Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.202.165.37; envelope-from=aviator@stinsonvoyager.com
From: "Bill Monroe" <aviator@stinsonvoyager.com>
To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-3950911@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3950911@logan.com>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Fuel Filter \ Ethanol
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 06:33:09 -0800
Message-ID: <005901ca5eee$101d3f20$3057bd60$@com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: Acpe7VkvMgxq6fuETwKuBUkEg+V7qwAAHQLg
Content-Language: en-us

I think it would be great to stick to technical, on-topic discussions.


-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Ernest Christley
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 6:27 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Fuel Filter \ Ethanol

Steve Thomas wrote:
>
> 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 
What a terrible waste of perfectly drinkable Jose Cuervo.

I took the time to learn to weld aluminum and switched from the plans 
directions of a fiberglass tank to use an aluminum tank. The issue that 
concerned me most, and I really hope people using glass tanks will heed 
this closely, the most pressing issue is not ethanol (today's 
additive).  The most pressing issue is, "What will the clueless 
politicians mandate that we add to our fuel in the future?"

You hope for the airplane to be flying in 20yrs.  The government has 
clearly demonstrated that they are willing to go along with any 
boondoggle, no matter how much it harms the people they are claiming to 
help, as long as the right campaigns get a properly sized donation.  
Ethanol in gasoline is ridiculous by any reasonable measure, except for 
how much it enriches Monsanto and ADM;  yet, there it is (and is 
increasing).  There is absolutely no way to know what bright idea they 
will come up with in the future. 

The epoxies we use in our structures is an organic compound, which will 
have a measurable reaction to any organic solvents.  All carbon based 
liquid fuels are organic solvents.  Different types of epoxies will have 
different reactions with different solvents.  There isn't a universal 
solvent, and epoxy that stands up well to the first, will melt in the 
second, while a different epoxy formulation will turn to goo by the 
second and seem to ignore the first.  Someone has a rulebook somewhere 
that gives guidelines as to what solvents will affect which epoxies.  I 
have only seen pieces of it, but I know enough to know that the rules 
are long, complicated, and hideously complex.  People make careers of 
specializations within specializations within the various fields of 
organic chemistry, fer chrissakes.

So, we have an unknown future where clueless politicians get lobbied to 
mandate we pour various amounts of random chemicals into our fuel 
supply.  You have fuel tanks built with organic chemicals that WILL have 
a reaction to these unknown chemicals, whether it be barely noticeable 
or instantaneously turning the entire tank to goo.  You have a situation 
where a slight reaction can clog a filter and result in fuel starvation 
to the engine in flight, or a radical reaction resulting in the hangar 
floor below years of work being covered in volatile fuel.  AAARRRGH!

If you're going to stay with aviation fuel, I'd say that you're 
reasonably safe with hand-laid tanks.  The FAA is going to require a lot 
of tests to meet STCs before they let just anyone change the formulas.  
That has been demonstrated.  We still have leaded fuel more than 30 
years after it was mandated away everywhere else.

But IF you're going to be pouring gas from your local station into your 
tanks, either commission a roto-moulded tank from the same materials 
used to make plastic gas cans, or build one from aluminum.  All fuel 
lines should be aluminum, or automobile approved materials (including 
O-rings and such).  I'm not saying that going with the automobile gear 
will be a complete shield from trouble, but the politicians are more 
likely to fear millions of drivers being stranded when they push 
chemicals that are incompatible with autos.

I'm not trying to disrespect your experiment, Steve.  In fact, I think 
that it clearly illustrates the point that all these interactions are 
funky, and not necessarily predictable.  The point that bothers me is 
that they miss the most important point.  All you can test is last 
week's/month's/year's formulation; but you will, by necessity, be flying 
with tomorrows.

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html