Ethanol shouldn't be in mogas.

[aviate1138]

This video is rather slow and yet the guy is working with ethanol fuelled petrol engines that lay unused for a few weeks and it has some interesting points of information about the ethanol content.

YouTube - Talking About The Damage That Ethanol In Gasoline Does To Small Engines (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIKvIXQO5-0)

Check your fuel tubing would be my advice.......

PS Permitted ethanol content in petrol to rise from 5% to 10% in 2013 - EU regs

[Croqueteer]

:ok:Much more understandable than the usual high-tech gabble.

[vee-tail-1]

Love this guy.. he tells it as it is.
Don't even think of putting mogas into an old aeroplane.

[Pilot DAR]

Don't even think of putting mogas into an old aeroplane

I've though about it, and done it happily for more than 3000 hours of flying, in a dozen different aircraft, over the last 25 years. For some engines, it's acutally better for preventing problems (O-200, for example).

Should I be thinking more about putting Mogas into an old airplane? Or can I be content that my excellent experience thus far is adequate?

[vee-tail-1]

Hi Pilot DAR

Many (but not all) engines can use unleaded mogas with no problems. But ethanol might be different for the same reasons as shown in the video.
But the main problem with mogas in old aeroplanes is the fuel systems. Some grades of mogas will literally melt the materials used.

Did you change fuel pipes, tanks, seals, carb diaphagms, etc?
Presumably that cost a lot of money for parts and certification.

[Pilot DAR]

Did you change fuel pipes, tanks, seals, carb diaphagms, etc?
Presumably that cost a lot of money for parts and certification.

Factory original C-150M. I changed the "O" rings in the fuel sump drains and primer plunger, not because they were ruined, but just to be sure. Cost very modest. A assured that there was a metal float in the carb, rather than a foam one, and there was, no additonal cost to the equired carb overhaul. Other than that no changes. I do avoid Mogas containing ethanol, though when ethanol becomes unaviodable, will undertake the approval of my 150 to allow a certain percentage of it.

Ethanol is an appropriate fuel for aircraft, if managed properly, and the aircraft is suitably maintained. Many years ago I was one of four pilots who flew a few hundred hours on a research project, in a C-150 which ran on anything from pure ethanol, through any desired mixture of Mogas. The aircraft fuel system was modified somewhat, but not dramatically. It was mostly to provide the greater fuel flow. The tanks and carb were original, and as many fuel system components as possible were left as is. Some additional elements were added. As long as the aircraft was properly operated and maintained, the only differences were predictably greater fuel consumption on high percentage ethanol, and when you arrived at your desintation, you smelled like you'd been on a three day bender.

On the other hand, 100LL can really do a lot of damage to an O-200, not to mention the environment. That's why I am a Mogas proponent...

[172driver]

The man is absolutely correct. A few years ago I bought an old Toyota Landcruiser that had previously been operated in an agricultural environment - and run on 'Biodiesel'. After a while I had to replace ALL the tubes and hoses of the entire fuel system. According to my mechanic, the reasons for this were twofold:
1) the Ethanol (some of the fuel lines in my car looked exactly like the ones in this video - I was surprised than ANY fuel reached the engine!)
2) the fact that I was driving it using regular diesel

Apparently the Ethanol ate away at the hoses, but the subsequent switch to 'normal' fuel provoked an even worse reaction.

I would be VERY wary of putting this stuff into an airplane :eek:

[bartonflyer]

Interesting link here re the Flight Design CTLS with Rotax engine, basically limiting use of Mogas to 5% ethanol

http://flightdesign.com/files/Service%20Notification/SN-ASTM-CT_-06-en.pdf

[hhobbit]

Hi Bartonflier
Contrary to FD ASTM SN document, Rotax permit 10% Alcohol
ref: SI-912-016 Rotax Selection of Operating Fluids d04432
dated: April 8th 2009

BTW if you replaced the inline fuel filter with the newer metal version, did you notice how difficult it was to push the fuel pipe over the nipple which is 1mm larger in diameter than the original?

