
> inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
> gasoline, so it seems...
>
> On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
> successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his
> fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
> Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
> I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
> but that's just me...)
>
> His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
> the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
> been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
> sound particularly safe or easy.
>
> Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
> mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On 9 Aug 2006 11:27:58 -0700, "M" > wrote in
. com>:

>That's a huge amount of ethanol to be made from corn or other
>plants, plus the cost and the energy in distillation.

You forgot to mention the cost of growing the corn.

Ethanol production requires:

Land
Farm equipment for planting, irrigating and harvesting
Fuel for the farm equipment
Irrigation water
Fertilizers
Insecticides
Distillation equipment
Fuel for the still
Water for fermentation (CO2 byproduct)
Labor, labor, labor

So, if all the costs are factored in, Ethanol is probably more
expensive than gasoline.

But the farm lobby is happy.

The next generation of photovoltaic equipment may be the ultimate
answer to energy the shortage. With solar there are no moving parts,
nor nuclear radiation emissions, nor decommissioning costs, nor waste
storage costs.


http://world.honda.com/news/2005/c051219.html

Corporate December 19, 2005
Honda to Mass Produce Next-Generation Thin Film Solar Cell

TOKYO, Japan, December 19, 2005 – Honda Motor Co., Ltd. announced its
plan to begin mass production in 2007, of an independently developed
thin film solar cell composed of non-silicon compound materials, which
requires 50% less energy, and thus generate 50% less CO2, during
production compared to a conventional solar cell. A mass production
plant with annual capacity of 27.5 megawatts will be established at
Honda’s Kumamoto factory.

Honda will produce and sell solar panels in a limited area, starting
from 2006 fall, using assembly line within Honda Engineering Co.,
Ltd., the production engineering subsidiary of Honda.

By using thin film made from a compound of copper, indium, gallium and
selenium (CIGS), Honda’s next-generation solar cell achieved a major
reduction in energy consumed during the manufacturing process to
approximately 50% of the amount required by conventional crystal
silicon solar cells. Thus, this new solar cell is more
environmentally-friendly by reducing the amount of CO2 even from the
production stage. Further, this next-generation solar cell has
achieved the highest level of photoelectric transfer efficiency for a
thin film solar cell (almost equivalent to the conventional crystal
silicon solar cell).

Since spring 2002, Honda has been using and monitoring the performance
of this solar cell, first at the Outboard Engine Plant in Hosoe, and
then also at 12 other Honda facilities including Honda Engineering
headquarters and the Honda Wako Building in Japan and 3 overseas sites
such as the U.S. and Thailand.

Achieving lower costs and higher photoelectric transfer efficiency is
required in order to expand use of solar cells which will help protect
the global environment. This non-silicon thin film solar cell has been
attracting significant attention as a potential solution to these
challenges. The only remaining challenges were the stabilization of
performance and development of mass production technologies. The mass
production of Honda’s next-generation solar cell became possible with
a new mass production process for thin film solar cells developed
independently by Honda Engineering – a production engineering company
that has long developed production equipment and technologies for
Honda’s motorcycle, automobile, engine, electric motor for hybrid
vehicles and other items.

In addition to its effort to lower environmental load through
achieving reduced emissions and higher fuel efficiency, as the first
automaker to enter into solar cell business, Honda will contribute to
the effort to prevent global warming through production and sales of a
clean energy source which does not use fossil fuels. In its vision for
2010, Honda has committed itself to take on new challenges in new
areas and to develop environmentally-friendly and sustainable energy
technologies. Honda’s entrance into the solar cell business with
independently developed technologies is an example of the realization
of Honda’s 2010 vision.


About New Mass Production Line

Location: Within the current site of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Kumamoto
Plant

Establishment: The line will become operational in latter half of 2007

Facility size: 12,000 square meters

Production capacity: 27.5 megawatts annually, (Equivalent amount of
electricity to power approximately 8,000 houses when calculated at
3.5kw per house)

Product/Use: Solar cell panel for individual residential use and
public industrial use

-----------------------

Here's a picture and article of Nanosolar's product:
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/merc081504p.htm
http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/

[RST Engineering]

The problem is not getting gasoline without ethanol. I can get as many tank
cars as you wish and have it delivered to you by Friday morning. The
problem is exactly that, you get a tank car (or an 8000 gallon tanker) full,
no less. Using 8000 gallons of a fuel that isn't quite as stable over time
as avgas is the corker.

When we used to be able to go down to the local gas station with a 55 gallon
drum or tank, it was really quite easy. Getting a small airport to burn
8000 gallons of auto fuel is not. Not to mention the airport having to make
a new storage tank (can we say permits and lots of time?) and pay for the
project out of "profits".

Jim



> Ethanol is usually blended at the time of being loaded on a tanker
> truck, so if the local or state law allows, it is very easy to order a
> tanker full of auto fuel without ethanol. It's not added at the
> refinery.

[Jim Macklin]

And the fuel used to till, plant and harvest. Sure, Brazil
can use E85, they have fewer cars and trucks than Los
Angeles (guess, but you can look it up).



"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jay Honeck wrote:
| > We, as a nation, are
| > inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol
into ALL
| > gasoline, so it seems...
|
| I don't think there's nearly enough ethanol manufacturing
capacity to
| do a nation wide mix of E10. That's a huge amount of
ethanol to be
| made from corn or other plants, plus the cost and the
energy in
| distillation.
|

[Jim Macklin]

MoGas could be used in gasoline powered vehicles and
equipment on the airport, to use the 8,000 gallons in a
reasonable time. Since many airports are city operated,
police cars and such could also use the fuel farm at the
airport.



"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
| The problem is not getting gasoline without ethanol. I
can get as many tank
| cars as you wish and have it delivered to you by Friday
morning. The
| problem is exactly that, you get a tank car (or an 8000
gallon tanker) full,
| no less. Using 8000 gallons of a fuel that isn't quite as
stable over time
| as avgas is the corker.
|
| When we used to be able to go down to the local gas
station with a 55 gallon
| drum or tank, it was really quite easy. Getting a small
airport to burn
| 8000 gallons of auto fuel is not. Not to mention the
airport having to make
| a new storage tank (can we say permits and lots of time?)
and pay for the
| project out of "profits".
|
| Jim
|
|
|
| > Ethanol is usually blended at the time of being loaded
on a tanker
| > truck, so if the local or state law allows, it is very
easy to order a
| > tanker full of auto fuel without ethanol. It's not added
at the
| > refinery.
|
|

[Peter Dohm]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
> The best way to remove ethanol from gas is for us to affect legislation
> that would otherwise mandate ethanol in all gasoline, even that used
> for off-road use. Most congress people are completely unaware that auto
> fuel is used successfully by a large number of aircraft owners and that
> ethanol poses a significant safety risk. There are some very powerful
> lobbying forces behind the new mandates. It's important that we be
> heard, i.e., we participate. Boaters are also affected by ethanol
> mandates so it may be helpful to join forces with that community.
>
-----snipped------

You've summed it up rather well.
The problem appears to be entirely one of mandates, and the solution is to
remove the mandates.

Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> The best way to remove ethanol from gas is for us to affect legislation
>> that would otherwise mandate ethanol in all gasoline, even that used
>> for off-road use. Most congress people are completely unaware that auto
>> fuel is used successfully by a large number of aircraft owners and that
>> ethanol poses a significant safety risk. There are some very powerful
>> lobbying forces behind the new mandates. It's important that we be
>> heard, i.e., we participate. Boaters are also affected by ethanol
>> mandates so it may be helpful to join forces with that community.
>>
> -----snipped------
>
> You've summed it up rather well.
> The problem appears to be entirely one of mandates, and the solution is to
> remove the mandates.

