Using Ethanol in Your Plane

There's a California fellow over on the Cherokee 235/236 user's group who is
using ethanol-laced mogas in his Cherokee 235, exclusively, and without
difficulty.

He admits that he *has* ruined his fiberglass tip tanks -- at something like
$3500 each -- but this has not deterred him from simply shutting them off
and using the aluminum main tanks.

I'm intrigued by his experiment. Although we Iowans just last week defeated
a bill that would have mandated ethanol in all of our gasoline (thanks to
the many here who wrote letters to our legislators!), that threat is always
looming on the horizon.

Jim Weir, you out there? Have you done any barn yard experimenting with
ethanol in your 182?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsdtOf.836777$xm3.407625@attbi_s21...
There's a California fellow over on the Cherokee 235/236 user's group who
is using ethanol-laced mogas in his Cherokee 235, exclusively, and without
difficulty.

He admits that he *has* ruined his fiberglass tip tanks -- at something
like $3500 each -- but this has not deterred him from simply shutting them
off and using the aluminum main tanks.

I'm intrigued by his experiment. Although we Iowans just last week
defeated a bill that would have mandated ethanol in all of our gasoline
(thanks to the many here who wrote letters to our legislators!), that
threat is always looming on the horizon.

Jim Weir, you out there? Have you done any barn yard experimenting with
ethanol in your 182?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Isn't the issue that because of the required fuel/air mixture, an engine
running on Ethanol is going to run lean, assuming the carb or fuel injection
system is configured for gasoline?

Other than the wingtip issues, I wonder if there are hidden problems due to
the ethanol. No telling what impact ethanol has on fuel tank sealant,
hoses, seals, etc.

KB

: Isn't the issue that because of the required fuel/air mixture, an engine
: running on Ethanol is going to run lean, assuming the carb or fuel injection
: system is configured for gasoline?

That would be a definate concern. Ethanol is a fine fuel for SI engines, but
it should be optimized for it. That means higher compression, and a richer fuel
schedule.... *double* for 100% ethanol IIRC.

: Other than the wingtip issues, I wonder if there are hidden problems due to
: the ethanol. No telling what impact ethanol has on fuel tank sealant,
: hoses, seals, etc.

Also correct. Seals, hoses, gaskets, and aluminum corrosion are concerns. I
recall reading about that on the EA85 website. Something about the additives they had
to add to the 85% ethanol to keep it from attacking the aluminum.

I have no doubt that it can be done, but I wouldn't want to just do it
willy-nilly. That's one case where certification requirements would be a *good*
thing IMO.

-Cory


--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Also correct. Seals, hoses, gaskets, and aluminum corrosion are concerns. I
recall reading about that on the EA85 website. Something about the additives they had
to add to the 85% ethanol to keep it from attacking the aluminum.

Hmmm. I hadn't heard that before Why would alcohol attack aluminum?

I have no doubt that it can be done, but I wouldn't want to just do it
willy-nilly. That's one case where certification requirements would be a *good*
thing IMO.

Agreed. EAA is our best (and probably only) hope in this regard, but
I'm not optimistic. They've basically stated that it's just "too hard"
to get gasohol STC'd, which leaves many of us between a rock and hard
place.

I was just surprised -- and hopeful -- to hear about someone openly
flying a certificated aircraft with 15% gasohol, apparently without
difficulty.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

: Hmmm. I hadn't heard that before Why would alcohol attack aluminum?

Just to recall that I'd actually read it somewhere, I did a quick google:

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2005/t...ram/P18201.HTM
http://www.eaa.org/communications/ea...11_cessna.html

: I have no doubt that it can be done, but I wouldn't want to just do it
: willy-nilly. That's one case where certification requirements would be a *good*
: thing IMO.

: Agreed. EAA is our best (and probably only) hope in this regard, but
: I'm not optimistic. They've basically stated that it's just "too hard"
: to get gasohol STC'd, which leaves many of us between a rock and hard
: place.

