I think I have this figured out now.

Big Agriculture lobbies together with folks that think this will save the planet have conned Big Government into forcing Big Oil to add ethanol to our gasoline. Like a lot of laws that get passed, the majority don't want it but "BUT FOR COMMON GOOD" We get it shoved down our throats.

The winners are the Corn Growers and of course Tod and Margo that will drive their Volvo down to Starbucks then on the way home stop at the self serve pump and fill up with E-20 and feel so good about themselves.

Who would have thought that these two so opposite groups would be so mutually gleefull.

Tim

qmdv,
The following article shows that even oil companies will do something for the common good when pressured. As slow and painful as it is, maybe the flawed system will work after all and maybe there is more comfort to be found than the fact that we are all getting closer to the bone pile.

6/13/10
A guest opinion piece in the Washington Post said the oil industry's foray into alternative energy is a more significant investment than the U.S. government has made in the space, but still is nothing more than a fallback plan in case the oil industry is one day hit hard with climate change regulations.

The piece written by Deborah Gordon, a former chemical engineer with Chevron, and Daniel Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis, said the major oil companies have made significant investments in renewable energy.

ExxonMobil has committed $600 million to algae-based biofuel research and development, and BP pledged $500 million to biofuels researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois.

"But while these dollar amounts surpass what the U.S. government and other industries are spending on biofuels research, they represent a minuscule investment for the largest oil companies, which each generate at least $150 billion per year in revenue and $10 billion or more in profit," the column said.

The writers said ExxonMobil's algae investment amounts to "one-half of 1 percent of its petroleum capital and exploration expenditures over the past five years."

In contrast, Royal Dutch Shell invested in an $18 billion project to convert natural gas into liquid fuel.

All the while, however, the column said oil companies continue to push hard on developing new oil supplies.

"The industry's enthusiasm for new fuels is further dampened by the fact that it has more than $1 trillion sunk in oil wells, refineries, pipelines and service stations in the United States alone," the column said.

"If the major energy companies don't embrace alternative energy, where will the hundreds of billions of dollars come from to develop and launch renewable fuels? The venture capital community is investing heavily in biofuel technology, but those sums are still tiny compared with what's needed -- and compared with the resources available to oil companies."

(Washington Post opinion, June 13, 2010)

Looks like our begrudgingly spent tax dollars for biofuel research may just have primed the pump for corporate Oil funded research. Could it be we are getting a many fold return for our tax investment? For what ever the motives, Big Oil is also going greener with investment and who can be against that.

Because he knows ethanol won't survive if it isn't?

Too many people believe all the misinformation and won't use it.

Looks like Vick and Marty finally agree on something.

dirtstrip wrote: I read the Cessna SNL but I wonder if anyone else did. The reference of the letter strictly addresses "ethanol based fuel" such as AGE-85 fuel as a substitute for 100LL. AGE-85 is, as Cessna refers to it, an "ethanol based fuel". That should not be confused with petroleum based fuels such as E10, E20 or any other petroleum based fuel that contains its major fuel component as gasoline but uses ethanol as an octane enhancement. Cessna did not address those.....

I did note the reference to E85. E10 was conspicuous by it's absense. Cessna did not condemn E10, but on the other hand they did not say it's OK. The C150 TCDS and onwers manual both say no alcohol, as does the EAA cargas STC I have. If any of them come out & say E10's OK, I'll rethink my position.
I don't have a problem with people who want to using E10 (or whatever). I'd even burn it in my car. But I am against mandating E-whatever as I can't legally run it in my airplane, & so I want an ethanol-free 87-or-more octane unleaded gas available for that.
I find it ironic that such a fuss is being made (again) about needing an unleaded substitute for 100LL, when such a substitute already exists for most of us in the form of 91 octane unleaded cargas-- except for the ethanol issue.

Eric

As promised, I am posting a reply to my email that was sent concerning the AGE-85 and other ethanol based fuels referenced by Cessna's service news letter. I am still waiting on a reply from the SDSU research director for AGE-85 fuel.