I'd bet that 99.9% of Congress even knows it is an issue. The AOPA and EAA
better get a letter writing campaign going. It is a lot easier to stop
mandates before they are in place than it is to get one removed.

[Peter Dohm]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:7MqCg.34$SZ3.3@dukeread04...
> MoGas could be used in gasoline powered vehicles and
> equipment on the airport, to use the 8,000 gallons in a
> reasonable time. Since many airports are city operated,
> police cars and such could also use the fuel farm at the
> airport.
>
>
That's actually a very promising solution; at least until the mandate
problem can be successfully addressed.

Peter

>
> "RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> | The problem is not getting gasoline without ethanol. I
> can get as many tank
> | cars as you wish and have it delivered to you by Friday
> morning. The
> | problem is exactly that, you get a tank car (or an 8000
> gallon tanker) full,
> | no less. Using 8000 gallons of a fuel that isn't quite as
> stable over time
> | as avgas is the corker.
> |
> | When we used to be able to go down to the local gas
> station with a 55 gallon
> | drum or tank, it was really quite easy. Getting a small
> airport to burn
> | 8000 gallons of auto fuel is not. Not to mention the
> airport having to make
> | a new storage tank (can we say permits and lots of time?)
> and pay for the
> | project out of "profits".
> |
> | Jim
> |
> |
> |
> | > Ethanol is usually blended at the time of being loaded
> on a tanker
> | > truck, so if the local or state law allows, it is very
> easy to order a
> | > tanker full of auto fuel without ethanol. It's not added
> at the
> | > refinery.
> |
> |
>
>

[RST Engineering]

I'm afraid you don't quite get the picture, Jim.

Actually, most "small" country airports are county owned and operated, but
your premise of municipal vehicles fueling up is still legitimate. Whether
you call them police cars or sheriff cruisers isn't the point.

What IS the point is that the airport (for it's own self-preservation) is
usually located a few miles from town. To tell every cop car, road grader,
utility vehicle that they are going to have to go out to the airport to fuel
isn't feasible.

Nor is it feasible to have civilians (airplane owners) go to a municipal
fuel farm in town and fill up tanks or jugs. First of all, municipalities
like counties aren't set up to sell anything to the general public, fuel
included. You'd have to generate such a hodge-podge of checks and balances
(yes, the treasurer is a real witch when it comes to accountability of
funds) that any savings on fuel just went down the dumper.

COuld we do it by patch and mend? Possibly. Would it pay for itself? Not
unless the mogas sold for approximately what avgas is selling for.

Jim


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:7MqCg.34$SZ3.3@dukeread04...
> MoGas could be used in gasoline powered vehicles and
> equipment on the airport, to use the 8,000 gallons in a
> reasonable time. Since many airports are city operated,
> police cars and such could also use the fuel farm at the
> airport.

[Jim Macklin]

The point is that GOVERNMENT control of supply always screws
up the system. So, when it gets bad, the herd in the big
cities demand more government control. That will fix
everything, right, NOT.



"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
| I'm afraid you don't quite get the picture, Jim.
|
| Actually, most "small" country airports are county owned
and operated, but
| your premise of municipal vehicles fueling up is still
legitimate. Whether
| you call them police cars or sheriff cruisers isn't the
point.
|
| What IS the point is that the airport (for it's own
self-preservation) is
| usually located a few miles from town. To tell every cop
car, road grader,
| utility vehicle that they are going to have to go out to
the airport to fuel
| isn't feasible.
|
| Nor is it feasible to have civilians (airplane owners) go
to a municipal
| fuel farm in town and fill up tanks or jugs. First of
all, municipalities
| like counties aren't set up to sell anything to the
general public, fuel
| included. You'd have to generate such a hodge-podge of
checks and balances
| (yes, the treasurer is a real witch when it comes to
accountability of
| funds) that any savings on fuel just went down the dumper.
|
| COuld we do it by patch and mend? Possibly. Would it pay
for itself? Not
| unless the mogas sold for approximately what avgas is
selling for.
|
| Jim
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:7MqCg.34$SZ3.3@dukeread04...
| > MoGas could be used in gasoline powered vehicles and
| > equipment on the airport, to use the 8,000 gallons in a
| > reasonable time. Since many airports are city operated,
| > police cars and such could also use the fuel farm at the
| > airport.
|
|

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On 9 Aug 2006 11:27:58 -0700, "M" > wrote:
> I don't think there's nearly enough ethanol manufacturing capacity to
> do a nation wide mix of E10. That's a huge amount of ethanol to be
> made from corn or other plants, plus the cost and the energy in
> distillation.

And more importantly, a waste of good corn liquor...

[Al[_1_]]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:12:00 -0700, "Al" >
> wrote:
>> On that hot day at high altitude, over an obstacle, which takeoff
>> performance chart do I use?
>
> The one that says, "stay on the ground and have a beer"?

Ding! You win. This is of course the right answer. (and I like your style)

Al G

[.Blueskies.]

"Al" > wrote in message ...
:
: >
: There is also the issue of performance. As I understand it, alcohol
: doesn't produce as much horsepower per volume as does avgas. If I use a
: mogas that has alcohol in it, I don't have the "Get up and GO" that I used
: to have. On that hot day at high altitude, over an obstacle, which takeoff
: performance chart do I use?
:
: Al G
:
:

It is a power to weight issue. If you are pulling 28" at holding 2650 RPM, alcohol or gas it is the same power. You just
need to move more alcohol through the engine to do it. This is the primary reason there are special cars that can run
the e85 stuff - they have bigger carb jets so they can maintain the correct egr.

I suppose there would be issues on low pressure altitude days where and airplane engine may be starving for fuel (to
lean) if it is fed alcohol...

[James Robinson]

".Blueskies." > wrote:
>
> "... there are special cars that can run the e85 stuff - they have
> bigger carb jets so they can maintain the correct egr.

What's a carburetor? (Asks the auto owner)

[Al[_1_]]

".Blueskies." > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Al" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : >
> : There is also the issue of performance. As I understand it, alcohol
> : doesn't produce as much horsepower per volume as does avgas. If I use a
> : mogas that has alcohol in it, I don't have the "Get up and GO" that I
> used
> : to have. On that hot day at high altitude, over an obstacle, which
> takeoff
> : performance chart do I use?
> :
> : Al G
> :
> :
>
> It is a power to weight issue. If you are pulling 28" at holding 2650 RPM,
> alcohol or gas it is the same power. You just
> need to move more alcohol through the engine to do it. This is the primary
> reason there are special cars that can run
> the e85 stuff - they have bigger carb jets so they can maintain the
> correct egr.
>
> I suppose there would be issues on low pressure altitude days where and
> airplane engine may be starving for fuel (to
> lean) if it is fed alcohol...
>
So, I just run it richer? Or, in the case of a departure, where the
mixture is already full rich, you're saying there will be NO loss of
performance by using a mixture of autogas and alcohol?

Al G

[Peter Duniho]

"Al" > wrote in message
...
> So, I just run it richer? Or, in the case of a departure, where the
> mixture is already full rich, you're saying there will be NO loss of
> performance by using a mixture of autogas and alcohol?

No, what he's saying is that if full power with regular gas is 28" at 2650
RPM, then you aren't going to see 28" at 2650 RPM using alcohol or a blend
of alcohol.

In theory, you could calculate the actual percentage horsepower (it will be
less than 100%) based on what RPM you do actually get for a given throttle
setting, and then use a density altitude chart that matches the horsepower
you're actually getting (the chart will actually be slightly conservative,
because you will only have reduced power, rather than all of the negative
effects of high density altitude).

