Backcountry Pilot • More ethanol discussion

More ethanol discussion

Nothing happens without it. Discuss fuel locations, quality, alternatives, and anything else related to this critical resource.
Post a reply
118 posts • Page 4 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:38 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

Ethanol's energy content was not found to be a direct predictor of fuel economy.


http://www.motortrend.com/features/news ... index.html
180Marty offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:59 am
Location: Paullina IA
top
Fri Apr 09, 2010 7:20 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

lancef53 wrote: QMDV--I am not sure what the subsidy is.

I am forced to buy it. I have no choice. In a free market, when there is demand, sombody will step in to satisfy that demand. With ethanole, the government is creating a demand that would not normally be there by forcing me to buy it. The govenment may not be handing you a check to produce it but they are making me hand you the check everytime I fill up. If you cannot recognize that it is a subsidy, indirectly, I give up.

Why have you defended your industry by comparing it to a SSI. That is like saying to your wife that you beat twice a week that I am not as bad as the guy next doore that beats his wife four times a week.

Tim
qmdv offline
User avatar
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Payette
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... I5tqEOk0rc
Aircraft: Cessna 182
top
Sat Apr 10, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

The engine in my plane is a two stroke and I mix the fuel before putting it in the tanks. I wonder if the oil in the gas will help keep my fiberglass tanks from deteriorating.
AvidFlyer offline
User avatar
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:22 pm
Location: Fairfield
Experimental Avid Flyer STOL 582 Rotax
top
Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:02 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

QMDV, you asked me what the subsidy was--I said I didn't know what it was. I thought you were referring to a dollar amount. I never once said that I didn't believe there was a subsidy. There are thousand of subsidies and earmarks in todays government, and they all affect you and I and the taxes we pay. Most of them are not as visible as the renewable fuel mandate, so they are easier to forget about.

You are complaining that you cannot buy gas without ethanol. I am complaining because I am forced to contribute to Social Security. You are convinced that you get nothing from ethanol, and I am convinced that I am going to get nothing from Social security. How this relates beating a wife, I have no clue. If you can't figure out my comparison of two different people being forced to buy into something they don't believe in, I give up.

I don't have any idea how old you are, but if you are in your 30's like me, I have a hard time believing that you are planning on retiring on just your social security that the government plans on managing for the next 30 years.

Maybe we could figure out a way for you to opt out of ethanol, and I could opt out of SS.
lancef53 offline
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:12 pm
Location: Portland, ND
top
Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:18 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

I will be 65 in July. I have paid into SSI all my life. I am getting somthing but will never get what I have paid in. This thread was supposed to be about ethanol and how it effects flying. It is not about wife beating or social security.

Complaning about the other ills of our govenment (like the Corn Husker Kickback) is not a good defence for the ethanol rip off. At risk of getting this into HOT AIR, I will just say that I seem to notice a few more freedoms have vanished and then hear sombody say it is for the common good.

You can have the last word.

Tim
qmdv offline
User avatar
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Payette
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... I5tqEOk0rc
Aircraft: Cessna 182
top
Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:44 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

If you want to hear about how it effects my flying, read my first post. I posted information on how ethanol was running in my airplane, and you started taking shots about subsidising me.

I ran a 50% mix a couple of days ago, and the plane ran great. The EGT increased about 150 degrees from straight 100LL. The fuel flow increased just over a gallon per hour to match the EGT.

Here is a quick video of it running on 30%

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7Hckl3t4Y
lancef53 offline
Posts: 402
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:12 pm
Location: Portland, ND
top
Sun Apr 11, 2010 5:51 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

Here is a quick video of it running on 30%


I love it. :D And to think, anybody could make that fuel in the back yard.
180Marty offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:59 am
Location: Paullina IA
top
Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:39 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

These ethanol topics are worse than arguing politics, doesn't go anywhere.
Everyone should have a choice as to which fuel they want to buy, but we as a country are now deciding what is best for people to buy. It may be ethanol or health insurance or something else, but we the people have made the rules, these are not laws of nature.

You guys burning mogas, and not being chemists, have no doubt burned ethanol through your planes engines and don't even know it. Especially if your in a State that mandates ethanol. I burn 100LL in the airplane, diesel in our diesel engines, and 10% ethanol in everything else, when I can get it.

I have Blue Flint Ethanol in sight from our farm yard and can't always get it because of the short supply. Probably because its forced on those of you who don't want it. Funny Country we live in.

As far as the ethanol subsidy, I don't believe anything should be subsidised. If it can't stand on its own, let it go, whether its ethanol, food, insurance, cars, agriculture, or whatever else.

