Pawnees powered by Motor fuel .

Bill Daniels wrote:

snip

3. No MOGAS STC allows use of fuel containing ethanol - it does bad things
to aircraft fuel systems. Many, if not most, problems related to using
MOGAS have been traced to ethanol in the fuel.

4. There is an increasing number of reports of MOGAS containing ethanol sold
at airports for use in airplanes.

5. There is suspicion that ethanol is being added to gasoline earlier and
earlier in the distribution channel so that even if you have a deal with the
local petroleum distributor to deliver MOGAS without ethanol, he may still
unknowingly do so. Best advice is to test each batch of fuel for ethanol
before using it.

6. Many states or localities mandate special automobile fuel blends to fight
air polution. STC's for MOGAS do not take this into account.
snip

The situation with alcohol in automotive gasoline is likely to get
worse. Current limits are a max of about 10% ethanol. Newer cars and
trucks have been designed to tolerate that (I'm not talking about E85
vehicles). Check it out in your owners manual. The manual probably
says don't use higher concentrations than E10. Older vehicles and power
equipment, well they were not designed to tolerate any significant
amount alcohol. What will/is happening to these vehicles and equipment
is any body's guess. Right now it seems to be one big experiment.
Here's the really bad part. There are political (not technical) forces
in play that would like to see E20 (that's 20% ethanol and 80% gasoline)
in all US auto gasoline. It is likely that there are certain farming
states and agricultural companies that are lobbying hard for E20. What
effect this will have on the existing fleet of vehicles and power
equipment no one really knows with precision. All that is known is they
were not designed for E20.

Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported fossil is a
good thing. But there are some negatives associated with ethanol
production and use as mogas. It likely is not the magic bullet that
some believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is strongly debated.
One *will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol content. Just
ask someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a person.

Here is an Aussie study that many in the US are watching closely:

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosp...eet/index.html

--

Regards,

-Doug

Doug Hoffman wrote:
snip

Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported fossil is a
good thing. But there are some negatives associated with ethanol
production and use as mogas. It likely is not the magic bullet that
some believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is strongly debated. One
*will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol content. Just ask
someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a person.

Like with diesel, people will learn to calculate what matters to them,
whether that is $/mile CO2/mile, NOx/mile, or value of their ADM
stock/mile ;-)
What I find specious is that corn ethanol has been sold as a "greener"
alternative to gasoline, when the data does not support much if any net
improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline. It can improve US
energy independence, which may be more important in the short/medium
term. The coal mines can not be good for ridge soaring in the South
East though. :-(


Shawn

"Shawn" wrote in message
...
Doug Hoffman wrote:
snip

Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported fossil is a
good thing. But there are some negatives associated with ethanol
production and use as mogas. It likely is not the magic bullet that some
believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is strongly debated. One
*will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol content. Just ask
someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a person.

Like with diesel, people will learn to calculate what matters to them,
whether that is $/mile CO2/mile, NOx/mile, or value of their ADM
stock/mile ;-)
What I find specious is that corn ethanol has been sold as a "greener"
alternative to gasoline, when the data does not support much if any net
improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline. It can improve US
energy independence, which may be more important in the short/medium term.
The coal mines can not be good for ridge soaring in the South East though.
:-(



Even if ethanol were not net-negative energy, it's still a lousy fuel since
it's already partially oxidized. If you want a fuel produced by microbes
(Bug Juice?) why not teach the little critters to produce something useful
like iso-octane or butanol? Either of those hydrocarbons can be blended up
to ~90% with gasoline without significantly changing the energy content,
octane, reid vapor pressure or required fuel/air mixtures.

Bill Daniels

Time for a hare-brained idea.

Get an above-ground, transparent tank. Before every
delivery, put in 10 gallons of water. Be sure it mixes
well with fuel during the delivery. Let sit overnight,
then drain the water. ;-)




At 22:13 21 January 2008, Shawn wrote:
Doug Hoffman wrote:
snip

Certainly the more alcohol we can use instead of imported
fossil is a
good thing. But there are some negatives associated
with ethanol
production and use as mogas. It likely is not the
magic bullet that
some believed. The effect of E20 on clean air is
strongly debated. One
*will* get fewer miles per gallon with higher ethanol
content. Just ask
someone who is burning E85, if you can find such a
person.

