Posted on 05/03/2006 12:59:15 PM PDT by Dead Dog
AGE-85 (Aviation Grade Ethanol) is a high-performance fuel that may be used in any piston engine aircraft. It contains approximately 85% ethanol, along with light hydrocarbons and biodiesel fuel. AGE-85 is specifically blended for cold starting and good mixture balance. AGE is unleaded, burns cleaner, has lower exhaust emissions and is more environmentally friendly than traditional aviation fuels. The ethanol in AGE-85 prevents carburetor and fuel line icing, and provides excellent detonation margins.
possiblity of making 2 X TBO
lower fuel flow than 100LL for equiv. power above 13Kfeet
less chance of carb ice
less expensive than 100LL
Increased Power
Reduced chance of power loss due to water entrainment
.....All for a re-jetted carb/injector.
Check out their .ppt pitch
http://www.age85.org/Attachments/Technical%20Briefing.ppt
I'm an ethanol skeptic, but this actually looks better than 100LL. There is about a 10% increase in fuel flow (loss of range) near sea level, and it weighs slightly more than avgas, however another estimate in price was $1.10 /gal in 1999. About half what 100ll was going for, now 100LL is pushing $6.oo/gal.
Aviation is probably the only market a boutique fuel could be economically competitive, and with a annual demand of only 300Million gallons, it might actually be agriculturally supportable.
AGE85 can be mixed with 100LL safely at any ratio, so most applications would be dual fuel. Dual Fuel STCs are available.
And the effect on range?
The problem with Ethanol-based avation fuels is not from the actual combustion standpoint. Ethanol and octane exhibit different vapour pressures. This causes any ethanol mixed into gasoline at altitude to come out of solution and become vapour in the fuel lines. This will cause vapour lock and engine failure. Until we solve this little problem, ethanol is a non-starter in AvGas.
Sounds pretty good, but I'd make one proviso. E85 is not good for all engines. A lot depends on gasket materials, hose materials, and other materials that may come in contact with the fuel.
Before I put any 85% fuel in any plane, I'd make very sure that its use is approved in that plane. It sure isn't in a lot of cars.
I'd check with the manufacturer before venturing into the sky with a tank full of 80% ethanol.
Good. Now we just need a land mass 3-4 times the size of the current US to grow all the corn.
Does it taste good on the rocks?
I'd pass. If my car dies on the highway I can get out and walk.
Theoretically it shoud be 20% at sealevel, they show 10% at 5000feet, and 0% at 13K, and an advantage above 13K feet.
I think this was with their IO-360 powerd Mooney.
What do Lycoming and Continental say about using such fuel in their engines?
Flyboy Ping
"What do Lycoming and Continental say about using such fuel in their engines?
"
My guess is that they're not approving it at this time. Perhaps after testing. This is hype from the manufacturer of this fuel. I sure wouldn't use it without approval from the plane's manufacturer.
This is hype from the academics researching the fuel.
"This is hype from the academics researching the fuel."
Either way, I'd still check with my plane's manufacturer before putting any of this stuff in the tank. I'm a little hesitant about substitutions, even in my land transport.
I have to drive several miles to get ethanol-free gasoline for my 1958 Johnson RDS20 outboard. It might work with some ethanol in it, but those old seals and diaphragms are getting more difficult to find these days, and the old 35 needs to keep running for me.
That's the kicker.
Once you've jetted your carburetor for ethanol (It takes a LOT more ethanol than gasoline to generate a BTU) you can't just blithely go back to using avgas. It would feed it way too rich.
Industrial Supporters:
Conoco-Phillips
Lycoming
Airflow Performance
Floats and Fuel Cells
Experimental Aircraft Association
Consolidated Fuel Systems
Precision Airmotive
Champion
Alcor
Koch Refining
Cenex
Spicer Axles
Nopec
Heartland Grain Fuels "
http://www.age85.org/ProjectDescription.htm
Read the link,
AGE85 is soluable in gasoline, and will go into solution.
Recip engines have either FADEC (rare) or cockpit controled mixture. Regardless of fuel, they are leaned to peak power (actually 100 deg EGT rich of peak). So the variable mix in fuel would be accounted for.
The jetted carbs flow 20% more fuel, volumetric flow rate, however if 100% 100LL is used, the mixture would be leaned.
You don't fly small airplanes?
Thinking out of the box, how about CNG or LNG?
The high methane content gives natural gas its high octane rating (120-130) and clean-burning characteristics, allowing high engine efficiency and low emissions.
CNG and LNG jet engines are already being used in electric generating plants. Why not use natural gas in jet or piston engines? LNG might have possibilities.
Remember Kelly Johnson's project Suntan?
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4404/ch8-1.htm
Beech 35??
Lycoming is involved, no fuel, no engine sales. And both 80 and 100 avgas have had a foot in the grave for years.
Nah, 35 hp for that old Johnson outboard. Really...running any alcohol in that old girl would be foolish. I can still get most parts, but, boy, do I hate being out on the lake with a dead engine. I'd hate being in the air with one even worse.