Dear Lynn,
Thanks for your email question.
I will start with basics.
Every airplane, engine and propeller must have Type Certificate. This is
issued to the manufacturer by the FAA. Other people, like Texas Skyways,
can obtain a Supplement to the original Type Certificate, we call an STC.
The original Type Certificate holder, like Cessna, may or may not like the
supplement. They have nothing to do with the approval of the STC, just the
FAA.
The FAA approved the STC to use AGE-85 Ethanol in Cessna 180 and 182
aircraft when equipped with an O-470-U/TS engine.
AGE-85 is a better fuel than 100LL. It takes 10-20% more to produce the
same amount of BTU's, thus less miles per gallon.
Some people claim several problems with AGE-85. My only problem is that I
can't get it locally.
Regards,
Jack Johnson
Texas Skyways, Inc.
830.755.8989

PS. by dirtstrip. There are also concerns about auto fuel use in Cessna's. It is contained in the article below but because so many on Backcountry fly Cessna's, I am including the whole article for your information. This is from the the Cessna Pilots Association.

1956 through 1986 Cessna 182 Fixed Gear Skylane Buyers Guide Excerpt


Safety Aspects of the Skylane

Over the last few years, the staff of the Cessna Pilots Association has seen a number of incidents and accidents with Cessna 182 aircraft that have been caused by lack of knowledge of the aircraft's systems and idiosyncrasies. The CPA was so concerned about these problems that I wrote a letter to every 182 owner in the country outlining what these problem areas are and how to deal with them. A prospective 182 buyer would do well to acquaint himself or herself with these system-related problem areas.

It should be emphasized that while there are some areas where pilots have had problems with the 182 due to lack of specific systems knowledge, overall the 182 Skylane has an outstanding safety record for an aircraft of its capability. Even a low-time private pilot can operate a 182 Skylane safely provided he or she has received a good checkout from an instructor that knows the 182 well, understands the aircraft's systems, and does not try to exceed his or her limitations.

Here is what I wrote to the 182 owners concerning safety aspects of the 182 Skylane:



Dear Cessna 182 Skylane Owner,

FAA records indicate that you recently registered a Cessna 182 Skylane aircraft. I am writing to brief you on several safety-critical topics that we believe every Skylane owner should know about. Many 182 Skylane owners (even experienced ones) are not aware of certain important characteristics of this aircraft that are critical to safety.

I'm going to discuss the idiosyncrasies of the Cessna 182 Skylane fuel system and several other aircraft systems. At the end of this letter, I'm going to tell you a little about the Cessna Pilots Association and urge you to become a member of this valuable technical information service for Cessna owners. But whether you decide to join CPA or not, I want you to be safe when you fly your Skylane. So please take a few minutes to read this letter carefully.

FUEL BLADDERS AND FUEL CAPS
If you fly a 1956 182 thru a 1978 182Q, your airplane uses rubber bladder tanks in each wing. These bladders have a tendency to develop wrinkles along the bottom. The wrinkles act as little dams that can prevent water from moving to the sump drain. You can sump the tanks at pre-flight and see no water, yet water could still be present in your fuel tanks.

To make matters worse, Cessna originally installed flush-style fuel caps on these aircraft. The caps can leak if the aircraft is exposed to moisture. If your fuel caps have a small hinged pull-up handle that fits into a recess in the cap, you have the dangerous fuel caps. At CPA, we call them "killer caps."

There have been a number of engine failures immediately after take-off even though the pilot sumped the tanks thoroughly during pre-flight. Some of these incidents have been fatal. The FAA issued Airworthiness Directive AD 84-10-01 to deal with the problem. It requires inspection of the bladders for wrinkles, and suggests changing the flush-style fuel caps to umbrella-style caps.

If you fly a bladder-equipped 182 that still has flush-style fuel caps, the Cessna Pilots Association strongly urges you to change immediately to either the Cessna umbrella cap (kit SK-182-85 available through any Cessna service center) or the Monarch Development cap sold by Hartwig Aircraft Fuel Cell Repair (phone 800/843-8033 US or 800/665-0236 CAN).

I beg you not to overlook this fuel cap situation on your 182. Accident statistics show that the 182 Skylane has one of the highest rates of accidents caused by fuel contamination and the flush style fuel caps coupled with the bladder fuel tanks are the main cause.

