Pawnees powered by Motor fuel . [Archive]

Bill Daniels

January 20th 08, 08:16 PM

I don't have the whole answer but I'm working on it. Here's what I do have.
Many Pawnees have been successfully using MOGAS for rmany years all around
the world, but.....

1. The Lycoming O-540 235HP engine has an STC for MOGAS in several
airframes.
- (The engine, propeller and airframe have to be STC'd together as a
unit.)

2. Some, but not all, Pawnee airframes with the Lyc O-540 have MOGAS STC's.
- Pawnee D airframe doesn't.

3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol - it does bad things
to aircraft fuel systems. Many, if not most, problems related to using
MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.

4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS containing ethanol sold
at airports for use in airplanes.

5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to gasoline earlier and
earlier in the distribution channel so that even if you have a deal with the
local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without ethanol, he may still
unknowingly do so. Best advice is to test each batch of fuel for ethanol
before using it.

6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile fuel blends to fight
air polution. STC's for MOGAS do not take this into account.

So, while MOGAS can work fine in a particular Pawnee, the owner/operator has
to assume the responsibility to insure that all fuel used meets the STC
requirements.

Bill Daniels

> wrote in message
...
> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or experience in
> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel. Any comments or
> advice would be gratefully accepted .

Nyal Williams

January 20th 08, 11:06 PM

What equipment is needed, and how does one test for
the presence of ethanol?

Should it not be possible to test the batch, or require
that the dealer test it, before accepting it for delivery?

At 20:18 20 January 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:
>I don't have the whole answer but I'm working on it.
> Here's what I do have.
>Many Pawnees have been successfully using MOGAS for
>rmany years all around
>the world, but.....
>
>1. The Lycoming O-540 235HP engine has an STC for MOGAS
>in several
>airframes.
> - (The engine, propeller and airframe have to be
>STC'd together as a
>unit.)
>
>2. Some, but not all, Pawnee airframes with the Lyc
>O-540 have MOGAS STC's.
> - Pawnee D airframe doesn't.
>
>3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol
>- it does bad things
>to aircraft fuel systems. Many, if not most, problems
>related to using
>MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.
>
>4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS
>containing ethanol sold
>at airports for use in airplanes.
>
>5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to
>gasoline earlier and
>earlier in the distribution channel so that even if
>you have a deal with the
>local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without
>ethanol, he may still
>unknowingly do so. Best advice is to test each batch
>of fuel for ethanol
>before using it.
>
>6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile
>fuel blends to fight
>air polution. STC's for MOGAS do not take this into
>account.
>
>So, while MOGAS can work fine in a particular Pawnee,
>the owner/operator has
>to assume the responsibility to insure that all fuel
>used meets the STC
>requirements.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>
>
> wrote in message

>>.com...
>> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or
>>experience in
>> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel.
>>Any comments or
>> advice would be gratefully accepted .
>
>
>

January 20th 08, 11:33 PM

Most excellent reply by Bill Daniels..
May I add that we recently upgraded our O-540 from 235HP to 250HP with an
STC, the STC for the upgrade specifically prohibits use of auto fuel. There
are two parts to the STC, one to upgrade the engine, the other to install
that engine on the Pawnee airframe.

BT

"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
...
>I don't have the whole answer but I'm working on it. Here's what I do
>have. Many Pawnees have been successfully using MOGAS for rmany years all
>around the world, but.....
>
> 1. The Lycoming O-540 235HP engine has an STC for MOGAS in several
> airframes.
> - (The engine, propeller and airframe have to be STC'd together as a
> unit.)
>
> 2. Some, but not all, Pawnee airframes with the Lyc O-540 have MOGAS
> STC's.
> - Pawnee D airframe doesn't.
>
> 3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol - it does bad things
> to aircraft fuel systems. Many, if not most, problems related to using
> MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.
>
> 4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS containing ethanol
> sold at airports for use in airplanes.
>
> 5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to gasoline earlier and
> earlier in the distribution channel so that even if you have a deal with
> the local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without ethanol, he may
> still unknowingly do so. Best advice is to test each batch of fuel for
> ethanol before using it.
>
> 6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile fuel blends to
> fight air polution. STC's for MOGAS do not take this into account.
>
> So, while MOGAS can work fine in a particular Pawnee, the owner/operator
> has to assume the responsibility to insure that all fuel used meets the
> STC requirements.
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or experience in
>> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel. Any comments or
>> advice would be gratefully accepted .
>
>

