Ethanol has been used across the US corn belt for decades. We ran lawnmowers and snowblowers for 15-20 years with no evidence of increased corrosion, and our planes do not fall out of the sky. I am disappointed that this article doesn't provide a balanced view of the benefits of ethanol but instead lets Mr. McGee and Mr. Johnson get away with fear mongering and false pretenses of "protecting the little guy."

My husband's company owns a twin engine airplane. It is well established that many of the components in general aviation aircraft are highly susceptible to damage from ethanol. It's a safety issue, period. It's also an economic issue, inasmuch as ethanol is a highly subsidized additive that is not economical in the long run. There are little, if any, benefits from ethanol.

Maine already killed a lot of general aviation activity by taxing new aircraft--something the majority of states do not do to promote the economic activity that general aviation brings. Now it will kill further activity by limiting the fuel supply and contaminating it with ethanol.

Hopefully Irving will step up to the plate and offer non-blended fuel for sale in bulk to airports.

There's a reason why lawnmowers and snowblowers stay on the ground. Ethanol doesn't fly--period.

Throw in a bottle of dry gas and call it good.

This mixture reduces the BTU's when burned in todays engines, making them less efficient, and costing more because of the increased fuel consumption. It deteriates when allowed to sit in stored containers. Midwestern farmers are making more profit from their corn crops; the main source of ethanol. My fuel injected motorcycles run poorly on it and it deteriates the rubber components.

E10 gas is crap. This stuff will phase seperate inside of a week. I dont care what you clowns in the midwest dump into your tank, I just want regular gas. Ask around, how many snowmobiles have smoked engines this winter due to this stuff. How can something that is totally government subsidieds, gets lower MPG, and wrecks engines be good??

talk to people with snowmobiles,,,, those things are dropping like flies this year. It is not good for any recreational activities...

Whether ethanol works or does not work in aircraft engines is a moot point for all pilots who fly small certificated aircraft , and want to fly legally and economically .. Many years ago the Experimental Aircraft Association and Peterson Aviation did hundreds of hours of flight tests to prove to the Federal Aviation Administration that low compression aircraft engines could be run using unleaded automotive fuel .. The FAA granted that aircraft could use automotive fuel , but no alcohol products could be added .. An STC was purchased by owners and issued to each aircraft for the use of automotive fuel ..

So legally we cannot run automotive fuel with ethanol , and if we do our insurance that we purchase for the aircraft is voided .. Also $2.00 a gallon versus $4.50 a gallon for all of us that fly for the pure joy and not for profit is a big difference .. So I'm sure if all you boat and snowmobile owners had these kind of restrictions plus costs placed on your favorite pastimes , you would be looking for a solution to this problem also ...

Ethanol kills snowmobile engines? All right, let's double the amount of it in gas sold to snowmobilers. The more dead snowmobile engines the better. Snowmobiles stink and most people who operate them are inconsiderate lardos who need to find a physical winter activity to do that has less impact on the environment.

As for the fuel efficiency, I've noticed a drop since the 10% ethanol has come around. To bad it isn't the farmers making more money, it's ExxonMobil who just posted record breaking profits again. The economy isn't hurting them.

vintagewings: Spot on, Johnny! Hey Freerange: Tell you what, Ill show you a destroyed neoprene float needle removed from a Zenith-Stromberg NAS-3 Carburettor from a Piper Cub that was inadvertently exposed to ethanol. Then, I'll take you for a ride in my Cessna while we burn this ethanol enriched gas. I'll be the one wearing the parachute!

Must be the season, but no comments from the Marine community? I bought a new I/O boat because of the effects of Ethanol on older marine engines.

Since Ethanol has come to Washington County i have lost 2 1/2 MPG in my car.

One piece of information that has been overlooked, is that there is a great benefit to everyone to allow these older aircraft to use non-ethanol automotive fuel to power their aircraft.

First, the fuel (Automotive type) cost less than half of the 100LL (100 octane low lead aviation gas) which saves a lot of the cost of flying these aircraft. This effects the owner/pilot only.