CARBURETOR ICE
The Cessna 182 Skylane is prone to developing carburetor ice. The reason for this is because the design of the induction system has the carburetor positioned well below the engine in the cowling and away from the warm air around the engine. Because of this tendency towards carburetor ice many Cessna 182 Skylanes were delivered with a carburetor temperature gauge. The Cessna Pilots Association has strongly recommended to its members that they utilize carburetor heat in such a manner as to keep the carburetor temperature indication out of the yellow zone of the gauge. This may only require the use of partial carburetor heat, a practice that in standardized flight training is considered a poor procedure, being taught that carburetor heat should be all or nothing. The carburetor icing characteristics of the Cessna 182 Skylane make partial carburetor heat an acceptable practice for this aircraft.

AUTO GAS
1956 through 1976 model year Cessna 182 Skylanes can receive STC approval to operate on auto gas. The makeup of auto gas coupled with the Cessna 182 Skylane's induction system produce a couple of interesting operating characteristics. First of all because auto fuel vaporizes more readily than aviation gas it is possible to develop carburetor ice at higher outside air temperatures on auto gas than on aviation gasoline. The amount of ice that is produced remains the same but pilots will notice carburetor icing occurring at higher air temperatures on auto gas than they are used to experiencing with aviation fuel.

Another characteristic on auto fuel is that when the engine is shut down, remaining auto fuel in the induction system will condense in the intake tubes, run back down to the carburetor and drain out on the ground. The amount of fuel that will drain out will vary from a teaspoon to a cup or so. Members report seeing this situation most often in the fall of the year when conditions are most conducive to producing the condensation of fuel in the intake. While this is a normal situation when operating on auto gas, if bothersome to the operator it can be minimized significantly by idling at a lean mixture with the carburetor heat on for thirty seconds or so immediately prior to shutdown.

UNEVEN FUEL FEEDING
Have you been flying along and watched your fuel gauges show that your left tank is going down while the right tank remains full even with the fuel selector on "Both"? This is a common problem with Cessna 182 Skylanes before the 1979 model year. And the real shocker is that while the right tank is remaining full the engine is actually running off of fuel from the right tank!

What causes the situation is the way Cessna designed the fuel tank venting system. When fuel is used from a tank it must be replaced with something, otherwise a vacuum is created which will either cause interruption of fuel to the engine or cause the bottom of the bladder tank to be "sucked" up. To avoid this in almost all fuel systems, whether they are in an aircraft, a car or a lawnmower, fuel that is used from the tank is replaced by air from the outside.

In the Cessna 182 Skylane this venting occurs by connecting the upper outboard portion of the left tank to the "L" shaped vent tube underneath the wing behind the left wing strut. This allows air into the left fuel tank as fuel is used. To vent the right tank, a vent inter-connect line is run from the upper inboard area of the left tank to the upper inboard area of the right tank thus, in theory, venting the right tank to the vented airspace of the left tank.

Unfortunately, wing dihedral, where the wing tip is higher than the wing root, was not sufficiently considered. When the wing tanks are full, the vent interconnect line is actually submersed in fuel and thus as fuel is used from the left tank, the air coming in from the vent pushes fuel from the left tank through the vent interconnect line into the right tank, thus replacing fuel that is used from the right tank. And even after enough fuel is used from the left tank to bring the fuel level below the vent interconnect line the condition will continue as fuel sloshing in the tank periodically gets into the interconnect line and pushed through to the right tank.

In really severe cases fuel usage from the right tank might not be indicated on the gauge until the fuel level in the left tank is as low as 1/3 capacity. The positive thing to keep in mind when experiencing this condition is that fuel is actually being used from the right tank and that fuel being used from the right tank is merely being replaced by fuel from the left tank. This means that even if the left fuel tank should go to empty you will not experience fuel flow interruption as long as there is fuel in the right tank and the fuel selector is on "Both".

This condition can be minimized somewhat by adjusting the position of the fuel vent behind the lift strut on the left wing, making sure that fuel caps seal tightly so that the "head pressure" in one tank is not altered by a leaking cap, and assuring that the wing strut fairing is sealed against the strut, thus avoiding burbling air right in front of the vent. However, in the end the design of the system does not allow for complete resolution of the problem. The Cessna Pilots Association has a handout available to its members that discusses this situation in even greater detail.