But it seems to me that if an airplane has been certified for use with
alcohol or a blend, it should have the necessary charts for that type of
fuel anyway. If it's not certified for that use, then operating the
aircraft that way wouldn't be advisable in any case, even if you could
determine what power you're getting from the fuel and translate that to a
correct chart to use.

It's good to know what to do in an emergency if you just HAVE to use the
wrong fuel, but just because you can determine the actual performance, that
doesn't mean there aren't other reasons to avoid the fuel.

In other words, this is an interesting academic exercise, but you and -581
had it right in your other posts. Staying on the ground is the correct
day-to-day answer. :)

Pete

[Don Tuite]

Couple of questions I don't see being addressed:

1. If regular mogas is 80/87, like it says on the pump, and you take
out the octane booster (alcohol), what is the octane rating of the
remaining gas?

2. How do mid-grade and high-test achieve their octane ratings? Do
they just add more alcohol?

What I'm asking is, if your engine is rated for 80-octane, and you
reduce the octane rating below that by taking out the alcohol, is that
a good idea?

3. What is *in* that non-alcohol gas in Iowa now that boosts its
octane? TEL? MTBE? Nitroglycerine?

Don

[[email protected]]

Everyone might drop in on Baylor U's flight research programs. The've
been flying numerous aircraft on everything from straight avgas to 100%
grain alcohol. They even have STC's for the O-235 and IO-540 series
engines to run on any percentage of ethanol. I know that one of the
prof's has been flying airshows in a couple of IO-540 powered bipes for
almost 25 years on staight 200 proof grain alcohol. Their research
should be able to answer virtually every question about running on
E(x)mogas

Craig C.

[James Robinson]

Don Tuite > wrote:

> 1. If regular mogas is 80/87, like it says on the pump, and you take
> out the octane booster (alcohol), what is the octane rating of the
> remaining gas?

It depends on the ethanol blend. Ethanol itself is about 100 octane.
When mixed with gasoline at a ratio of 90:10, gasoline to ethanol, (E10)
it raises the octane of the mixture by about 2 to 3 octane points,
compared to the base gasoline.

> 2. How do mid-grade and high-test achieve their octane ratings? Do
> they just add more alcohol?

Different refining of the gasoline as a base, then the addition of
ethanol to boost it the final amount.

> What I'm asking is, if your engine is rated for 80-octane, and you
> reduce the octane rating below that by taking out the alcohol, is that
> a good idea?

No. You should start with a higher octane rating mixture before removing
the ethanol.

> 3. What is *in* that non-alcohol gas in Iowa now that boosts its
> octane? TEL? MTBE? Nitroglycerine?

Iowa hasn't used MTBE for many years. Ethanol was its replacement, and
pretty well any automobile engine is allowed to use a mixture of up to 10
percent ethanol.

[Jim Macklin]

Avgas and mogas are rated/tested by different methods and
standards.



"Don Tuite" > wrote in
message ...
| Couple of questions I don't see being addressed:
|
| 1. If regular mogas is 80/87, like it says on the pump,
and you take
| out the octane booster (alcohol), what is the octane
rating of the
| remaining gas?
|
| 2. How do mid-grade and high-test achieve their octane
ratings? Do
| they just add more alcohol?
|
| What I'm asking is, if your engine is rated for 80-octane,
and you
| reduce the octane rating below that by taking out the
alcohol, is that
| a good idea?
|
| 3. What is *in* that non-alcohol gas in Iowa now that
boosts its
| octane? TEL? MTBE? Nitroglycerine?
|
| Don

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Macklin ]
> Posted At: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:32 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.piloting
> Conversation: Removing Ethanol from Gas?
> Subject: Re: Removing Ethanol from Gas?
>
> Avgas and mogas are rated/tested by different methods and
> standards.
>
>
Some have been posting about using 92 or 93 octane mogas and removing
the Ethanol to get to the 90 or so octane for the old 80/87 engines. If
the testing and rating is different between mogas and avgas, is there a
conversion chart or algorithm somewhere so that we at least start with
the right stuff before we try to remove the ethanol?

[James Robinson]

"Jim Carter" > wrote:

> Some have been posting about using 92 or 93 octane mogas and removing
> the Ethanol to get to the 90 or so octane for the old 80/87 engines. If
> the testing and rating is different between mogas and avgas, is there a
> conversion chart or algorithm somewhere so that we at least start with
> the right stuff before we try to remove the ethanol?

They are close. Here's a link to an article that seems to sum up the
octane business in layman's terms:

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html

[J. Severyn[_1_]]

The biggest issue is the reduction in power. You can regain the power by
rejetting the carb or injectors and assuring sufficient intake airflow, but
then the fuel flow is much higher.....and your range is poor.

The fuel system might need modification to insure all components are
compatible with ethanol. One example is: the O-rings in your fuel tank
selector might not tolerate ethanol, swelling and making the fuel selector
tight or even locked in one position.

Regards,
John Severyn
@KLVK


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
> for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
> which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
> the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
> inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
> gasoline, so it seems...
>
> On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
> successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his
> fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
> Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
> I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
> but that's just me...)
>
> His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
> the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
> been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
> sound particularly safe or easy.
>
> Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
> mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Don Tuite]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:01:21 -0500, James Robinson >
wrote:

>"Jim Carter" > wrote:
>
>> Some have been posting about using 92 or 93 octane mogas and removing
>> the Ethanol to get to the 90 or so octane for the old 80/87 engines. If
>> the testing and rating is different between mogas and avgas, is there a
>> conversion chart or algorithm somewhere so that we at least start with
>> the right stuff before we try to remove the ethanol?
>
>They are close. Here's a link to an article that seems to sum up the
>octane business in layman's terms:
>
>http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/GArticles/octane.html

Well, it says the lower number (aviation lean) for aviation fuel will
be within one or two digits of the "motor octane" (MOR) on the gas
station pump. But US pumps don't tell you the MOR, they tell you the
anti-knock index (AKI), or (MON + RON)/2. As a rule of thumb the MOR
is 5 less than the AKI. (And the research octane number RON is 5 more
than the AKI.)

Thus the MON of autogas rated 87 octane is about 82, which makes it
about the equivalent of 80-octane aviation fuel.. Autogas with a pump
rating of 91 (premium) would be like 86-octane aviation fuel, if there
were such a beast.

(According to the site, aviation rich, the higher value in 80/87 is
only important in supercharged engines.)

This site: http://www.cheresources.com/greengas.shtml

says refineries *can* use catalytic naptha reforming and/or fluidized
catalytic cracking to produce a bunch of stuff, but mustly MTBE and
tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME). The other refinery products
available for blending have various problems including causing cancer
(benzine), releasing sulphur, and gunking up your tailpipe.

So I haven't found anything on-line (yet) that absolutely persuades me
that high-test isn't just regular with more alcohol in it. (Which is
the part of my screed that actually relates to this thread.

Now for a slight change of direction. If you're writing your
legislators, one thing to remind them of is that we got the TEL out of
gasoline, NOT because it was making us sick (although I was never keen
on eating the blackberries that grow right alongside the highways
everywhere in Oregon), but because it destroyes catalytic converters.
And whatever anybody's opinion about catalytic converters is, nobody
is proposing CCs for the tiny piston-powered general aviation fleet.
Therefore efforts to remove the TEL from aviation fuel for
"environmental" reasons are quixotic and contrary to good sense.

In fact, a good case could be made for a mandate that TEL in avfuel be
REDUCED from the current ridiculous levels to something that wouldn'f
foul sparkplugs without drastic leaning.

THAT would make everybody happy.

