Wow! I had to check the date on that article to make sure it was April 1. That sure would be a game changer. But if it's that good, why only focus on general aviation? I couldn't tell why this wouldn't work in cars as well.
Doesn't sound like alcohol or biodiesel. Sounds like he's trying to do a gasoline type product. He is an adjunct (part time) professor at the Purdue aerospace department, which probably explains his interest in avgas. I wish him luck, but am not going to hold my breath.
JimC
To the question about 100LL going away. They keep wanting to get rid of it as the volume is not high in comparison to other fuels. See, jet A is really just kerosene... so no problem there. 100LL is leaded, which poses a big problem for them. The refinery has to make a run of it and then they have to purge the whole system in order to be able to make unleaded. A big hassle. The engines we fly really do not need lead anymore as the valve seats have been hardened for some time now. It is also a fact that almost all aircraft engines are less than 9:1 compression, and the turbos are "turbo normalized", so they do not really get boost... they just act the same at 20K as they would at sea level.
So... most any of our beloved aircraft engines do not really require more than 91 octane, and 93 would offer some "buffer" above that. Therefore, I'd bet in the near future you will see the reality of 93UL, which quite frankly will be essentially premium pump gas with a guarantee of no ethanol and a splash of blue dye.
If what they have works then this is great news. I don't know how onerous the task of getting STCs for every aircraft/engine will be - but as the energy density and lead content is different I can hardly see the FAA blessing it as a replacement fuel without STCs being involved.
I think targeting GA as a first market is a smart move. Big oil companies would probably welcome someone taking away the 100LL market - it's probably more a nuisance than a revenue source for the oil companies. This will let them build some volume and learn how to make the fuel in volume for a market that is more flexible about price, before trying to take on the auto fuel market where the competition will be intense and less tolerant of manufacturing costs being higher than forecast.
We shall have to wait and see though. There is not enough info on the web site to tell if this is actually a viable business or just someone's pipe dream.
I do not see any STCs if the FAA decides it is the way to go. They will simply deem it aviation fuel and it will be the fuel. Does anyone have an STC to run the older planes on 100LL? No. Interestingly enough, once the FAA put out 100LL as avgas to replace 100/130 and or 80/87 it just "became" the avgas.
Dave B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like there's hope in the future for Avgas.
> Interesting article at:
>
> [www.insideindianabusiness.com]?
> id=29204
>
> Half the cost to produce, better range,
> lead-free......
>
> There's gotta be a downside.
Don't you know it
From the patent:
"4-cycle engine fuel
17.5 grams of ethyl acetate were mixed with 17.5 grams of 2-methyl furan. 60 grams of mesitylene were then added, followed by 5 grams of corn oil, to form 100 grams of fuel of the present invention. The mixture was stirred until all components were dissolved. The resulting solution was then analyzed, and found to have an effective MON of 142, and an optimum "
If you think acetone or alcohol are good solvents they are nothing compared to furan or ethyl acetate. (mesitylene is 1,3,5 trimethyl benzene)
You could not run through a single tankful of this "fuel" without dissolving every hose, sealant and elastomer in the fuel system.
It would take just two tankfuls to accumulate enough in the crankcase to destroy every seal in the engine.
There are no replacement gaskets or seals for aircraft that could be used with these chemicals.
Using furan and esters for octane has been tried but it destroys fuel systems.
Making trimethyl benzene from acetone, ethyl acetate from ETHANOL and methyl furan from pentosan sugars (from biomass) is MUCH more expensive than they claim.
Maybe the Feds are thinking of a replacement fuel for future engines designed for it.
On the same thought, you're not going to run E-85 in your non E-85 auto for the same reason. You’re going to screw your rubber seals up and set yourself up for expensive repairs.
If this catches on I would guess many of us are in for expensive conversions (tank sealants, carbs, fuel injection systems, hoses etc.).
They (FAA) will not impose something that requires the entire fleet to shut down and make costly changes just to use it.
Cars that are not flex fuel (E85) are not so much likely to have seals and all that go bad. They just don't run well on it as the E85 has less potential and is out of the range of the computer to compensate for it.
I think we are not too far away from the whole pork barrel ethanol gig going away anyway.
E-85 ethanol is used in engines modified to accept higher concentrations of ethanol. Such flexible-fuel vehicles (FFV) are designed to run on any mixture of gasoline or ethanol with up to 85% ethanol by volume. There are a few major differences between FFVs and non-FFVs. One is the elimination of bare magnesium, aluminum, and rubber parts in the fuel system. Another is that fuel pumps must be capable of operating with electrically conductive ethanol instead of non-conducting dielectric gasoline fuel. Fuel injection control systems have a wider range of pulse widths to injection approximately 40% more fuel. Stainless steel fuel lines, sometimes lined with plastic, and stainless steel fuel tanks in place of steel fuel tanks are used. In some cases, FFVs use acid-neutralizing motor oil. For vehicles with fuel-tank mounted fuel pumps, additional differences to prevent arcing, as well as flame arrestors positioned in the tanks fill pipe, are also sometimes used.
All I'm saying, which is obviously contrary to others is I don't feel you can just fill up your 69 Chevelle with E85 and pretend all is honky dory as you head out on a 1000 mile road trip. Most of us are are flying "69 Chevelles."
flyguydon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ed, If it were that bad, why would the FAA even
> bother to test or evaluate it>
The FAA engineers hears lead free replacement, high octane and from renewable resources how could the resist. Remember they leave it up to the suppliers to prove that it works and that it is NOT harmful.
flyguydon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> VW Microbus...
>
> I was not suggesting to use E85 in a plane. If
> you put it in a newer car that is not a FFV they
> run, just not so great.
No you didn't, and neither did I.
My above post is quite clear about the differences between the engineering and manufacturing of components on the two types of vehicles and the long term damage that will occur with improper use of E85. If anyone wants to burn a lesser performing fuel (lesser performing even in FFV vehicles) in their cars and have it run poor while they are at it, they can, it doesn't bother me at all.
I believe the context of posts starting from N761TJ is easily understandable to most of the readers.
I think N761TJ is correct and I feel my analogy is correct. I don't believe the new stuff is going to work in the old engines without expensive mods. We all have our opinion though and that's OK.
