Gasohol

On Jun 3, 8:02 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"David Lesher" wrote in message

...



B A R R Y writes:

Ken Finney wrote:

I already am, but there an STC for diesels in 172s.

Running on Jet-A, not Biodiesel.

Which is just kerosene...

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

There are really three of issues (that I can recall) he
1) A diesel will run on any hydrocarbon fuel that it can pump and meter.
2) Different seals and hoses are compatible with different
chemicals--although it would be no surprise to find that all were compatible
with biodiesel.
3) Certified aircraft/engines require fuels authorized in the type
certificate and/or an STC.

My understanding is that biodiesel is compatible with all common
elastomeric components used in diesel systems. It has somewhat
higher lubricity and detergent properties compared with petroleum
diesel.

So the first tankful might clean enough crud out of the fuel system
to
foul the fuel filter. After changing that filter, the engine should
run
cleaner.

One reported problem with biodiesel is that it gels at low
temperatures.

--

FF

On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, nrp wrote:
an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.

Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
though...........

I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
~5% power reduction.

Alcohol is an emulsifier that keeps water mixed with gasoline. It is
also an antifreeze that supresses the freezing temperature of water.
If you have a car that has ice in the fuel line, adding alcohol will
melt
it.

--

FF

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:46:05 -0700, wrote:

On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, nrp wrote:
an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.

Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
though...........

I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
~5% power reduction.

Alcohol is an emulsifier that keeps water mixed with gasoline. It is
also an antifreeze that supresses the freezing temperature of water.
If you have a car that has ice in the fuel line, adding alcohol will
melt
it.
And adding a bit more water makes the water and alky drop out od
suspension. Called Phase Separation. It's temperature sensitive, so in
a plane at ground level you may still have gasahol, but at 4000 feet,
you are about 16 degrees F. colder - and that may be enough to trip
the phase separation. Bad Ju-Ju when the engine gets a gulp of watered
down hooch when it's expecting gasoline.

On 2 stroke engines (ultralights, snowmobiles etc) when this happens
the engine not only looses fuel, but it looses lubrication too,
because the separated hooch has no oil in it. It's at the bottom of
the tank, where the pickup is, so pistons are often destroyed before
the driver/pilot even knows he has a problem.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

wrote:
On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, nrp wrote:
an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.
Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
though...........

I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
~5% power reduction.


I think ethanol in gasoline is a stupid waste of agricultural resources,
but if you are the typical GA pilot an you're computing your safety
margins out close enough that 5% makes a difference, you're likely to be
removed from the gene pool before long anyway.

On Jun 7, 6:20 pm, M wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:31 pm, SS2MO wrote:

Currently retailers can save money by adding alcohol to the gasoline
because the alcohol is less expensive than gasoline, so they can blen
it in and sell it to you as auto gasoline - you may not know it.

I don't believe it's true anymore. At some point last year or so
wholesale price of ethonal started to exceed the wholesale price of 87
octane gasoline.

Today in Chicago, wholesale gasoline is trading at $2.30 per gallon.
This does not include freight to haul it from the terminal to the
retail outlet, taxes or the retailer margin. Ethanol in Chicago today
is trading for $2.05 per gallon. The blender of the ethanol receives
a 51 cent per gallon credit, so blending 10% alcohol reduces the price
5.1 cents per gallon.

$2.30 X 90% = $2.07
$2.05 - .051 X 10% = $.1997

$2.07 + $.1997 = $2.2697

This means that a retailer can blend alcohol tolday and sell it to you
as gasoline and save 3.03 cents per gallon. In many locations this is
double their margin.

On Jun 6, 9:05 pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.owning Morgans wrote:

snip

I await everyone's opinions. I agree with the premise that I think Dan has;
that it should be possible, and practical to develop a gasohol safe
airplane. "Some will no doubt shout, you will crash and burn!"
This could be an interesting discussion.

Since Embraer has an alcohol fueled aircraft in production, it is
obviously possible.

http://www.defesanet.com.br/embraer/ipanema1000th.htm

The question then becomes what would it take to retrofit an existing
aircraft?


My understanding is that multi-fuel engines were the norm
in Brazil for a while. These could run on straight gasoline or
high alcohol content fuel. The early ones had a manual
switch, but later models used a fuel density detector
which automatically adjusted on the fly.

The last I read, Brazil was moving towards tighter
standards for auto fuel, and the multifuel engines
were being phased out.

--

FF

On Jun 23, 3:12 am, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:46:05 -0700, wrote:
On Jun 3, 10:50 pm, nrp wrote:
an easy way to have a line freeze and turn the plane into a glider.

Then why don't cars have line freezing trouble with E-10 gas? Here in
Minnesota, gas line freezeups have essentially disappeared because of
the mandated E-10. It is the only good thing about gasahpol
though...........

I think a major reason not to use E-10 in certificated aircraft is the
~5% power reduction.

Alcohol is an emulsifier that keeps water mixed with gasoline. It is
also an antifreeze that supresses the freezing temperature of water.
If you have a car that has ice in the fuel line, adding alcohol will
melt
it.

