X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.100] (HELO ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2) with ESMTP id 713402 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Sep 2005 18:20:42 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-065-188-083-049.carolina.res.rr.com [65.188.83.49]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id j86MJtWf023660 for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:19:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c5b331$1cb8a700$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Alternative fuel Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:19:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5B30F.956DCE90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5B30F.956DCE90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Right on, Bill. A gallon of ethanol has an energy content of 83,333 BTU. A gallon of = gasoline has 123,222 BTU of energy (varies a bit by octane). So = gasoline has an approx 48 % advantage in energy. So assuming an engine = was equally efficient on either fuel (which as you point out they are = not likely to be), you could produce more power and fly further|Faster = on gallon of gasoline than a gallon of ehtanol. =20 So if this ever became mandated, Van could start his next design for an = Aerial Tanker for in-flight refueling {:>). The story (now) is that production of ethanol is something like 35% net = energy efficient. In other words you get 35% more energy out of the = energy content of the ethanol than it takes to plant, grow and harvest = the corn to produce it. This is a big change, earlier studies showed = there was a net lost - I smell some number juggling by those with vested = interest. Ed A=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: wrjjrs@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:56 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Alternative fuel =20 -----Original Message----- From: Denny To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:44:55 -0500 Subject: [FlyRotary] Alternative fuel I have been risking my luck posting an off topic thread on the canard = list regarding alternative fuel and thought I should spread my sins = around and pass it on to you folks on this list as well. I am also very = interested to here all your thoughts on using this stuff in a rotary. I = was doing some research on E-85 an 85% ethanol based fuel substitute = being promoted here in the Midwest and sent an email to one of the study = groups asking for any info regarding a replacement for 100LL. I will = paste their response as it is very interesting.=20 Denny=20 Denny, These comments ignore two vital items. First: All alcohol fuels suffer = a mileage penalty compared to gasoline. This is true of many alternate = fuels. BTU's per pound just aren't there. The engine may run fine, but = will suffer a mileage penalty of 30-50% depending on how well the engine = is tuned for alcohol. Rotaries are very tolerant of low-octane fuels, = but suffer even bigger on mileage=20 Second: Alcohol will attack many composite surfaces including = laminates. (fiberglass and Carbon-fiber) The solvent aspect may far = outweigh the BTU's/pound problem. Different solvents attack different = items. Rather obvious but this simple test will show you the difference. = Take a PERMANENT sharpie marker and on a piece of aluminum make a couple = of marks. Let them dry and then take a petroleum product and try to = remove one of the marks. I have found even strong solvents (like Bill = Jepson Bill Jepson ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5B30F.956DCE90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Right on, Bill.
 
A gallon of ethanol has an energy content of = 83,333=20 BTU.  A gallon of gasoline has 123,222 BTU of energy  (varies = a bit by=20 octane).  So gasoline has an approx 48 % advantage in energy.  = So=20 assuming an engine was equally efficient on either fuel (which as you = point out=20 they are not likely to be), you could produce more power and fly = further|Faster=20 on gallon of gasoline than a gallon of ehtanol. 
 
So if this ever became mandated, Van could start = his next=20 design for an Aerial Tanker for in-flight refueling = {:>).
 
The story (now) is that production of ethanol is = something=20 like 35% net  energy efficient.  In other words you get 35% = more=20 energy out of the energy content of the ethanol than it takes = to plant,=20 grow and harvest the corn to produce it.  This is a big change, = earlier=20 studies showed there was a net lost - I smell some number juggling = by those=20 with vested interest.
 
Ed A 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 wrjjrs@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, = 2005 5:56=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Alternative=20 fuel

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Denny = <dennymortensen<= /SPAN>@cableone.net>
To:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent:=20 Tue, 6 Sep 2005 15:44:55 = -0500
Subject: [FlyRotary] Alternative fuel

I have been risking my luck posting = an off topic=20 thread on the canard list regarding alternative = fuel and=20 thought I should spread my sins around and pass it on to you folks on = this=20 list as well. I am also very interested to here all your thoughts on = using=20 this stuff in a rotary. I was doing some research on E-85 an 85% = ethanol based=20 fuel substitute being promoted here in the Midwest and sent an email = to one of=20 the study groups asking for any info regarding a replacement for = 100LL. I will=20 paste their response as it is very interesting.
Denny
 
Denny,
These comments ignore two vital items. First: All alcohol fuels suffer a mileage penalty compared to=20 gasoline.  This is true of many alternate fuels. BTU's per pound = just aren't=20 there. The engine may run fine, but will suffer a mileage penalty = of 30-50%=20 depending on how well the engine is tuned for alcohol. Rotaries are=20 very tolerant of low-octane fuels, but suffer even bigger on mileage=20
 Second: Alcohol will attack many composite surfaces = including=20 laminates. (fiberglass and Carbon-fiber) The solvent aspect may far = outweigh=20 the BTU's/pound problem. Different = solvents=20 attack different items. Rather obvious but this simple test will show = you the=20 difference. Take a PERMANENT sharpie marker and on a piece of = aluminum=20 make a couple of marks. Let them dry and then take a petroleum product and try to remove one = of the=20 marks. I have found even strong solvents (like Bill Jepson
Bill Jepson
=
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C5B30F.956DCE90--