View Full Version : Safety Implications of Biofuels in Aviation
EASA issues the Final Report of the Safety Implications of Biofuels in Aviation (SIoBiA)
europa.eu/safety-and-research/research-projects/docs/miscellaneous/Final_Report_EASA.2008-6-light.pdf
Rod1
Russell Gulch
16th Sep 2010, 22:39
Is that a statement, a question, or what? I use biofuel in my aircraft all the time.
Without downloading your questionable download, what's the purpose of your post? Can you at least quote something?
Russ
Captain Smithy
17th Sep 2010, 06:34
Can you recheck that link Rod, as that one doesn't seem to work?
Cheers
Apologies, it was late
Try this one;
EASA - Research projects - Miscellaneous (http://easa.europa.eu/safety-and-research/research-projects/miscellaneous.php#2008op06)
Rod1
Mariner9
17th Sep 2010, 08:52
Without downloading your questionable download, what's the purpose of your post? Can you at least quote something
Russell, as you apparently fly using biofuels, I would have thought Rod's link would be extremely interesting to you. Why should Rod1 be expected to quote sections for your benefit?
Captain Smithy
17th Sep 2010, 09:42
Be warned, it's heavy reading. :uhoh:
wsmempson
17th Sep 2010, 09:50
Well, I've just read that report and, whilst the sheer volume of data produced is enormously impressive, I struggle to extract any actual conclusions beyond those that we already know; what I have drawn from this report is more or less as below:
Mogas can contain varying quantities of bio-derived ethanol and water.
Modern light-sport aircraft with rotaxs seem to run better on mogas than avgas, some older lower compression continental and lycoming engines can run on mogas (and do in the USA - there is a list of stc'ed engines) and the higher performance injected engines can't.
The modern generation of aircraft have fuel systems made of materials which tolerate mogas and require little or no modification, whereas some old pipers and cessnas have materials in their fuel systems which won't agree with mogas, and will require substantial modification.
I'm sure there is lots more of interest in the report, but that seems to be the gist of it....
aviate1138
18th Sep 2010, 11:49
IMHO Biofuels [Ethanol] are totally unnecessary under any circumstance. They are extremely expensive to make [food producing land has to be converted or virgin soil used] lots of water used in its production and it is less powerful and more corrosive [to most current aircraft engine pipes etc] than Avgas or Mogas less biofuel additions. And the biofuel percentage gets raised by the next Green Garbage Government/EU Directive.
Many biofuel crops, such as corn, are grown with the help of fossil fuels in the form of fertilisers, pesticides and the petrol for farm equipment.
One estimate is that corn needs 30 per cent more energy than the finished fuel it produces!
Another problem is the land required to produce it. One estimate is that the grain needed to fill the petrol tank of a 4X4 with ethanol is sufficient to feed a person for a year.
It also has an affinity for water - not really a good idea.
I'm all for Carbon Contrafibularities. Thanks to Blackadder.
If I were in charge I would ban its production. And no CO2 taxes of any kind, no Carbon Offset Trading, nothing.