X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3c1) with ESMTP id 3950079 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:47:20 -0500 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.42; envelope-from=glasair2@me.com Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20091105214643.KGQF14181.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:46:43 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.201] ([70.177.24.126]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id 1Zmi1d00M2jEC4N04ZmjEd; Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:46:43 -0500 X-VR-Score: -80.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=XU1Kk2dWG4UA:10 a=8pif782wAAAA:8 a=UKPAHat8AAAA:8 a=LSPLCUUYAAAA:8 a=_axMPmIWX-TGcY8sn2UA:9 a=oQr6QwrgCObPtXYrjD4A:7 a=5y499VBDxwqBcsmF8Bhiy0PJJ6wA:4 a=9DsMGUsbxO4A:10 a=7god_763jbgA:10 a=SR0a4f-HIjoA:10 a=6x1X-p9FkRaQwsgnXqYA:9 a=HerliTSor_pFkIPWCqQA:7 a=JAVpxuR0sFGSZZkeBNHUQ9hQ6tcA:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: Steve Thomas Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-21--22471614 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] FW: Fuel Filter \ Ethanol Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:46:42 -0800 In-Reply-To: To: Rotary motors in aircraft References: Message-Id: <5E49067C-2271-418D-B684-F978E87C6DB9@me.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076) --Apple-Mail-21--22471614 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes To All, This is a good opportunity for me to mention some tests that I have =20 been running on ethanol. I posted the following message on the =20 Glasair List regarding the use of ethanol-laced gasoline. Note that =20 the Glasair resin system, Derakane 411, is supposed to be safe for up =20= to 10% ethanol. But here is what I found: ______________ Here is an update on the gasohol tests that I have been running. The witness samples that I have put into the test jars are all from either my own or the original factory layups, all using Derakane 411 of some sort. I used the - 45 for a long time, but switched to -350 sometime later as it was easier to get and wetted out better. I have three tests running as noted below: 1. The first test is with two samples in a jar with Jose Cuervo. Jose Cuervo is 40% ethanol. I have an original factory layup in there and one of my own that also has bondo on one side. I removed the samples from the jar and first rubbed my finger over the sample to see if anything would come off on my fingers. Nothing did. I thought that maybe if some material balled up under my finger rub, it would be telling. Then, I took a butter knofe, with a very dull edge, and scraped it vigorously over each surface. There was definitely a residue that came off the surface. The factory sample and my own sample had similar result. The bondo surface held, however, and did not produce and debris. The material that came off was slightly gooey, but did not go very deep. The scratch results could not be felt with my finger. it also required vigorous scratching to get it to come off. 2. The next sample is a jar with gasohol at 5.7% ethanol, the current California formulation. This is soon to go up to 10%. I have three samples in this jar. One is an original factory layup, the second is a fresh layup I did a few weeks prior to starting the test. It was not post cured in any way. The third sample was from that same batch of recent layups, but was post cured at 200 degrees for 3 hours. The factory sample was subjected to the scratch test mentioned above. A much smaller amount of residue came off, but a very little did. On the other two samples, there was no residue at all. The post-cure process did not make any difference. The results from my recent layups is what I was expecting, and was suitably disappointed when the factory layup (now 11 years old), showed signs of a residual buildup, however small. Again, it was much less than the Jose Cuervo sample, but it was there. And, it still required vigorous scratching to get it to come off. However, even a very small amount of that stuff is very disappointing. 3. The third jar has the same gasohol along with water. I did not have time to test that sample. I'll have to get back to you on that one. These results are, indeed, disappointing. While I have totally conflicting reports on the effect of gasohol, where some say that it is wildly dangerous and others say that they have been flying with gasohol in their vinyl-ester tanks for 100s of hours with no problem, I remain concerned. One report that I remember came from this list and said that the ethanol generated bubbles in the fiberglass structure (IIRC). I found no such result. What I found was a very small amount of residue that required active scraping to get it to come off. But, this test has only been running for 2 months. The Jose Cuervo definitely generated an unacceptable amount of residue. This corresponds to the Derakane Chemical Resistance Chart that says gasohol up to 10 % should be OK, over that is not recommended. However, even in my 5.7% sample, I found a little residue on the factory layup. Since the top and bottom of our gas tanks are done at the factory, this bring great concern. Given these results, my choice is to run 100LL for now, until either I can find ethanol-free mogas, or there is a replacement for 100LL. I met someone a few weeks ago that is trying to develop a factory for producing butanol. Butanol is supposedly very similar to gasoline, in that it is nearly the same octane, it has almost as much energy, per gallon, and it is non- corrosive. This guy is making it out of biomass, waste product, not foodstuffs. See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butanol_fuel But, until it is thoroughly tested, it looks like 100LL for me unless ethanol free mogas can be found. Steve Super II RG Best Regards, Steve Thomas _______________________________________________________ On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote: > This is a response from Aeromotive regarding my fuel filter and =20 > ethanol. My fuel \ 2 stroke oil mixture also seems to be a different =20= > color with Ethanol in the mix. Has anyone else observed this? > > > Bobby Hughes > RV10 Renesis > > > Yes, it=92s fine. However, watch as the ethanol/methanol gasoline =20= > blends will dissolve years of shellac and debris in the transport =20 > and underground storage containers which will then end up in =20 > someone=92s gas tank. You=92ll need to make sure that the filter is =20= > serviced more frequently going forward; probably at least once a =20 > year in the spring and maybe once again mid-season over the first =20 > couple years. > > Hope this helps, good luck and thanks for choosing Aeromotive! > > Brett Clow > Aeromotive, Inc. > 7805 Barton St. > Lenexa, KS 66214 > 913-647-7300 Ext. 109 > > From: Bobby J. Hughes [mailto:bhughes@qnsi.net] > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 6:19 PM > To: tech@aeromotiveinc.com > Subject: Fuel Filter \ Ethenol > > 10 Micron Fabric element for 12308, P/N 12608 > > Ethanol is now at all Texas gas stations. Is this filter safe for =20 > 10% ethanol? > > Thanks, > > Bobby J Hughes > --Apple-Mail-21--22471614 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 To = All,

