Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:44 AM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (HelsperSew@aol.com)
2. 06:12 AM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (gus notti)
3. 06:25 AM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (Kip and Beth Gardner)
4. 06:57 AM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (MICHAEL SILVIUS)
5. 07:53 AM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (gus notti)
6. 08:48 AM - Don Emch at Oshkosh (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
7. 08:48 AM - Taylorcraft Gathering, Alliance, Ohio (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
8. 08:51 AM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (Gene and Tammy)
9. 09:05 AM - EAA Chapter 1279 Pietenpol Project Update in Southern California (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
10. 09:44 AM - bellcrank area: belly access door idea (Cuy, Michael D. (GRC-RXD0)[ASRC])
11. 10:26 AM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (Rcaprd@aol.com)
12. 10:43 AM - Re: bellcrank area: belly access door idea (Isablcorky@aol.com)
13. 11:23 AM - Re: Tour De Corky (Rick Holland)
14. 12:40 PM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (Greg Chapman)
15. 02:58 PM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (Kip and Beth Gardner)
16. 03:31 PM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (Greg Chapman)
17. 04:07 PM - bellcrank area: belly access door idea (Oscar Zuniga)
18. 06:20 PM - Re: bellcrank area: belly access door idea (Gene and Tammy)
19. 06:56 PM - Re: Don Emch at Oshkosh (Don Emch)
20. 07:17 PM - Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) (Roman Bukolt)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
Gene,
I just wandered out of my cave to read your post about the alcohol test.
How do you do this test?
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
YES the energy cost to refine is about the same, I read the numbers, however when
using E85 we all know it's 85 % ethanol 15% petro. The user gets 1/3 less milage
when using it,
we all understand the BTU's from the fuel. Plus I read several reports about
the poultion it
creates to make the Ethanol itself. Time will tell, but I'm thinking here in
just a few short years we will relize what a mistake we made.
Also can somebody riddle me this, Nebraska stations has E85 for $2.85... unleaded
gas here is $2.12 $ 2.22 I was in South Dakota last month and E85 was $1.65,
now tell me what's up with that. Nebraska is either #2 or #3 for making Ethanol....Why
such a big price difference. Even at a $1.65 your still loosing $$
due to the 1/3 less milage issuse, and it does not make a difference how you
drive....I tried it for several months. I'm done with it I'll even pass on E10
they can keep it.
Goodluck
ubike.mike@charter.net wrote:
Popping open 12 oz of fish bait:
While I agree that bio-deisel has a lot of promise that may not be realized by
ethanol, the refining costs of ethanol are very simlar to the refining costs of
gasoline. Oil refineries run at about a 44% energy cost, meaning that it takes
about 100 BTUs to produce about 120-130 BTUs of gasoline. It doesn't matter,
in terms of energy used, what the fuel is that makes the heat that distills
the crude and pumps it around.
Ethanol certainly requires energy to make, but that energy can theoretically come
from ethanol, not just natural gas, or coal, or oil, or even buffalo chips.
The real tell-tale is going to be the cost of converting whiskey and government
subsidized plow-under into auto fuel, or the political costs of making the
sugar cane growers of Cuba wealthy, compared to the costs of keeping the mid-east
oil-producing nations in operation.
Mike Hardaway
---- Mike Volckmann wrote:
> >From what I have been reading one burns 100 BTUs of natural gas to produce 80-120
BTUs of ethanol (from corn numbers change if you are using sugar cane).
Sounds like playing at being green while accomplishing nothing to get to reduce
the US's dependency on petroleum. I would agree that bio-diesel run in small
motors like the new VW bug shows a lot more promise.
Mike
----- Original Message ----
From: gus notti
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 5:47:38 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: E-85 (was Fuel Tank)
Why would you want too? E85 is a joke, it's not solving any energy issues just
creating more. I know that's a very hard truth but that's the way it is.
I'm a active ag producer, As a grower Bio-Diesel is the way to go after we start
producing small 4 cylinder motors like the Germans currently do. 50 + MPG that
where the potential lays!
Good luck. I know that's a BIG can of worms.....
Tim Verthein wrote:
We have some guys in the Corvair clubs running E-85 in their Corvair
cars....here's what I know for sure (mostly) and I imagine most of the
same would apply:
Make darn sure every plastic or rubber part in the fuel system is
alchohol compatible (old rubber, seals, gaskets, fuel pump diaphrams,
etc..won't be) Also, the alchohol is a heck of a fuel system cleaner,
so if you have things that are relying on old "gunk" to keep them
sealed, they'll probably start leaking.
You have higher octane, but less BTU's, so you'll lose a bit of power
and "mileage" but can use advanced timing and higher compression
(probably not an issue in a model A) which can usually make up for most
of the loss.