Don

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:00:55 GMT, john smith > wrote:

>Chevy Silverado 1500 AWD 15 11 19 14 $2813 -$10

That's the one that got me. Why does the Silverado do better on E85
than on gasoline? (Since the final figure is "cost", a minus figure is
a savings.)


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email: usenet AT danford DOT net

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Ron Natalie]

Jay Honeck wrote:
\
>
> Few planes have fiberglass tip tanks -- so I think his experience is a
> fairly valid test for many aircraft owners. It seems to be "running"
> just fine in his low-compression Lycoming O-540, which is exactly what
> you might expect from an old 1940's-era tractor engine.
>
Ethanol based fuels aren't entirely friendly to aluminum either, which
is one of the reasons the STC forbids it.

[Ron Natalie]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:00:55 GMT, john smith > wrote:
>
>> Chevy Silverado 1500 AWD 15 11 19 14 $2813 -$10
>
> That's the one that got me. Why does the Silverado do better on E85
> than on gasoline? (Since the final figure is "cost", a minus figure is
> a savings.)
>
There's got to be something else in the figure. The Tahoe,
which essientially is the same chassis and engine gets near
the same milage, the same annual cost but it's on the + side
by $223...

[Jay Honeck]

> Everyone might drop in on Baylor U's flight research programs. The've
> been flying numerous aircraft on everything from straight avgas to 100%
> grain alcohol. They even have STC's for the O-235 and IO-540 series
> engines to run on any percentage of ethanol.

Absolutely. There were several planes on display at OSH this year that
are STC'd to use alcohol.

It's apparently not that big a deal to make planes work with the stuff
-- but that's not the subject here. I want to know -- is it possible
to REMOVE the stuff, so that our current STCs could be used?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > 3. What is *in* that non-alcohol gas in Iowa now that boosts its
> > octane? TEL? MTBE? Nitroglycerine?
>
> Iowa hasn't used MTBE for many years. Ethanol was its replacement, and
> pretty well any automobile engine is allowed to use a mixture of up to 10
> percent ethanol.

So how does our "premium" gasoline (no alcohol) achieve its higher
octane?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> One way of removing ethanol would be to mix water with the fuel, and let
> it sit for a while. The ethanol would combine with water, then you could
> drain both off, (along with any other soluble compounds in the fuel).

This is one of the options being discussed on the 235 group. It
apparently works, but it sure isn't practical, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > 3. What is *in* that non-alcohol gas in Iowa now that boosts its
>> > octane? TEL? MTBE? Nitroglycerine?
>>
>> Iowa hasn't used MTBE for many years. Ethanol was its replacement, and
>> pretty well any automobile engine is allowed to use a mixture of up to 10
>> percent ethanol.
>
> So how does our "premium" gasoline (no alcohol) achieve its higher
> octane?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

It's made that way. Around these parts there are 2 octanes of gasoline
delivered to the gas stations. Regular and Premium. The mid grade gas is a
mix of the 2.

[Jay Honeck]

> COuld we do it by patch and mend? Possibly. Would it pay for itself? Not
> unless the mogas sold for approximately what avgas is selling for.

Although I would prefer that it be cheaper, if given a choice I would
buy mogas for my plane if it were available on the field, even if it
were the same price as avgas.

My O-540 simply runs better with it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[RST Engineering]

The same way you get 100 proof vodka instead of 80 proof. You just keep
distilling it until the lower proof stuff remains in the barrel.

Jim


>
> So how does our "premium" gasoline (no alcohol) achieve its higher
> octane?

[James Robinson]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> > 3. What is *in* that non-alcohol gas in Iowa now that boosts its
>> > octane? TEL? MTBE? Nitroglycerine?
>>
>> Iowa hasn't used MTBE for many years. Ethanol was its replacement,
>> and pretty well any automobile engine is allowed to use a mixture of
>> up to 10 percent ethanol.
>
> So how does our "premium" gasoline (no alcohol) achieve its higher
> octane?

There are differences in octane depending on where the crude oil
originally came from. Therefore, crude that has the characteristics of
higher octane can be directed to refineries that produce high octane
fuels.

Simple refineries might only have a distiller and reformer, and cannot
enhance the octane of the base fuel. They get what comes out. Therefore,
if you want even higher octane numbers, you have to process the fuel
more.

In particular, isomerization is used to boost the octane number after
base refining. That is a process that breaks up longer carbon chains
into shorter branch chains. The shorter chains have higher ignition
temperatures, and burn more slowly, which are characteristics of higher
octane fuels.

The whole refining process is a balance where they try to get the most
saleable products out of the original crude with the least left over.
They have a certain amount of ability to adjust the output between
various fuels, like diesel vs gasoline, and various octane levels,
depending on the demand.

As environmental laws have progressively limited things like sulfurs,
volotiles, butane and other compounds in the fuel, they have also tended
to lower the base octane from the normal refining processes, since those
compounds were often used to boost octane during refining. As a result,
the refineries have had to add equipment to further refine the fuels to
again push up the base octane ratings. This, of course, cost money in
capital investments, which have been recovered through higher fuel
prices.

You might remember when tetraethyl lead was no longer added to gasoline,
when "unleaded" fuel first appeared on the market, that the unleaded fuel
cost more than the original leaded fuels. This seemed a contradition to
many in that they couldn't understand why fuel price would rise when
something that had been added to fuel was no longer being added. The
answer was that the refineries had to refine the fuels further to make up
for the loss of the lead octane booster. That cost money.

Once the fuel has been refined, then octane boosters can be added to the
fuel to further raise things. The boosters can only go so far, however,
so the base fuel has to be refined sufficiently to provide the necessary
grades before the boosters are added.

[.Blueskies.]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
: "Al" > wrote in message
: ...
: > So, I just run it richer? Or, in the case of a departure, where the
: > mixture is already full rich, you're saying there will be NO loss of
: > performance by using a mixture of autogas and alcohol?
:
: No, what he's saying is that if full power with regular gas is 28" at 2650
: RPM, then you aren't going to see 28" at 2650 RPM using alcohol or a blend
: of alcohol.
:
:

Actually, what I am saying is if you can maintain 28" at 2650 RPM on either fuel, you are making the same
horsepowerpower. Most likely the mixture at will be leaner (assuming teh same max mixture is available), but hte
horsepower will be the same. If either the MP or the RPM decrease, then you power is of course less.

[NW_Pilot]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
> for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
> which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
> the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
> inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
> gasoline, so it seems...
>
> On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
> successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his
> fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
> Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
> I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
> but that's just me...)
>
> His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
> the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
> been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
> sound particularly safe or easy.
>
> Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
> mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Hey Jay,

I added your web site to my links page!

http://www.aircraftdelivery.net/links.htm

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 9 Aug 2006 08:13:11 -0700, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>The adding of ethanol to gasoline has made the auto-gas STC unusable
>for many aircraft owners, nationwide. So far, we're okay (in Iowa,
>which is pretty funny) and are able to purchase untainted mogas -- but
>the long-range situation seems untenable. We, as a nation, are
>inexorably being forced toward the addition of alcohol into ALL
>gasoline, so it seems...
>
>On the Cherokee 235 user's group, there is a guy who's been
>successfully using ethanol-gas in his aircraft. It's ruined his

Then he's most likely doing it illegally as he's not using a know auto
gas which means no STC.

>fiberglass tip tanks, but he apparently expected this to happen.
>Otherwise, the engine is running fine, or so he reports. (Personally,
>I think he's crazy, ruining tip tanks that run close to $4K *apiece*,
>but that's just me...)

Crazy is not quite the word I'd use.

It's not just those fiberglass tips, seals and O-rings that are
attacked by ethanol. He's looking for far more problems than tip
tanks. BTW he might want to consider where the disolved resin and
some fiberglass went. I wonder what his fuel filter and gascolator
look like inside.

