If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
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 |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
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. |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
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 |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
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 |
#198
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
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. |
#199
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
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... |
#200
|
|||
|
|||
Gasohol
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Gasohol | Blueskies | Piloting | 240 | July 6th 07 12:42 AM |
How scary is gasohol? | Charles Talleyrand | Owning | 27 | March 1st 04 11:39 AM |