EASA Report on MoGas additives increasing serious effects.

Come on in for general chat and POLITE banter between LAA members

Moderators: John Dean, Moderator

User avatar
mikehallam
Posts: 576
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:12 pm
Location: West Sussex
Contact:

EASA Report on MoGas additives increasing serious effects.

Post by mikehallam » Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:01 am

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

rans6andrew
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:39 pm

Post by rans6andrew » Fri Sep 17, 2010 11:20 am

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...
Andrew Cattell

Rans S6 Microlight.

Nick Allen
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am
Location: Oxford
Contact:

Post by Nick Allen » Fri Sep 17, 2010 1:18 pm

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.
<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>
033719

Dave Hall
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:07 am
Location: Nr Bristol
Contact:

Post by Dave Hall » Sun Sep 19, 2010 1:41 am

...and there was me thinking someone had done a 'find and replace all' without realising it!
032505

Simon Clifton
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Post by Simon Clifton » Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:03 pm

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
~~~~~~

ffg
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:43 pm

Post by ffg » Mon Oct 04, 2010 11:19 pm

Simon, you have a PM.
032561

User avatar
Mike Cross
Site Admin
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:24 am

Post by Mike Cross » Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:07 am

ome knob in the EASA publications department has gratuitously used ligatures
Mmmmm........... ligatures - EASA. Now there's a thought :D

Oh! Not that sort of ligature :cry:
030881

Simon Clifton
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:59 pm
Location: Worcestershire

Post by Simon Clifton » Thu Oct 07, 2010 12:38 pm

I have decided to subject each 20l of freshly drawn Mogas to the 'CAA Test' before putting it the aeroplane, assuming it passes, and then making a note in a log.

I may have to rethink this if the fuel consistently fails the test!

Thanks

Simon
~~~~~

tnowak
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am

Post by tnowak » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:31 am

It appears that TOTAL EXCELLIUM brand is currently free of alcohol according to some information from the Vintage Piper Aircraft Club. Also, seems it could be like this for another year or so. Of course, the fuel still needs testing to be 100% sure....
Tony Nowak

User avatar
jangiolini
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:14 pm

Post by jangiolini » Fri Oct 08, 2010 8:55 am

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.
John Angiolini
036444

ffg
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:43 pm

Post by ffg » Sat Oct 09, 2010 5:41 pm

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...)
032561

tnowak
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am

Post by tnowak » Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:02 pm

Good point Dave,

Anyone know what the main differences are between BS 7800:2004 and BS EN 228 unleaded petrol and how it may affect use in aircraft engines?
Tony Nowak

G.Dawes
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:00 am

biofuels,

Post by G.Dawes » Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:45 pm

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. :?

User avatar
J.C.
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:50 pm

Post by J.C. » Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:58 am

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? :twisted:
John Cook
031327

User avatar
macconnacher
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:26 am
Location: Northampton

Post by macconnacher » Thu Oct 14, 2010 3:56 pm

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

Post Reply