X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.64] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 713521 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:33:54 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.64; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm58aec.bellsouth.net ([209.214.146.125]) by imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050907003310.IYZX388.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm58aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 20:33:10 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [209.214.146.125]) by ibm58aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050907003309.XWGD24572.ibm58aec.bellsouth.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 20:33:09 -0400 Message-ID: <431E3542.7030501@bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:33:06 -0500 From: Charlie England User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Alternative fuel References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell Duffy wrote: > A gallon of ethanol has an energy content of 83,333 BTU. A gallon of > gasoline has 123,222 BTU of energy (varies a bit by octane). So > gasoline has an approx 48 % advantage in energy. So assuming an > engine was equally efficient on either fuel (which as you point out > they are not likely to be), you could produce more power and fly > further|Faster on gallon of gasoline than a gallon of ehtanol. > > Hi Ed, > > I officially predict that you'll go looking for Saab info right after > you read this: > http://www.age85.org/PressReleases/Detail.cfm?Ap=6 > > This isn't going to be another one of those MAP things is it :-) > > Cheers, > Rusty (stirring up trouble again) Way to go, Rusty. I'm no engineer, but I'm a pretty fair troubleshooter & recognize the need to ask the right questions & properly evaluate empirical evidence. In the '60s when I paid attention to auto racing, there were gas dragsters & then there were alcohol dragsters. (then nitro dragsters, but that's hardly relevant to aviation) The alky cars were noticeably faster, enough for a separate class. Indy cars in the '60s & early '70s were alky powered. Don't know if that's still the case. This seems to run counter to 'conventional wisdom' I'm seeing here. (Sorry; I'm currently reading 'Freakonomics' & couldn't resist.) The knocks against alcohol for potential damage to engines/fuel system components is deja vu to unleaded gas in the '70s. Anybody having problems with no-lead gas in their cars today? Charlie (trying for whitecaps)