So with that said, we are increasing our corn acres this year because corn has been pretty profitable compared to other crops that we can grow. Plus the ethanol plant nearby is a good market for us. Since I have to look at the thing, I might as well feed it.

Here is a quick video of it running on 30%



Nice video Lance. Is that your strip or somewhere else?

Bill
Flat Country Pilot offline
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:40 am
Location: North Dakota
Flat Country Pilot
Farm Field PVT
54 170B
top
Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

Avid, I cannot get any scientific data to answer whether or not oil premix would assist in preserving the tanks, but I'd think logically that the coating would be thin and not effective for long. While I was looking into this, I was given the advice that the occasional to moderate use would likely not be troublesome, the long term storage would have more potential for damage.

For what that's worth. (nuthin' I assure you)
I will be pretty anal, with composite tanks inside composite wings...

KB
tejasflyer offline
User avatar
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 12:19 pm
Location: College Station, Texas
Fly nice, what comes around goes around!
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:15 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

A few months ago I came across a 2008 Ducati S2R 1000 motorcycle in pristine condition - I gave it a thorough once over and nearly bought it on the spot. In a rare display of restraint I decided to head home and do some due diligence on the interwebby. Found the appropriate forums and read the background on the model. The only real gotcha I found was that the fuel tanks are composite and an increasing number of owners ( who, they came to discover, were all using ethanol blended fuel) were reporting swelling and distortion of the tank. Armed with the knowledge of what to look for I headed back to the dealer. Sure as shxt, this one was already showing the signs of susceptibility to the ethanol. It was still under warranty, so I could have bought it and gotten the tank replaced - but Ducati would simply hand out another composite tank so it would only be a matter of time before I'd need another one. I was torn, such an beautiful bike, really an amazing ride, but the last thing I needed was yet another machine that I'd have to run on a less than ideal fuel. Thanks ethanol racket. :evil:
Vick offline
User avatar
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: Grass Valley, CA
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... WUk8CX06AP
Solum Volamus
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 3:51 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

You would think Dukati would manufacture products that are adapted to all fuels, not just those the US purchases from foreign countries. Steve
steve offline
User avatar
Posts: 822
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:03 am
Location: Dryden, North/West Ontario
Aircraft: 1980 Cessna 185F
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:27 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

With this discussion about fiberglass/composite fuel tanks. Remember Monarch tanks for Cessna 180,182, and 185's. They were called composite, I think, and were impervious to all fuels. Were they that exotic? They're not made anymore,but I think that is due to lack of sales. I have a friend in VA with a 182 with Monarchs and he is happy.
180Marty offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:59 am
Location: Paullina IA
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:49 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

Just found a 1995 issue of Cessna Owner I used to subscribe to. Yes, the ad for Monarch Air and Development says impervious to ALL fuels. They made tanks for 180 to 210. Bill Barton was the maker and must have been pretty smart to see where the future was going with fuel when he made something for ALL fuel. I guess it is a fact that sometimes people that are too far ahead of the rest of the herd, don't always succeed.

P.S. Here is some interesting reading about Bill Barton and hassles with the FAA back in the 90's. Scroll down about a third of the page to read about him. I think Bill is deceased now.
http://www.avweb.com/news/atis/184308-1.html
180Marty offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2313
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:59 am
Location: Paullina IA
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:06 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

This just in-- the government has mandated that all donuts sold in the US will be jelly-filled. These jelly-filled donuts will replace chocolate donuts, which are being phased out due to having to buy cocoa (from which chocolate is made) from hostile foreign countries. Chocolate donut fans are out of luck. No plain donuts will be available either. If you don't like jelly or are prohibited from eating jelly-- too bad. Long time eaters of jelly-filled donuts (who may or may not be involved with the fruit or jelly industries) claim complete satisfaction. Fruit growers & jelly makers state that they will NOT recieve any state or federal subsidies. But don't worry-- jelly prices will not be increased.
Seems fair to me.
hotrod180 offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 10534
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:47 pm
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Cessna Skywagon -- accept no substitute!
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:25 am

Re: More ethanol discussion

hotrod150 wrote:This just in-- the government has mandated that all donuts sold in the US will be jelly-filled. These jelly-filled donuts will replace chocolate donuts, which are being phased out due to having to buy cocoa (from which chocolate is made) from hostile foreign countries. Chocolate donut fans are out of luck. No plain donuts will be available either. If you don't like jelly or are prohibited from eating jelly-- too bad. Long time eaters of jelly-filled donuts (who may or may not be involved with the fruit or jelly industries) claim complete satisfaction. Fruit growers & jelly makers state that they will NOT recieve any state or federal subsidies. But don't worry-- jelly prices will not be increased.
Seems fair to me.