Tim Taylor

January 20th 08, 11:47 PM

On Jan 20, 4:06 pm, Nyal Williams
> wrote:
> What equipment is needed, and how does one test for
> the presence of ethanol?
>
> Should it not be possible to test the batch, or require
> that the dealer test it, before accepting it for delivery?
>
> At 20:18 20 January 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> >I don't have the whole answer but I'm working on it.
> > Here's what I do have.
> >Many Pawnees have been successfully using MOGAS for
> >rmany years all around
> >the world, but.....
>
> >1. The Lycoming O-540 235HP engine has an STC for MOGAS
> >in several
> >airframes.
> > - (The engine, propeller and airframe have to be
> >STC'd together as a
> >unit.)
>
> >2. Some, but not all, Pawnee airframes with the Lyc
> >O-540 have MOGAS STC's.
> > - Pawnee D airframe doesn't.
>
> >3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol
> >- it does bad things
> >to aircraft fuel systems. Many, if not most, problems
> >related to using
> >MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.
>
> >4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS
> >containing ethanol sold
> >at airports for use in airplanes.
>
> >5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to
> >gasoline earlier and
> >earlier in the distribution channel so that even if
> >you have a deal with the
> >local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without
> >ethanol, he may still
> >unknowingly do so. Best advice is to test each batch
> >of fuel for ethanol
> >before using it.
>
> >6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile
> >fuel blends to fight
> >air polution. STC's for MOGAS do not take this into
> >account.
>
> >So, while MOGAS can work fine in a particular Pawnee,
> >the owner/operator has
> >to assume the responsibility to insure that all fuel
> >used meets the STC
> >requirements.
>
> >Bill Daniels
>
> > wrote in message
>
> >>.com...
> >> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or
> >>experience in
> >> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel.
> >>Any comments or
> >> advice would be gratefully accepted .

http://autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/ethanoltest.html

Bill Daniels

January 21st 08, 12:34 AM

It's actually even more complicated.

Many Pawnees have 4-blade Hoffmann props to reduce noise which is not
included in a MOGAS STC's. Others have props which have been 're-pitched'
for prevailing density altitudes at particular gliderports which negate the
MOGAS STC. I suspect some operators are in violation of their STC's an
hoping inspectors will look the other way.

It's also later than we think. I have what I believe to be reliable
information from within a US government agancy that the leaded AVGAS
exemption will soon be vacated - or at least an NPRM to that effect will be
published. The end of 100LL may soon be upon us.

Bill Daniels

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> What equipment is needed, and how does one test for
> the presence of ethanol?
>
> Should it not be possible to test the batch, or require
> that the dealer test it, before accepting it for delivery?
>
> At 20:18 20 January 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:
>>I don't have the whole answer but I'm working on it.
>> Here's what I do have.
>>Many Pawnees have been successfully using MOGAS for
>>rmany years all around
>>the world, but.....
>>
>>1. The Lycoming O-540 235HP engine has an STC for MOGAS
>>in several
>>airframes.
>> - (The engine, propeller and airframe have to be
>>STC'd together as a
>>unit.)
>>
>>2. Some, but not all, Pawnee airframes with the Lyc
>>O-540 have MOGAS STC's.
>> - Pawnee D airframe doesn't.
>>
>>3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol
>>- it does bad things
>>to aircraft fuel systems. Many, if not most, problems
>>related to using
>>MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.
>>
>>4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS
>>containing ethanol sold
>>at airports for use in airplanes.
>>
>>5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to
>>gasoline earlier and
>>earlier in the distribution channel so that even if
>>you have a deal with the
>>local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without
>>ethanol, he may still
>>unknowingly do so. Best advice is to test each batch
>>of fuel for ethanol
>>before using it.
>>
>>6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile
>>fuel blends to fight
>>air polution. STC's for MOGAS do not take this into
>>account.
>>
>>So, while MOGAS can work fine in a particular Pawnee,
>>the owner/operator has
>>to assume the responsibility to insure that all fuel
>>used meets the STC
>>requirements.
>>
>>Bill Daniels
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote in message

>>>.com...
>>> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or
>>>experience in
>>> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel.
>>>Any comments or
>>> advice would be gratefully accepted .
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Bob

January 21st 08, 05:38 PM

I remembered reading about this a couple of months ago from AOPA and a
little digging around found this...........

Bob

Testing fuel for ethanol

The following test can be performed to determine the presence of
ethanol in gasoline.

On a test tube or olive bottle, make a permanent line about two inches
from the bottom.

Fill with water to this line, then fill the tube to the top with
gasoline.

Cover the tube, agitate it then let it stand.

Ethanol mixes with water and the two will separate out together.
Therefore, after mixing the water and the gasoline, if the water level
appears to have increased, then the fuel contains ethanol and should
not be used.

Ethanol fuels can damage the rubber and aluminum components of your
aircraft fuel system. Ethanol increases the volatility of fuel, and
hence the possibility of vapor lock also increases. Ethanol may vent
off at altitude, reducing both range and octane. For these reasons
fuel containing ethanol must never be used in airplanes.

We offer a ready made ethanol tester for $15.00.

