EASA Report on MoGas additives increasing serious effects.
Moderators: John Dean, Moderator
- mikehallam
- Posts: 576
- Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:12 pm
- Location: West Sussex
- Contact:
EASA Report on MoGas additives increasing serious effects.
The BMAA today issued a link to a comprehensive (that means expensive) EASA report on fuel additives' effects - in curious English ! I.e.bio-Ethanols and so on.
http://easa.europa.eu/safety-and-resear ... p#2008op06
It's a lot to read through and comprehend not helped by the Summary content which is also very large. It recognises problems exist and the pollution saving are small yet the cost to users of our older technology engines is potentially great, either in gradual or very sudden breakdown.
In the end I looked for effects on materials -
- rather than performance, icing effects, economics, pollution, EU Directives [doubtless promoted by Politicians who know B***r all].
Seems Ali, other metals too, can incur initiating pits from one dose of the wrong stuff, which then carry on deteriorating !
Worse are the unknown but definite attacks on seals, bonding agent, fuel lines, pumps, carburettors & the many types of fuel tank construction. Manufacturers have largely use resistant materials chosen after years of successful experience with regular gasolines/petrols.
However these materials - in various combinations too - are not necessarily good at coping with with the current 'oxygenator' additives. One common one, Nitrile rubber is atacked, and the report can only suggest wholesale replacement of all components whether actually available or not (!) by flouro-rubber parts which are said to be nominally 10X the price.
So my conclusion in the face of blindly irreversible EU directives is to rigorously & regularly inspect the accessible components. Hoping that flex pipes will show cracks and/or sticky witness deposits in filters or carb bowls would warn of tank softening and fibre glass debonding.
mike hallam
http://easa.europa.eu/safety-and-resear ... p#2008op06
It's a lot to read through and comprehend not helped by the Summary content which is also very large. It recognises problems exist and the pollution saving are small yet the cost to users of our older technology engines is potentially great, either in gradual or very sudden breakdown.
In the end I looked for effects on materials -
- rather than performance, icing effects, economics, pollution, EU Directives [doubtless promoted by Politicians who know B***r all].
Seems Ali, other metals too, can incur initiating pits from one dose of the wrong stuff, which then carry on deteriorating !
Worse are the unknown but definite attacks on seals, bonding agent, fuel lines, pumps, carburettors & the many types of fuel tank construction. Manufacturers have largely use resistant materials chosen after years of successful experience with regular gasolines/petrols.
However these materials - in various combinations too - are not necessarily good at coping with with the current 'oxygenator' additives. One common one, Nitrile rubber is atacked, and the report can only suggest wholesale replacement of all components whether actually available or not (!) by flouro-rubber parts which are said to be nominally 10X the price.
So my conclusion in the face of blindly irreversible EU directives is to rigorously & regularly inspect the accessible components. Hoping that flex pipes will show cracks and/or sticky witness deposits in filters or carb bowls would warn of tank softening and fibre glass debonding.
mike hallam
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:39 pm
I started reading through, well scanning through anyway, to find the key areas of concern for my various Rotax applications. I find it strange that, when displayed on my computer, every instance of "fl" or "fi" results in both letters being blank space. Wierd or what?
flight is reduced to ight, fleet is displayed as eet, fly becomes just y etc.
Rans6...
flight is reduced to ight, fleet is displayed as eet, fly becomes just y etc.
Rans6...
Andrew Cattell
Rans S6 Microlight.
Rans S6 Microlight.
-
- Posts: 456
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
- Location: Oxford
- Contact:
<technical editor mode -- and thread drift alert> That is because some knob in the EASA publications department has gratuitously used ligatures -- the chararacters which combine fi, fli, ffi, ffl into single characters. If you have a newish computer with a full Unicode font installed as the browser default, they should read OK. However, this is a typographical embellishment that simply doesn't need to be used in this context.</technical editor mode>every instance of "fl" or "fi" results in both letters being blank space. Wierd or what? flight is reduced to ight, fleet is displayed as eet, fly becomes just y etc.
033719
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
- Location: Worcestershire
Okay, so the report is done, I might even have struggled through and read it!
