Corn ethanol days are numbered

On 2008-05-06, Jay Honeck wrote:
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.

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

Sounds like some enterprising shop could get in on a good thing by getting
STCs for this kind of work...
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
Fairmont, MN (FRM) (Yes, that's me!)
AMD Zodiac CH601XLi N55ZC (ordered 17 March, delivery 2 June)

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.

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

Is your local A&P going to pull every single part that comes in contact
with the fuel and make sure that it isn't negatively effected by the
ethanol?


If it is as easy as you think why don't you develop the STC with your
A&P and make some money off it?

On 2008-05-06 06:32:26 -0700, "Jay Honeck" said:

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.

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

The market will always be a far better regulator than the ukases of
government bureaucrats.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

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.

If it is as easy as you think why don't you develop the STC with your A&P
and make some money off it?

Because it's *not* easy, thanks to the FAA.

Swapping the rubber and fiberglass parts for ethanol-safe parts is simple.
Proving compliance with the FAA is what's not.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

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.

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


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
news:6ae5f923-ca71-4b60-92af-ba0f68dd0d29
@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com.
.. On May 4, 4:43 am, Bob Noel
wrote:
In article
,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

Dumb question: Is this ethanol-laced gas a problem for newer small
engines? It doesn't seem to bother my motorcycle, lawnmower or
tug (aviation content)? Or have I just been lucky and don't have this
ethanol-laced junk around here in the Boston area?

I'm not sure if your gas in Boston has ethanol or not. In California
we are either 10% or 15% ethanol as I recall. Most new mowers in
California come with a fuel shutoff valve. The shutdown procedure is
to turn off the fuel valve and run the appliance until its out of gas.
That ensures that the carb is clear of fuel. In addition, we use
stablizers out here. It appears especially important for 2 stroke gas.
I use Stabil myself. I also put it in my boat and any car that doesn't
use its entire tank in 30 days.

-Robet

I'm beginning to wonder if the problem isn't more specific to brands
or types. I have asked a number of people about it, and get hot and
cold responses. Some say it's a serious problem, while many others say
they haven't even heard of it. My experience has even been mixed. I
have had problems with weed eaters, push mowers and a power washer
but little else. But I have a 14hp Kohler in use almost daily with no
problems.


It's because you're an okie fjukktard who doesn't know one end of an
engine from another.


Bertie