This is a good opportunity for me to mention = some tests that I have been running on ethanol.  I posted the = following message on the Glasair List regarding the use of ethanol-laced = gasoline.  Note that the Glasair resin system, Derakane 411, is = supposed to be safe for up to 10% ethanol.  But here is what =  I = found:

______________

Here is an update on the gasohol tests that I have = been 
running. The witness samples that I have put into the = test 
jars are all from either my own or the original = factory 
layups, all using Derakane 411 of some sort. I used the = -
45 for a long time, but switched to -350 sometime later 
as = it was easier to get and wetted out better. I have three 
tests = running as noted below:

1. The first test is with two samples in = a jar with Jose 
Cuervo. Jose Cuervo is 40% ethanol. I have an = original 
factory layup in there and one of my own that also = has 
bondo on one side. I removed the samples from the = jar 
and first rubbed my finger over the sample to see = if 
anything would come off on my fingers. Nothing did. = I 
thought that maybe if some material balled up under = my 
finger rub, it would be telling. Then, I took a = butter 
knofe, with a very dull edge, and scraped it = vigorously 
over each surface. There was definitely a residue = that 
came off the surface. The factory sample and my = own 
sample had similar result. The bondo surface = held, 
however, and did not produce and debris. The = material 
that came off was slightly gooey, but did not go = very 
deep. The scratch results could not be felt with my = finger. 
it also required vigorous scratching to get it to come = off. 