The second is that if aircraft owners are mandated to use 100LL aircraft fuel, since non-ethanol automotive fuel in not available, there are drawbacks as stated below. 100LL aviation gasoline contains more than 10 times the lead content over the old style leaded automotive fuel that was available in the past for automobiles. This effects everyone.

Production and use of leaded automotive fuel was discontinued due to health concerns and pollution caused by it's use in the automotive industry. Automobile manufacturers have changed their automobiles to use unleaded fuel without any damaging effects to newer vehicles.

Old vintage cars that have high compression engines requiring high octane fuel and lead, either bought special racing fuel (Cam II), or high octane pump gas and then added fuel additives which increased lead content and/or octane rating.

Aviation fuel of lower octane rating (80/87 octane "extremely low lead") has been discontinued by most gasoline manufacturers over 10 years ago, which led the use of non-leaded automobile fuel in these engines. These aircraft engine fuel systems were modified to accept and use automotive fuel without causing any major problems.

General aviation aircraft, as spoke about here accounts for a minimal amount of fuel use, given the overall amount used in this country.

To sum this all up, aircraft burning non-ethanol fuel would not be a problem, but Ethanol fuel would cause a safety issue. Burning aviation grade (100LL) fuel will contribute to global warming, more pollution and potential safety issues due to the high lead content in this aviation grade fuel. Aircraft engines can not be modified to burn this new Ethanol fuel safely.

I don't for a minute believe the State's claim that we're blessed with this ethanol gas because the gasoline industry wanted it. It doesn't make sense, why would they want it? They have to store the ethanol separately at the terminal then mix it there, requiring more equipment and more storage. One would think that the costs of handling this ethanol would affect the bottom line.

I think the truth is our esteemed green governor wanted it. As I was researching on why this ethanol got introduced to Maine, I came across the minutes of a DEP meeting where Baldacci requested that the DEP expedite the roll out of ethanol gasoline statewide. I think you'll find that this ethanol debacle has politics written all over it. It is NOT a business decision by the gasoline industry.

Another problem with corn ethanol is that it takes more energy to produce it than the energy it returns to us. Given our current economic situation, this is the way people have been operating their businesses and personal finances. I agree that it must be politically motivated. We can't continue living in deficit ways. In Brazil, they produce ethanol in a sustainable fashion using sugarcane and sawgrass. Their process results in a net energy gain rather than a loss like we do with corn ethanol. If we lose MPG with the use of corn ethanol and it takes more energy (oil) to produce than what it gives back, are we really gaining anything by it's use?

In addition to political rhetorical questions, how much pollution are these small and vintage aircraft putting out? If they're damaging the environment by using lead additives, then they either need to retrofit their planes to use modern environmental controls, or they need to stop flying their aircraft recreationally. The health of our planet cannot continue to be sacrificed for recreational pursuits. I'm sure it was a lot of fun to shoot bisons from trains going across the plains but look where that got us and the buffalo.

Seems like the state of Maine is doing all it can to create problems in every area possible. First, they spread this nasty (and cheap) crap on the roads and eat our vehicles to pieces. Brake lines, fuel lines, frames, spring lands and so on and leave us to either buy a new car or constantly fix the old one over and over again until it is so bad, it is junk. Then, along comes this ethanol. I lost a sled engine this winter to this additive. It was maintained surgically and the motor still smoked. Was not hot rodding it either. 30 mph and bang, it stopped. Two out of three pistons shattered. I still have another problem that I will be faced with this summer. I have several collectors cars, mid 60's that I already add lead additive to to keep the valves happy. Now I am expected to run this ethanol in them. I can already see the failing fuel pumps, leaking carbs and flooding needle and seats. Nothing good is going to come from this. As a solution I suggest what the Canadians have done. No ethanol in the premium grade gasoline. At least this way, for an added cost, I can at least buy real gasoline for my older fleet without the certain failures of hard to find and expensive parts. Maine used to be a great place to live. But, with all the dabbling in making things better, (read cheaper) between the road brine and the alcohol gas, I spend alot of time either at the bench or under the vehicle. Something has to change. This is not the way life should be.

