Ethanol Powered Aircraft

For those who think ethanol is a fuel that can't be made to work in
aircraft, I present the following:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?E6EB52F8D

and

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N40C13F8D

These folks, photographed by me at OSH '06, are burning ethanol in
certificated engines (and, in the case of the Mooney, in a certificated
aircraft) without difficulty.

Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
have to live with it, somehow.

To which I again ask: Where is EAA on this? Why are they washing their
hands of this all-important issue? Are the asleep at the switch, or
simply hoping the issue goes away?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
...
Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
have to live with it, somehow.
...
Does the production efficiency matter if the supply is unlimited or the
prices is really low? I don't know that it is, but but you may have
introduced a red herring with your rhetoric.

On 15 Aug 2006 05:25:31 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

To which I again ask: Where is EAA on this? Why are they washing their
hands of this all-important issue? Are the asleep at the switch, or
simply hoping the issue goes away?


The FAA is a federal bureaucracy created to serve the aviation
community by enforcing order. Like all bureaucracies, it is incapable
of creative thinking.

The FAA relies upon the demands of users, and their creativity, to
implement new technologies. If you want government regulation
involved in ethanol use in aviation, you'll have to conceive of a plan
yourself, and present it to the deaf ears of the federal bureaucracy.
To expect FAA to be proactive in managing aviation matters is simply
naive.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:53:12 -0400, Stubby
wrote in
:



Jay Honeck wrote:
...
Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
than it actually produces, this is a fuel that we're apparently going
to be stuck with -- forever? -- for political reasons. We're gonna
have to live with it, somehow.
...
Does the production efficiency matter if the supply is unlimited or the
prices is really low? I don't know that it is, but but you may have
introduced a red herring with your rhetoric.

The point is, that the fuel and resources necessary to produce ethanol
might be better used directly if efficiency is a concern.

Does the production efficiency matter if the supply is unlimited or the prices is really low? I don't know that it is, but but you may have introduced a red herring with your rhetoric.

I lose a dime on every sale, but I make up for it in volume.

I wonder how much non-ethanol fuel is used to make the ethanol that lets
us save non-ethanol fuel in the first place. We could alternatively
simply put the non-ethanol fuel in our cars and have fuel left over.

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

Larry Dighera wrote:
To expect FAA to be proactive in managing aviation matters is simply
naive.


Jay was referring to EAA, not FAA. That aside, you are correct.

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

Aside from the obvious stupidity of using more energy to make ethanol
than it actually produces,

There is a certain amount of healthy debate on that issue.

A couple of professors from Cornell and Berkeley have been making that
argument, but the Dept. of Energy has come out with the "definitive"
analysis that concludes you get something like 25 or 30% more energy out,
when corn is used as the base. A higher level of return is projected for
other sources, like switchgrass.

There are still arguments about the DOE study, however.

Most ethanol plants use natural gas in the distillation process, which is
where most of the energy is used, so the production of ethanol is really
a conversion of natural gas to a liquid fuel, with a bit left over.

Since North America is projected to be importing something like 20
percent of its natural gas by 2020, the amount of ethanol reaching the
market will probably drop because of the need to move to more self-
contained production, i.e. using some ethanol to make slightly more
ethanol.

To which I again ask: Where is EAA on this? Why are they washing their
hands of this all-important issue? Are the asleep at the switch, or
simply hoping the issue goes away?

They probably hope it will go away.

We have already been discussing some of the problems with pumping ethanol
through existing engines without making appropriate modifications to
accept the different chemical properties of the fuel. Such things as the
effect on gaskets and synthetic materials, the attraction of ethanol to
water, and potentially increased risk of vapor lock, filter clogging, and
ice crystal development.

One thing I don't think has been touched on is the different physical
properties, which can have significant implications to pilots. These are
that ethanol has about 30 percent lower energy content per gallon than
gasoline, and has about 5 to 10 percent higher density. Think for a
moment what effect these factors have on range and weight limits.

With the lower energy content, range is significantly affected,
particularly for those who use personal margins that are more restrictive
than typical minimums.

The higher density means that even to get that reduced range, you will
have to sacrifice payload to compensate for the added weight of the lower
energy fuel.

As far as EAA's position on the subject, here is a statement from their
web site on what they are doing to influence legislation in various
states:

================================================== ====
EAA Keeps Aircraft Fuel Tanks Full

EAA is focusing its organizational and member resources to head off an
attempt by several states to require ethanol additives in gasoline before
it leaves countless pilots without a way to obtain suitable fuel for
their aircraft.

Legislation being debated in Missouri, for example, would require all
gasoline sold to consumers for use in motor vehicles to contain 10
percent ethanol. Even though provisions are included to allow the sale of
non-ethanol gasoline for use by aircraft, vintage cars, and motorboats,
these aren’t feasible because they could impose financial and logistical
burdens on fuel sellers, including installation of special tanks and/or
requiring potentially expensive special delivery arrangements to ensure
non-ethanol fuel availability.