Beginning with the 1979 model year the Cessna 182 Skylane went to an integral bay "wet wing" fuel system with vents under both wings which went a long way to reducing the problem.

DRIPPING FUEL FROM THE VENT ON THE GROUND
Earlier I mentioned that the fuel tanks are vented to replace the fuel being used with air. To prevent fuel from going the other way, that is, fuel leaking out the vent when the tanks are full or the left wing with the vent is lower than the right wing, a check valve is installed in the vent line.

However, fuel is not a totally stable product, it will contract when cooled and expand when warmed. This means that if your aircraft is topped off with cool fuel from an underground tank and your caps sealed tightly and your check valve sealed tightly, then as the fuel warmed and expanded there would be no way to relieve the pressure and eventually the tank and perhaps some wing rivets would fail. To prevent this Cessna uses a check valve with a small hole in it to allow fuel to drip out the vent line when pressure builds up in the tank.

Normally this drip will stop when the fuel cools or the fuel level drops a little bit. However sometimes the pressure can build up so rapidly that a solid stream of fuel can come out the vent which is situated below the tank and a siphon effect can be established where several gallons will drain out before the stream stops. In addition if the aircraft is parked in such a manner that the wing with the vent is on a low side then fuel could continue to siphon for some time as the fuel siphoning out of the tank is being replaced by fuel from the other tank passing through the vent interconnect line.

A FAA Airworthiness Directive required the use of fuel caps that have vents installed in them in case the primary venting system became blocked by such things as bugs or ice. These cap vents are only secondary vents that are normally closed and only open if a vacuum is being created in the tank.

SEAT TRACKS
There have been a number of accidents caused by the pilot's seat slipping aft just as the aircraft rotates. Normally the seat is kept from sliding after the pilot releases the latch by one or two pins from the seat that fit into holes in the seat tracks. However if the seat tracks or seat latching mechanism become worn, the pin may hang up on the edge of the hole and not be fully engaged thus allowing the seat to slip when the nose of the aircraft pitches up. The FAA issued Airworthiness Directive AD 87-20-03 R2 which calls for seat tracks and latching system inspection at every annual or 100-hour inspection. The Cessna factory now has available a secondary seat latching system which will catch the pilot's seat if it starts to slide. The secondary seat stop system can be installed by any Cessna Service Center.

A good habit to get into is having a "Cessna Fanny". That is every time you pull the seat into position on a Cessna single engine aircraft you wiggle your hind end to try to dislodge the seat from its latched position.

AND NOW...A WORD FROM YOUR SPONSOR
The Cessna 182 Skylane is a great aircraft. It has great load carrying capabilities, moderate speed, and relatively easy maintenance. But as with any mechanical device, time and service have shown that there are areas of concern that owners/operators need to be aware of. Which is why the Cessna Pilots Association exists.

180Marty wrote:N1593Y, I just talked to the driver delivering to a Casey's General Store. ...

I am truly impressed with the knowledgeable truck driver that you have in your neck of the woods. He knows about refinery output, pipeline content and terminal operation. You must also have no vapor pressure specification for your state either, and your gas station chains apparently don't mind "giving away octane".

In my state of Oregon, 84 AKI cBOB is delivered down the Olympic pipeline. Clearly 84 AKI product cannot be sold as 87 AKI regular gasoline. It also has a low vapor pressure spec. When mixed with 10% ethanol, which is mandated by the Oregon government because we are too stupid to know how great it is for us, it results in 87 AKI regular gasoline with a vapor pressure within the state specification, which the ethanol raised. Of course the legislature also had to give E10 another 1 lb in the vapor pressure spec to even make that doable.

You are lucky in your state because your E10 is sold at the price of regular, I assume, even though it would be mid-grade in Oregon and would command at least a 10 cent/gallon premium, if what you say is true that it is made with 87 AKI regular ... which I actually doubt. In my state, even though the ethanol lobby promised our legislators that ethanol "... would lower the price of gasoline at the pump", during hearings for our state mandate, we now have the highest priced gasoline in the Northwest.