First we should be redesigning engines and fuel systems before using the new fuels. I am all for alternative energy, but if I blow an engine in my car and it becomes a financial liability, I am going to be real upset. The new diesel fuel that came out in 07 is also causing havoc because of its reduced lubricity and is causing injectors to burn out. It is not fair to the owners of older engines to have their antiques ruined by government mandating new fuels without really testing them. There needs to be a better system in place.

Milomaine brings up a good point. My husband notes that there was a study done on emissions from small/vintage aircraft and they accounted for less than a percent of a percent of a percent. In short, too small to have any impact on the environment--there simply aren't enough of them. We'll be banning soccer Mom's driving their SUVs to recreational pursuits a hundred years before we have to ban small airplanes. Funny how people aim at recreational pursuits while ignoring their own conspicuous consumption and use of transportation like, say, the airlines, which pump far more things into the atmosphere than an old Piper Cub.

There are several Pilots from Central Maine Regional Airport in Norridgewock who have been working this issue for several months including setting up a meeting with Senator Lisa Marrache and Representative Merredeth Strang Burgess, the Maine Oil Dealers Association and Irving Oil in Augusta in January. (I know there are others that have been involved and working on this around the state also)

However, if you are interested in reading a summary of the current state of the situation here and what is going on you can go:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/maineethanolfreeautogas/

There are two documents on that site that summarize the issues of using ethanol in Autogas and also summarize how we got to where we are in Maine with E10 and what is going on to find an alternative supplier for Aircraft, Marine and Recreational applications.

There is a lot of anecdotal information flying around, some of it true and some not. I know it is also a big emotional issue but we think we are driving down a path to a solution, hopefully soon.

Mike Willey

Central Maine Regional Airport Pilots

It is time to bring legal charges against politicians who engages in mandating any agenda while not being qualified to understand its ramifications scientifically. (i.e. E-10, global warming, sub-prime mortgages, etc.)

I am a pilot and own an older Piper Cherokee (STC-certified) for using autogas without ethanol. I use my plane as a hobby but I also fly patients to their doctor appointments for "Angel Flight of New England". Because I have been able to use auto gas (until now) I've been able to afford to fly more patients to hospitals like Boston's Mass General or the burn center in Springfield Ma from rural areas in Aroostook and Washington Counties in Maine. In the last four years I've flown approx. 120 flights of hope and mercy. With the introduction of ethanol and the unavailbility of auto gas without this additive, my number of "Angel Flights" will be less this year, perhaps by more than one half. On my income, I can only afford a certain percentage to devote to flying. It's a shame that ethanol free auto gas is not available as an option at every gas station.

Here's a link to a PDF on the www.maine.gov website about this new fuel: http://www.maine.gov/dep/air/mobile/documents/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20e10.pdf

Also, here is a quote directly from it for snowmobile owners, don't know if you know about this - "As for snowmobiles, some manufacturers recommend that, when using E10 gasoline, the carburetor main jet be one size larger than the main jet required for regular unleaded gasoline. For example, if a 400 main jet is recommended for regular unleaded gasoline, a 410 main jet must be installed if using an oxygenated gasoline like

E10. The owner’s manual will contain specific manufacturer recommendations."

Hope that helps! Trust me, I'm not crazy about this fuel. It deteriorates anything petroleum-based in your engine, and results in a 3% fuel economy reduction. Thanks Gov!

After further reading, I came up with this little gem: "Maine MtBE ban - 38 M.R.S.A §585-I, passed by the Maine Legislature in 2004, banned the sale and distribution of gasoline with greater than 0.5% MtBE into Maine after January 1, 2007, effectively banning MtBE as a gasoline additive in the state. The states of New Hampshire , Vermont , and Rhode Island have enacted similar bans. Ethanol has been blended with gasoline in place of MTBE to enhance combustion and octane levels."

Later on in the same fact sheet for ethanol, it also says," There is about a 3% loss of fuel economy from the use of E10 (gasoline with 10%ethanol) because it contains 3% less BTUs; potentially making it more costly for the consumer to refuel more often."

I really know nothing about engines, but if ethanol is supposed to enhance combustion and octane levels like MtBE did, why the loss in fuel economy? I would think it would make the fuel more efficient and burn better!