Alternative Fuels

[RV8JD]

Another interesting article by Paul Bertorelli on the process of finding alternative fuel(s), "EAGLE And GAMI: Not A Transparent Process".

I found the paragraph below interesting to say the least. But you need to read the whole article to get the context, i.e., ASTM spec'd fuels vs STC'd fuels.

https://www.avweb.com/uncategorized/eagle-and-gami-not-a-transparent-process/

"In the press conference, EAA’s Jack Pelton made a surprising statement by saying homebuilders can’t use STCs. Well, that’s not surprising because it’s true. They don’t have type certificates so a supplemental couldn’t apply. Pelton left the impression that to use an STC fuel, the builders would have to embark upon a test program of their own, but wouldn’t with an ASTM fuel. But in the real world, this doesn’t happen nor is it likely necessary because it’s not specified anywhere in the regulations. Builders are the manufacturers and they can write any specs a DAR will approve. This is the point of experimental aircraft. I asked EAA to clarify this and they replied that there’s currently no process to gather the data to show an STC fuel would be suitable for an E/A-B. I suspect we’ll hear from builders who don’t agree with that view."​

 

[airguy]

Another interesting article by Paul Bertorelli on the process of finding alternative fuel(s), "EAGLE And GAMI: Not A Transparent Process".

I found the paragraph below interesting to say the least. But you need to read the whole article to get the context, i.e., ASTM spec'd fuels vs STC'd fuels.

https://www.avweb.com/uncategorized/eagle-and-gami-not-a-transparent-process/

"In the press conference, EAA’s Jack Pelton made a surprising statement by saying homebuilders can’t use STCs. Well, that’s not surprising because it’s true. They don’t have type certificates so a supplemental couldn’t apply. Pelton left the impression that to use an STC fuel, the builders would have to embark upon a test program of their own, but wouldn’t with an ASTM fuel. But in the real world, this doesn’t happen nor is it likely necessary because it’s not specified anywhere in the regulations. Builders are the manufacturers and they can write any specs a DAR will approve. This is the point of experimental aircraft. I asked EAA to clarify this and they replied that there’s currently no process to gather the data to show an STC fuel would be suitable for an E/A-B. I suspect we’ll hear from builders who don’t agree with that view."​

Most builders who know better, and don't agree with that view, will not bother arguing the point. We are busy flying with our fuel of choice, as I am.

 

[rv8ch]

Most builders who know better, and don't agree with that view, will not bother arguing the point. We are busy flying with our fuel of choice, as I am.

Two hour flight yesterday with a density altitude of up to 11.8k with mogas, no problems. Average burn of 8 gallons per hour at about 165 TAS.

https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/HBYMM

I'd like to see them get the lead out of avgas for those that "need" to burn it. And I feel like I'm doing my part to protect the environment by burning a lot of unleaded UL91 and mogas.

 

[airguy]

Two hour flight yesterday with a density altitude of up to 11.8k with mogas, no problems. Average burn of 8 gallons per hour at about 165 TAS.

https://uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/HBYMM

I'd like to see them get the lead out of avgas for those that "need" to burn it. And I feel like I'm doing my part to protect the environment by burning a lot of unleaded UL91 and mogas.

Here's a shot of my plane just a couple weeks ago at FL190, density atltitude 20,460' running 93E10 - quite literally Walmart Premium pumpgas. I was detouring over the DFW area for weather to the south, but they don't like IFR "overflight" traffic below 18,000' so I accepted a climb from 17,000' to FL190 to make it easier on ATC. I was still ROP just levelling after the climb so the fuel burn reflects that.

I've had my airplane up to FL210 twice just for testing, but realistically there is no point going above 17,000 unless you are trying to clear weather, or as I mentioned here for ATC. The efficiency curve is pretty flat between 14,000 and 17,000 and then starts dropping off above that altitude, the engine just can't breathe. The fuel system though - properly designed - does not have any trouble at all with 93E10 at those altitudes.

 

[rv8ch]

Here's a shot of my plane just a couple weeks ago at FL190, density atltitude 20,460' running 93E10 - quite literally Walmart Premium pumpgas. I was detouring over the DFW area for weather to the south, but they don't like IFR "overflight" traffic below 18,000' so I accepted a climb from 17,000' to FL190 to make it easier on ATC. I was still ROP just levelling after the climb so the fuel burn reflects that.

I've had my airplane up to FL210 twice just for testing, but realistically there is no point going above 17,000 unless you are trying to clear weather, or as I mentioned here for ATC. The efficiency curve is pretty flat between 14,000 and 17,000 and then starts dropping off above that altitude, the engine just can't breathe. The fuel system though - properly designed - does not have any trouble at all with 93E10 at those altitudes.

Very good results! I'm avoiding the E fuels - but when you buy at the pump you can never be sure that you don't have some ethanol. Our local BP Ultimate 98 says:

absence de bioéthanol
Aucun bioéthanol n’est ajouté au bp Ultimate sans plomb 98.

But those sound like weasel words - "no bio ethanol, but we didn't say we don't use normal ethanol!"

https://www.bp.com/de_ch/switzerland/retail/treibstoffe/bp-ultimate-bleifrei-98.html
https://www.bp.com/fr_ch/switzerland/retail/carburants/bp-ultimate-sans-plomb-98.html

In any case, it seems to work so far, and each fill-up saves me enough for a nice meal for two.

 

[erich weaver]

Yeah, I was shocked to read the statement attributed to the head of EAA saying we can’t make use of G100UL because of the STC’d nature of the product. I contacted GAMI a couple of months ago about this and they acknowledged that experimentals would not need to purchase the STC. EAA seems to be out of touch.

 

[dmattmul]

Insurance question

Would this affect an insurance claim even if it was not the cause of the accident? I’ve heard of to many claims being denied because of issues not related to the accident.

 

[Mel]

Would this affect an insurance claim even if it was not the cause of the accident? I’ve heard of to many claims being denied because of issues not related to the accident.

Often if a claim is denied because of something not related to the accident, it's because the issue made the Airworthiness Certificate invalid.

 

[airguy]

The manufacturer (builder) of the aircraft sets the minimum fuel specs. You could set that for whatever you want, as long as it works, and insurance will be happy with it.

Only your actual insurance company should be consulted for specifics of course - you wouldn't want the internet docs to treat your cancer either - but most claim denials are for fraudulent paperwork. Play straight with them, and they'll play straight with you.

I asked an agent once about what they cover and what they won't, and she told me "We will always pay for stupid, and we will pay for illegal once." The implication was that after that once, they would drop you from coverage.

 

[MacCool]

Yeah, I was shocked to read the statement attributed to the head of EAA saying we can’t make use of G100UL because of the STC’d nature of the product. I contacted GAMI a couple of months ago about this and they acknowledged that experimentals would not need to purchase the STC. EAA seems to be out of touch.

Experimentals don't need STCs for anything else...why would fuel type be any different?

For my part, if and when G100UL becomes available for a reasonable price at my airport (not holding my breath), I plan to just change my POH and get new, more inclusive fuel caps