On Jan 20, 6:06*pm, Nyal Williams
> wrote:
> What equipment is needed, and how does one test for
> the presence of ethanol?
>
> Should it not be possible to test the batch, or require
> that the dealer test it, before accepting it for delivery?
>
> At 20:18 20 January 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>
>
> >I don't have the whole answer but I'm working on it.
> > Here's what I do have.
> >Many Pawnees have been successfully using MOGAS for
> >rmany years all around
> >the world, but.....
>
> >1. The Lycoming O-540 235HP engine has an STC for MOGAS
> >in several
> >airframes.
> > * *- (The engine, propeller and airframe have to be
> >STC'd together as a
> >unit.)
>
> >2. Some, but not all, Pawnee airframes with the Lyc
> >O-540 have MOGAS STC's.
> > * *- Pawnee D airframe doesn't.
>
> >3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol
> >- it does bad things
> >to aircraft fuel systems. *Many, if not most, problems
> >related to using
> >MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.
>
> >4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS
> >containing ethanol sold
> >at airports for use in airplanes.
>
> >5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to
> >gasoline earlier and
> >earlier in the distribution channel so that even if
> >you have a deal with the
> >local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without
> >ethanol, he may still
> >unknowingly do so. *Best advice is to test each batch
> >of fuel for ethanol
> >before using it.
>
> >6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile
> >fuel blends to fight
> >air polution. *STC's for MOGAS do not take this into
> >account.
>
> >So, while MOGAS can work fine in a particular Pawnee,
> >the owner/operator has
> >to assume the responsibility to insure that all fuel
> >used meets the STC
> >requirements.
>
> >Bill Daniels
>
> > wrote in message
>
> >>.com...
> >> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or
> >>experience in
> >> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel.
> >>Any comments or
> >> advice would be gratefully accepted .- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[email protected]

January 21st 08, 06:53 PM

On Jan 21, 11:38*am, Bob > wrote:
> I remembered reading about this a couple of months ago from AOPA and a
> little digging around found this...........
>
> Bob
>
> Testing fuel for ethanol
>
> The following test can be performed to determine the presence of
> ethanol in gasoline.
>
> On a test tube or olive bottle, make a permanent line about two inches
> from the bottom.
>
> Fill with water to this line, then fill the tube to the top with
> gasoline.
>
> Cover the tube, agitate it then let it stand.
>
> Ethanol mixes with water and the two will separate out together.
> Therefore, after mixing the water and the gasoline, if the water level
> appears to have increased, then the fuel contains ethanol and should
> not be used.
>
> Ethanol fuels can damage the rubber and aluminum components of your
> aircraft fuel system. Ethanol increases the volatility of fuel, and
> hence the possibility of vapor lock also increases. Ethanol may vent
> off at altitude, reducing both range and octane. For these reasons
> fuel containing ethanol must never be used in airplanes.
>
> We offer a ready made ethanol tester for $15.00.
>
> On Jan 20, 6:06*pm, Nyal Williams
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > What equipment is needed, and how does one test for
> > the presence of ethanol?
>
> > Should it not be possible to test the batch, or require
> > that the dealer test it, before accepting it for delivery?
>
> > At 20:18 20 January 2008, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
> > >I don't have the whole answer but I'm working on it.
> > > Here's what I do have.
> > >Many Pawnees have been successfully using MOGAS for
> > >rmany years all around
> > >the world, but.....
>
> > >1. The Lycoming O-540 235HP engine has an STC for MOGAS
> > >in several
> > >airframes.
> > > * *- (The engine, propeller and airframe have to be
> > >STC'd together as a
> > >unit.)
>
> > >2. Some, but not all, Pawnee airframes with the Lyc
> > >O-540 have MOGAS STC's.
> > > * *- Pawnee D airframe doesn't.
>
> > >3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol
> > >- it does bad things
> > >to aircraft fuel systems. *Many, if not most, problems
> > >related to using
> > >MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.
>
> > >4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS
> > >containing ethanol sold
> > >at airports for use in airplanes.
>
> > >5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to
> > >gasoline earlier and
> > >earlier in the distribution channel so that even if
> > >you have a deal with the
> > >local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without
> > >ethanol, he may still
> > >unknowingly do so. *Best advice is to test each batch
> > >of fuel for ethanol
> > >before using it.
>
> > >6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile
> > >fuel blends to fight
> > >air polution. *STC's for MOGAS do not take this into
> > >account.
>
> > >So, while MOGAS can work fine in a particular Pawnee,
> > >the owner/operator has
> > >to assume the responsibility to insure that all fuel
> > >used meets the STC
> > >requirements.
>
> > >Bill Daniels
>
> > > wrote in message
> >
> > >>.com...
> > >> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or
> > >>experience in
> > >> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel.
> > >>Any comments or
> > >> advice would be gratefully accepted .- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have used a cleaned out gatorade or other soft drink bottle many
times for testing ethanol. piece of cake. no need to spend 15 bucks
for a 'tester'

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe

January 21st 08, 07:55 PM

"Nyal Williams" > wrote in message
...
> What equipment is needed, and how does one test for
> the presence of ethanol?

Some people claim that 1/4 of an Alka Selzer in the bottom of a coffee cup
works well - no fizz, no alcohol (or water)

It's come up, like, a million times over on R.A.Piloting

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

bumper

January 21st 08, 08:05 PM

> wrote in message
...