N1593Y, I think the driver knows what buttons he is pushing when he loads and he said 87 is the lowest octane. Some of our terminals are pretty small. I see one has 6 tanks.I have a pipeline going through one of my fields and when I talked to the inspector last year he said 87, 91 and diesel are what go through. About 70% of our gasoline is sold as E10 and 30% as straight unleaded in Iowa. E10 that is sold as either 89 or 89.5( not sure why the .5 difference on some labels) octane is generally 10 cents less per gallon than 87 octane. When 89 is less than 87, they are giving away octane. Some of the ethanol fans around here that have a car that says 91 octane minimum, put in 89 and it works fine. Isn't it interesting that ethanol by itself is very low vapor pressure. When blended at the 10% rate it does raise the vapor pressure of 87 octane but when you reach 20 or 25% blend, it starts lowering the VP of 87. When ethanol was in the $1.30's at the plant, not long ago, it should have been laid into Oregon for $1.50 or 60----pretty cheap fuel when unleaded was over $2. Somebody made some big money.

N1593Y, I asked my ethanol blender pump buddy from Wisconsin if he thought I was wrong like you do. Here is his response. Someday I will see if I can get in the gate at the terminal and ask what they have in the tanks.

Not easy question to answer for me in Iowa Cessna. I will say that in Group 2 (your area) I do not see OPIS showing CBOB (suboctane made for ethanol blending)- so your trucker MAY be correct. What octane are they posting E10 at?

Over here in WI it is very very difficult to get any conventional NL now- what is more common is CBOB in all but Milwaukee (RBOB). To get an 87 octane here now most is made by blending CBOB and premium to come up with an 87 E0. Why is it that they are using CBOB when state rules allow the 1# added vapor pressure with conventional NL/ethanol?- because CBOB costs oil companies less than conventional-period

BTU content of RBOB? -- great question--and I do not know. I have heard that RBOB base contributes 2/3 of any mpg loss on E10 but I do not know if it is a btu thing or chemical characteristics deal.

There is a ton of variability in BTU content of straight gas anyway- I sent samples of my E10 and a certain competitor's straight NL to a lab a couple of years ago. The bomb calorimeter test was used and the E0 only barely beat my E20.

I just received my Cessna service letter about AGE-85. I wonder if whoever wrote it thought about what they said. What really stuck out was Age-85 experiences heavy evaporation losses. Compared to what----water? Surely not 100LL. Ethanol needs some gas added to get it to start a cold engine because the vapor pressure is so low. I think that means it won't evaporate. Pentane is what is added and that is also in 100LL. Really interesting how the people that got the STC that the FAA approved had such different results than Cessna.

A guy from Houston just posted this on an E85 website I go to. He works for Dr Max Shauck getting ethanol STC's at Univ. of Houston. You can rent an ethanol powered 152. Here is the link.
http://greenairportsdevelopment.com/id15.html

The piper pawnee conversion STC includes the change from a carb to Fuel injection and as it is a flex fuel conversion with up to 15% mix you can run e85 as well as E95.

Some banner companies have done the STC just to convert from Carb to fuel injection and run 100LL IO

We are going for more Airframes C172 is next up. It is Dr Maxwell Shauck I work for, he is now at the University of Houston.

FAA comment on Ethanol after the engine tear down, so clean no detonation we could double the TBO!

We have a small fleet of 5 C152's we have put together for a flight school we opened jointly with the Dominican Republic. Straight out of the local rum producer into the aircraft. From sugarcane not corn.

www.greenairportsdevelopment.com

Its a small operation we are building. Note the 350HP Ethanol pitts, this weekend we are shipping that and another C152 down to the DR.

The C152's dyno out at 143 HP, its fun to demo throttle forward and into the yellow arc straight and level.

My tel 8324825650 [email protected]

And happy to share

Maybe it's time to redesign a fuel system-engine to run on this gas a alcohol .Texas skyways has a STC to run e-85 but there only a few places you can get it. Maybe just a STC to burn what they sell at the local mini mart gas recyclers.

Care to share fuel flow vs. HP for the STC. And everyone should remember that AGE-85 which is required for the STC is NOT E85 auto fuel. Doubt it will be at any airport soon.

I can share fuel flow numbers, and I have before. I have a Vans RV-8, with a superior 0-360 kit engine. It is fitted with a standard bendix FI system, calibrated to run E-98.