2. The next sample is a jar with gasohol at 5.7% = ethanol, 
the current California formulation. This is soon to go = up 
to 10%. I have three samples in this jar. One is an = original 
factory layup, the second is a fresh layup I did a = few 
weeks prior to starting the test. It was not post cured = in 
any way. The third sample was from that same batch = of 
recent layups, but was post cured at 200 degrees for = 3 
hours. The factory sample was subjected to the = scratch 
test mentioned above. A much smaller amount of = residue 
came off, but a very little did. On the other two = samples, 
there was no residue at all. The post-cure process = did 
not make any difference. The results from my = recent 
layups is what I was expecting, and was = suitably 
disappointed when the factory layup (now 11 years = old), 
showed signs of a residual buildup, however = small. 
Again, it was much less than the Jose Cuervo sample, = but 
it was there. And, it still required vigorous scratching = to 
get it to come off. However, even a very small amount = of 
that stuff is very disappointing.

3. The third jar = has the same gasohol along with water. I 
did not have time to = test that sample. I'll have to get back 
to you on that = one.

These results are, indeed, disappointing. While I = have 
totally conflicting reports on the effect of gasohol, = where 
some say that it is wildly dangerous and others say = that 
they have been flying with gasohol in their = vinyl-ester 
tanks for 100s of hours with no problem, I = remain 
concerned. One report that I remember came from = this 
list and said that the ethanol generated bubbles in = the 
fiberglass structure (IIRC). I found no such result. What = I 
found was a very small amount of residue that = required 
active scraping to get it to come = off. 

But, this test has only been running for 2 months. = The 
Jose Cuervo definitely generated an unacceptable = amount 
of residue. This corresponds to the Derakane = Chemical 
Resistance Chart that says gasohol up to 10 % should = be 
OK, over that is not recommended. However, even in = my 
5.7% sample, I found a little residue on the factory = layup. 
Since the top and bottom of our gas tanks are done at = the 
factory, this bring great concern.

Given these = results, my choice is to run 100LL for now, 
until either I can = find ethanol-free mogas, or there is a 
replacement for = 100LL. 

I met someone a few weeks ago that is trying to = develop a 
factory for producing butanol. Butanol is supposedly = very 
similar to gasoline, in that it is nearly the same octane, = it 
has almost as much energy, per gallon, and it is = non-
corrosive. This guy is making it out of biomass, = waste 
product, not foodstuffs. See the following = link:

http://en.wikipedia.org= /wiki/Butanol_fuel

But, until it is thoroughly tested, it = looks like 100LL for me 
unless ethanol free mogas can be = found. 

Steve
Super II RG

Best Regards,

Steve = Thomas




=

On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Bobby J. Hughes = wrote:

 This is a = response from=20 Aeromotive regarding my fuel filter and ethanol. My fuel \ 2 stroke oil = mixture=20 also seems to be a different color with Ethanol in the mix. Has anyone = else=20 observed this?
 
 
Bobby Hughes
RV10 Renesis
 
 
 Yes, it=92s fine.  = However, watch as=20 the ethanol/methanol gasoline blends will dissolve years of shellac and = debris=20 in the transport and underground storage containers which will then end = up in=20 someone=92s gas tank.  You=92ll need to make sure that the filter = is serviced=20 more frequently going forward; probably at least once a year in the = spring and=20 maybe once again mid-season over the first couple=20 years.

 

Hope this = helps, good=20 luck and thanks for choosing Aeromotive!

 

Brett=20 Clow

Aeromotive,=20 Inc.

7805=20 Barton St.

Lenexa,=20= KS  66214=

913-647-7300 =20 Ext. 109

 

From: = Bobby J.=20 Hughes [mailto:bhughes@qnsi.net]
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 6:19=20 PM
To:=20 tech@aeromotiveinc.com
Subject:=20 Fuel Filter \ Ethenol

 

10 Micron Fabric element for = 12308, P/N 12608=20

 

Ethanol is now at all = Texas gas stations. Is=20 this filter safe for 10% ethanol?

 

Thanks,

 

Bobby J=20 Hughes

 


= --Apple-Mail-21--22471614--