I have used a cleaned out gatorade or other soft drink bottle many
times for testing ethanol. piece of cake. no need to spend 15 bucks
for a 'tester'

That's work, however a narrower container, like a test tube, uses less fluid
to do the test.

bumper

Doug Hoffman[_2_]

January 21st 08, 09:07 PM

Bill Daniels wrote:

snip
>
> 3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol - it does bad things
> to aircraft fuel systems. Many, if not most, problems related to using
> MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.
>
> 4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS containing ethanol sold
> at airports for use in airplanes.
>
> 5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to gasoline earlier and
> earlier in the distribution channel so that even if you have a deal with the
> local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without ethanol, he may still
> unknowingly do so. Best advice is to test each batch of fuel for ethanol
> before using it.
>
> 6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile fuel blends to fight
> air polution. STC's for MOGAS do not take this into account.
snip

The situation with alcohol in automotive gasoline is likely to get
worse. Current limits are a max of about 10% ethanol. Newer cars and
trucks have been designed to tolerate that (I'm not talking about E85
vehicles). Check it out in your owners manual. The manual probably
says don't use higher concentrations than E10. Older vehicles and power
equipment, well they were not designed to tolerate any significant
amount alcohol. What will/is happening to these vehicles and equipment
is any body's guess. Right now it seems to be one big experiment.
Here's the really bad part. There are political (not technical) forces
in play that would like to see E20 (that's 20% ethanol and 80% gasoline)
in all US auto gasoline. It is likely that there are certain farming
states and agricultural companies that are lobbying hard for E20. What
effect this will have on the existing fleet of vehicles and power
equipment no one really knows with precision. All that is known is they
were not designed for E20.

Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported fossil is a
good thing. But there are some negatives associated with ethanol
production and use as mogas. It likely is not the magic bullet that
some believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is strongly debated.
One *will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol content. Just
ask someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a person.

Here is an Aussie study that many in the US are watching closely:

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/publications/testing-passenger-fleet/index.html

--

Regards,

-Doug

Shawn[_5_]

January 21st 08, 10:09 PM

Doug Hoffman wrote:
snip

> Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported fossil is a
> good thing. But there are some negatives associated with ethanol
> production and use as mogas. It likely is not the magic bullet that
> some believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is strongly debated. One
> *will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol content. Just ask
> someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a person.

Like with diesel, people will learn to calculate what matters to them,
whether that is $/mile CO2/mile, NOx/mile, or value of their ADM
stock/mile ;-)
What I find specious is that corn ethanol has been sold as a "greener"
alternative to gasoline, when the data does not support much if any net
improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline. It can improve US
energy independence, which may be more important in the short/medium
term. The coal mines can not be good for ridge soaring in the South
East though. :-(

Shawn

Bill Daniels

January 21st 08, 10:25 PM

"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> Doug Hoffman wrote:
> snip
>
>> Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported fossil is a
>> good thing. But there are some negatives associated with ethanol
>> production and use as mogas. It likely is not the magic bullet that some
>> believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is strongly debated. One
>> *will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol content. Just ask
>> someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a person.
>
> Like with diesel, people will learn to calculate what matters to them,
> whether that is $/mile CO2/mile, NOx/mile, or value of their ADM
> stock/mile ;-)
> What I find specious is that corn ethanol has been sold as a "greener"
> alternative to gasoline, when the data does not support much if any net
> improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline. It can improve US
> energy independence, which may be more important in the short/medium term.
> The coal mines can not be good for ridge soaring in the South East though.
> :-(
>

Even if ethanol were not net-negative energy, it's still a lousy fuel since
it's already partially oxidized. If you want a fuel produced by microbes
(Bug Juice?) why not teach the little critters to produce something useful
like iso-octane or butanol? Either of those hydrocarbons can be blended up
to ~90% with gasoline without significantly changing the energy content,
octane, reid vapor pressure or required fuel/air mixtures.

Bill Daniels

Nyal Williams

January 21st 08, 10:26 PM

Time for a hare-brained idea.

Get an above-ground, transparent tank. Before every
delivery, put in 10 gallons of water. Be sure it mixes
well with fuel during the delivery. Let sit overnight,
then drain the water. ;-)

At 22:13 21 January 2008, Shawn wrote:
>Doug Hoffman wrote:
>snip
>
>> Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported
>>fossil is a
>> good thing. But there are some negatives associated
>>with ethanol
>> production and use as mogas. It likely is not the
>>magic bullet that
>> some believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is
>>strongly debated. One
>> *will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol
>>content. Just ask
>> someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a
>>person.
>
>Like with diesel, people will learn to calculate what
>matters to them,
>whether that is $/mile CO2/mile, NOx/mile, or value
>of their ADM
>stock/mile ;-)
>What I find specious is that corn ethanol has been
>sold as a 'greener'
>alternative to gasoline, when the data does not support
>much if any net
>improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline.
> It can improve US
>energy independence, which may be more important in
>the short/medium
>term. The coal mines can not be good for ridge soaring
>in the South
>East though. :-(
>
>
>Shawn
>

Shawn[_5_]

January 22nd 08, 12:55 AM

Nyal Williams wrote:
> Time for a hare-brained idea.
>
> Get an above-ground, transparent tank. Before every
> delivery, put in 10 gallons of water. Be sure it mixes
> well with fuel during the delivery. Let sit overnight,
> then drain the water. ;-)

Save for the party after flying :-0

CindyB

January 22nd 08, 03:36 AM

On Jan 20, 11:01*am, " > wrote:
> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or experience in
> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel. Any comments or
> advice would be gratefully accepted .