When I run my RV at 25 squared, 3-4000', the fuel flows are about 12.5 gph at a given EGT. When I run 60% E-98 and 40% 100LL, the flow goes up to about 13.5, if I adjust the mixture to the same EGT.

The cruise speed is just over 200 mph, and doesn't change from one fuel to the other.

Question. When you lean an ethanol fuel to the same egt, aren't you actually running a leaner mixture to achieve the same egt? Ethanol fuels tend to run cooler egt's than gasoline but with a longer burn and therefore less detonation with the higher flow.

Dirtstrip, I actually need to richen the mixture if I switch from a tank of straight 100ll to the tank of E60.

I should have higher compression pistons in the engine to get the most benefit from the ethanol, but I am running the 8.5/1 set that came in the motor. I had the FI system done by Airflow performance, I think it mainly involved a larger jet in the servo.

lancef53 wrote:

When I run my RV at 25 squared, 3-4000', the fuel flows are about 12.5 gph at a given EGT. When I run 60% E-98 and 40% 100LL, the flow goes up to about 13.5, if I adjust the mixture to the same EGT.

I understand that the fuel flow will be higher with ethanol because of the lower density of the fuel. My question is about achieving the same egt with ethanol. If the flame temperature of ethanol is lower than gasoline and is therefore burning cooler, then to acheive the same egt's as gasoline would you have to further lean the ethanol to make the same egt? I would expect ethanol's egt to normally be lower than gasolines.

Lance has more experience on the high blend in airplanes than me but isn't what he is doing sort of like operating lean of peak that the GAMI guys are promoting. Also, I think someone on the E85 website explained that while ethanol technically has fewer btu's than gasoline, it expands more during combustion giving a bigger push. This is the reason that the loss of mileage isn't as bad as what the btu content would suggest.

With what I like to think I know makes me think that it is possible to achieve lean burn with ethanol at the same egt as what is considered normal egt with gasoline. Ethanol, from what I do know ignites and expands over a longer time at combustion. This extended push from ethanol's later expansion catches the piston much further past dead center when the crankshaft angle is extended further past center and its longer reach gets greater leverage. No different than a short pry bar vs. a long one and so less energy is required to do the same work at that piston location and the now extended crank angle. This is why the lower energy btu ethanol fuel has more torque performance than its btu's would suggest and is also why higher compression engines such as we use in aircraft gain more performance from its use than lower compression engines used in cars. It is the combined antiknock value plus the extended push on the piston and as lance53 stated above, it can be leaned up to the same egt as gasoline.
Farm boy disclaimer. I do not use ethanol in my plane but that day may be coming.

I will have to do some experimenting this summer, and try some lean of peak stuff. I am running the plane on straight 100LL right now, and haven't been flying it much at all this winter--busy with a house project. The High ethanol blend is tough to start, especially for a newbie with FI

I don't usually run lean of peak, but I am gonna try some this summer. The Dynon 180 has a lean assist, so it is easy to do, and seems to lower the fuel flow by a half gallon or more.

Guess I missed this thread. I was Googling the N number of my old '56 C180, and found her here. I think I bought it about 1987. A bit rough in the looks department, but a sweet flyer...

Gump

Stickman wrote:This airplane had been running Arco regular unleaded for a year o[vimeo][/vimeo]r so. Arco had begun oxygenating fuel around the same time.

NTSB Identification: SEA85LA209 . oo
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 29194.
Accident occurred Monday, September 09, 1985 in ISSAQUAH, WA
Aircraf[vimeo][/vimeo]t: CESSNA 180, registration: N7694A
Injuries: 1 Uninjured.
THE ACFT LANDED NOSE DOWN SHORT OF THE RWY DURING A FORCED LANDING FOLLOWING FUEL STARVATION. INVESTIGATION DISCLOSED THE MAIN FUEL LINE WAS BLOCKED BY PIECES OF THE PRIMER VALVE PISTON 'O' RING WHICH HAD DETERIORATED DUE TO THE CONTINUOUUSE OF AUTOMOTIVE FUEL.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

FUEL SYSTEM,LINE..BLOCKED(TOTAL)
Index for Sep1985 | Index of months

The finger strainers were both clogged with deteriorated rubber and the fuel bladders had to be replaced before return to service.