Like with diesel, people will learn to calculate what
matters to them,
whether that is $/mile CO2/mile, NOx/mile, or value
of their ADM
stock/mile ;-)
What I find specious is that corn ethanol has been
sold as a 'greener'
alternative to gasoline, when the data does not support
much if any net
improvement in CO2 emissions relative to gasoline.
It can improve US
energy independence, which may be more important in
the short/medium
term. The coal mines can not be good for ridge soaring
in the South
East though. :-(


Shawn

Nyal Williams wrote:
Time for a hare-brained idea.

Get an above-ground, transparent tank. Before every
delivery, put in 10 gallons of water. Be sure it mixes
well with fuel during the delivery. Let sit overnight,
then drain the water. ;-)

Save for the party after flying :-0

On Jan 20, 11:01*am, " wrote:
Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or experience in
converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel. Any comments or
advice would be gratefully accepted .

Aside from all the other valuable technical expertise which has
been shared,

check your insurance policy. You may find that, FARs and STCs
notwithstanding, use of MOGAS may be prohibited by your coverage.

Best wishes,
Cindy B

"CindyB" wrote in message
...
On Jan 20, 11:01 am, " wrote:
Our club in Indiana is looking for advice and / or experience in
converting Pawnee Tow planes to run on motor fuel. Any comments or
advice would be gratefully accepted .

Aside from all the other valuable technical expertise which has
been shared,

check your insurance policy. You may find that, FARs and STCs
notwithstanding, use of MOGAS may be prohibited by your coverage.

Best wishes,
Cindy B

So, MOGAS is not really practical, safe or insurable and no other substitute
for 100LL is currently available or likely to be in the foreseeable future.

100LL requires TEL which is only made by one company in India. This
company's product is not primarily for use in airplane fuel but for those
few countries that still allow leaded automobile fuel - most of whose names
end in "stan". AVGAS uses only a tiny fraction of their production.
Globally, there seems to have been an accelerating move to eliminate TEL
from motor fuels. The latest to ban TEL is Uganda. The future looks grim
for the worlds sole TEL producer.

In the US and Canada there was a huge protest from auto racing organizations
who said they needed TEL for their high octane racing fuels. They lost
because the courts said that auto racing was a "hobby" whose need for TEL
did not offset the far greater risk to public health.

There is now a move afoot within the US EPA to characterize those remaining
non-turbine aircraft as "antique and hobby in nature". The environmental
lobby is submitting petitions claiming that the lead exemption for aviation
gasoline "has lasted long enough".

We need to be thinking of some alternatives.

Bill Daniels

Doug Hoffman wrote:

Older vehicles and power equipment, well they were not designed to
tolerate any significant amount of alcohol.

When I were a youth a lot of my friends drove modded cars and
motorbikes, with some burning a bit of methanol - more for the exciting
smell than the raw power. We knew that a few percent of methanol would
lower the head temperature a bit and (possibly) need a bigger jet in the
carb, but there were no bad effects on the engine. This worked for 5%
and would probably have been OK for 10%. My guess as a lapsed chemist is
that, as methanol and ethanol are chemically very similar, the above
comments would also apply to ethanol.

I don't know what E10 it might do to the fuel pumps, O-rings, fuel lines
etc. in an older vehicle but I'm pretty certain it would not harm an
older engine.

What will/is happening to these vehicles and equipment
is any body's guess.

If you think you might need to burn E10 in an older machine or vehicle
don't just take my advice, which is worth exactly what it cost you. Go
and ask your local track or drag racing fiend: he'll either quote
chapter and verse or will know a man who does.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

Regrettably the matter is a little more complicated.

South Africa has recently gone through the process of banning TEL and all of our
fuel is effectively somewhere around E85. Sasol produces a lot of our fuel from
coal, and Alcohol is a cheap bye-product.

So - does the addition of alcohol cause older vehicles problems? Our experience
has been: You can count on corrosion to older fuel injection systems, damage to
fuel pumps, rubber seals that don't, filters that suddenly clog with all the
gunge that the ethanol dissolved off the bottom of your tank - and a host of
other problems mostly related to the water that ethanol invariably introduces.