I did not bother to check the BCAR S version of that SN.

If I was concerned about phase separation I would drain off from the gascolator and recycle into the wing tanks; I guess a few litres maybe 10 would suffice, anyone know for sure?

evidence of jelly in gascolator ( about 1-2 peas volume):

Picasa Web Albums - John - 2010 0527 G-C... (http://picasaweb.google.com/jm2833530/20100527GCETH200HourService#5474863316071974434)

[chevvron]

I seem to remember an article in 'Hot Rod' magazine in the '80s saying that in the US, lead free 'gasoline' was allowed to contain up to 10% ethanol in order to boost octane ratings after the removal of TEL. Mind you they did have an unusual way of giving octane readings using what they called 'pump octane number' which as I recall was the average of research octane (RON which is what we in the UK use) and motor octane number (MON) which is invariably numerically lower than RON. I also saw an article in 'Performance Bike' magazine comparing octane ratings, and 100LL came up with a MON of about 92.

[bartonflyer]

Cheers hhobbit

I don't actually have a Rotax based A/C (as yet!), but was browsing through the Flight Design website when I found the link.

Looked at your photo link is the CTSW yours?

I said "yet" as I'm contemplating forming a group around a CTLS, so if anyone reading this who is North West UK based, is interested please PM me

Cheers
Ian

Hi Bartonflier
Contrary to FD ASTM SN document, Rotax permit 10% Alcohol
ref: SI-912-016 Rotax Selection of Operating Fluids d04432
dated: April 8th 2009

BTW if you replaced the inline fuel filter with the newer metal version, did you notice how difficult it was to push the fuel pipe over the nipple which is 1mm larger in diameter than the original?

I did not bother to check the BCAR S version of that SN.

If I was concerned about phase separation I would drain off from the gascolator and recycle into the wing tanks; I guess a few litres maybe 10 would suffice, anyone know for sure?

evidence of jelly in gascolator ( about 1-2 peas volume):

Picasa Web Albums - John - 2010 0527 G-C... (http://picasaweb.google.com/jm2833530/20100527GCETH200HourService#5474863316071974434)

[Mariner9]

A few years ago I bought an old Toyota Landcruiser that had previously been operated in an agricultural environment - and run on 'Biodiesel'. After a while I had to replace ALL the tubes and hoses of the entire fuel system. According to my mechanic, the reasons for this were twofold:
1) the Ethanol (some of the fuel lines in my car looked exactly like the ones in this video - I was surprised than ANY fuel reached the engine!)
2) the fact that I was driving it using regular diesel

Apparently the Ethanol ate away at the hoses, but the subsequent switch to 'normal' fuel provoked an even worse reaction.

I would be VERY wary of putting this stuff into an airplane

You might like to tell your mechanic that there is no ethanol in biodiesel, FAME (very different) would be the culprit for that.

[Rod1]

“Don't even think of putting mogas into an old aeroplane.”

Most of the vintage fleet is in the LAA permit system and most are run on Mogas. We have a number of 1940’s aircraft at the strip and all are run on mogas. A very small number required some bits to be replaced with automotive seals but most just work and are fully approved.

If the % goes above 10% then this may change.

Rod1

[Johnm]

On the other hand, 100LL can really do a lot of damage to an O-200, not to mention the environment. That's why I am a Mogas proponent...

100LL is better than mogas for the environment. There no evidence that lead in petrol is a significant health issue (in either cars or aeroplanes). On the other hand unleaded mogas is carcinogenic and gives fewer mpg.

Bio-ethanol in petrol is nuts and takes us back to the 1950s and Cleveland Discol. Do you want to grow food or petrol the planet's too small to grow both!

[bartonflyer]

.......There no evidence that lead in petrol is a significant health issue (in either cars or aeroplanes). ......

mmm - not too sure I agree with you on that one Bulletin of the World Health Organization - The worldwide problem of lead in petrol (http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862002001000003&script=sci_arttext)

Bio-ethanol in petrol is nuts and takes us back to the 1950s and Cleveland Discol. Do you want to grow food or petrol the planet's too small to grow both!

