Ethanol

[Guest davidh10]

I think you will find that unleaded will contain ethanol and the 95 and 98 fuels will not. Shell is already supplying unleaded yellow handle pumps with ethanol 10% and the blue (95) and red (98) are straight fuel. the unleaded pumps have a sign saying not for garden machinery. Do they intend to taint 95 and 98. don't think so not for a few years at least. As it is i belive those using mogas use the 98. should be pretty straight forward for those using mogas. unless your color blind

Ozzie; I think you have oversimplified it...

 

I and most Rotax 912 owners use 91 RON ULP.

 

Currently, United Petroleum sell:-

 

• 91 RON ULP (no ethanol - I test every fill).
   
   
  
• PLUS ULP 95 RON (10% ethanol).
   
   
  
• Boost 98 (Qld only - 10% Ethanol)
   
   
  
• Premium 98 (no ethanol)
   
   
  
• Premium 100 (contains ethanol)
   
   
  
• Ethanol 85
   
   
  

 

 

Not all fuels are sold at all locations.

 

The fuel is dyed for identification purposes. 91 RON ULP is purple/bronze.

 

There's no reason I cannot use PULP 98, it just costs more for no benefit. For that matter I could use LL100 at a further cost increase, but as that is leaded it also decreases the engine maintenance intervals.

 

Does anyone know the reason they are proposing to mandate ethanol in the ULP but not in PULP? Especially since there is PULP with ethanol available already, as indicated above.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Seems things a bit different in Vic. Here (nsw) at the moment it is, unleaded 92 no ethanol (being phased out) becoming E10 unleaded. next up is 95 no ethanol, then 98 no ethanol.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Here's a reference to a Biofuels Australia newsletter in which it indicates that NSW and QLD will have mandates for E10 ULP due to those states having regional production facilities. Read as government deals to create consumption to promote the state based industry.

 

None of the other states are expected to follow suit anytime soon.

 

I note that the NSW legislation can exempt service stations who would be:-

 

1. a small business that would experience hardship or;
    
    
   
2. primarily supply boats or watercraft.
    
    
   

 

 

Here's the NSW FAQ.

 

It is somewhat disappointing to note that they don't exempt businesses who supply aircraft and yet they note in their FAQ that the E10 fuel is unsuitable for aircraft.

 

The NSW government answer to engine incompatibility with E10 fuel is to use PULP that does not contain ethanol and is not mandated to do so.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Hi all, I don't think it is just a matter of being "negative".

 

Simply put, if there were no problems with an Ethonol mix, and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, then no doubt we would all be completely for it, and would have no reason not to be.

 

Unfortunatly many have found that this is not the case, and caution has to be exercised at this time. I personally have had problems with E10 in both my aircraft (912) and car (Nissan Z24). The 912 'burped' during climb for the first time ever, unlike any of the other 912s that I have also flown, after I mistakenly loaded fuel with E10 in it.

 

Auto components such as fuel tanks, fuel pumps and carbureters are now failing, or leaking after use of E10, because they contain seals ,O-rings, and impellers not designed for use with Ethonol, or alcohols generally.

 

If I go back to the E10 producer and complain about that leaking fuel-tank or failed fuel pump, or that my 912 'burped', I don't frankly expect them be completely sympathetic to my cause.

 

I have no problems if a farmer wants to run E10 in his tractor, and support his industry. If his tractor fails mid-paddock it won't kill him.

 

If my 912 'burps' and fails to get me over that powerline at the end of that short runway like it has hundreds of times before, than it might kill me.

 

Additionally if my Nissan suddenly dies right beside that bigrig I'm passing because of an E10 produced vapor lock, that may also kill me.

 

I would suggest that the reason for the increase in economy in the previously mentioned Magnas is understandable, and probabily a result of the hotter burn that an alcohol fuel produces, and also the cleaning action of that hotter burn. E10 will also combine with any water present (it's hydroscopic) and water droplets converted to steam also have a cleaning effect in the combustion chamber.

 

I'm not looking for a small increase in economy in either my vehical or aircraft, but I do demand, and require ultimate reliability !.

 

Like my old friend Phil Lockwood, I also shall remain firmly seated on the fence with E10 at this time, until further evidence suggests otherwise.......................................................Maj....

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Couldn't agree more Blackrod..................................................Maj...

 

 

[The Wolf]

Hi all, I don't think it is just a matter of being "negative".Simply put, if there were no problems with an Ethonol mix, and it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, then no doubt we would all be completely for it, and would have no reason not to be.

You mean like unleaded petrol? How lead substitute was junk, cars would crumble in the street. Valves would come shooting out? This is exactly the same fear campaign that came out when lead petrol was being phased out.

 

The 912 'burped' during climb for the first time ever, unlike any of the other 912s that I have also flown, after I mistakenly loaded fuel with E10 in it.

