X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 19:51:28 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m23.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.4] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTP id 2929323 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 May 2008 15:16:43 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.4; envelope-from=Sky2high@aol.com Received: from Sky2high@aol.com by imo-m23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.4.) id q.d25.2868319e (29678) for ; Mon, 19 May 2008 15:15:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Sky2high@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 15:15:56 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Fuel Testing X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1211224556" X-Mailer: Unknown sub 34 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1211224556 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris, Excellent report. You have inspired me to get some Jet A and make a 5% mixture of it and 100LL. Then, allow that mixture and a straight 100LL sample to evaporate on strips of 24# paper and sniff each. I hope that it will be a memorable event (different smell, reasonable human smell memory). I almost always get fuel from a self serve pump and placing a paper strip in the flowing stream could reveal the needed information in a subsequent sniff. Thanks again, Scott Krueger AKA Grayhawk Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96 Aurora, IL (KARR) Pilot not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%. In a message dated 5/19/2008 1:32:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Christopher.Zavatson@baesystems.com writes: I have followed the discussion of fuel contamination, and how to detect it, with great interest, having been burned by Jet Fuel contamination once before. A few detection methods were suggested both on-line and in the recent SA article. I wanted to see how effective these methods really are. Keeping in mind, of course, that for a test to be effective it must be simple enough that pilots would be willing and able to do it at every fill-up. My goal was to see if low level contamination could be detected by the methods recently discussed: Smell, feel, and evaporation on paper, etc. Based on the fuel contamination incident in which I was involved, it was determined that 5% jet fuel in an O360 is enough to cause serious damage, but not immediate engine failure. 12% is enough to cause engine failures on turboed or high compression engines. I acquired my sample of Jet A from the wing of a King Air, with permission of course. I took 100ml of 100LL and started adding Jet A. The smell test: Even at low levels 1-5% a faint smell of diesel or Jet A is detectable. I am not sure however, how successful this would be without the control sample of pure Avgas. I can see false positives when one starts to imagine faint hues of Jet fuel odor in the fuel sample that are not really there. Pure jet fuel is very obvious, but low level contamination is not quite so obvious. The feel test: Here again the fine shades of grey make the transition from zero contamination to light contamination difficult to detect. Even with a pure 100LL sample between two fingers in one hand and a mildly contaminated sample in the other, I could not tell an obvious difference. Once again pure jet fuel is easy to detect. The evaporation test: I was hoping this one would be the answer and provide a black and white finding. Unfortunately, even at 10% contamination, the sample dried completely without any visible residue. At 100% jet fuel of course the stain was obvious. A glimmer of hope however. Smelling the paper after evaporation offered perhaps the best detection method. If any Jet A was present there was a faint smell detectable, even down to 1%.. If none was present, there was no smell whatsoever, just clean paper. FWIW **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) -------------------------------1211224556 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris,
 
Excellent report.  You have inspired me to get some Jet A and make= a=20 5% mixture of it and 100LL.  Then, allow that mixture and a straight 10= 0LL=20 sample to evaporate on strips of 24# paper and sniff each.  I hope that= it=20 will be a memorable event (different smell, reasonable human smell= =20 memory).  I almost always get fuel from a self serve pump and placing a= =20 paper strip in the flowing stream could reveal the needed information in a=20 subsequent sniff.
 
Thanks again,
 
Scott Krueger=20 AKA Grayhawk
Lancair N92EX IO320 SB 89/96
Aurora, IL (KARR)

Pil= ot=20 not TSO'd, Certificated score only > 70%.
 
 
 
In a message dated 5/19/2008 1:32:42 P.M. Central Daylight Time,=20 Christopher.Zavatson@baesystems.com writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>
I have f= ollowed=20 the discussion of fuel contamination, and how to detect it, with great=20 interest, having been burned by Jet Fuel contamination once before. =20= A=20 few detection methods were suggested both on-line and in the recent SA=20 article.  I wanted to see how effective these methods really are.&nbs= p;=20 Keeping in mind, of course,  that for a test to be effective it must=20= be=20 simple enough that pilots would be willing and able to do it at every=20 fill-up. 
 My= goal was=20 to see if low level contamination could be detected by the methods recentl= y=20 discussed:  Smell, feel, and evaporation on paper, etc.  Based o= n=20 the fuel contamination incident in which I was involved,  it was=20 determined that 5% jet fuel in an O360 is enough to cause serious damage,=20= but=20 not immediate engine failure.  12% is enough to cause engine failures= on=20 turboed or high compression engines. 
 
I acquir= ed my=20 sample of Jet A from the wing of a King Air, with permission of course.&nb= sp;=20 I took 100ml of 100LL and started adding Jet A. 
The smel= l=20 test:
Even at=20= low levels=20 1-5% a faint smell of diesel or Jet A is detectable.  I am not sure=20 however, how successful this would be without the control sample of p= ure=20 Avgas.  I can see false positives when one starts to imagine faint hu= es=20 of Jet fuel odor in the fuel sample that are not really there.  Pure=20= jet=20 fuel is very obvious, but low level contamination is not quite so=20 obvious.
The feel= =20 test:
Here aga= in the=20 fine shades of grey make the transition from zero contamination to li= ght=20 contamination difficult to detect.  Even with a pure 100LL sample bet= ween=20 two fingers in one hand and a mildly contaminated sample in the other= , I=20 could not tell an obvious difference.  Once again pure jet fuel=20= is=20 easy to detect.
The evap= oration=20 test:
I was ho= ping this=20 one would be the answer and provide a black and white finding. =20 Unfortunately, even at 10% contamination, the sample dried completely= =20 without any visible residue.  At 100% jet fuel of course the sta= in=20 was obvious.  A glimmer of hope however.  Smelling the paper aft= er=20 evaporation offered perhaps the best detection method.  If any= =20 Jet A was present there was a faint smell detectable, even down to=20 1%..  If none was present, there was no smell whatsoever, just clean=20 paper.
FWIW=20
 

=

Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.
= -------------------------------1211224556--