You will need to rejet the carb..you need everything richer.
And you'll need to tweak the timing...advanced a bit.
That's what I know from an old car perspective.
Tim in Bovey
>
> Time: 06:40:43 AM PST US
> From: lshutks@webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel tank
>
>
> Beside having a fuel tank that won't melt from ethanol, what else
> would
> be req
---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question
on Yahoo! Answers.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
Boy,
This whole topic gets my back up, there is just SO much
misinformation out there right now. I'm an Agricultural Scientist &
I've been following a lot of this argument for the past 10 years,
recently because it's become part of my work.
Except for a few discredited critics, (the most commonly quote one
being David Pimental at Cornell University, an entemologist who gets
a lot of his funding from the oil industry), the data indicates that
the energy return from corn-based ethanol is between 1.67 and 2.5X
greater than the energy you put in, depending on the distillery
setup. The Brazilians get back about 5-7x from sugar cane because of
the way they grow, harvest & utilize the whole plant in their
distilling processes.
The current energy "return" for GASOLINE is 0.8X (i.e. it takes more
energy to pump, refine & produce Gas than you get back).
These numbers come directly from the Director of the National
Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, the arm of the Fed Gov't
responsible for all renwables research, whom I spoke with at length
last Spring.
However, I'm not suggesting that corn-based ethanol is a good
long-term solution, it's not possible to grow enough corn to offset
our energy needs. Even if 90% of the corn grown in this country was
used for ethanol, it would only produce enough ethanol to meet about
6% of demand.
One "silver lining" to corn ethanol is that the residues (called
dried distiller's grains, or DDG'S) make a superior, cheap livestock
feed, and are very underused in the market. The part of corn that
gets converted to alcohol (the starch) is actually not utilized
efficiently in the digestive tracts of hogs and cattle, so removing
it from the corn through the distilling process actually makes the
corn a better feed.
Cellulosic ethanol (made from switch grass, agricultural waste, waste
paper, etc), has the potential to meet about 50% of our current
gasoline consumption, but again there is not enough of these
resources to meet all of current demand, and the technology is still
under development. The enrgy return on this kind of ethanol is
typically around 4-5x with the current "pilot' technology, and will
probably be at least that good at industrial scales.
Biodiesel is a great, energy-dense fule, but again, it's not possible
to produce enough to meet anything more than a fraction of demand,
even with high mpg engines in wide use. I'm actually gearing up to
make my own biodiesel from waste cooking oil (otainable for free from
your local Chinese restraunt), so I agree, it's a great fuel, but
it's potential is just as limited by agricultural realities as
ethanol.
The final point to consider is that NONE of the US-made cars designed
to use E85 have engines specifically designed for that purpose, they
are all basically gas engines with the mass flow computer adjusted to
burn either E85, gas, or a mix. A friend of mine in California
recently sent me an article about engines being produced in Sweden
that get 60-80 mpg on ethanol because theyspecifically designed for
ethanol. Sweden has decided to be petroleum-free within 10 years,
and theyb are the current leaders in this kind of engine design
research.
The big problem with any internal combustion engine is that about 70%
of any fuel's energy is lost as heat; reduce that number and you can
really improve engine efficiency. That's what the Swedes are
focusing on & it appears to be paying off.
Sorry for the long, off-topic post, but as I said, this topic gets my
back up, and some day, fuel type and availability for flying will be
an even bigger issue than it is now.
As far as I'm concerned, the only real, long-term solution to
reducing our dependence on oil is significant reduction of total
energy demand, combine with a sensible program of alternative
renewable enrgy production, and at this point, I think the jury is
still out on what the best mix of alternatives is.
Kip Gardner
At 5:37 PM -0800 2/2/07, Mike Volckmann wrote:
>From what I have been reading one burns 100 BTUs of natural gas to
>produce 80-120 BTUs of ethanol (from corn numbers change if you are
>using sugar cane). Sounds like playing at being green while
>accomplishing nothing to get to reduce the US's dependency on
>petroleum. I would agree that bio-diesel run in small motors like
>the new VW bug shows a lot more promise.
>
>Mike
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: gus notti <gus_notti@yahoo.com>
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 5:47:38 PM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: E-85 (was Fuel Tank)
>
>Why would you want too? E85 is a joke, it's not solving any energy
>issues just creating more. I know that's a very hard truth but
>that's the way it is.
>I'm a active ag producer, As a grower Bio-Diesel is the way to go
>after we start producing small 4 cylinder motors like the Germans
>currently do. 50 + MPG that where the potential lays!
>
>
>Good luck. I know that's a BIG can of worms.....
--
North Canton, OH
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
Re: Pietenpol-List: E-85 (was Fuel Tank)Jef Boatright wrote:
"Someone commented that Citgo doesn't lace it's juice with alcohol. Does
anyone know more about this?"