Very interesting take and an excellent solution to the liability issues, LOL.
Wasn't it Cheveron that ruined a bunch of engines with bad 100LL. Seems like it was 2003, right during Oshkosh
They ended up buying a bunch of engines.
Liability is part of Aviation not matter what it is, new fuel, complete airframe, or new door latch. Check out the 2006 price for your 182 (unless it is a new 182). And realize 60% of that cost is liability insurance...post liability reform.
For each gallon a aviation fuel you will need 1.5 gallons of ethanol. In a light aircraft such as a Cessna 172 this represents about 20 gallons of extra weight about 140 lbs. 76000 btu verses 114000 btu This is not good.
"It's more of a powerplant than airframe thing, but I definitely want the engine manufacturer to say it is ok to run that fuel in a specific engine, etc."
They have an aircraft certified for ethanol use in Brazil.
"The airplane is named the Ipanema, which has been in production for more than 30 years. The plane was the 1000th unit of the type, and is the first production aircraft in the world certified to use ethanol as its fuel. The company, Industria Aeronautica Neiva, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Embraer. They produced 83 Ipanemas last year, and 46 in 2003."
I think it's a cropduster though. They don't usually fly at altitude.
I have had a vacuum pump failure while flying IFR. I noticed the failure and went to my electric turn and slip to keep straight and level. The Carnahan accident was pilot error. He was not watching his instrument panel.
I could care less what the Airframer thinks. Fuel systems are pretty much built of up standardized fittings..the manufacture specs those out.
The engine manufacturer, or reman outfit (Mattituk, Tulsa, ect), or whoever warantees the engine..and insurance are the ones I'd be looking for acceptance from.
Lycoming, Tulsa, and another reman outfit are funding this.
There is a big diff. between this and the Autofuel STCs, namely, this fuel and 100ll are known commodity. You pull up to a pump and you know what you are putting into your airplane..unlike autofuel which could be almost any of 70+ specs..not all are acceptable for aircraft use, and none (to my knowlege) contain Pentane to keep ethanol's high vapor pressure in check. Nor is autofuel controlled enough for quality. Not to mention ethonal mixed autofuels drop out of solution if 1% water is present...that is bad.
AGE85 will be aircraft specific, and such is designed specifically to replace and exceed..and be compatible with 100LL.
Regards,
GtG
Not to be picky, but I really didn't intend to be an ethanol advocate, but...
At 6.3 lbs per gallon, it is 10% lighter than 100LL per gallon. Since at about 5000 feet, their IO-360 was flowing 10% more fuel to make 75% power..which makes your mission fuel weight a wash. Cruise any altitude above 5K, and your mission fuel weight will decrease. This does not include climb, but with greater power available, time to climb will be reduced.
To continue my sales pitch, did you notice that they use a diesel like additive for greater lubricity. Their IO-360 mooney made 1930 hours before they overhauled it...on an angle head '360, IIRC that is a 1500 hour TBO. No TOH was performed. Not excatlcy conclusive, but the engine definately wasn't harmed by the fuel.
80%..at sea level. Airplanes don't play their typically.
"..but, boy, do I hate being out on the lake with a dead engine."
This from a guy with a 47 year old engine!!!
Yah, but it's a Johnson!
Pardon me, but that's 5% heavier than 100LL, unless 100LL stopped weighing 6 lbs/gal at STP recently.
It's an interesting idea, especially if it (presumably) contains no lead, as leaded avgas won't survive its own limited market and the attack of the environuts forever. The first important question is whether it will run on the big boy engines, like a TSIO-540, that haven't yet been successful with unleaded or lower-octane fuels. I don't think anything will successfully replace 100LL unless it can replace all applications of 100LL, from little O-200s to Wasp Majors on old warbirds. Second, would there be any problems with LOP operation? Range doesn't matter much anyway on the trainers, but if you're trying to maximize your range on a real cross-country machine you're probably flying as high and lean as possible; maybe 10% less range isn't a deal-breaker, but if you have to operate 150 degrees ROP instead of 100 degrees LOP, that might be a 25% or 30% range penalty, and many owners won't accept that. Finally, what will the average STC costs be? Is it a paperwork conversion, or do you need an engine overhaul for compatibility?
An unleaded, ethanol-based fuel that can operate on any existing recip aviation engine over its full range of permitted throttle, mix, and prop settings, costs $1.10/gal, requires only a paperwork STC to be used, and suffers only a 10% range penalty compared to 100LL would completely replace 100LL in five years. If it requires extensive engine work for compatibility, won't work LOP, won't work in turbocharged engines, is closer in price to or more expensive than 100LL, has a bigger than 10% range penalty, or (the ultimate deal-breaker) needs TEL to work in any way, it's not much use.