But I am 100% with you there!

[chevvron]

I recall news some years ago that a south american country (probably Brazil) was building cars which ran on 100% bio-ethanol! They were producing the fuel themselves and thus intending to reduce imports of fossil fuels.

[Ultranomad]

A few years ago I bought an old Toyota Landcruiser that had previously been operated in an agricultural environment - and run on 'Biodiesel'. After a while I had to replace ALL the tubes and hoses of the entire fuel system. According to my mechanic, the reasons for this were twofold:
1) the Ethanol (some of the fuel lines in my car looked exactly like the ones in this video - I was surprised than ANY fuel reached the engine!)
2) the fact that I was driving it using regular diesel

With diesel fuel, it has to do with high-sulphur vs. low-sulphur fuel. Around 1993, when I lived in California and they legislated a prohibition of high-sulphur diesel fuel, fuel systems in diesel engines suddenly started seeping fuel from every junction in the high-pressure part. The remedy was either to change all the gaskets, or to add about 200 ml of methanol per tank of fuel. Methanol, just like tiophene and similar compounds in high-sulphur fuel, would cause the gaskets to swell, sealing the system again. Don't know about hoses - as far as I remember, there were none in the fuel systems of the two cars where I investigated this situation, it was all metal except the gaskets.

[Mickey Kaye]

Perhaps we should be designing, building or modifying aircraft so they are compatible with ethanol rather than complaining that the current fleet can't.

[Pilot DAR]

On the other hand unleaded mogas is carcinogenic and gives fewer mpg.



Actualy,a comparison of the total heat energy for Mogas as compared to 100LL has shown me in the past that Mogs has a very tiny bit more energy content that Avgas, which would equate to more MPG, though I do not claim to be an expert at this.

I also can't claim to be a health expert, but I have to believe that for all the effort in getting rid of all other unleaded gasoline for health reasons, 100LL would possess similarly undesireable characteristics. Otherwise, why would the US EPA be trying to ban it too?

I quite agree that growing fuel rather than food is a remarkably poor idea. Therefore that extends to the developement of aircraft specifically intended to operate on Ethanol. Presnet aircraft are modified with little additional cost to fly on Ethanol. I have first hand experience with an O-200 on ethanol, but am also aware of larger engines right up to a PT6 turbine. For those who wish to read more on the use of both Mogas and Ethanol in aircraft, I can refer you to an ASTM book entitled "Future Fuels for Genral Aviation". One of it's co-authors, with whom I spoke many times, was an engineer for Cessna, whose own personal C-150 suffered many troubles operating on Avgas, hence his being a strong proponent of Mogas use (though his employer at the time, remained simply silent on the subject). How many people whine about the cost of even maintaining out present fleet of aircraft? Will they support the cost to develope and certify whole new types by purchasing them brand new?

If aircraft development is to change to minimize fuel use, the fuel must get much more expensive first, to incite pilots to want more efficient aircraft - doing hte same on less gasoline. I am reminded of this, as I recall recently two different visitors to my home runway. One, by himself in his C 185, burning 15 GPH or so, and getting point to point at a fair clip, compared to two other friends who stopped by in a 65 HP Taylorcraft, probably burning 4 GPH. I had the feeling that my mighty 150 was comaritively wasteful, as I doubt it would out perform the T cart in any aspect, other than sheer numbers produced!

Gasoline is not yet enxpensive enough to seriously motivate people to seek out more efficient aircraft and cars. As long as I see the adverisments for 300 HP sedans, and the personal use of pick up trucks, and it somehow being necessary for our society (while I happily drive my 90 HP diesel VW to the same end desitinatio at a fraction of the cost), to get places with immense reserves of power, I just don't think people are seriously concerned about conserving fuel, or money, which they easily could! I fly my 150, and drive my VW, and don't even consider the cost of fuel. I fill up the 180 HP amphibian with 100LL and I sure do!