Instead, EAA is promoting a simple solution based on legislation passed
in Montana, exempting one grade of gasoline—premium grade (antiknock
index number of 91 or greater)—from the ethanol requirement. This will
cover any and all possible combinations of exemptions to this proposed
new rule and allow ethanol-free premium gasoline to be available to all
aircraft, vintage cars, recreational vehicles, etc., at every gas station
in the state.

Idaho and Washington are currently facing Senate and House Bills that
would require all gasoline sold to consumers for use in motor vehicles to
contain 2 percent denatured ethanol by December 1, 2008. Even though
pending Idaho Senate bills include aviation exemptions, EAA feels they
aren’t practical. But aircraft owners in Idaho who rely on auto fuel to
operate their aircraft gained a reprieve earlier this month thanks in
part to the efforts of EAA and its members. As a result, Idaho’s proposed
legislation failed to make it out of a House committee which killed the
state’s ethanol mandate for this session.

In Wisconsin, legislative action to require 10 percent ethanol in
gasoline other than premium grade sold in the state was postponed
indefinitely by a 17-15 vote in the State Senate. An EAA-led provision to
exclude premium grade gasoline was included in the bill’s final version.

EAA is currently engaged in pending ethanol legislation in several other
states, working to ensure that ethanol-free fuel remains widely available
to its members and other pilots who need it.

You've got a great point. Not to mention the costs of production that are
involved in growing corn.

From an insiders view (forgive me while I whine) there is currently no
incentive for the farmers of this country to produce corn for ethanol if
they have any other alternatives. Ethanol companies are true bottom
feeders. They purchase the poorest and cheapest corn they can, often paying
more in freight than they do for the corn, then they sell the by products
back to the feed companies and dairies, competing directly with the farmers
that supply them the higher quality corn.

Currently, the cash corn market is around $2 per bushel, the alcohol plants
are buying it for less. Assume an average yield of 150 bu / A at the $2
price and you end up with $300 per acre gross income. Throw in about $1 per
bu from uncle Sam because the market is so low, but wait, don't forget about
the max subsidy limit of $60,000 so, make that $0.50 from Sammy. Now we're
getting a whopping $375 per acre gross income to grow the corn. That's
about $100 per acre under the cost of production, drying, and storage.
Forget about return on investment.

I'm looking at returns for growing peas, green beans, and sweet corn...
$450-$600 per acre and I don't have to harvest it, dry it, store it, haul
it, or market it. Plus they are all shorter season crops which means less
herbicide, insecticide, aerial application, and irrigation.

Current US corn production is roughly 10 billion bushels. The carry over
from the previous year has been getting smaller. Next year there won't be a
carry over. This is due to increased usage including ethanol production.
Unless corn prices rise significantly, the US will not produce enough corn
to meet current market demands PLUS enough to produce enough ethanol to
treat 100% of the gasoline. Other methods for producing ethanol will no
doubt be tried, but when 1 bu of $2.00 corn will produce 2.5 gallons of
ethanol, other US available sources may not be as efficient. Watch for
ethanol imports. It will happen.

The monkey is definitely turning the ethanol crank.

Jim

Jay,
You know what the real irony is? One of Wisconsin's largest ethanol plants
is located less than 5 miles SW of the EAA headquarters.
Jim

There are several issues here.

Ethanol is politically popular because it is a farm subsidy to an
extent.

Other sources of heat besides natural gas exist for firing alcohol
plants. I would think that burning the corncobs and other unwanted
biomass from the corn itself would be good, as would burning garbage.
But what do I know.

Natural gas is methane, which can be turned into methanol pretty
cost-effectively. Ethanol, despite its poorer power density and seals
compatibility issues, is far more benign and has more energy per gallon
than does methanol. Be very glad you are being required to deal with
ethanol and not methanol.

Everyone knows that materials compatibility has been something doomed
to bite aviation in the ass, hard, for decades. Certificated aircraft
rubber materials have been manufactured since the postwar period with
the same inferior grades of rubbers at great expense to avoid
recertification while everyone else now uses better, more alcoholproof
materials. Dave Blanton told me that in the mid-80s and he was right.

Operation of aircraft on E10 or E15 auto fuel is a different issue
than operating on E85 or E100 with entirely different problems
especially in terms of water separation issues.

The LyCon engines themselves, in terms of top end life especially,
actually like ethanol a lot. Their fuel systems are a different issue.
But I saw an AEIO-540 powered Pitts do an acro routine on straight
ethanol (E100) in the late eighties. The pilot said that the cylinders
lasted a lot longer than with gasoline and all competition acro pilots
would use it if permitted by aerobatic rules.