Aside from all the other valuable technical expertise which has
been shared,

check your insurance policy. You may find that, FARs and STCs
notwithstanding, use of MOGAS may be prohibited by your coverage.

Best wishes,
Cindy B

Bill Daniels

January 22nd 08, 04:19 AM

"CindyB" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 11:01 am, " > wrote:
> Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or experience in
> converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel. Any comments or
> advice would be gratefully accepted .

Aside from all the other valuable technical expertise which has
been shared,

check your insurance policy. You may find that, FARs and STCs
notwithstanding, use of MOGAS may be prohibited by your coverage.

Best wishes,
Cindy B

So, MOGAS is not really practical, safe or insurable and no other substitute
for 100LL is currently available or likely to be in the foreseeable future.

100LL requires TEL which is only made by one company in India. This
company's product is not primarily for use in airplane fuel but for those
few countries that still allow leaded automobile fuel - most of whose names
end in "stan". AVGAS uses only a tiny fraction of their production.
Globally, there seems to have been an accelerating move to eliminate TEL
from motor fuels. The latest to ban TEL is Uganda. The future looks grim
for the worlds sole TEL producer.

In the US and Canada there was a huge protest from auto racing organizations
who said they needed TEL for their high octane racing fuels. They lost
because the courts said that auto racing was a "hobby" whose need for TEL
did not offset the far greater risk to public health.

There is now a move afoot within the US EPA to characterize those remaining
non-turbine aircraft as "antique and hobby in nature". The environmental
lobby is submitting petitions claiming that the lead exemption for aviation
gasoline "has lasted long enough".

We need to be thinking of some alternatives.

Bill Daniels

Martin Gregorie[_1_]

January 22nd 08, 03:58 PM

Doug Hoffman wrote:
>
> Older vehicles and power equipment, well they were not designed to
> tolerate any significant amount of alcohol.
>
When I were a youth a lot of my friends drove modded cars and
motorbikes, with some burning a bit of methanol - more for the exciting
smell than the raw power. We knew that a few percent of methanol would
lower the head temperature a bit and (possibly) need a bigger jet in the
carb, but there were no bad effects on the engine. This worked for 5%
and would probably have been OK for 10%. My guess as a lapsed chemist is
that, as methanol and ethanol are chemically very similar, the above
comments would also apply to ethanol.

I don't know what E10 it might do to the fuel pumps, O-rings, fuel lines
etc. in an older vehicle but I'm pretty certain it would not harm an
older engine.

> What will/is happening to these vehicles and equipment
> is any body's guess.

If you think you might need to burn E10 in an older machine or vehicle
don't just take my advice, which is worth exactly what it cost you. Go
and ask your local track or drag racing fiend: he'll either quote
chapter and verse or will know a man who does.

--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Bruce

January 23rd 08, 06:37 PM

Regrettably the matter is a little more complicated.

South Africa has recently gone through the process of banning TEL and all of our
fuel is effectively somewhere around E85. Sasol produces a lot of our fuel from
coal, and Alcohol is a cheap bye-product.

So - does the addition of alcohol cause older vehicles problems? Our experience
has been: You can count on corrosion to older fuel injection systems, damage to
fuel pumps, rubber seals that don't, filters that suddenly clog with all the
gunge that the ethanol dissolved off the bottom of your tank - and a host of
other problems mostly related to the water that ethanol invariably introduces.

Far more serious in the real oldies is that the lead acts as a lubricant for
valve guides and seats. So you will, in some engines (those with cast iron valve
seats), get rapid valve seat recession leading to poor sealing, leading to valve
burning and blow back and all sorts of expensive problems. You may also get
elevated temperatures in the valve guides leading to seizure and catastrophic
failure , although this appears to be rare.

And yes the energy density is lower, so the fuel consumption deteriorates
slightly. Most vehicles built in the last ten years to fifteen or so for the
world market are resistant to alcohol and have no problems.

Smells better than lead fuel, and certainly causes less visible pollution.

To cater for the substantial fleet of cars requiring it there is a "Lead
replacement Petrol" available here (and in the UK) - I believe the alcohol does
the octane boosting part of what TEL used to do, and they add other metals
(Manganese,sodium, potassium or phosphorus - lovely stuff) for the lubrication
part. This can cause problems with black conductive stuff plating out on certain
types of spark plug... The fun never ends.