[Johnm]

mmm - not too sure I agree with you on that one Bulletin of the World Health Organization - The worldwide problem of lead in petrol


The science behind that is about as good as astrology. We've known since Roman times that ingestion of substantial quantities of lead is potentially lethal, which is why the poor devils in the Tetraethyl plant suffered so badly.

However ingestion of lead from the deposits from fuel is miniscule, most of my generation probably took in more from chewing the paint off our cots and drinking water fed through lead pipes as babies. That bulletin (and others like it) makes no attempt to remove other potential factors and variables from the equation and their results stand little statistical scrutiny. It's just an environmental crusade and like many others, probably does more harm than good overall.

Unleaded mogas coupled with CATS gives much poorer MPG than lean burn leaded. 100LL is slightly less energetic 'cos it needs not to cause vapour locks etc.


Sorry for thread drift:\

[Rod1]

“Perhaps we should be designing, building or modifying aircraft so they are compatible with ethanol rather than complaining that the current fleet can't.”

Firstly, many aircraft will work fine on mogas without any modification, and secondly many of the new bread of aircraft are designed to run on Mogas and will require extra maintenance if run on Avgas because they clog with lead.

There are 1000’s of aircraft in the UK running on Mogas, probably almost as many single engined flying machines run on it then run on Avgas.

Rod1

[astir 8]

Experience with the vehicle fleets in various countries where ethanol has been introduced into standard gasoline has indeed been that flexible components in older cars may react badly to the ethanol.

Another interesting factor which I don't think has been mentioned so far in this thread is that the ethanol can strip off deposits which have built up over the years on the walls of fuel tanks etc. Said deposits then make their way to filters and carb jets and bung up the system.

My personal opinion is that GA is going to have to (eventually) move with the times. Ethanol is here to stay and if older components can't handle it, they are going to have to change.

So are 1930's era engine designs too! (where's me tin hat!)

[Pilot DAR]

So are 1930's era engine designs too!

It's always exciting to think about new engine designs for aircraft, which embody all of the latest innovation, and efficiencies. What our industry lacks, however, is a line up of people eager to pay the costs for certification of a certification, by purchasing a totally new engine. It costs millions of dollars (a quarter million in government fees alone, in Canada) to type certify a new engine. An engine manuafacturer has to make a lot of sales to cover costs like that.

In a thread where many posters are seeking low cost flying, I'm wondering where the backing, and financial return is for an investment like this....

[Rod1]

Rotax did it with the 912.

Rod1

[aviate1138]

Astir said

"Ethanol is here to stay and if older components can't handle it, they are going to have to change."

Why is Ethanol "here to stay"?

Quote
"Protect Your Engines From Alcohol Fuel Damage!
Ethanol is an Alcohol Fuel...
Ethanol is an alcohol renewable fuel, made from corn or grains, which is used to oxygenate gasoline fuel at the pumps. See About Ethanol Fuels & Ethanol History
Ethanol is hygroscopic (will absorb water), and is an excellent solvent (dissolves materials/ fuel lines etc)."

It requires farmland [normally producing food] and lots of it. Another Green hysteria screwup!

[Rod1]

“Rotax failed to develop a "improved" engine of over 100 HP - they tried with their overhead cam V6, and it was abandoned.”

And there I was being so impressed with the 115hp 914, silly me…

The bigger engines got full approval but have not been put into production.

Rod1

[astir 8]

Couple of points re Aviate1138's comments

a) Crude oil certainly isn't renewable, so better start thinking of some alternatives!

b) Ethanol doesn't only come from corn (although lots in the USA does, as it has a protected market so that US maize farmers keep re-electing their finest politicians). Brazil is the world's main main ethanol producer and has the world's largest stock of flex-fuel vehicles running on anything from 100% ethanol to their version of pure gasoline which is currently 24% ethanol.

Brazil's ethanol comes from from sugar cane, which is a far more efficient converter of solar energy per hectare than corn and does not affect world food prices.

c) A lot of work is being done on ethanol production direct from cellulostic stock (i.e any old vegetation)

None of the alternatives are perfect yet but refer back to a) You can be as green or hysterical as you like, but oil isn't going to last for ever.:uhoh: