Please explain why those references are pertinent. Which planes contain which polymers for sealants? Is it possible a C-152 uses different ways to seal the fuel?
I'd like to see the citation for this, too. Conversely, is the C-152 typical of all planes?
No, because many of the other components of the fuel are also water soluble, to some degree. Toluene is a large component of automotive gasoline- up to 30 %- and is surprisingly soluble in water!! In plain water, 0.5 g or so dissolves in a liter of water. The extracted alcohol raises the solubility of toluene in the aqueous solution quite a bit. Removing the ethanol and at least some of the toluene reduces the octane rating.
Do we have matches or a lighter? With bad gas we could light out farts to defend ourselves from the cannibals.
Or..... they could interpret that to be a dinner theater situation......
www.swiftfuels.com
www.aviationconsumer.com
Just because it is "based on ethanol" doesn't mean that it is ethanol. Ethanol is ethanol, C2H6O, whether is comes from corn, switchgrass, sugar water, or ethylene. Swift processes the ethanol into hydrocarbons/alkenes/aromatic compounds of some sort that is compatible with airplane engines and their fuel systems.Remember AGE-85? (Aviation Grade Ethanol) 85%
AVIATION GRADE ETHANOL 85 (AGE-85) TECHNICAL BRIEFING Dr. Dennis Helder Director of Eng. Research South Dakota State University Brookings, SD Mr. - ppt download
DESIGN 1. Compatible with existing aircraft 2. Compatible with 100LL 3. Optimal RVP alone or mixed with 100LL 4. 12:1 100LL Air/Fuel ratio 10:1 AGE-85 Air/Fuel Ratio 5. Biodiesel lubricant 1. Upper cylinder lubricant 2. Engine storage 3. Fuel system protection 4. Larger particulatesslideplayer.com
Swift Fuels removed the word 'Ethanol' from their website but, their fuel is based on Ethanol. (Not Corn Base, It's Switchgrass).
SwiftFuels
Swift AvFuel: Too Good To Be True? - Aviation Consumer
Aviation Consumer Chief Editor Paul Bertorelli reports on Swift AvFuel. FAA testing shows that this biomass fuel has the octane punch.
Various NBR (acrylonitrile butadiene rubber) formulations are used in fuel and oil hoses.
There's less of a fuel sysyem compared to an Archer, for example, but still the same synthetic rubber hoses susceptible to swelling in the presence of ethanol and other mogas components. And he doesn't know what kind of rubber compounds are in his hoses, since the TSO and the MIL SPEC it references only calls for an "inner tube of oil-resistant synthetic rubber".
Alcohol was involved.
What planes use NBR formulations for hoses? Some planes don't. The oil lines don't count because no fuel should be in those. If it is, a swollen hose isn't the important problem.
The fuel lines on the C-152s I've flown are metal, at least until it gets into the firewall. Beyond that, it may be rubber or a different material. Even so, I wouldn't run ethanol in it until I know if the materials could stand it.
Point stands in some cases. One needs to know their plane and the materials used. Not all planes use rubber hoses. EAB aircraft can, and often are, made to be tolerant of ethanol in auto gas. The "additional compounds" you mention, presumably ketones, don't exist in car gas.
All that use TSO-C53 hoses can have NBR formulations. Short of the owner reaching out to the manufacturer of each and every hose in his fuel system, there is no way to really know.
The one you provided doesn't have any in it. The possibility of adding them has been considered, and you (the end user) have no sure way of knowing what's in the pump gas you're purchasing. As long as it meets the requirements, it can be a blend of anything that gets the refiner to the end product.
But the rest of them aren't, and the average owner of a 172/182/PA28 and so on has no way of knowing it, short of ripping his fuel system apart and replacing everything with hoses and seals known to be tolerant of ethanol and whatever else there is (or might be added) in mogas.
But that's not how this conversation started (not by you). It started as "ethanol isn't a problem". The study shows it is. And while it might be easier to ensure ethanol compatibility on a new EAB build, certified aircraft can throw a few extra hurdles at you.
And it doesn't stand in all other cases. One might not be able to do that without a complete fuel system teardown, replacing each and every component that might be susceptible (which includes fuel pump diaphragms, carb seals and so on).
Have you looked at ALL fuel refiners and blenders, including the one supplying fuel to the island the OP will buy from? Who's generalizing now?
See one line above. You did the same. I referenced a study that did look into potential fuel additives to determine their compatibility, while also looking at ethanol's effects and demonstrating it will cause swelling on rubber components expected to exist in an aircraft fuel system.
