GA prepares for unleaded future

Ethanol is incompatible with the hoses seals, gaskets, and other parts in current engines. .

Simply untrue. Any chemical resistance & compatibility chart you'll ever look at shows that ALL rubber products are compatible with ethanol. ALL of them.

Gasket adhesives are another matter, but suitable alternatives are readily available. One big problem posed by ethanol in fuel is that it tends to dissolve old gum & varnish deposits that are comon in older fuel systems and clog carbeurator jets & fuel injector nozzles. But anybody who claims ethanol is incompatible with rubber hoses & seals just doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
 
Simply untrue. Any chemical resistance & compatibility chart you'll ever look at shows that ALL rubber products are compatible with ethanol. ALL of them.

Gasket adhesives are another matter, but suitable alternatives are readily available. One big problem posed by ethanol in fuel is that it tends to dissolve old gum & varnish deposits that are comon in older fuel systems and clog carbeurator jets & fuel injector nozzles. But anybody who claims ethanol is incompatible with rubber hoses & seals just doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.


well whatever it is, it's incompatible, that was my point. And not all hoses and gaskets are rubber, some are neoprene, cork, teflon, butyl etc. and there are concerns with some types of rubber. Also, ethanol in autogas concentrations is corrosive to aluminum.
 
With the exception of the smallest diesels used in power equipment, any modern (last 30 years) diesel is turbocharged, and highly turbocharged at that. Diesels need heat, which they get by using very high compression ratios, and then boosting the intake charge. The only concern of losing power at altitude is if the turbo were to fail, and if a turbo fails (gasoline or diesel), you've got MUCH bigger problems to worry about other than power loss. There is, however, an issue of the intake charge getting too cool at altitude with respect to a diesel, but this is easily overcome by either bypassing the charge around the intercooler (to keep it warmer) or by actuating an electric heating grid in the intake.

There were multiple issues with Thielert, both as a company and as a product that was offered. I have high hopes for Diamond's new Austro line (a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond), which are based off Mercedes automotive diesels.

The weight penalty really isn't a concern, as aviation diesels would be aluminum engines, albeit it with stronger and heavier internals, but keep in mind, if we were to ever get modern gasoline engines for these things, they certainly would not be air cooled and would carry the equivalent (if not greater) level of electronic management and sub-systems to support them.

In terms of the concern of worldwide fuel availability, keep in mind that outside North America, AvGas is incredibly difficult to find, and very expensive. Jet-A, on the other hand, is available at any international airport.
 
Simply untrue. Any chemical resistance & compatibility chart you'll ever look at shows that ALL rubber products are compatible with ethanol. ALL of them.

Gasket adhesives are another matter, but suitable alternatives are readily available. One big problem posed by ethanol in fuel is that it tends to dissolve old gum & varnish deposits that are comon in older fuel systems and clog carbeurator jets & fuel injector nozzles. But anybody who claims ethanol is incompatible with rubber hoses & seals just doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

Aboslutely true. This is one of the biggest reasons why older cars run into fuel system issues when they start burning fuels containing alcohol. Assuming we were to ever go to an alcohol based or blended fuel, a proper STC would require a thorough cleaning of the fuel system to avoid this.
 
One big problem posed by ethanol in fuel is that it tends to dissolve old gum & varnish deposits that are comon in older fuel systems and clog carbeurator jets & fuel injector nozzles.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but if it dissolves it, how can it clog anything?
 
It gets dissolved somewhere else and then run through the injectors with the fuel, clogging them.

Why injectors, smaller hole to pass through? I can understand if something was dissolved, it would remain in dissolved state, whereas if something is broken up into smaller bits, it would get stuck again somewhere.
 
Hi Guys,

First, ethanol is a crappy fuel. Not just from a aviation standpoint, but from an engineering standpoint. Anyone who tells you otherwise either comes from a country where they can grow sugarcane in their backyard without slathering tons of synthetic poop on it, or is a farmer from the midwest.

Second, guys at GAMI (one of the folks who are working on a 100LL replacement and have pioneered the use of LOP) and just about every other engine guy has said the "valve lubrication" thing about lead is an OWT (old wives tale). They said that every engine still running would be fine without lead.