>
>His experience has led to a more interesting (to me) discussion about
>the possibility of REMOVING ethanol from gasoline. Several ideas have
>been postulated (evaporation; heating; adding water), but none of them
>sound particularly safe or easy.

Or smart.

Alcohol, in addition to burning cleaner is also an octane booster.
That means even if you sucessfully remove it, you are left with a
lower octane gas and no STC which probably means no insurance.

>
>Any chemists out there? Anyone know a way to remove the ethanol from
>mogas, so that we may safely use it in our aircraft?

And what do you do to raise the octane back up?

Yes there is a relatively easy way to remove alcohol from gas that
just takes a bit of filtering after the process. Remember Alcohol is
hydroscopic.

But I repeat, it's no longer car gas so no STC which probably means no
insurance and how much lower octane can the specific engine handle.

Have a problem and the FAA, Insurance company, and lawyers will not be
on your side.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On 10 Aug 2006 08:10:39 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> Everyone might drop in on Baylor U's flight research programs. The've
>> been flying numerous aircraft on everything from straight avgas to 100%
>> grain alcohol. They even have STC's for the O-235 and IO-540 series
>> engines to run on any percentage of ethanol.
>
>Absolutely. There were several planes on display at OSH this year that
>are STC'd to use alcohol.

True, but were they standard planes and what had to be done to make
them suitable to qualify for that STC which I think is still
experimental.

>
>It's apparently not that big a deal to make planes work with the stuff

It depends on what you call a big deal. Replacing all of the buna N
O-rings and seals as well as using alcohol friendly materials in the
tanks and lines would be to me.

>-- but that's not the subject here. I want to know -- is it possible
>to REMOVE the stuff, so that our current STCs could be used?

You'd need to ask the FAA for a definitive ruling, but my guess would
be a straight NO.

If you remove the stuff you have changed the octane rating. The STC
is for gas without alcohol and of a given octane rating or range.

Yes you can remove the alcohol or the vast majority of it from Gasohol
(10% alcohol). You'll still have enough left to show in an analysis.
Any approach that completely removes the alcohol is going to give you
a gas that costs far more than avgas.

BTW it's picking a nit, but there are no engines running on pure
alcohol. True, they are close enough for practical purposes, but
Alcohol is so strongly hygroscopic that only research grades will be
above roughly 95% and it takes very careful handling to even keep
that. People *claim* to be running 100% but that is almost impossible
to make let alone keep above 95%. It gets really expensive in a
hurry.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 06:06:36 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>
>Thus the MON of autogas rated 87 octane is about 82, which makes it
>about the equivalent of 80-octane aviation fuel.. Autogas with a pump
>rating of 91 (premium) would be like 86-octane aviation fuel, if there
>were such a beast.
>
>(According to the site, aviation rich, the higher value in 80/87 is
>only important in supercharged engines.)

That's a bit misleading. I have an IO-470N in the Debonair which
requires 100LL. There are a lot of high performance engines out there
that require 100LL and there aren't any STCs to replace that.

>
>This site: http://www.cheresources.com/greengas.shtml
>
>says refineries *can* use catalytic naptha reforming and/or fluidized
>catalytic cracking to produce a bunch of stuff, but mustly MTBE and
>tertiary amyl methyl ether (TAME). The other refinery products
>available for blending have various problems including causing cancer
>(benzine), releasing sulphur, and gunking up your tailpipe.
>
>So I haven't found anything on-line (yet) that absolutely persuades me
>that high-test isn't just regular with more alcohol in it. (Which is
>the part of my screed that actually relates to this thread.

I don't know how to convince you, but here in Michigan about
everything has 10% Alcohol be it regular, mid-grade, or high-test.

>
>Now for a slight change of direction. If you're writing your
>legislators, one thing to remind them of is that we got the TEL out of
>gasoline, NOT because it was making us sick (although I was never keen
>on eating the blackberries that grow right alongside the highways
>everywhere in Oregon), but because it destroyes catalytic converters.
>And whatever anybody's opinion about catalytic converters is, nobody
>is proposing CCs for the tiny piston-powered general aviation fleet.

Don't bet on it. My last lawnmower has one. I think the snow blower
has one too.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>Therefore efforts to remove the TEL from aviation fuel for
>"environmental" reasons are quixotic and contrary to good sense.
>
>In fact, a good case could be made for a mandate that TEL in avfuel be
>REDUCED from the current ridiculous levels to something that wouldn'f
>foul sparkplugs without drastic leaning.
>
>THAT would make everybody happy.
>
>Don
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:04:36 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:

>On 9 Aug 2006 11:27:58 -0700, "M" > wrote in
. com>:
>
>>That's a huge amount of ethanol to be made from corn or other
>>plants, plus the cost and the energy in distillation.
>
>You forgot to mention the cost of growing the corn.
>
>Ethanol production requires:
>
> Land
> Farm equipment for planting, irrigating and harvesting
> Fuel for the farm equipment
> Irrigation water
> Fertilizers
> Insecticides
> Distillation equipment
> Fuel for the still
> Water for fermentation (CO2 byproduct)
> Labor, labor, labor
>
>So, if all the costs are factored in, Ethanol is probably more
>expensive than gasoline.
>

Considering subsidies it's about $3.50 a gallon.

>But the farm lobby is happy.

Corn is hard on the land and is very sensitive to how much moisture
and heat it gets and when.. A lot of us would prefer to grow
something else.

>
>The next generation of photovoltaic equipment may be the ultimate
>answer to energy the shortage. With solar there are no moving parts,
>nor nuclear radiation emissions, nor decommissioning costs, nor waste
>storage costs.

Depends on how you look at it. A good size solar set up requires a
hefty set of batteries. Some of the really good batteries are quite
toxic. Will they be able to recondition them or have to dispose of
them? I don't know.

>
>
>http://world.honda.com/news/2005/c051219.html
>
>Corporate December 19, 2005
>Honda to Mass Produce Next-Generation Thin Film Solar Cell
>
>TOKYO, Japan, December 19, 2005 – Honda Motor Co., Ltd. announced its
>plan to begin mass production in 2007, of an independently developed
>thin film solar cell composed of non-silicon compound materials, which
>requires 50% less energy, and thus generate 50% less CO2, during
>production compared to a conventional solar cell. A mass production
>plant with annual capacity of 27.5 megawatts will be established at
>Honda’s Kumamoto factory.
>
>Honda will produce and sell solar panels in a limited area, starting
>from 2006 fall, using assembly line within Honda Engineering Co.,
>Ltd., the production engineering subsidiary of Honda.
>
>By using thin film made from a compound of copper, indium, gallium and
>selenium (CIGS),

All highly toxic materials that appear to be in a form that would be
difficult to recover..

