Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.167; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <431E6A41.2080909@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:19:13 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Alternative fuel
References: <list-713278@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-713278@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

My best information is that alcohol in gas has a TERRIBLE effect on 
common composite structures.  Alcohol by itself isn't corrosive, nor is 
water.  But if you have alcohol, you WILL have water mixed in with it 
and it's the mixture that's so corrosive to composite fuel tanks 
(strakes).  You need to research this VERY CAREFULLY before you commit 
to anything.

I've heard lots more bad stuff than good about alcohol ... Jim S.

Ernest Christley wrote:

> Denny wrote:
>
>> The research has proven that ethanol-based avgas not only is a 
>> suitable replacement to 100LL, it is actually a superior fuel.
>>
>>
> My take is that "suitable" and "superior" are weasle words that have 
> no meaning beyond what the user wants them to mean.
>
> My guess is that "suitable" means the plane can get off the ground 
> with it, even if it has to have aerial refuelling at the end of the 
> runway and all the plastic seals in the fuel line are eaten away 
> before it can finish flying the pattern.  "Superior" would mean that 
> they make a little more margin on it than 100LL.  Of course, I could 
> be wrong.
>