Ethanol Powered Aircraft

Must make fuel stops hard. Perhaps its "flex fuel".
-Robert


Jay Honeck wrote:
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 in message
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.

How much energy is used to make the Duracell AA battery that you use in your
GPS?

If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:6_lEg.237$ha1.93@trndny03...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
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.

How much energy is used to make the Duracell AA battery that you use in
your
GPS?

If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane),
it
does.



As has been listed Natural Gas is the main source of energy in the process.

And of course there is a lot of loss making a Duracell but that is for
practicality. I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote in message
...

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
news:6_lEg.237$ha1.93@trndny03...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
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.

How much energy is used to make the Duracell AA battery that you use in
your
GPS?

If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane),
it
does.



As has been listed Natural Gas is the main source of energy in the
process.

And of course there is a lot of loss making a Duracell but that is for
practicality.

My point exactly.

I really don't want a fire powered laptop in my lap. That's
why I got rid if the Sony battery in my Dell.



I really don't want a Natural Gas powered lawn mower.

Jim Burns wrote:
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.

Oh but wait... enviro-fascists will demand that we have MORE
ethanol production and use. That little green thingy looks so
cute on vehicles too doncha know.

Do something... do *anything*.. throw more MONEY at the problem
(money is green!!) to make us feel like we are doing something
good! Just do NOT even mention exploration or production for
more of own petroleum resources.

On 15 Aug 2006 08:15:58 -0700, "Bret Ludwig"
wrote in om:

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.


How does the energy density of LNG compare to ethanol?

Steve Foley wrote:
If they're burning oil to make this fuel, it makes no sense. If they're
something not easily refined into gasoline (coal, solar, nuke, methane), it
does.

As an engineer and an MBA this argument has never made sense to me.
Electric cars use power that may be produced using oil. The idea is a
large, centeral engine is more efficient (less oil, less expensive,
etc) than millions of individual CO dumping engines. Whether that
central engine burns oil or butter makes no difference, as long as its
more efficient than the individual engines.
Whether that centeral engine puts out electricity or ethanol make no
difference.

Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
it will probably be easier to understand.

-Robert

ktbr wrote:

snip

Do something... do *anything*.. throw more MONEY at the problem
(money is green!!) to make us feel like we are doing something
good! Just do NOT even mention exploration or production for
more of own petroleum resources.


If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

There are areas oil companies can and should explore and they are
doing that. The fundamental problem is that as long as Saudi oil costs
a dollar a barrel to lift there is no way serious capital expenditure
is going into alternate sources because as they do the Saudis will drop
the price. They are a low grade bunch of whores. They are literally
pigs, living off their cash flow as if there is no tomorrow. The idea
of seriously restricting supply to keep their nation solvent for more
than a few decades more is unimaginable to them-they are all old men
making the decisions and they will be dead before then.

As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
$5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
engineering sense.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...

Think of ethanol as a battery (stored energy) rather than raw crude and
it will probably be easier to understand.

-Robert


That's pretty much what I was trying to say.

Clear as mud, huh?

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:47:04 -0500, "Jim Burns"
wrote:
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.

Ethanol (from corn) in gasoline is a waste of perfectly good corn
liquor...