Ethanol in Airplanes

4-Shipp · Post by **4-Shipp** » Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:32 am

June and I flew from TX to Winnipeg in September and stopped for gas in Madison, South Dakota. The proprieter was a very plesant retired EAL captain and was bragging on their successful flight program in their Ethanol powered Bonanza. I saw the plane back in the corner of the hangar with a big "Ethanol Powered" decal on the side, but didn't have time to get many details. If I recall correctly, they were working on an SCT or similar approval with the FAA.

Anyone have any info on this?

Bruce

Post by **GAHorn** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:03 am

Pardon me if I misunderstand the question but....it seems to me Bruce, that you were face-to-face with the expert on Ethanol powered airplanes already when you were in Madison. Why don't you follow up with him?

4-Shipp · Post by **4-Shipp** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:35 am

I meant to post this in the car gas thread but hit the new topic instead of the reply tab. There have been several comments referencing the incompatability of ethonal spiked car gas and I remembered this gentelman who had claimed great success. I was just curioius if anyone else was familiar with this project. No burning desire to run corn squeezin's in 9CP (we live in Texas, for gosh sakes - give me an O-300 that can burn mesquete sap or red dirt and we'll talk). Just throwing another topic up for discussion...

Bruce

DensityDog · Post by **DensityDog** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:31 am

Bruce,
I have heard of the Ethanol fuel thing, research has been going on for some time. I'm sure if you did a Google search you would find plenty of info.
They are using straight ethanol, with carburetors and fuel systems modified specifically for that fuel, so that works for them. You are right that ethanol-spiked fuel is incompatible with our (unmodified) fuel systems.
(though I'm sure our engines would run on it, but probably not very well or for very long without serious problems)
Max

170C · Post by **170C** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:06 pm

Bruce, you need to get a few tons of mesquite beans, simmer them in some magic potion and the resulting brew should give you at least 115/145! (GRIN)

4-Shipp · Post by **4-Shipp** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 1:36 pm

170C wrote:Bruce, you need to get a few tons of mesquite beans, simmer them in some magic potion and the resulting brew should give you at least 115/145! (GRIN)

Hmmm...magic potion...why, MMO of course!

Post by **GAHorn** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:32 pm

Airplanes have a greater fuel tank condensation problem than cars do. Cars run around at mostly constant altitude, with relatively constant fuel temps and are usually operated in "local" environs, i.e., they don't usually cover more than a few hundred miles in a day. They also typically burn much less fuel per hour than airplanes. Therefore they don't suffer the introduction amounts of moisture laden air that airplanes do at cruise altitudes and then descend thru a cooling environment which condenses water inside the tanks at the rates airplanes experience.
Ethanol (alcohol) absorbs water like you wouldn't believe, and when it becomes saturated with it,...suddenly it precipitates out and water pools in low spots in the fuel system. Places like gascolators and in hoses and pipes that have sags or low spots in them. (The real reason your fuel line from the gascolator to the carburetor must not sag and why the carb has a collection bowl and drain built into it. You do drain that thing occasionally, right?)
Anyway, ethanol/alcohol not only degrades the common airplane fuel system parts, it also carries other disadvantages as an aviation fuel. Problem solving for alcohol fuel can be tricky.

rudymantel · Post by **rudymantel** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:40 pm

Yes, George, but be patriotic- think how ethanol helps ADM, Supermarket to the World !

Joe Moilanen · Post by **Joe Moilanen** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:07 am

Speaking of fuel drains, while I was putting new o-rings in my fuel selector valve a few years ago I removed the plug in the bottom of it and installed a quick drain. I don't know why they didn't do it in the first place since this is the lowest point in the fuel system on a taildragger.

Joe

Post by **GAHorn** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 8:02 pm

Joe Moilanen wrote:Speaking of fuel drains, while I was putting new o-rings in my fuel selector valve a few years ago I removed the plug in the bottom of it and installed a quick drain. I don't know why they didn't do it in the first place since this is the lowest point in the fuel system on a taildragger.

Joe

Installation of a "quick drain" at the fuel selector valve requires either field approval or STC. The STC holder (C-mods) has only this week applied for 170B's that can utilize the quick drain. I have gotten his agreement to donate one (STC'd) to the Assoc. for door prize at this year's convention. As soon as the approval is final, I'll let you know. I intend to put one in my plane as soon as it's legal.

JJH55 · Post by **JJH55** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:28 pm

This makes me wonder if a drain at the fuel selector would have avoided the 3 second loss of power I had on Saturday. About 1 minute after takeoff, there was a very noticeable vibration and significant loss of power (50%). After that everything operated fine but it took the better part of an hour to get the pucker marks out of the seat. The airplane had not been flown for almost 3 years. At the time it happened, it was just after level off from takeoff, say 1-2 minutes. Is it possible that water would remain at the lowest point of the system even with fuel flowing though the valve? Sumps and gascolator were drained during preflight and no water was noted. Taxi and a 10 minute warmup was also uneventful and the engine ran smooth. Only after level off did this occur.

Seems to me that any water at the lowest point would be flushed along with the high fuel flow of full power, or draining the gascolator during preflight. But maybe not!!!

Post by **GAHorn** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 9:54 pm

Subsequent to the offending flight, did you find significant amounts of water in the gascolator? In order for water in the low point selector to reach the carb it had to overwhelm the gascolator.

JJH55 · Post by **JJH55** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:02 pm

None, zero, nada. Tanks by the way were also near empty up until time to fly. Probably had 3 gallons each side of 100LL.

Post by **GAHorn** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:12 pm

Near-empty tanks are the worst-case scenario for accumulating water in fuel. The sheet metal walls of the tanks will condense humidity during the in and out air exchange as the daytime temps warm up/nite time temps cool down. Fuel in the tanks will give less area for the humidity to accumulate on walls (subsequently to condense and drain into the lower areas of the tanks.) That's why it's always better to top off at the end of a flight prior to long storage.
If the airplane flew for the first time in 3 years, there's no telling what caused the engine troubles. Anything from stuck valves/collapsed lifters to humidity in the magneto distributor caps to carburetor hiccups from lack of use. It's almost a mystery, especially from long distance/online.
The more planes fly, the better and more reliable they are. It's a fact.

JJH55 · Post by **JJH55** » Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:23 pm

Yep, totally agree with you George. Only thing worse wear and tear wise than operating an engine, is not operating it. Your comments are well received. But back to the original point. Is it possible that water could remain at the lowest point in the system with a nose high attitude while fuel is flowing at a high rate, or would it be flushed through? As possibly demonstrated when transitioning from takeoff attitude to level flight? Or am I full of it.......again?
JJH55

The International Cessna 170 Association

Ethanol in Airplanes

Ethanol in Airplanes

Mesquite Fired 170's

Re: Mesquite Fired 170's