> Honda’s next-generation solar cell achieved a major
>reduction in energy consumed during the manufacturing process to
>approximately 50% of the amount required by conventional crystal
>silicon solar cells. Thus, this new solar cell is more
>environmentally-friendly by reducing the amount of CO2 even from the
>production stage. Further, this next-generation solar cell has
>achieved the highest level of photoelectric transfer efficiency for a
>thin film solar cell (almost equivalent to the conventional crystal
>silicon solar cell).
>
>Since spring 2002, Honda has been using and monitoring the performance
>of this solar cell, first at the Outboard Engine Plant in Hosoe, and
>then also at 12 other Honda facilities including Honda Engineering
>headquarters and the Honda Wako Building in Japan and 3 overseas sites
>such as the U.S. and Thailand.
>
>Achieving lower costs and higher photoelectric transfer efficiency is
>required in order to expand use of solar cells which will help protect
>the global environment. This non-silicon thin film solar cell has been
>attracting significant attention as a potential solution to these
>challenges. The only remaining challenges were the stabilization of
>performance and development of mass production technologies. The mass
>production of Honda’s next-generation solar cell became possible with
>a new mass production process for thin film solar cells developed
>independently by Honda Engineering – a production engineering company
>that has long developed production equipment and technologies for
>Honda’s motorcycle, automobile, engine, electric motor for hybrid
>vehicles and other items.
>
>In addition to its effort to lower environmental load through
>achieving reduced emissions and higher fuel efficiency, as the first
>automaker to enter into solar cell business, Honda will contribute to
>the effort to prevent global warming through production and sales of a
>clean energy source which does not use fossil fuels. In its vision for
>2010, Honda has committed itself to take on new challenges in new
>areas and to develop environmentally-friendly and sustainable energy
>technologies. Honda’s entrance into the solar cell business with

Using some of the most environmentally unfriendly materials in those
cells which is fine until some have to be disposed.

It would be interesting to see how these cells age compared to silicon
solar cells. I understand they've pretty much doubled the output and
cut the price in half on the silicon solar cells.

So we end up in a trade off between pollution during manufacture or
the materials from which they are made. Which is worse? I don't know.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>independently developed technologies is an example of the realization
>of Honda’s 2010 vision.
>
>
>About New Mass Production Line
>
>Location: Within the current site of Honda Motor Co., Ltd. Kumamoto
>Plant
>
>Establishment: The line will become operational in latter half of 2007
>
>Facility size: 12,000 square meters
>
>Production capacity: 27.5 megawatts annually, (Equivalent amount of
>electricity to power approximately 8,000 houses when calculated at
>3.5kw per house)
>
>Product/Use: Solar cell panel for individual residential use and
>public industrial use
>
>-----------------------
>
>Here's a picture and article of Nanosolar's product:
>http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/merc081504p.htm
>http://www.nanosolar.com/cache/
>

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:20:14 -0400, Roger >
wrote:

>Depends on how you look at it. A good size solar set up requires a
>hefty set of batteries. Some of the really good batteries are quite
>toxic. Will they be able to recondition them or have to dispose of
>them? I don't know.

What you posted next -- about the envionrmental impact of
manufacturing solar panels is valid. But about the need for
batteries, see:

http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=13242

Don

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:58:49 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:20:14 -0400, Roger >
>wrote:
>
>>Depends on how you look at it. A good size solar set up requires a
>>hefty set of batteries. Some of the really good batteries are quite
>>toxic. Will they be able to recondition them or have to dispose of
>>them? I don't know.
>
>What you posted next -- about the envionrmental impact of
>manufacturing solar panels is valid. But about the need for
>batteries, see:
>
>http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=13242

I'd forgotten some areas are able to generate enough power and have
this option.

He's a long way from Michigan and we may see that some day, but no
real incentives to install solar that I know of plus Michigan is a
cloudy 43'37" N ~ 85W. Here it' would take many years to pay off a
system that size. If I was lucky I could expect to come out with maybe
a third the power generated per year that he sees, but I'd bet it'd be
far less than that due to clouds and average length of the day.
Then we'd have maintenance caused by storms plus low output due to
snow and ice covering the collectors.

AT a rounded up 8 cents per KWh his system would save me $415 dollars
for the year figuring 1/3rd the power generated. Unfortunately we
don't have near the sunshine they have in Ca in either hours or
strength.

Also, I'd want a system that could operate in a "stand alone" mode as
I've put well over 100 hours on a 9500 Watt generator in the last 6
years due to power outages. To be piratical most of this area would
require batteries or we'd be at the mercy of the power grid. Plus I'd
need some method of storing any excess generated and IF I could get
the power company go to along it'd be great as every little bit does
help. OTOH considering our power usage the generator would be far
cheaper than batteries.

Also we pay a graduated rate based on amount, not time of day.
Our highest rate is about 7 cents per KWH.

If I go by the figures in that article our average electrical use in
July last year was 22KWh per day. (We cut that to 11 KWh even with
this year's heat wave) With the much shorter days coming up the
electrical use will go up considerably as will the gas. The first day
of Summer the sun rises well before 6:00 AM and There is plenty of
light to fly by at close to 10 PM. Twilight ends near 11:00 PM. Our
days are something like 3 hours longer than down south that time of
year. In the Winter the sun rises around 8:00 AM and sets around 5:00
PM. Today was 14h and 6m long while tomorrow will be 2m 35s shorter
with the largest change coming the first day of Fall.

However, Solar may not be the answer up here, but wind is a strong
viable alternative, or could if we had the electrical grid capacity to
handle it. The state of Wisconsin agreed to purchase the excess power
from a wind farm that wasn't used. Unfortunately they found out just
how inadequate the electrical grid is in that area when it cost them
many millions of dollars. Inland in this area the wind is too
unpredictable, but there are nearby areas where it works, or would
work well. We have almost the ideal average, but they get that
average between very windy days and calm days.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Don
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:09:28 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:

>He's a long way from Michigan and we may see that some day, but no
>real incentives to install solar that I know of plus Michigan is a
>cloudy 43'37" N ~ 85W. Here it' would take many years to pay off a
>system that size.

Agreed. Here's US map showing how much sun everyone around the
country gets:

http://projectsol.aps.com/solar/data_insolation.asp

Don (NR7X, FWIW)

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:31:17 GMT, Don Tuite
> wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:09:28 -0400, "Roger (K8RI)"
> wrote:
>
>>He's a long way from Michigan and we may see that some day, but no
>>real incentives to install solar that I know of plus Michigan is a
>>cloudy 43'37" N ~ 85W. Here it' would take many years to pay off a
>>system that size.
>
>Agreed. Here's US map showing how much sun everyone around the
>country gets:
>
>http://projectsol.aps.com/solar/data_insolation.asp

We don't receive enough sunlight to even be included in their
calculator. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Don (NR7X, FWIW)
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bret Ludwig]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> ECON 101
>
> AvGas is available at X price
> MoGas is available at 3/4X price
> Cost to re-refine MoGas Y (why is a good choice of letter)
> Cost to repair damaged engine (each) $20,000.
>
> Cost to repair damaged fuel tanks, plumbing, pumps and
> seals, unknown.
>
> Cost of FAA violation of regulations, certificate
> suspension, a lot
> Cost of uninsured aircraft when your insurance is cancelled,
> priceless.


Seeing large percentage of fleet GROUNDED when avgas goes away:

????????????

Avgas is on borrowed time.

Years ago, decades even, I remember the idea that aircraft were going
to have to operate on one of two fuels, automotive gasoline or Jet A.
And someone said that aircraft fuel systems needed to be built
impervious to alcohols, anilines, aromatics, or any other Bad Thing
thet might conceivably wind up in automotive gasoline.

The Rutanoids were running fuel on primary composite structure and I
said then, "You better make sure _no_ fuel can attack it". Oh no,
nothing but avgas was ever going in there. They wish they'd listened
now.

The diesels-primarily the (autoderivative!) Thielert/Centurion-are
sawing a hole in Lycoming's future, in case you hadn't noticed. Flight
schools over here and everyone in Europe is lining up for STC
conversions. Avgas will be no longer available in Europe in a short few
years and over here in a couple after that.

The Brazilians have had some success running some aircraft on straight
ethanol, and if one could get someone to build conformal pressure
tankage LP Gas might be possible-P&W radial powered helos have flown on
it. But otherwise, it's car gas, or convert to diesel or turbine.