"The problem with Ethanol-based avation fuels is not from the actual combustion standpoint. Ethanol and octane exhibit different vapour pressures. This causes any ethanol mixed into gasoline at altitude to come out of solution and become vapour in the fuel lines. This will cause vapour lock and engine failure. Until we solve this little problem, ethanol is a non-starter in AvGas."
Ethanol also causes corrosion in aircraft engines.
Articles by Ben Visser
Can I use E-85 in my airplane?
Ben Visser
2/17/2006
Patrick Puckett asks: "Since E-85 is rated at 105 octane, can we use it in engines that require 100LL?"
This is one of the best questions I've received in many years. The reason I like it is that I can give a definite answer, which is no. (I guess I could put the qualifier "not without a significant amount of modification," but that would ruin the effect of my concise answer.)
First there is the octane number game. The rating for E-85 (85% ethanol) is 105, which is the average of the Research and Motor octane number. The aviation lean rating would probably be at or around 100, which is the same as the lean rating for 100/130LL. The problem is that we do not know what the rich rating is or, more important, how it would work in an aircraft engine. I am confident that E-85 will meet the octane requirements for all naturally aspirated aircraft engines whether they were 80/87 or 100/130 certified. The concern is whether it would meet the octane requirements for all of the turbo/supercharged engines today.
One major limitation on the use of E-85 in aircraft engines is the change in carburetor calibration. The stoichiometric air/fuel ratio is the ratio of the amount of air needed to mix with a fuel to support complete combustion. This ratio is based on mass, not volume. For avgas, it takes a little more than 14 pounds of air for every pound of fuel consumed. For E-85, it takes a lot more fuel for the same 14 pounds of air. (Based on EPA data, it takes about 25% to 35% more fuel to operate on E-85 vs. auto gas, which is very similar to avgas.) This means that if you were to use E-85, it would be necessary to recalibrate your carburetor.
One evening, I got into a discussion with several gentlemen as to whether a modern fuel-injected automobile that was not designed for E-85 could be operated on it. To settle the discussion, we took one guy's car, which was almost empty, and filled it with E-85. After driving for about 50 miles, we subjected the vehicle to an array of different driving conditions. We found that the E-85 worked well under normal conditions, but when we went to full throttle acceleration, it was way down on power. I feel that the power loss was due to an overly lean condition. This would relate to a takeoff power setting where, even at full rich, the amount of fuel would be well below that needed for maximum rated power.
The other major problem with E-85 is its affect on composite fuel system components. Many years ago, the state of Illinois operated an aircraft on ethanol fuel. The fuel ruined the composite carburetor float in just a few miles. A metal float fixed that problem. However, there are a lot of composite fuel tank liners, lines and even fuel pumps that can be negatively affected by ethanol.
There are other problems associated with E-85, such as reduced range, water absorption and fuel system cleanup.
The bottom line is that an airplane can be built to operate on E-85, but the present fleet cannot just be changed over.
Ben Visser is an aviation fuels and lubricants expert who spent 33 years with Shell Oil. He has been a private pilot since 1985. You can contact him at Visser@GeneralAviationNews.com.
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/editorial/articledetail.lasso?-token.key=12623&-token.src=column&-nothing
You are correct. I thought that wasn't right. Jet A is 7lbs/gal.
They are running it in a PW1340 on their agcat..with a larger blower. They are also going to 10:1 pistons on the 360. Compression and turbocharging actually make the stuff more attractive, due to the reduced tendency to detonate.
LOP or ROP doesn't seem to be a problem 100LL is detonation critical relative to AGE85 (it's only 85 because it is 15 pentane). Essentially, you can operate it over a much wider mixture band without damage to the engine.
Texas Skyways seems to own the STC. I haven't checked with them for price. I'm considering building up an 0-540 (260hp-300hp) for an experimental, if AGE85 becomes available, I'll set it up to burn both 100LL and AGE85 with the plan to run AGE85 when possible. I can take the low altitude range hit.
The key change is to be able to flow the extra 20%, typically this just means larger jets.
http://www.age85.org/STCs.htm
http://txskyways.com
Just for the sake of discussion: E-85 has nothing to do with AGE85, they are completely different.
Frankly, it'll take about 1.66 Lbs/1 Lbs (alchohol/gasoline) ratio.
There's a serious flaw in your assertion. Nevertheles, and that notwithstanding, the country has to move to ethanol, despite all the naysayers; if not what else do we got?
Yes, actually, I do.
Since 1961.
When flying the weight of the fuel, not its volume, is the main consideration because of the payload implications. The energy per pound is the critical factor for range and weight/balance considerations.
I hear Johnson Marine is planning to get into the motorcycle business to compete with Harley-Davidson. Their marketing guys are convinced that what every Harley owner REALLY wants is a Big Johnson...
I am missing something here or the laws of Thermodynamics do not apply to ethanol. How can you have a lesser fuel burn at altitude using ethanol verses 100LL av gas. To do that you would have to get more power out of a fuel that has less BTU/unit of weight. Something is not adding up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.