[/Quote]Correlation doesn't imply causation. So if your plane had "burped" and you had not put E10 in it, would you be so quick to say unleaded petrol is the sole cause?

 

You say you didnt realise you put E10 in? So is it possible you have done this before WITHOUT trouble?

 

Auto components such as fuel tanks, fuel pumps and carbureters are now failing, or leaking after use of E10, because they contain seals ,O-rings, and impellers not designed for use with Ethonol, or alcohols generally.

Again, Correlation doesn't imply causation. The Z24 engines are nearly 20 years old! ofcourse they are falling apart. Why are you so quick to rule that, say 3 years of ethanol are to blame, and not 17 years of unleaded petrol?

 

If I go back to the E10 producer and complain about that leaking fuel-tank or failed fuel pump, or that my 912 'burped', I don't frankly expect them be completely sympathetic to my cause.

Actually, BP will guarantee their E10. If E10 kills your car, they will fix it. Wait a minute! were not they the people telling you it would kill your car? Are they in a "give away money mood"? no! now that E10 is required, they cant try to scare you away from their product, how would they make money?If E10 was that bad, they stand to loose quite a bit.... no?

 

[Guest davidh10]

...Again, Correlation doesn't imply causation....Actually, BP will guarantee their E10. If E10 kills your car, they will fix it. Wait a minute! were not they the people telling you it would kill your car? Are they in a "give away money mood"? no! now that E10 is required, they cant try to scare you away from their product, how would they make money?

 

If E10 was that bad, they stand to loose quite a bit.... no?

So how would we prove that the damage to the fuel system was caused by the E10. BP or anyone else could just require "proof", and as you have indicated above "Correlation doesn't imply causation", so I don't see how the ordinary person in the street is going to prove it.

 

If it is suitable for Airbourne XT-912, then why does not the Operating Manual indicate that it is OK. Rotax say the engine is ok, but that still leaves the fuel system... Tank, hoses, filter, fuel rate sensor...

 

It will also make testing for water in the tank somewhat problematic... as the ethanol will dissolve the water into solution and run it through the engine... How well does the engine run with a saturated solution of water in the E10. It is only if the water content exceeds a saturated solution that it would be measurable in conventional testing.

 

All this government policy on ethanol use is just as good as them introducing electric cars that in reality run on brown coal! It isn't greener when you consider the whole fuel cycle... just politics.

 

 

[farri]

The 912 'burped' during climb for the first time ever, unlike any of the other 912s that I have also flown, after I mistakenly loaded fuel with E10 in it. .Maj....

G`Day Ross, Major, Sir, ,

 

Don`t know much about ethanol, just curious,interested to know and learn.......Why would ethanol, E10 , cause a "burp" and by burp, do you mean a miss fire and how long did it last?.

 

Cheers,

 

Frank.

 

PS, Could someone please tell me how to insert multiple quotes in the one reply.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Good Question Frank, I really should have explained it better.

 

First let me clarify that I said in a prev post the we 'mistakenly' loaded the E10. That was not the case, we knew it was E10, but as it was early times for E10 we had no reason to suspect it at all.

 

A few years back I ferried Pat Mcgraths Lightwing down to Temora for him. I had recently installed a new 912 in it, and it probabily had around 20 hrs on it. I had done a good many of those 20 hrs, and Pat the rest, without any obvious problems. It was the 3rd new 912 I had installed in that aircraft, as Pat did a lot of flying, and always renewed his engines at 1200 hrs for insurance purposes.

 

The plane was at Ayr, pat picked me up, and prior to going to the strip we decided that we would need another 40 lts. The only servo open at that time of the morning was being used for an E10 ethonol test period, one of the first around to do so as I remember.

 

We had no choice but to load some E10 and I didn't expect it would be a problem mixing it with 50 lts of non E10 already on board.

 

After take off I commenced a continous climb heading for about 5 grand, as I set course to the West. With all temps nicely warmed up and stabilized, at about 3 grand the engine suddenly shook like hell and 'burbled' for about ten seconds. It then cleared just as suddenly and ran normal for the rest of that leg.

 

During the remainder of that 2 day trip the engine ran perfect without missing a beat. Consiquently I didn't load any E10 fuel, and have made a point of not doing so in the years since. I have never had another 912 burp like that before or since, and have had the onset of carb ice occasionally requiring carb heat, so I know what that feels like, it wasn't carb ice but felt more like a vapor lock similiar to what you could get in an auto on a hot day.

 

Now of course I can't prove it was the E10 that we loaded that caused the burb, but a smart man may rightly assume that it well could have been.