But the OP most likely doesn't know the plane that well. Even if he bought new hoses, they are still made to a standard that might make them incompatible with ethanol fuels.
Not ALL of them, but enough to see they are all nearly the same. There really aren't that many refineries. Oxygenates are ethanol, butanol, and various ethers (MTBE, ETBE, and so forth). The ethers aren't used much anymore in the USA. Acetone is added to racing fuel by the user. How about you find and cite an exception?
Nope. See above
The OP is a hypothetical situation. Provided it's allowed to be installed on a plane, one can install ethanol compatible lines and gaskets. Like I said, it is much easier for the owner of an EAB.
Do you know of any specific approvals to replace fuel system components (including carbs/injectors and pumps) on a certified aircraft with ethanol-compatible ones?
Except OP is talking about a 182. If we had some eggs we could make some ham and eggs, if we had some ham.
He couldn't even fix the damn boat. I've lost all faith in him.
Yea…well there is that….
Hoses, o-rings and other rubber components were the biggest problem when 10% ethanol was introduced in the automotive world. I can’t remember how long ago that was but it might have been 20 years ago. However, long it has been, there has been time for the rubber materials and fuel systems to have left by attrition. We now have automotive and marine engines, particularly injected engines that suffer no problems at all from the use of 10% ethanol fuel.
No way, i'm taking MaryAnne, might think about coming back for ginger later
No, mainly because I'm not an A&P. I don't pretend to knowledge I don't have. I don't know which lines have a TSO approval, PMA approval, or if other documentation is needed.
and then we discussed a C152.
No, but I work closely with those that do. For example, I worked with several refineries to streamline their SARA analysis (saturates, asphaltenes, resins, aromatics) in the crude oil. Working with them, I updated an analysis that took 4 hours to run to about 45 minutes, and they can do further analysis on the various components, if desired. Their previous method didn't permit recovery of the sample fractions. I also worked with a refiner for analysis of some anti-knock compounds. There's some other work I'm doing that I can't discuss now.
I've no problem with E10, even after 6 to 9 months in storage because I add Stabil so I can store the mower/snow blower without draining the fuel. These small engines start on the second pull when I first run them. Without the additive, automotive fuel doesn't keep well at all. That reminds me...time to check that the snow blower starts so I have time to get it fixed before the rush, if needed. I've seen snow here in mid-October deep enough to dig.
You are wise, unless you fly it often! Auto gas has more unsaturated hydrocarbons that polymerize into varnish that clogs things. The ethanol likely helps that process along.
I have no problem citing my sources.. I have no idea why people think I would make this up.
Of course it went farther on 100% alcohol because there is more energy per volume in ethanol than in gasoline. I agree on that and I can see it being safe if properly handled. Where I disagree with you is your proposal to close the oil fields and burn strictly alcohol. Wouldn’t you agree that we need to have food to eat? Without corn and other grains there would be no livestock feed to speak of and there would be less farmland &or food crops. You can’t have it both was.
Because it is in their rules. Methanol is preferred, but methanol has more risks involved with it than ethanol. Methanol is flammable, toxic, and poisonous if ingested, inhaled, or in contact with the skin. Ethanol is toxic, flammable, and is safe for consumption as a critical ingredient of alcoholic beverages. It can be a dangerous chemical if pure alcohol is ingested.
I would be. Every time a manufacturer makes a change, the product has to be tested and certified again. So we are often stuck with the ancient polymers. For instance, the Cessna nosegear oleo has a bad habit of ripping its O-ring seal in cold weather/ That seal shrinks and grabs the piston, and movement then spins the O-ring in its groove and causes a spiral fracture. All the oil and pressure is lost real quick. That's what Buna-N will do. But there are much newer and better O-ring compounds that won't suffer that, yet a brand-new Cessna will still have the Buna-N O-rings in it. So do the brake calipers. The only place I found the newer stuff was in the fuel injection system, which is much newer and built by Precision Airmotove, not Cessna. Most of the hoses are still the old MIL-spec. Who is going to pay the freight to replace and recertify new compounds for a few hundred airplanes a year? And Cessna won't spend bucks on the legacy stuff. Someone might come up with STCs, but those aren't cheap, so most would just keep using the old stuff.
As usual, a whole pile of bunk.
It's not one or the other. After fermentation, the remaining material becomes "distiller's grain" and is then fed to livestock, or used for other purposes.
Please see my citations in post #64 for Aircraft Spruce and Parker/Stratoflex.
Same with gasoline. That's why we have turbochargers, superchargers, etc. Stuffing more fuel into a cylinder does nothing unless you can oxidize it (air).