Of course, the *real* solution is to realize that producing ethanol as a
substitute synthetic fuel is a bad idea in general.

http://petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers...hanol.2005.pdf

Study concludes that it Costs 57% more fossil energy to produce the ethanol
than the energy contained within it.

Now, given the unique requirements of GA aircraft fuels (low volume required
compared to automotive gasoline, high octane required), it might be viable as an
alternative to 100LL even considering the additional fossil energy required. For an
automotive fuel ingredient, it is there for purely political (read: financial)
reasons.

: I was just surprised -- and hopeful -- to hear about someone openly
: flying a certificated aircraft with 15% gasohol, apparently without
: difficulty.
: --
There's no doubt it can be done:
http://www.age85.org/

BUT, it must be done correctly to be safe. In particular, thorough
examination and testing of all components of the fuel system, engine, and airframe. I
would suggest you may want to forward this information to the guy doing it. Legal
issues aside, it's probably not a good idea without careful testing.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

"KB" == Kyle Boatright writes:

KB "Jay Honeck" wrote in message
KB newsdtOf.836777$xm3.407625@attbi_s21...
There's a California fellow over on the Cherokee 235/236 user's
group who is using ethanol-laced mogas in his Cherokee 235,
exclusively, and without difficulty.

He admits that he *has* ruined his fiberglass tip tanks -- at
something like $3500 each -- but this has not deterred him from
simply shutting them off and using the aluminum main tanks.

He has ruined his tip tanks at a loss of $7000 but is using mogas
"without difficulty". Right. That guy is every bit as stupid and
confused as the moron who blundered into the D.C. ADIZ a few months
ago, and is as likely to give GA an equally bad name.

Unlike some on this newsgroup, Jay, I'm not quick to admit in public to
busting the FARs. Especially since I use my FAA wallpaper to accumulate a
few AMUs from time to time.

Having said that, I have this friend named Ernie ... and before Ernie knew
that California gasoline contained alcohol he flew his elderly 182 for a
couple of years with no apparent difficulties. However, when Ernie found
out that California fuel contained about 5% ethanol, he considered that the
rubber bladder fuel tanks and the neoprene carb needle probably wouldn't be
overjoyed sitting all winter in an ethanol bath and hasn't used it since.

Capiche?

Jim
CFI A&G, A&P/IA and planning on staying that way for a while.



"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
newsdtOf.836777$xm3.407625@attbi_s21...


Jim Weir, you out there? Have you done any barn yard experimenting with
ethanol in your 182?

Unlike some on this newsgroup, Jay, I'm not quick to admit in public to
busting the FARs. Especially since I use my FAA wallpaper to accumulate a
few AMUs from time to time.

Gotcha.

However, could you not take your 182 into the "Experimental" category, and
experiment to your heart's content? True, the resale value of your 182
would plummet to near zero, but (a) you'd be saving fifty bucks every time
you filled the tanks, (b) you aren't ever planning to sell the plane,
anyway, and (c) you'd be doing everyone a great public service.

What's a few bucks, when in exchange you can get that warm, fuzzy feeling
inside from helping your fellow pilots?

:-)

It sure would be good to know -- from a knowledgeable source -- that the
stuff works safely in airplanes. I'm sick of hearing "it can't be done"
from our AOPA and EAA reps, when clearly that's a load of B.S.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I understood that it took no less than Barry Goldwater's direct (and
probably firey) intervention to get the original autofuel STCs moving
after they were pretty much bottled up in the FAA underbrush. Who can
we find on our side now to make such a demand?

The ~5% reduced heat output and power reduction of gasahol will make
recertification messy at least, even if seal compatibilities are
solved. Maybe a simple reduction in gross weight?

There are better ways of testing this than just putting
ethanol/gasoline in random tanks and "see what happens". That is what
STC's are for. They test the fuel and see if it is ok for that plane.
If your STC says no ethanol, you can't burn ethanol.