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> Doug Hoffman wrote:
>>
>> Older vehicles and power equipment, well they were not designed to
>> tolerate any significant amount of alcohol.
> >
> When I were a youth a lot of my friends drove modded cars and
> motorbikes, with some burning a bit of methanol - more for the exciting
> smell than the raw power. We knew that a few percent of methanol would
> lower the head temperature a bit and (possibly) need a bigger jet in the
> carb, but there were no bad effects on the engine. This worked for 5%
> and would probably have been OK for 10%. My guess as a lapsed chemist is
> that, as methanol and ethanol are chemically very similar, the above
> comments would also apply to ethanol.
>
> I don't know what E10 it might do to the fuel pumps, O-rings, fuel lines
> etc. in an older vehicle but I'm pretty certain it would not harm an
> older engine.
>
> > What will/is happening to these vehicles and equipment
> > is any body's guess.
>
> If you think you might need to burn E10 in an older machine or vehicle
> don't just take my advice, which is worth exactly what it cost you. Go
> and ask your local track or drag racing fiend: he'll either quote
> chapter and verse or will know a man who does.
>
>

Doug Hoffman[_2_]

January 23rd 08, 11:17 PM

Bruce wrote:
> Regrettably the matter is a little more complicated.
>
> South Africa has recently gone through the process of banning TEL and
> all of our fuel is effectively somewhere around E85. Sasol produces a
> lot of our fuel from coal, and Alcohol is a cheap bye-product.
>
> So - does the addition of alcohol cause older vehicles problems? Our
> experience has been: You can count on corrosion to older fuel injection
> systems, damage to fuel pumps, rubber seals that don't, filters that
> suddenly clog with all the gunge that the ethanol dissolved off the
> bottom of your tank - and a host of other problems mostly related to the
> water that ethanol invariably introduces.

Yep. The reason is the equipment was designed to run on 100% gasoline.
Start adding alcohol, known to be corrosive to certain metals and to
destroy old make gaskets and seals, and bad things happen. All fuel
system components must be upgraded to survive, at a minimum.

snip

> And yes the energy density is lower, so the fuel consumption
> deteriorates slightly.

Not slightly. E85 has just 65% of the energy content of gasoline. So
you can only drive 2/3 as far on a gallon.

> Most vehicles built in the last ten years to
> fifteen or so for the world market are resistant to alcohol and have no
> problems.

I am highly skeptical that "most vehicles built in the last 10-15 years"
can use E85 without serious side effects(E10, no problem. They were
designed to handle E10. E20? I'll let you experiment with E20 in your
new $40,000 car. Let me know how it goes.). This includes engine
mechanical damage on E85. At least for the vehicles we get in the US.
First, the closed loop fuel delivery system of a non-E85 design will not
have the range of authority to add enough fuel. A lean miss and very
ragged running/loss of power are likely. You could put a hole in the
piston or ruin the catalytic converter. Chances are the check engine
light will come on. Second, the metal corrosive and gasket
incompatibilities are still there, *unless* the vehicle has been
specifically $upgraded$ to tolerate such a high concentration of
ethanol. There is even a special engine oil specified by the auto
manufacturers for use in their E85-compatible vehicles. The fuel and
the engine (and I include the fuel tank, pump, lines and all fuel system
components when I say the engine) are a closely matched pair. Mess with
that and one is inviting trouble.

Read the owner's manual. Call your dealer. Write to your vehicle's
manufacturer. You needn't take my word for it.

Or perhaps you get a very different type of vehicle in South Africa than
we do in the US.

--

Regards,

-Doug

Bruce

January 24th 08, 05:47 AM

Doug Hoffman wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>> Regrettably the matter is a little more complicated.
>>
>> South Africa has recently gone through the process of banning TEL and
>> all of our fuel is effectively somewhere around E85. Sasol produces a
>> lot of our fuel from coal, and Alcohol is a cheap bye-product.
>>
>> So - does the addition of alcohol cause older vehicles problems? Our
>> experience has been: You can count on corrosion to older fuel
>> injection systems, damage to fuel pumps, rubber seals that don't,
>> filters that suddenly clog with all the gunge that the ethanol
>> dissolved off the bottom of your tank - and a host of other problems
>> mostly related to the water that ethanol invariably introduces.
>
> Yep. The reason is the equipment was designed to run on 100% gasoline.
> Start adding alcohol, known to be corrosive to certain metals and to
> destroy old make gaskets and seals, and bad things happen. All fuel
> system components must be upgraded to survive, at a minimum.
>
>
> snip
>
>> And yes the energy density is lower, so the fuel consumption
>> deteriorates slightly.
>
> Not slightly. E85 has just 65% of the energy content of gasoline. So
> you can only drive 2/3 as far on a gallon.
>
>
>> Most vehicles built in the last ten years to fifteen or so for the
>> world market are resistant to alcohol and have no problems.
>
> I am highly skeptical that "most vehicles built in the last 10-15 years"
> can use E85 without serious side effects(E10, no problem. They were
> designed to handle E10. E20? I'll let you experiment with E20 in your
> new $40,000 car. Let me know how it goes.). This includes engine
> mechanical damage on E85. At least for the vehicles we get in the US.
> First, the closed loop fuel delivery system of a non-E85 design will not
> have the range of authority to add enough fuel. A lean miss and very
> ragged running/loss of power are likely. You could put a hole in the
> piston or ruin the catalytic converter. Chances are the check engine
> light will come on. Second, the metal corrosive and gasket
> incompatibilities are still there, *unless* the vehicle has been
> specifically $upgraded$ to tolerate such a high concentration of
> ethanol. There is even a special engine oil specified by the auto
> manufacturers for use in their E85-compatible vehicles. The fuel and
> the engine (and I include the fuel tank, pump, lines and all fuel system
> components when I say the engine) are a closely matched pair. Mess with
> that and one is inviting trouble.
>
> Read the owner's manual. Call your dealer. Write to your vehicle's
> manufacturer. You needn't take my word for it.
>
> Or perhaps you get a very different type of vehicle in South Africa than
> we do in the US.
>
We do - they have been putting alcohol in petrol here since the early 90s so the
local parts manufacturers have modified what they supply. Also the additives are
not simple ethanol, the local refiners have a number of patented products they
can get out of the Fischer-Tropsch process. There are very few USA vehicles on
the roads here - most are european/japanese design with the
koreans/indian/chinese being introduced over the last few years. All of them
work fine on our fuel. 91-97RON unleaded and LRP depending.

