Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au
Message-ID: <0019B54D91BC484896C8BBE25034B9DB@ownerf1fc517b8>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@aanet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-3950911@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Fuel Filter \ Ethanol
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 06:50:55 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="Windows-1252";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Ernest,
All too true, however I can't help feel we are on a  transitional path to 
somewhere, as yet, still unknown, in terms of future fuel use. I won't go 
into the vagaries, but lets hope it pans out, maybe there will be a range of 
credible cost effective alternatives. I just wish I knew what the end game 
will be.
George ( down under)

> I took the time to learn to weld aluminum and switched from the plans 
> directions of a fiberglass tank to use an aluminum tank. The issue that 
> concerned me most, and I really hope people using glass tanks will heed 
> this closely, the most pressing issue is not ethanol (today's additive). 
> The most pressing issue is, "What will the clueless politicians mandate 
> that we add to our fuel in the future?"
>
> You hope for the airplane to be flying in 20yrs.  The government has 
> clearly demonstrated that they are willing to go along with any 
> boondoggle, no matter how much it harms the people they are claiming to 
> help, as long as the right campaigns get a properly sized donation. 
> Ethanol in gasoline is ridiculous by any reasonable measure, except for 
> how much it enriches Monsanto and ADM;  yet, there it is (and is 
> increasing).  There is absolutely no way to know what bright idea they 
> will come up with in the future.
> The epoxies we use in our structures is an organic compound, which will 
> have a measurable reaction to any organic solvents.  All carbon based 
> liquid fuels are organic solvents.  Different types of epoxies will have 
> different reactions with different solvents.  There isn't a universal 
> solvent, and epoxy that stands up well to the first, will melt in the 
> second, while a different epoxy formulation will turn to goo by the second 
> and seem to ignore the first.  Someone has a rulebook somewhere that gives 
> guidelines as to what solvents will affect which epoxies.  I have only 
> seen pieces of it, but I know enough to know that the rules are long, 
> complicated, and hideously complex.  People make careers of 
> specializations within specializations within the various fields of 
> organic chemistry, fer chrissakes.
>
> So, we have an unknown future where clueless politicians get lobbied to 
> mandate we pour various amounts of random chemicals into our fuel supply. 
> You have fuel tanks built with organic chemicals that WILL have a reaction 
> to these unknown chemicals, whether it be barely noticeable or 
> instantaneously turning the entire tank to goo.  You have a situation 
> where a slight reaction can clog a filter and result in fuel starvation to 
> the engine in flight, or a radical reaction resulting in the hangar floor 
> below years of work being covered in volatile fuel.  AAARRRGH!
>
> If you're going to stay with aviation fuel, I'd say that you're reasonably 
> safe with hand-laid tanks.  The FAA is going to require a lot of tests to 
> meet STCs before they let just anyone change the formulas.  That has been 
> demonstrated.  We still have leaded fuel more than 30 years after it was 
> mandated away everywhere else.
>
> But IF you're going to be pouring gas from your local station into your 
> tanks, either commission a roto-moulded tank from the same materials used 
> to make plastic gas cans, or build one from aluminum.  All fuel lines 
> should be aluminum, or automobile approved materials (including O-rings 
> and such).  I'm not saying that going with the automobile gear will be a 
> complete shield from trouble, but the politicians are more likely to fear 
> millions of drivers being stranded when they push chemicals that are 
> incompatible with autos.
>
> I'm not trying to disrespect your experiment, Steve.  In fact, I think 
> that it clearly illustrates the point that all these interactions are 
> funky, and not necessarily predictable.  The point that bothers me is that 
> they miss the most important point.  All you can test is last 
> week's/month's/year's formulation; but you will, by necessity, be flying 
> with tomorrows.
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>