The rest is dead on. AVGAS octane ratings vs motor gas ratings are pretty far apart as far as computation is concerned, and most pump gas is crap. You got all kinds of wild variations in vapor pressure and thanks to an over-zealous farm industry, god knows what kind of energy content, not to mention problems with gasket and tank sealants (not everything uses bladders).

TEL, is used strictly as an octane booster, but such detonation margins are only required in big bore, high compression ratio, turbo/supercharged engines.

There have been substitutes for TEL none of which are popular. MTBE has been used in years past. It works great, BUT, it is quite soluble in water, and has a way of getting into the ground water and making it taste terrible. ETBE works almost as well, but because of the ruckus with MTBE, it's doubful that this is a politically viable alternative. You can also use a number of long chain or cyclic hydrocarbons (like benzene)

Ever wonder why piston engines are the way they are and don't look like something out of a Taurus or a Camrey? Easy...they. are. simple. They work. Air/fuel/ignition...period. No complicated computers, no O2 sesors, no catalytic converters.

Run the thing at %75hp for hours on end. Let it sit for an hour. Run it alternatively %100 to %0 cycles for 2 hours a pop. Let it sit. Wash, rinse, repeat. Ad infidnitum. Need to hone a cylinder or a valve guide? No problemo. Pop it off and sent it off.

Try that with your Corvette.

No, the fuel issue HAS to be a drop in replacement. Diesel and even electronic ignition is a non-starter. No one is going to pay 40K+ to drop a diesel into a 172 worth 30k. Nobody.

Electronic ignition to monitor detination is fine, BUT, you need separate and redundant power sources for the computer and the ignition source. That makes things pretty complicated, and you're right back to the cost issue.

But the world is not ending, and I'll tell you why:

The Sweeds (specifically Hjelmco Oil) have a unleaded AVGAS formulation that is called 91/96UL, and meets the specs for 91/98, runs and is already certified to run in darn near everything (%90+ or so). They've been using it for years.

Then there is 94UL, which is simply 100LL without the lead. Runs in just about everything that's not turbo/supercharged unless you have a wild compression ratio.

In either case, you can transport it via pipelines, something you can't do with 100LL.

I'm not so sure about the Swiftfuel. Green is nice and all, but I'm not convinced their production of the hydrocarbon blendstock is cost effective compared with getting the same componenets from a petrol source.

G100UL, which supposedly meets the specs for 100/130, is the GAMI entrant. It is probably roughly analagous to the 91/96 stuff the Sweeds make. I would bet on these guys before the bio fuel, as it is blended from all petrol feedstocks, which is WELL understood, and can be optimized.

With either of these cases, you need to make darn sure your vapor pressures and your solvent characteristics are WELL understood. 94UL doesn't really change anything, and the 91/96UL has a long track record already.

Richman
 
With the exception of the smallest diesels used in power equipment, any modern (last 30 years) diesel is turbocharged, and highly turbocharged at that. Diesels need heat, which they get by using very high compression ratios, and then boosting the intake charge. The only concern of losing power at altitude is if the turbo were to fail, and if a turbo fails (gasoline or diesel), you've got MUCH bigger problems to worry about other than power loss. There is, however, an issue of the intake charge getting too cool at altitude with respect to a diesel, but this is easily overcome by either bypassing the charge around the intercooler (to keep it warmer) or by actuating an electric heating grid in the intake.

There were multiple issues with Thielert, both as a company and as a product that was offered. I have high hopes for Diamond's new Austro line (a wholly owned subsidiary of Diamond), which are based off Mercedes automotive diesels.

The weight penalty really isn't a concern, as aviation diesels would be aluminum engines, albeit it with stronger and heavier internals, but keep in mind, if we were to ever get modern gasoline engines for these things, they certainly would not be air cooled and would carry the equivalent (if not greater) level of electronic management and sub-systems to support them.

In terms of the concern of worldwide fuel availability, keep in mind that outside North America, AvGas is incredibly difficult to find, and very expensive. Jet-A, on the other hand, is available at any international airport.


The pre-heater (heating grid as you call it) are only for starting. When the coolant is below a certain temp. (varies by engine) the turn on, kind of like glow plugs in older diesel engines. And I have never seen anything that by-passes a intercooler. The whole point of an intercooler is to reduce the intake temps. A cooler charge is a denser charge, and a denser charge makes more power. Why would you want to reduce horsepower, I don't know. Plus, a hot air temperature can lead to detonation, which will destroy an engine in short order. Furthermore, the heat developed by the pre-heater does not have enough of an effect to physically light the fuel. As the air compresses in the cyl, it creates enormous amounts of friction which raises the temperature. But it still isn't just the temperature that does it, it's only the by-product. It's not uncommon to see injector pressures in diesel engines in the 20,000 to 30,000 pound range in order to just get the fuel into the cylinder.

My point was that at certain power settings, the turbo is along for the ride, and not producing boost. If you get into a situation where your at altitude, and have to bring the power back to idle, or even a setting that there is no load on the engine you could loose the engine until a lower altitude. Diesels are run at WOT all the time, and power is simply controlled by varying the amount of fuel, and when it is injected into the cyl. There is no carb./throttle body on a diesel.

As for the weight, most diesels are now aluminum, save for the Cummins, which is still the same block(different accessories) for the last 30 years at least, and are still much heavier than a standard gas engine. The block is only half of the equation. The internals are much much heavier in order to withstand the pressures of a diesel engine. The crankshaft, rods and pistons have to be. You are going from a typical compression of around 8.5/10 to 1 with a typical gas engine up to 18+to 1 on a diesel engine. Higher compression levels equate to more pressure developed by the engine. More pressure require stronger parts. Take for example the rod bearings of a dodge 5.9 gas engine. They are .872 inches wide and 2.5 inches around. A 5.9 diesel (same displacement) are 1.57 inches wide. Diameter on the gas motor is 2.5 inches, and 2.7 on the diesel. Connecting rods are 12 inches on the diesel and 6.123 on the gas engine. The parts simply have to be bigger to keep up with the loads. Put more boost to it, and expect to have even stronger parts.

I just don't think it's the solution. It reminds me of the the Wankel engine. It's a good idea, and works well in some applications, but just isn't the fix to the problem, only a solution for some of the special applications.


BTW, the only reason Cummins had the pre-heater was to aid in cold starting to reduce the amount of smoke that came out of the engine. When I left, they had revised the programing to shut it off after a vehicle speed of 10mph was reached. It did nothing for the helping of burning of the fuel. As for where this knowledge comes from, I have the plaque somewhere(I hate looking at it), but I was Diesel/Sprinter/Viper/Prowler/Silver Certified before I left the auto industry. The only tests/classes I had left to attend were four automatic transmission classes. I'd have to say I have a good working knowledge of most things mechanical.
 
And not all hoses and gaskets are rubber, some are neoprene, cork, teflon, butyl etc.

Uhm... How do I break the news to you diplomatically... neoprene and butyl ARE types of rubber and teflon is used often enough in the tubes of commonly used industrial hoses that they list teflon in the chemical resistance charts too. Teflon is perfectly fine with ethanol, although I don't recall that it tolerates gasoline all that well. As a general rule, anything that'll handle gasoline will have no problems with ethanol and methanol, and in most cases MTBE poses no problem either.

and there are concerns with some types of rubber.

Well, no, actually there aren't any whatsoever

Also, ethanol in autogas concentrations is corrosive to aluminum.

Well, that'll come as quite a shock to the engineers who designed car engines with aluminum blocks and/or aluminum cylinder heads, and/or aluminum pistons, intake manifolds... etc. Not to mention all those people who are driving around with these engines.

I'm not saying there aren't really good reasons not to use ethanol-mix fuels in airplanes, just that incompatibility of ethanol with rubber hoses, seals & gaskets aren't among them.
 
Hi Guys,


No, the fuel issue HAS to be a drop in replacement. Diesel and even electronic ignition is a non-starter. No one is going to pay 40K+ to drop a diesel into a 172 worth 30k. Nobody.

G100UL, which supposedly meets the specs for 100/130, is the GAMI entrant. It is probably roughly analagous to the 91/96 stuff the Sweeds make. I would bet on these guys before the bio fuel, as it is blended from all petrol feedstocks, which is WELL understood, and can be optimized.

With either of these cases, you need to make darn sure your vapor pressures and your solvent characteristics are WELL understood. 94UL doesn't really change anything, and the 91/96UL has a long track record already.

Richman


I have never seen you on the boards before, but I like you already!
 
Well, that'll come as quite a shock to the engineers who designed car engines with aluminum blocks and/or aluminum cylinder heads, and/or aluminum pistons, intake manifolds... etc. Not to mention all those people who are driving around with these engines.

I'm not saying there aren't really good reasons not to use ethanol-mix fuels in airplanes, just that incompatibility of ethanol with rubber hoses, seals & gaskets aren't among them.


He's right, just off the mark. Ethanol is corrosive to magnesium. If you run alcohol in an engine (which allows you to run ridiculous compression ratios for more power) like a Volkswagen or Corvair, you need to drain the oil if your going to let it sit. The amount in currently available fuel is not enough to harm the engines, but if you run straight ethanol, then you will have to. It makes it's way past the rings and gets into the oil, eating the engine cases from the inside out.
 
Why injectors, smaller hole to pass through? I can understand if something was dissolved, it would remain in dissolved state, whereas if something is broken up into smaller bits, it would get stuck again somewhere.

Despite claims from any Alchemists on the forum there is no such thing as a perfect solvent.
 
The pre-heater (heating grid as you call it) are only for starting. When the coolant is below a certain temp. (varies by engine) the turn on, kind of like glow plugs in older diesel engines. And I have never seen anything that by-passes a intercooler. The whole point of an intercooler is to reduce the intake temps. A cooler charge is a denser charge, and a denser charge makes more power. Why would you want to reduce horsepower, I don't know. Plus, a hot air temperature can lead to detonation, which will destroy an engine in short order. Furthermore, the heat developed by the pre-heater does not have enough of an effect to physically light the fuel. As the air compresses in the cyl, it creates enormous amounts of friction which raises the temperature. But it still isn't just the temperature that does it, it's only the by-product. It's not uncommon to see injector pressures in diesel engines in the 20,000 to 30,000 pound range in order to just get the fuel into the cylinder.

My point was that at certain power settings, the turbo is along for the ride, and not producing boost. If you get into a situation where your at altitude, and have to bring the power back to idle, or even a setting that there is no load on the engine you could loose the engine until a lower altitude. Diesels are run at WOT all the time, and power is simply controlled by varying the amount of fuel, and when it is injected into the cyl. There is no carb./throttle body on a diesel.

As for the weight, most diesels are now aluminum, save for the Cummins, which is still the same block(different accessories) for the last 30 years at least, and are still much heavier than a standard gas engine. The block is only half of the equation. The internals are much much heavier in order to withstand the pressures of a diesel engine. The crankshaft, rods and pistons have to be. You are going from a typical compression of around 8.5/10 to 1 with a typical gas engine up to 18+to 1 on a diesel engine. Higher compression levels equate to more pressure developed by the engine. More pressure require stronger parts. Take for example the rod bearings of a dodge 5.9 gas engine. They are .872 inches wide and 2.5 inches around. A 5.9 diesel (same displacement) are 1.57 inches wide. Diameter on the gas motor is 2.5 inches, and 2.7 on the diesel. Connecting rods are 12 inches on the diesel and 6.123 on the gas engine. The parts simply have to be bigger to keep up with the loads. Put more boost to it, and expect to have even stronger parts.

I just don't think it's the solution. It reminds me of the the Wankel engine. It's a good idea, and works well in some applications, but just isn't the fix to the problem, only a solution for some of the special applications.