Our winch engine is a prehistoric Ford Windsor 302 - it runs happily on LRP
although we did have problems (performance,and lean running) and had to increase
the jet size when the alcohol content increased. We also had to replace all the
fuel lines as they disintegrated reasonably smartly.

My $40K car is a Volvo XC70 - 2.5l petrol turbo - not the "multi fuel" version.
So far so good - 3 years no problems. My previous car was a Renault Scenic -
that went through 4 fuel pumps in short order till they worked out a $1 filter
had corroded in the alcohol...

Jim Meade

January 24th 08, 01:05 PM

The comment is made that ethanol is net energy negative. That depends
on how you measure it. If you measure all energy in versus all energy
out, studies show it has about a 30% net energy positive. That
includes the energy value of the dried distillers grains and other
useable byproducts. If one does not like ethanol, then one ignores
that data and shows only the energy to get the corn to the plant
versus the energy of the ethanol out and pretends the DDG livestock
feed doesn't exist.

I've run 10% ethanol no lead gasoline in my equipment, some as old as
from 1962, for over 10 years. Ethanol will indeed "clean out" a fuel
system and changes in filters may be necessary. In addition, ethanol
is corrosive. This means airplane fuel systems (not engines) may need
to be changed. A modification most of us would not choose to do.

I use a lead replacement for the old tractors but don't for the
automobiles which date from as old as 1993. (Car engines since 1986
should have the better valve systems that can handle ethanol.)

Some aircraft run successfully on ethanol, even pure ethanol, as we
all know from the well-publicized demonstrations.

The possible near term elimination of 100LL is causing some
consternation. MOGAS may not be a solution to that loss, whether it
has ethanol in it or not.

I'm a farmer and pilot who would like to see 100LL remain and access
to non-ethanol MOGAS be widely available, but what ever we believe or
desire, it will help us all to push for good scientific research and
wide dissemination of the facts so we can all make or support informed
choices.

Bill Daniels

January 24th 08, 03:42 PM

Is it just me or has the response from the EAA & AOPA to the proposed
rulemaking eliminating TEL from aviation gasoline been muted?

I've been thinking that one could tell how the leaded AVGAS issue would play
out by watching the intensity of the response from general aviation
lobbyists. A muted response would mean they think the issue is lost. A
spirited response means they think they can win.

Maybe, the aviation lobby knows the Indian source of TEL is going away so
they made a deal with the EPA to let them "get out ahead of the issue" by
issuing a rule eliminating leaded AVGAS before the bad news from India hits.
This sort of deal could get them some future favors.

The EPA is the most political agency in the US government. It wouldn't be
like them to let an opportunity for some headlines get away. They'd want to
claim it was their rule that eliminated lead and not some little company on
the other side of the world going out of business.

Of course, it's yet another Washington conspiracy theory, but that's how
washington works.

Bill Daniels

"Jim Meade" > wrote in message
...
> The comment is made that ethanol is net energy negative. That depends
> on how you measure it. If you measure all energy in versus all energy
> out, studies show it has about a 30% net energy positive. That
> includes the energy value of the dried distillers grains and other
> useable byproducts. If one does not like ethanol, then one ignores
> that data and shows only the energy to get the corn to the plant
> versus the energy of the ethanol out and pretends the DDG livestock
> feed doesn't exist.
>
> I've run 10% ethanol no lead gasoline in my equipment, some as old as
> from 1962, for over 10 years. Ethanol will indeed "clean out" a fuel
> system and changes in filters may be necessary. In addition, ethanol
> is corrosive. This means airplane fuel systems (not engines) may need
> to be changed. A modification most of us would not choose to do.
>
> I use a lead replacement for the old tractors but don't for the
> automobiles which date from as old as 1993. (Car engines since 1986
> should have the better valve systems that can handle ethanol.)
>
> Some aircraft run successfully on ethanol, even pure ethanol, as we
> all know from the well-publicized demonstrations.
>
> The possible near term elimination of 100LL is causing some
> consternation. MOGAS may not be a solution to that loss, whether it
> has ethanol in it or not.
>
> I'm a farmer and pilot who would like to see 100LL remain and access
> to non-ethanol MOGAS be widely available, but what ever we believe or
> desire, it will help us all to push for good scientific research and
> wide dissemination of the facts so we can all make or support informed
> choices.