 

As far as my 'old' Z24 goes, with well over 400,000 Ks on it , it is far from falling to bits as suggested by Wolfman, and continues to be as reliable as any car I've owned. It recently got a new cylinder head fitted, and I regularly change fuel filters, as I do a lot of milage. Coincidently in the past I did fill it once with an E10 mix (it was 99c a liter, I couldn't resist !) .

 

I barely made it home that night. It would just vacume lock and shut down. Fortunatly I have two elec fuel pumps fitted, and after switching the second on, things resumed as normal.

 

I have never had this occur with a non-E10 fuel !!.

 

I am not anti-E10, and will run it in vehicals if the are suited for it. As I have already said I do like my trusty 912 to run as fautlessly as I can arrange, and so therefore I don't use E10 in my aeroplane. Like I said I'll just sit on the fence for now, and see what happens with it in the future........................................Maj...

 

 

[dazza 38]

Lets take this back a step.When A/c have a STC, for Mogas. They are checked out, not just for the engine, but the whole fuel system.When you throw Mogas with Ethanol in to the mix.The STC that costs alot of money.Is out the window.We cant afford to have this Stuff, playing with fuel systems, without being a proven fuel Ie.with ethanol .We cant have it proven if different fuel companies, mixes its own blend. Cheers

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Lets take this back a step.When A/c have a STC, for Mogas. They are checked out, not just for the engine, but the whole fuel system.When you throw Mogas with Ethanol in to the mix.The STC that costs alot of money.Is out the window.We cant a ford to have this Stuff, playing with fuel systems, without being a proven fuel Ie.with ethanol .We cant have it proven if different fuel companies, mixes its own blend. Cheers

Fuel companies mixing their own blend, with proprietary additives seems to be more in the PULP category, as exemplified with Shell OptiMax, for which there is CASA Airworthiness Directive (copy of the letter on RA-Aus web site). Plain old ULP does not seem to have ever had an issue of this nature.

 

This would seem to be problematic as Dazza has indicated...

 

I thought I'd revisit my aircraft "Pilot Manual". The "Preferred fuel" is "EN228 Premium / Regular. Super grade gasoline, lead free min RON 90". Optional Fuel is "AvGas".

 

Now you will notice that there is no obvious mention of Ethanol, however in googling "EN228" it appears that standard has been re-defined in Europe to include up to 5% Ethanol. Information on the Australian Federal Govenment web site suggests that Australian fuel standards are "...harmonised with European standards...".

 

Bottom line, not even the specification in the "Pilot Manual" retains its meaning, because governments change the standard in lieu of creating a new one.

 

So does that mean I can use 50/50 E10 and PULP(sans Ethanol) i_dunno

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

...PS, Could someone please tell me how to insert multiple quotes in the one reply.

Frank;

 

A little more detail than others have given, but the same solution.

 

Where you see the "\" character, ignore it. It is placed in front of the square brackets to prevent the system from interpreting the square brackets as a system variable definition.

 

The site accepts various "tags" that the system can interpret to provide information. The quoting methodology makes use of this capability. You will note that when you click the "Reply with Quote" button, the editable text window startes with, in this case, "\

 

" and the quote ends with "\[/quote\]".

 

• In order to get the quoted text enclosed in the "bubble", you dont need the "=farri;227774" part. These two parts are explained separately in the following bullet points.
   
   
  
• To identlfy the member being quoted add "=<login-id-of-member>" where the "<" and ">" are just indicating that you replace the description with the actual value that relates to the specific member. In your case "farri" or in my case "davidh10". That provides not only the member's id in the quote, but also a link to their profile so you can easily find out a bit more about them.
   
   
  
• To provide an easy link back to the Post being quoted, add ";<unique-post-number>" which can be read by hovering the cursor over the Post number in the top right corner of the Post and looking at the link displayed in the status bar. Note that the Post number visible in the top right of each post is is's number in the Thread, whereas what is needed is the "unique-post-number", which is value in the link.
   
   
  

 

 

All of the above is performed automatically for you, but you can also do it manually as described above.

 

If you want to break the original quote into several parts to reply in-line to each part, then just add additional "\[/quote\]" and "\

 

" pairs to end / start a new bubble and place your response between these pairs. There's no need to repeat the member-id or post-number.If you want to quote and respond to multiple Posts, then you can do the first one with the button, but then the remaining ones need to be done manually by copying / pasting the other post sections you want to quote and surrounding each with "\

 

" and "\[/quote\]" pairs.This latter action can be partially performed using the Advanced Toolbar icon that looks like a quote bubble. That will surround the selected text with the "\

 

" and "\[/quote\]" pairs, but you still have to manually add the member-id and unique-post-number manually if needed.Hope this helps.

 

There's a "Multi-quote" toggle button next to the "Reply with Quote" button, but I have never found that it does anything. Ian may be able to explain it, as he is familiar with the features of this specific site software.