Far more serious in the real oldies is that the lead acts as a lubricant for
valve guides and seats. So you will, in some engines (those with cast iron valve
seats), get rapid valve seat recession leading to poor sealing, leading to valve
burning and blow back and all sorts of expensive problems. You may also get
elevated temperatures in the valve guides leading to seizure and catastrophic
failure , although this appears to be rare.

And yes the energy density is lower, so the fuel consumption deteriorates
slightly. Most vehicles built in the last ten years to fifteen or so for the
world market are resistant to alcohol and have no problems.

Smells better than lead fuel, and certainly causes less visible pollution.

To cater for the substantial fleet of cars requiring it there is a "Lead
replacement Petrol" available here (and in the UK) - I believe the alcohol does
the octane boosting part of what TEL used to do, and they add other metals
(Manganese,sodium, potassium or phosphorus - lovely stuff) for the lubrication
part. This can cause problems with black conductive stuff plating out on certain
types of spark plug... The fun never ends.

Martin Gregorie wrote:
Doug Hoffman wrote:

Older vehicles and power equipment, well they were not designed to
tolerate any significant amount of alcohol.

When I were a youth a lot of my friends drove modded cars and
motorbikes, with some burning a bit of methanol - more for the exciting
smell than the raw power. We knew that a few percent of methanol would
lower the head temperature a bit and (possibly) need a bigger jet in the
carb, but there were no bad effects on the engine. This worked for 5%
and would probably have been OK for 10%. My guess as a lapsed chemist is
that, as methanol and ethanol are chemically very similar, the above
comments would also apply to ethanol.

I don't know what E10 it might do to the fuel pumps, O-rings, fuel lines
etc. in an older vehicle but I'm pretty certain it would not harm an
older engine.

What will/is happening to these vehicles and equipment
is any body's guess.

If you think you might need to burn E10 in an older machine or vehicle
don't just take my advice, which is worth exactly what it cost you. Go
and ask your local track or drag racing fiend: he'll either quote
chapter and verse or will know a man who does.

Bruce wrote:
Regrettably the matter is a little more complicated.

South Africa has recently gone through the process of banning TEL and
all of our fuel is effectively somewhere around E85. Sasol produces a
lot of our fuel from coal, and Alcohol is a cheap bye-product.

So - does the addition of alcohol cause older vehicles problems? Our
experience has been: You can count on corrosion to older fuel injection
systems, damage to fuel pumps, rubber seals that don't, filters that
suddenly clog with all the gunge that the ethanol dissolved off the
bottom of your tank - and a host of other problems mostly related to the
water that ethanol invariably introduces.

Yep. The reason is the equipment was designed to run on 100% gasoline.
Start adding alcohol, known to be corrosive to certain metals and to
destroy old make gaskets and seals, and bad things happen. All fuel
system components must be upgraded to survive, at a minimum.


snip

And yes the energy density is lower, so the fuel consumption
deteriorates slightly.

Not slightly. E85 has just 65% of the energy content of gasoline. So
you can only drive 2/3 as far on a gallon.


Most vehicles built in the last ten years to
fifteen or so for the world market are resistant to alcohol and have no
problems.

I am highly skeptical that "most vehicles built in the last 10-15 years"
can use E85 without serious side effects(E10, no problem. They were
designed to handle E10. E20? I'll let you experiment with E20 in your
new $40,000 car. Let me know how it goes.). This includes engine
mechanical damage on E85. At least for the vehicles we get in the US.
First, the closed loop fuel delivery system of a non-E85 design will not
have the range of authority to add enough fuel. A lean miss and very
ragged running/loss of power are likely. You could put a hole in the
piston or ruin the catalytic converter. Chances are the check engine
light will come on. Second, the metal corrosive and gasket
incompatibilities are still there, *unless* the vehicle has been
specifically $upgraded$ to tolerate such a high concentration of
ethanol. There is even a special engine oil specified by the auto
manufacturers for use in their E85-compatible vehicles. The fuel and
the engine (and I include the fuel tank, pump, lines and all fuel system
components when I say the engine) are a closely matched pair. Mess with
that and one is inviting trouble.

Read the owner's manual. Call your dealer. Write to your vehicle's
manufacturer. You needn't take my word for it.

Or perhaps you get a very different type of vehicle in South Africa than
we do in the US.

--

Regards,

-Doug