And adding a bit more water makes the water and alky drop out od
suspension. Called Phase Separation. It's temperature sensitive, so in
a plane at ground level you may still have gasahol, but at 4000 feet,
you are about 16 degrees F. colder - and that may be enough to trip
the phase separation. Bad Ju-Ju when the engine gets a gulp of watered
down hooch when it's expecting gasoline.

On 2 stroke engines (ultralights, snowmobiles etc) when this happens
the engine not only looses fuel, but it looses lubrication too,
because the separated hooch has no oil in it. It's at the bottom of
the tank, where the pickup is, so pistons are often destroyed before
the driver/pilot even knows he has a problem.


The alcohol will also produce a greater temperature drop in
when it evaporates in the carburetor, increasing the danger
of carb ice, something that is seldom a problem in cars,
especially those with fuel injection....

--

FF

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:04:03 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:29:52 -0700, Stella Starr
wrote:

Looks like they thought they were aligning with national standards. From
a timeline report by that state's Renewable Fuels Commission:

"2003-Michigan State Legislature adopts and Governor Jennifer Granholm
approves property tax incentives for the manufacturing and blending of
biodiesel fuel. State legislation for mandatory labeling of 10% ethanol
blends at Michigan service station gasoline pumps is changed to be
consistent with national voluntary label standards..."

It is interesting, as I'd thought the first gasahol was 15% ethanol, but
there's no way to know whether local blends are ten, fifteen or some
random percent. Makes it hard to test performance, doesn't it?


In Michigan I think it's 10% and has been. Alcohol costs more than
gas now days. The only reason it's priced so low is due to subsidies.

Our early Gasohol was 10% here although back then I don't think there
was a standard. OTOH back then it took nearly 1 1/2 to two gallons of
fuel to make one gallon of ethanol.




Which then gets you 75% of the mileage of 'pure gasoline'.

Alcohol has 60% of the energy in gas. If 10% of the gas is Alcohol
then you have only lost 6% (0.1 X 0.6 = 0.06), but as the Alcohol acts
as an octane booster , *theoretically* they should be able to save a
bit in the refining process to produce the lower octane gas that they
boost back up with the alcohol. In the end though it's probably close
to a wash as far as cost. Corn futures are already going up and look
at the price of beef which is corn fed. Anything that uses corn is
already on the way up which means it will be more (maybe much more)
expensive to produce Ethanol using corn as will be any thing else that
contains, or eats corn. Having been a farmer in a previous life and
still owning the old family farm, as an educated guess I'd say the
price of cord will easily double within the next couple of years,
subsidies or no subsidies. It has the bonus of the *possibility* of
eliminating some farm subsidies, but even without the subsidies the
higher prices will still cost the tax payer more.

In the long run we need to become independent from foreign oil as well
as reducing emissions. Currently all ways of doing this cost more than
that expensive foreign oil.

I think I mentioned it before, but now they want to build a coal
fired, 750 megawatt power station on the SE corner of Midland. (MI).
http://www.ourmidland.com/site/index... =578054&rfi=8
(watch out for line wrap in some readers) Caution, lots of spin in
article. :-)) This figures out to be about a mile long train of coal
every other day. Even if they run 80% of the sulphur and 90% of the
mercury recovered from the stack gas it still leaves a staggering
amount of pollution.

How can "pure gasoline" coming out of a 'supply depot' have the same 87 octane as the same "pure gasoline" mixed with
10% ethanol? Since all auto gasoline is coming from the same distribution pipes, what is the octane in those pipes?

Folks have said that the various sellers have their own additive packages, and others have said that the ethanol is
added near the point of use, and still others have indicated the ethanol is added to increase the octane rating. If all
this is true, then the gas in hte pipes could be some low octane rating which is then boosted with ethanol to 87 octane
for the pumps. That infers to me that even if you bought gas straight from the pipe it would not be 87 octane. Not good
for STC holders...

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...

In the long run we need to become independent from foreign oil as well
as reducing emissions. Currently all ways of doing this cost more than
that expensive foreign oil.

Quite true.

The "foreign oil" dilemma is much more easily solved, but both issues are
political.

As to emissions, contrast engines from the 1960's with those of today. For
example, a 1969 Mustang with a 351ci V-8 for about 12 MPG and delivered 325
HP - today, a Nissan 3.5L for the 350-Z delivers 325HP, from 216ci engine,
gets 24 MPG, and does it with a twentieth the emissions, mostly CO2.
Contrast that with the 351ci that spewed all sorts of noxious stuff out the
tail pipe.

So do we spend $$trillions reducing emissions, while the rest of the world
continues on its merry way? You probably all heard that China now exceeds
the US as the biggest polluter, in terms of CO2 but all the other far more
noxious gases as well. You've all probably seen the charts that US fuel use
per $ of GNP is about a fourth of what it was in the 1980's.

I rather suspect that once CO2 emission are "cured", such as a fuel cell
vehicle, there'll be something else for the hystericals to fall back on.
It's their karma.