Ah Crap. I did hear though that there is a place in the Bay Area (pelosi didtrict) that has chocolate. Seems that a friend of a friend of Pelosi is big in the importer of cocoa and is in that district. Who would have guessed

And this is a no shitter: in California they changed the building code to require all new houses (after Jan 1, 2011 to have fire sprinklers installed in them. Quess who is a fire sprinkler contractor in Kalifornia, yep it is QMDV. Now I will be subsidised and will have endless posts about how great they are. =D> =D> =D>

Tim
qmdv offline
User avatar
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Payette
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... I5tqEOk0rc
Aircraft: Cessna 182
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:16 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

You guys burning mogas, and not being chemists, have no doubt burned ethanol through your planes engines and don't even know it.


I'm not a chemist, but I am just barely smart enough to fill an olive jar with gasoline and a dash of water. First time I saw more water than I started with, I went elsewhere for fuel. It's illegal and (I've been told) dangerous to put that crap in my airplane. i fly my kids, and won't take that chance.
RDUStinson offline
User avatar
Posts: 268
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:37 pm
Location: Raleigh, North Carolina
108-3
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 1:39 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

Let's keep this out of Hot Air so that it remains searchable, as there's some good info in this thread. Thanks.
Zzz offline
Janitorial Staff
User avatar
Posts: 2854
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: northern
Aircraft: Swiveling desk chair
Half a century spent proving “it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 7:54 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

RDUStinson » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:16 am

You guys burning mogas, and not being chemists, have no doubt burned ethanol through your planes engines and don't even know it.

I'm not a chemist, but I am just barely smart enough to fill an olive jar with gasoline and a dash of water. First time I saw more water than I started with, I went elsewhere for fuel. It's illegal and (I've been told) dangerous to put that crap in my airplane. i fly my kids, and won't take that chance.


I'm not trying to pick a fight, and not saying that you don't know what you are doing. But your little water jar test doesn't guarantee, or prove that your gas is ethanol free. And therefore you have more than likely already put it through your plane and had no Ill effects.

I'm not suggesting you go put ethanol in your plane, but I wouldn't have so much confidence in a water jar test. If you get the chance or opportunity to tour an ethanol plant, I assure you their lab is much more complicated than a water jar. :roll:

i fly my kids, and won't take that chance.


Then you would burn 100LL instead of mogas. And if the 100LL is transported in the same truck as mogas, no guarantee that its ethanol free.

by 1SeventyZ » Mon Apr 12, 2010 12:39 pm

Let's keep this out of Hot Air so that it remains searchable, as there's some good info in this thread. Thanks.



I'm not trying to stir the pot, I just think pilots should be more realistic about fuel. If anyones in doubt about fuel quality, burn 100LL from a reliable souce.
Flat Country Pilot offline
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:40 am
Location: North Dakota
Flat Country Pilot
Farm Field PVT
54 170B
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:30 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

Flat Country Pilot wrote: your little water jar test doesn't guarantee, or prove that your gas is ethanol free.


Neither the Petersen nor the EAA mogas STCs are valid for mogas with ethanol content. When you buy the Petersen STC they offer you an "ethanol testing kit" which is little more than a calibrated tube and instructions on how to do the water test. They deem the "little water jar test" sufficient to determine that the gas is ethanol free - if there are trace amounts of ethanol, as you contend there likely are, it must be diluted to the point that the undesirable effects of ethanol are mitigated. If the water testing procedure were inadequate for the task I doubt the STC holder would be endorsing it as the standard for testing.

Flat Country Pilot wrote: Then you would burn 100LL instead of mogas.


Can you elaborate on this contention? He's running a Franklin engine that was certificated to run on no-lead gas, so the normal wisdom of running some 100LL through a low compression engine for the benefit of the valves does not apply. I ran mogas through my Franklin for a few years when I had it and never once had any issue with the quality of the gas.

** Contention - a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument
Last edited by Vick on Thu Apr 15, 2010 8:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Vick offline
User avatar
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: Grass Valley, CA
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... WUk8CX06AP
Solum Volamus
top
Mon Apr 12, 2010 10:01 pm

Re: More ethanol discussion

Sorry for helping this towards hot air :evil:
It is interesting to here from those who benefit from gov. hand outs. It's all about money in your pockets and to hell with your neighbor.
A fellow pilot and I were talking today about the money being spent at our local airport, it is huge!
And while it is a benefit to us locals, it is not necessary and just goes to show how our gov. has no idea how to spend our money wisely.
Terry offline
User avatar
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:11 pm
Location: Willamette Valley
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 4GzPHI6t1d
top

DISPLAY OPTIONS

PreviousNext
Post a reply
118 posts • Page 4 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Return to Fuel

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base