[M[_1_]]

The way that the fuel price is going, a large percentage of U.S. GA
fleet will ground themselves in about 5 years.

It's a sad future indeed, but GA as we know it here is going away very
soon. It'll be largely replaced by ultralights/LSAs burning mogas.
The 100LL Bonanza/Mooney/Cirrus flyers will be able to hold out for a
while buying increasingly expensive 100LL, but they'll give up
eventaully, or buy a turboprop if they have the money.

The light twin fuel hogs will be the first to go.


Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>
> Seeing large percentage of fleet GROUNDED when avgas goes away:
>
> ????????????
>
> Avgas is on borrowed time.
>

[Dave Stadt]

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The way that the fuel price is going, a large percentage of U.S. GA
> fleet will ground themselves in about 5 years.
>
> It's a sad future indeed, but GA as we know it here is going away very
> soon. It'll be largely replaced by ultralights/LSAs burning mogas.
> The 100LL Bonanza/Mooney/Cirrus flyers will be able to hold out for a
> while buying increasingly expensive 100LL, but they'll give up
> eventaully, or buy a turboprop if they have the money.
>
> The light twin fuel hogs will be the first to go.

Funny, the same thing has been said since aviation began. Read some
magazine articles from the '20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s and
you read the same story over and over again.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:55:40 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> The way that the fuel price is going, a large percentage of U.S. GA
>> fleet will ground themselves in about 5 years.
>>
>> It's a sad future indeed, but GA as we know it here is going away very
>> soon. It'll be largely replaced by ultralights/LSAs burning mogas.
>> The 100LL Bonanza/Mooney/Cirrus flyers will be able to hold out for a
>> while buying increasingly expensive 100LL, but they'll give up

The Jet A prices will be right up there too.
We might get regulated out of existence, but I doubt the price of gas
will do it as that is the cheapest part of flying.

I do think we'll see a lot of Diesel conversions once they get the HP
up in the 250 to 350 range. I'd even spring for one in the Deb as
it's getting close to major time any way.

How about a turbo charged diesel in the G-III? 350 HP would be just
about right if they/I could shoehorn it in. Problem is that damn turbo
take sup a *lot* of room.

>> eventaully, or buy a turboprop if they have the money.

Unless you fly in the flight levels you are looking a minimum of 30
gallons per hour. More like 40 or 50. That'd be about $200 an hour
for fuel to run a 4 or 6 place single engine at 10,000 or under where
most of us like to fly.

>>
>> The light twin fuel hogs will be the first to go.
>
>Funny, the same thing has been said since aviation began. Read some
>magazine articles from the '20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s and
>you read the same story over and over again.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Dave Stadt]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:55:40 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>> The way that the fuel price is going, a large percentage of U.S. GA
>>> fleet will ground themselves in about 5 years.
>>>
>>> It's a sad future indeed, but GA as we know it here is going away very
>>> soon. It'll be largely replaced by ultralights/LSAs burning mogas.
>>> The 100LL Bonanza/Mooney/Cirrus flyers will be able to hold out for a
>>> while buying increasingly expensive 100LL, but they'll give up
>
> The Jet A prices will be right up there too.
> We might get regulated out of existence, but I doubt the price of gas
> will do it as that is the cheapest part of flying.
>
> I do think we'll see a lot of Diesel conversions once they get the HP
> up in the 250 to 350 range. I'd even spring for one in the Deb as
> it's getting close to major time any way.

I stopped in the Lycoming tent at OSH and noticed they had a diesel on
display. In talking to one of the reps he stated the engine is nearly
developed but no one is interested in it so they pretty much put it on the
shelf waiting for a customer. Have also heard that there are prop problems
due to the power pulses developed by diesel engines.

[Jose[_1_]]

> The Jet A prices will be right up there too.

Jet A will be there. Maybe avgas won't.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Bret Ludwig]

Roger wrote:
<<snip>>
>
> The Jet A prices will be right up there too.
> We might get regulated out of existence, but I doubt the price of gas
> will do it as that is the cheapest part of flying.

Most small turbines will burn diesel fuel okay, ag operators do it all
the time. The debut of ULSD will help a lot: most ULSD will be pretty
close to JP-8. K-1 Kero is fine too as long as a little oil is put in
it for the fuel controller.

>
> I do think we'll see a lot of Diesel conversions once they get the HP
> up in the 250 to 350 range. I'd even spring for one in the Deb as
> it's getting close to major time any way.
>
> How about a turbo charged diesel in the G-III? 350 HP would be just
> about right if they/I could shoehorn it in. Problem is that damn turbo
> take sup a *lot* of room.
>
> >> eventaully, or buy a turboprop if they have the money.
>
> Unless you fly in the flight levels you are looking a minimum of 30
> gallons per hour. More like 40 or 50. That'd be about $200 an hour
> for fuel to run a 4 or 6 place single engine at 10,000 or under where
> most of us like to fly.
>


You need to shop for fuel more carefully. Jet fuel should be a lot
cheaper than avgas and if you look at the ads in TAP you will see
places selling it reasonable.

[Bret Ludwig]

Dave Stadt wrote:
<<snip>>
>
> I stopped in the Lycoming tent at OSH and noticed they had a diesel on
> display. In talking to one of the reps he stated the engine is nearly
> developed but no one is interested in it so they pretty much put it on the
> shelf waiting for a customer. Have also heard that there are prop problems
> due to the power pulses developed by diesel engines.

Lycoming couldn't find their ass with both hands. They have proven
that for fifty years. They are a senile company and will quietly fold
in a few years as their foreign markets vanish and the clone vendors,
like Superior, cut into their domestic market.

[James Robinson]

Richard Riley > wrote:

> Back in the days when unleaded premium was new, there was some folk
> wisdom that you could mix leaded 92 and unleaded 92 and get about 94
> octane out of it - that the efficacy of the TEL as a booster decreased
> exponentially as the percentage went up.

It's news to me. However, there are many misconceptions about what the
octane rating really is, which can lead to many theories about power from
engines. That almost sounds like one of those urban legends.

Many people think that premium fuel has more energy than lower grades,
when actually it is about the same. What the higher octane rating
represents is the anti-knock properties of the fuel, and a high rating
typically means that the fuel burns more slowly than fuel with a lower
rating, and is less inclined to preignition. There is no extra energy in
the fuel.

Therefore, if a car engine designed for lower octane fuel is run on
higher octane fuel with no modification, then the mileage will be exactly
the same, ignoring the energy effect of any additives. The only way to
get better mileage is to increase the compression ratio and advance the
timing, which increases overall engine efficiency. You need high octane
fuel to do that.

A jump from 92 to 94 octane is huge. It implies that the TEL is boosting
the no-lead portion of the fuel by 4 points of octane, which is more than
the effect it has on base gasoline. I don't know enough about the effect
of lead to say it's impossible, but it certainly seems a stretch.

[Roger[_4_]]

On 15 Aug 2006 06:42:06 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
wrote:

>
>Roger wrote:
><<snip>>
>>
>> The Jet A prices will be right up there too.
>> We might get regulated out of existence, but I doubt the price of gas
>> will do it as that is the cheapest part of flying.
>
> Most small turbines will burn diesel fuel okay, ag operators do it all
>the time. The debut of ULSD will help a lot: most ULSD will be pretty
>close to JP-8. K-1 Kero is fine too as long as a little oil is put in
>it for the fuel controller.
>
>>
>> I do think we'll see a lot of Diesel conversions once they get the HP
>> up in the 250 to 350 range. I'd even spring for one in the Deb as
>> it's getting close to major time any way.
>>
>> How about a turbo charged diesel in the G-III? 350 HP would be just
>> about right if they/I could shoehorn it in. Problem is that damn turbo
>> take sup a *lot* of room.
>>
>> >> eventaully, or buy a turboprop if they have the money.
>>
>> Unless you fly in the flight levels you are looking a minimum of 30
>> gallons per hour. More like 40 or 50. That'd be about $200 an hour
>> for fuel to run a 4 or 6 place single engine at 10,000 or under where
>> most of us like to fly.
>>
>
>
> You need to shop for fuel more carefully. Jet fuel should be a lot
>cheaper than avgas and if you look at the ads in TAP you will see
>places selling it reasonable.

Last night I put over $100 worth of LL in the Deb at $3.79. With full
tanks I can play around (running 75% and about 190 MPH) for nearly 5
hours before I have to start looking for a gas station and that sill
leaves me with VFR reserves plus the unusable. If I fill the tip
tanks I can stay out there ALL afternoon, plus an hour before looking
for more gas.

With a PT-6 up front and down low I'm looking at *maybe* two hours.
With tip tanks I wouldn't even add another hour.

For the Jet A to come close to being an economically viable
alternative it'd have to sell for around $1.50 and I'd still be stuck
with short duration and range unless I went to altitude.

Shoving the torque to 100% with all that HP and a light plane could be
a real rush, but even with what I have now I can not just jam the
throttle in on a balked landing, go around, or stall recovery. Unlike
a 150 or 172 I have to ease the power in if I don't want to see the
world from a new attitude. Imagine if I had three times the power
instantly available in the same plane.

Unfortunately for just playing, the PT-6 and Jet A would about triple
or quadruple my cost.

Now if I had a 300 to 350 HP diesel up front... <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Bret Ludwig]

Roger wrote:
> On 15 Aug 2006 06:42:06 -0700, "Bret Ludwig" >
> wrote:
<<snip>>

> >>
> >> I do think we'll see a lot of Diesel conversions once they get the HP
> >> up in the 250 to 350 range. I'd even spring for one in the Deb as
> >> it's getting close to major time any way.
> >>
> >> How about a turbo charged diesel in the G-III? 350 HP would be just
> >> about right if they/I could shoehorn it in. Problem is that damn turbo
> >> take sup a *lot* of room.
> >>
> >> >> eventaully, or buy a turboprop if they have the money.
> >>
> >> Unless you fly in the flight levels you are looking a minimum of 30
> >> gallons per hour. More like 40 or 50. That'd be about $200 an hour
> >> for fuel to run a 4 or 6 place single engine at 10,000 or under where
> >> most of us like to fly.
> >>
> >
> >
> > You need to shop for fuel more carefully. Jet fuel should be a lot
> >cheaper than avgas and if you look at the ads in TAP you will see
> >places selling it reasonable.
>
> Last night I put over $100 worth of LL in the Deb at $3.79. With full
> tanks I can play around (running 75% and about 190 MPH) for nearly 5
> hours before I have to start looking for a gas station and that sill
> leaves me with VFR reserves plus the unusable. If I fill the tip
> tanks I can stay out there ALL afternoon, plus an hour before looking
> for more gas.
>
> With a PT-6 up front and down low I'm looking at *maybe* two hours.
> With tip tanks I wouldn't even add another hour.


We are comparing a 800-1200 hp engine to a 300 hp engine,
unfortunately. A turbine really designed for a 300 hp output would have
a fuel burn higher, not drastically so, than your air cooled WWII era
recip.

I bought one gallon (yes) of 100LL for my cheaply built lawnmower (I
use avgas in it before winter storage: it's built of cheap plastics and
seals, not like it should be, because most people dumpster them before
rebuild) and paid almost $5 out here. Car gas is over $3 here. And I'm
in a "cheap" gas market.

We used to use avgas as a octane booster, 8:1 with the best grade
unleaded (or 16:1 with green when we could get it...) for motorcycles.
Today I'd replace all the rubber, slosh the tank with alcoholproof
sealer, and run E85.

[Bret Ludwig]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2006 11:27:58 -0700, "M" > wrote:
> > I don't think there's nearly enough ethanol manufacturing capacity to
> > do a nation wide mix of E10. That's a huge amount of ethanol to be
> > made from corn or other plants, plus the cost and the energy in
> > distillation.
>
> And more importantly, a waste of good corn liquor...

Ethanol made for burning is not much good for drinking....even before
being denatured.


An interesting point: the standard BATF denaturant (poison) is mostly
methanol with a couple of other things added for good measure. One of
which is...."Aviation Gasoline". If other denaturants are used the
alcohol is SD, specially denatured, if the standard denaturant is
chemically not OK for certain processes.

[Bret Ludwig]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> It's is like the guy who spent $25,000 on tools to build
> furniture for his house, to save 25% on the furniture.
> During WWII the Army published flight manuals for fighters
> (and bombers) for different grades of fuel, 80/87, 91-96,
> 100/130 and 115/145 being refined. But some battlefields
> did not have supplies of all grades. So you might have a 54
> In Hg. MAP with 115/145 and only 40 inches with 100/130.
>
> But what octane do you get from home refined mogas?


Not all grades could be used in all engines. 80/87 was not under any
circumstances allowed in many of the bigger engines. And use of
115/145, as was done after WWII (the Navy even ran its jets on the
stuff up through the middle of the Korean War, limiting range and
coating the tailpipes with a lethal (to ground handlers) gray gunk!)
was tough on the Lycomings and Continentals and the gas engines in ramp
equipment.

[Bret Ludwig]

>
> Now for a slight change of direction. If you're writing your
> legislators, one thing to remind them of is that we got the TEL out of
> gasoline, NOT because it was making us sick (although I was never keen
> on eating the blackberries that grow right alongside the highways
> everywhere in Oregon), but because it destroyes catalytic converters.
> And whatever anybody's opinion about catalytic converters is, nobody
> is proposing CCs for the tiny piston-powered general aviation fleet.
> Therefore efforts to remove the TEL from aviation fuel for
> "environmental" reasons are quixotic and contrary to good sense.

Catalytic converters only do in a short time what nature does in the
free air over a longer time anyway. They do not change the LONG TERM
effect of burning petroleum, which is to release carbon dioxide.

We could get rid of automobile emissions control in most of the cars
in the continental US with a tiny effect in air quality in most of our
landmass. Only six cities-LA, SFO, Denver, the greater NYC metro area,
and a couple others would be impacted. They would, however, be VERY
impacted if all the car fleet went back to 1963 standards. Los Angeles
in particular would be uninhabitable.

Where I live Mexicans buy certain 1980s-1990s trucks (primarily) and
cars and remove the EFI and factory ECM and backfit them with a carb,
vacuum distributor, and remove the cat con, AIR and EGR systems and
assorted stuff. Those vehicles are then taken back to Mexico and sold
at a profit, as the Mexican infrastructure can maintain them that way.
This is great for rural Mexicans, but a little tough in Mexico City.
>
> In fact, a good case could be made for a mandate that TEL in avfuel be
> REDUCED from the current ridiculous levels to something that wouldn'f
> foul sparkplugs without drastic leaning.
>
> THAT would make everybody happy.


That is called 80/87 aviation gas. All grades of aviation gasoline are
of essentially the same base stock with only the levels of TEL varying.


A better solution is the use of common car gas in aircraft with
thoroughly refurbished fuel systems, if auto fuels are of sufficient
octane rating to assure detonation is not a concern. Better yet was
what the Europeans started to do in the late 80s, before giving up
because of the perceived factory efforts: replacement of air cooled
cylinders with ones having modern combustion chamber designs and liquid
cooling jackets. Liquid cooled engines can safely operate on a given
fuel at up to two points higher compression ratio as opposed to air
cooled ones.