Frank Whiteley

January 24th 08, 04:40 PM

http://www.alacrastore.com/company-snapshot/Innospec_Inc-1025867
and
http://www.innospecinc.com/

The world's supplier of TEL. Listed on NASDAQ. 23 locations
worldwide.

Locations where leaded fuel may still be in road use.
http://www.lead.org.au/fs/fst27.html Interesting in that I was told
by a Rolls Royce person that India was the largest user. Perhaps
they've switched.

Interesting web site http://www.leadedpetrol.co.uk/

In the US, 100LL is reputedly responsible for 260 tons of lead
introduced into the environment annually at 1.1-2.0 grams/gallon.

Frank Whiteley

Tim Taylor

January 24th 08, 04:47 PM

On Jan 21, 3:25 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Shawn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Doug Hoffman wrote:
> > snip
>
> >> Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported fossil is a
> >> good thing. But there are some negatives associated with ethanol
> >> production and use as mogas. It likely is not the magic bullet that some
> >> believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is strongly debated. One
> >> *will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol content. Just ask
> >> someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a person.
>
> > Like with diesel, people will learn to calculate what matters to them,
> > whether that is $/mile CO2/mile, NOx/mile, or value of their ADM
> > stock/mile ;-)
> > What I find specious is that corn ethanol has been sold as a "greener"
> > alternative to gasoline, when the data does not support much if any net
> > improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline. It can improve US
> > energy independence, which may be more important in the short/medium term.
> > The coal mines can not be good for ridge soaring in the South East though.
> > :-(
>
> Even if ethanol were not net-negative energy, it's still a lousy fuel since
> it's already partially oxidized. If you want a fuel produced by microbes
> (Bug Juice?) why not teach the little critters to produce something useful
> like iso-octane or butanol? Either of those hydrocarbons can be blended up
> to ~90% with gasoline without significantly changing the energy content,
> octane, reid vapor pressure or required fuel/air mixtures.
>
> Bill Daniels

Actually ethanol is not energy negative, the only reports out of
hundreds that come to that conclusion are by David Pimentel, a
professor of ecology and not trained in the field of biotechnology
engineering, and Tad Patzek at Berkeley who is funded by the oil
industry (Sounds like the same technique used against global warming
for many years. Fund a few dissenters and let the pundits spread the
word that there are negative reports).

As far as producing iso-octane and butanol, they are subjects of much
research. The organisms that can produce those are being actively
studied as well as processes to make it possible. Biodiesel is also
under active research from both agricultural commodities and algae
that use photosynthesis to produce the oil. The nice thing this is
very carbon neutral because we are exchanging C02 for the oil.

The azeotrope (a mixture that can not be spereated by simple
distillation) with water cause problems with ethanol to make it more
expensive to process and leaves it hygroscopic.

A gallon of gas does have more energy than a gallon of ethanol and you
must learn to purchase fuel at a price per energy rather than per
volume. Other than that you can treat them the same in most cases.
Just understand where each is useful and make sure you have the
correct type of plumbing, pumps and seals in your system.

Ok, back to soaring issues...

Tim

pigro[_4_]

January 25th 08, 01:00 AM

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:09:47 -0700, Shawn
> wrote:

>Doug Hoffman wrote:
>snip
>
>> ... data does not support much if any net
>improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline.

a part of the CO2 produced by the engine, proportional to the ethanol
grade in the fuel, comes from the atmosphere, and there it returns. No
net increase in CO2 mass in the air.
Fossil fuels actually release CO2 in the atmosphere instead,
increasing the total mass of CO2 in the air. This is the point.

Then, we might argue against biofuels, that crop prices are
increasing, and that's not good for the consumers, especially for
those who live in poverty.

Aldo Cernezzi

noel.wade

January 25th 08, 04:53 PM

[This posted to the wrong thread for some reason, re-posting...]

Just to throw a little wild hair response in, imagine the convergence
of these technologies:

Sonex e-Flight Initiative: http://aeroconversions.com/e-flight/
(DC Electric Motor for aircraft)
--or, if you prefer AC power--
http://www.teslamotors.com
(AC electric motor, could be adopted for aircraft)

AND

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
(New Nano-Wire Battery Technology)

In the near-term, we're probably looking at smaller (80 - 150hp
equivalent) motors running for a few hours at a time. But in 10 - 15
years I think that battery and electric-motor technology will be at a
point where towing would be possible... Here's hoping, at least!

Take care,

--Noel
P.S. My Dad's a Nuclear Engineer at a power-plant (former Navy
Submariner on nuclear-powered subs); but I don't see that process
fitting inside an engine cowling anytime soon! *chuckle* I know I'm
asking for some strange responses by saying this, but I hope folks
will soon realize that the small amount of long-term nuclear waste is
FAR less damaging to the environment than all of the bad side-effects
of fossil/bio-fuels. Europe got it right in switching to more
Nuclear
power (and now with photovoltaics and other good stuff), unlike our
good ol' USA... If we ever want to have Hydrogen Fuel Cells, large-
scale electric power for vehicles, or large-scale electrolysis
(desalination of sea-water to produce clean drinking water), Nuclear
Power is the most efficient system; and the only economically-viable
way to do so with current technology...