What it does not say is if I fly my Mogas Rotax aeroplane legally in the UK with (say) 3% bio-ethanol from my local branded petrol station (of which I have now have no choice).
If I need to make an insurance claim, could my insurers decline to pay because I have traces of bio-ethanol in my tanks?
Legal and covered? That's all I need to know - I do not think I will drop out of the sky because of some bio-ethanol.
I am not clear on LAA Policy on this matter - can anyone help me?
Simon C
~~~~~~
What it does not say is if I fly my Mogas Rotax aeroplane legally in the UK with (say) 3% bio-ethanol from my local branded petrol station (of which I have now have no choice).
If I need to make an insurance claim, could my insurers decline to pay because I have traces of bio-ethanol in my tanks?
Legal and covered? That's all I need to know - I do not think I will drop out of the sky because of some bio-ethanol.
I am not clear on LAA Policy on this matter - can anyone help me?
Simon C
~~~~~~
- Mike Cross
- Site Admin
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am
-
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
- Location: Worcestershire
- jangiolini
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:14 pm
I have spoken at great length to the chap incharge of engineering for Esso in the UK! In Scotland we are ok for the forseable future! All petrol that comes from Grangemouth refinery will not have a bio content!!! Their way of adhering to the bio quota will be by adding bio content to diesel!!! I can see their logic as we dont have ethanol plants up here, OR DO WE! Whisky!
Supermarket fuel on the otherhand does have ethanol and I tested the usual ones with the bluebottle kit and all have shown alcohol.
John.
Supermarket fuel on the otherhand does have ethanol and I tested the usual ones with the bluebottle kit and all have shown alcohol.
John.
John Angiolini
036444
036444
Esso unleaded in England was certainly showing positive to the Airworld (Bluebottle) test earlier this year.
Be aware that certain 'Premium' grade Unleaded petrols - 97 octane (don't know if this includes Total Excellium) test negative for ethanol BUT are not the same BS number as normal unleaded (BS EN 228) and ITIR that only BS EN 228 is cleared for use in (suitably equipped) aircraft. It works fine though... (don't ask how I know...)
Be aware that certain 'Premium' grade Unleaded petrols - 97 octane (don't know if this includes Total Excellium) test negative for ethanol BUT are not the same BS number as normal unleaded (BS EN 228) and ITIR that only BS EN 228 is cleared for use in (suitably equipped) aircraft. It works fine though... (don't ask how I know...)
032561
biofuels,
Maybe I am dim or something, but if it so bad that it dangerous to aircraft engine, why does my lawnmower not dissolve when I fill it, why do motorcycles, cars plant chainsaws etc etc all sustain damage when a bio-fuel is put in it, my friends diahatsu jeep did not run well on very high percentage ethanol but it didn't eat it away. As for the effect it has on aluminium everything on a modern vehicle is alloy and there would be a hell of a row if they started to corrode the fuel components. I understand that the lousy fuel piping we use might be affected as would some seals, but these can / should be replaced with something mundane such as automotive pipe. Maybe this is a plot to keep on buying avgas at the stupid price it is.
In the past we were told that our aircraft would plummet out of the sky if we used the old four star.
When 80/87 dried up, all of a sudden we could use four star but no way could we use unleaded.
We got to use 4* because the CAA gave an amnesty and it was revealed that hundreds of aircraft had been using 4* for years with no ill effects.
I wonder what another amnesty would reveal?
When 80/87 dried up, all of a sudden we could use four star but no way could we use unleaded.
We got to use 4* because the CAA gave an amnesty and it was revealed that hundreds of aircraft had been using 4* for years with no ill effects.
I wonder what another amnesty would reveal?
John Cook
031327
031327
- macconnacher
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:26 am
- Location: Northampton
I dont think it is all cover up. I am working in Seattle until Sunday and the news papers here are talking about 15% ethanol fuel and saying that is only suitable for cars from 2007 and possibly for cars to 2001 but never for boats lawnmowers and older vehicles. That is the EPA speaking so at some point it is bad. The trouble is how do we find out without putting our selves at risk. Perhaps EAA will do another qualification programme in the US on these fuels.
Stuart Macconnacher
002353
002353