Corn ethanol days are numbered

Jay Honeck wrote:
So why can't the EAA offer an STC that calls for the replacement of
parts that are attacked by ethanol? From my talks with the EAA they
are just going to let the mogas STC die.

Most likely because going through the entire fuel system of an airplane
to ensure everything in there is unaffected by ethenol and proving
it to the satisfaction of the FAA is a huge undertaking for one airplane
let alone the more common models of the GA fleet.

Another example of regulatory insanity. My A&P could make my aircraft
ethanol-compliant in less than a day by changing out a few parts -- but THAT
isn't good enough for the FAA.

Unless you have a really simple airplane, I think you are grossly
underestimating the task.

You start at the filler cap and go through every material, every
seal, every valve and fitting until you get to the cylinders.

Then you have to show the engine actually runs at all the temperature,
altitude, and power setting combinations with ethenol in the fuel.

Why, if an A&P is willing to sign it off, is *that* not sufficient?

Assuming the A&P did all the above and submitted all the data, it
probably would be.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Then you have to show the engine actually runs at all the temperature,
altitude, and power setting combinations with ethenol in the fuel.

How do you actually *do* that, to the satisfaction of the FAA? Take one of
'em with you on test flights? Produce video tapes? How do they actually
know if you actually tested the plane at all power
combinations/temperatures/altitudes?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
Then you have to show the engine actually runs at all the temperature,
altitude, and power setting combinations with ethenol in the fuel.

How do you actually *do* that, to the satisfaction of the FAA? Take one of
'em with you on test flights? Produce video tapes? How do they actually
know if you actually tested the plane at all power
combinations/temperatures/altitudes?

The way anything get approved; engineering data.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The way anything get approved; engineering data.

Right. What does that consist of? Graphs that show airspeed at a given
throttle/prop/mixture? Or do they require ground/static engine runs?

I presume the FAA has made this so difficult that even the EAA feels they
don't have the resources to complete this data acquisition?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
The way anything get approved; engineering data.

Right. What does that consist of? Graphs that show airspeed at a given
throttle/prop/mixture? Or do they require ground/static engine runs?

I presume the FAA has made this so difficult that even the EAA feels they
don't have the resources to complete this data acquisition?

I would imagine that for a certified aircraft you want to keep certified,
you would need to do something close to what the original manufacture
of the part had to do and you would find the details in CFAR 21 and 33.

The way around all this is called a homebuilt.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:efaUj.98989$TT4.66292@attbi_s22:

The way anything get approved; engineering data.

Right. What does that consist of? Graphs that show airspeed at a
given throttle/prop/mixture? Or do they require ground/static engine
runs?

I presume the FAA has made this so difficult that even the EAA feels
they don't have the resources to complete this data acquisition?

Jesus wept.


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

Jesus wept.


Bertie

You're pathetic. Some many people have killfiled your ignorant ass, you're
practically talking to yourself.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
.. .

Jesus wept.


Bertie

You're pathetic. Some many people have killfiled your ignorant ass,
you're practically talking to yourself.




Talking to you, obviously.


Bertie

No, it is because at one point in time, the EAA had on staff one hell of a
good systems engineer whose name escapes me right now. He convinced Pope
Paul that it was in aviation's best interests to switch the low-compression
fleet to mogas and to fund three years of full-time flight testing in the
EAA's C-150 to prove the point. The rest of the STCs that the EAA holds are
on the basis of the full-bore testing in the 150 and then limited "it should
be the same" testing in each of the other type certificates for which there
is an STC.

That brilliant engineer retired just about the same time as the current EAA
regime came to power and I guess they don't feel the same need to support
general aviation. After all, the STC only costs a couple of hundred dollars
for a nickel's worth of paper and they can make that much with just two or
three more people through the gates at Oshkosh every year.

I'm racking my brain right now to think of anyone on EAA staff right now
with the engineering skills to pull off a project like this and I can't
think of a single person or group with the right toolbox. Lots of good
folks on staff, but the EAA has transmogrified itself from a technically
competent organization to a politically and economically competent
organization within the last twenty years. I'm not sure that is a move in
the right direction, but then again I'm not in a position to change that
direction.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:efaUj.98989$TT4.66292@attbi_s22...
The way anything get approved; engineering data.

Right. What does that consist of? Graphs that show airspeed at a given
throttle/prop/mixture? Or do they require ground/static engine runs?

I presume the FAA has made this so difficult that even the EAA feels they
don't have the resources to complete this data acquisition?