BTW, the only reason Cummins had the pre-heater was to aid in cold starting to reduce the amount of smoke that came out of the engine. When I left, they had revised the programing to shut it off after a vehicle speed of 10mph was reached. It did nothing for the helping of burning of the fuel. As for where this knowledge comes from, I have the plaque somewhere(I hate looking at it), but I was Diesel/Sprinter/Viper/Prowler/Silver Certified before I left the auto industry. The only tests/classes I had left to attend were four automatic transmission classes. I'd have to say I have a good working knowledge of most things mechanical.


I wasn't talking about a heating grid to aid in starting, I was talking about the proposed use by aviation diesel engineers of a heating grid to keep the temps up in the engine to sustain combustion at altitude, at low engine loads (such as during descent). This is the same reason why aviation diesel engineers have proposed by-passing the intercooler (keeping things warm enough to sustain combustion at low loads at altitude). Obviously at high power settings and at lower altitudes, the intercooler would be used for its full effect of increasing air density and lowering charge air temps to make full power.

I'm also very well aware of the workings of modern common rail diesels, and while we're having this conversation, take a look at the engines the Germans are putting in cars. The BMW 3.0 liter diesel puts out 425 lb of torque and weighs under 400 lbs fully dressed. The weight penalty is not that much compared to a modern (i.e. not 1930s) Otto cycle engine.

Diesels absolutely do not operate WOT all the time, since if they did, there would be no improvement in fuel efficiency over an Otto cycle engine (diesels are throttled by means of controlling fuel, not air with a throttle butterfly as in a gas motor), and thus gain their efficiency by running extremely lean at part throttle settings.

By the way, while you may LOSE power if an engine ceases COMBUSTION, it's highly unlikely it's going to come LOOSE and fall off.
 
He's right, just off the mark. Ethanol is corrosive to magnesium. If you run alcohol in an engine (which allows you to run ridiculous compression ratios for more power) like a Volkswagen or Corvair, you need to drain the oil if your going to let it sit. The amount in currently available fuel is not enough to harm the engines, but if you run straight ethanol, then you will have to. It makes it's way past the rings and gets into the oil, eating the engine cases from the inside out.

Actually not quite. Anhydrous methanol is highly corrosive to magnesium, but ethanol is not unless it is highly heated (over 250F). Ethanol is corrosive to aluminum, especially in gasoline/ ethanol fuel mixes over 85%, which is why many aluminum fuel system parts for "flex fuel" vehicles are anodized.
 
Uhm... How do I break the news to you diplomatically... neoprene and butyl ARE types of rubber and teflon is used often enough in the tubes of commonly used industrial hoses that they list teflon in the chemical resistance charts too. Teflon is perfectly fine with ethanol, although I don't recall that it tolerates gasoline all that well. As a general rule, anything that'll handle gasoline will have no problems with ethanol and methanol, and in most cases MTBE poses no problem either.

Well, no, actually there aren't any whatsoever

Well, that'll come as quite a shock to the engineers who designed car engines with aluminum blocks and/or aluminum cylinder heads, and/or aluminum pistons, intake manifolds... etc. Not to mention all those people who are driving around with these engines.

I'm not saying there aren't really good reasons not to use ethanol-mix fuels in airplanes, just that incompatibility of ethanol with rubber hoses, seals & gaskets aren't among them.

I know perfectly well that butyl and neoprene are types of rubber, I was working on something else while I was typing that. Condescension != diplomacy, sorry.

So, if the compatibility concerns aren't real then why can't I use ethanol blended autogas in my 172 with an autogas STC? Go.
 
Folks, here's the number one reason why general aviation needs to get ready for no more 100LL.

It's not a very profitable market for its makers. The amount of fuel produced and the profit it generates are relatively small.

Sooner or later, the people who produce it are going to say, why are we going through all this trouble to produce so little in profits.

Of course, that could be said for the aviation industry as a whole. =)
 
Actually not quite. Anhydrous methanol is highly corrosive to magnesium, but ethanol is not unless it is highly heated (over 250F). Ethanol is corrosive to aluminum, especially in gasoline/ ethanol fuel mixes over 85%, which is why many aluminum fuel system parts for "flex fuel" vehicles are anodized.


So I guess all the pitting ang galling I have seen in volkswagen engine casses and supercharger cases was my imagination.
 
Back
Top