That's right:
CITGO is 100 % pure Maracaibo (Venezuela) crude. The US buys
approximately 8 to 10% of our oil from PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela)
and this represents about 70% of their production. But I as a Venezuelan
ex-pat I suggest it be avoided at all cost. Chavez (remember the one
about the sulfur comments at the UN) runs the place. He has
systematically dismantled democracy and openly had declared himself
president for life, with a declared communist agenda and a openly
expressed disdain for the US. he is rubbing elbows with every one of the
bad guys around the world. Buying missiles and rockets form Putin with
his oil revenues and expressing his readiness to use them on us.
I would provide links to sites supporting all of this but apparently he
has shut down every one of them I had marked as he also controls press
and communication.
http://www.venezuelatoday.net/gustavo-coronel/2006-archive.html
With his oil revenues he is also buying up control of these entities in
a greater part of south America as well as US voting machines
manufacturers.
now how do we get back to Pietenpols after this one?
michael silvius
scarborough, maine
----- Original Message -----
From: Jeff Boatright
Someone commented that Citgo doesn't lace it's juice with alcohol.
Does anyone know more about this?
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
Well I speak from experience I have made Bi-diesel from waste oil, I have also
ran straight
SWO after heating it in a 1995 Cummings. Yes you will save money but it's not
all that fun
pumping out WO from the oil pit out back. If you can get them to place the old
oil back in the 2.5 gallon containers that helps. What I'm saying it takes work/time.
I believe we have alternative energy systems now to take alot of homes off the
grid.
I have a Trace Sun tie with Sharp 165 w panels + a 2kw wind turbine up and running,
on a good month I save 40% off my monthly bill. But I'm into these kind
of things!
Nebraska sucks with a net metering program...(they don't have one) Ca and IL
have some of the best Net metering programs in the country.
75% rebates + you are paid retail for each Kw you out back on the grid.
Right now several of the plains states could easily produce a large amount of
there energy needs with the big Megawatt wind turbines. Yes this is only one
area of energy, I'm in the process of going off the grid, just saving a little
more cash to get my system fully up and running. Yes I will keep the grid there
for $15.00 per month just as a backup.
My thought we have technology right now to put a big dent in our energy needs.
Ethanol is not one of them though, yes it has a small place in the big schema
of things.
Good luck
PS: Switch grass When they get that figured out I'm going to dedicate some acres
to it.
Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth@earthlink.net> wrote:
Boy,
This whole topic gets my back up, there is just SO much
misinformation out there right now. I'm an Agricultural Scientist &
I've been following a lot of this argument for the past 10 years,
recently because it's become part of my work.
Except for a few discredited critics, (the most commonly quote one
being David Pimental at Cornell University, an entemologist who gets
a lot of his funding from the oil industry), the data indicates that
the energy return from corn-based ethanol is between 1.67 and 2.5X
greater than the energy you put in, depending on the distillery
setup. The Brazilians get back about 5-7x from sugar cane because of
the way they grow, harvest & utilize the whole plant in their
distilling processes.
The current energy "return" for GASOLINE is 0.8X (i.e. it takes more
energy to pump, refine & produce Gas than you get back).
These numbers come directly from the Director of the National
Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado, the arm of the Fed Gov't
responsible for all renwables research, whom I spoke with at length
last Spring.
However, I'm not suggesting that corn-based ethanol is a good
long-term solution, it's not possible to grow enough corn to offset
our energy needs. Even if 90% of the corn grown in this country was
used for ethanol, it would only produce enough ethanol to meet about
6% of demand.
One "silver lining" to corn ethanol is that the residues (called
dried distiller's grains, or DDG'S) make a superior, cheap livestock
feed, and are very underused in the market. The part of corn that
gets converted to alcohol (the starch) is actually not utilized
efficiently in the digestive tracts of hogs and cattle, so removing
it from the corn through the distilling process actually makes the
corn a better feed.
Cellulosic ethanol (made from switch grass, agricultural waste, waste
paper, etc), has the potential to meet about 50% of our current
gasoline consumption, but again there is not enough of these
resources to meet all of current demand, and the technology is still
under development. The enrgy return on this kind of ethanol is
typically around 4-5x with the current "pilot' technology, and will
probably be at least that good at industrial scales.
Biodiesel is a great, energy-dense fule, but again, it's not possible
to produce enough to meet anything more than a fraction of demand,
even with high mpg engines in wide use. I'm actually gearing up to
make my own biodiesel from waste cooking oil (otainable for free from
your local Chinese restraunt), so I agree, it's a great fuel, but
it's potential is just as limited by agricultural realities as
ethanol.
The final point to consider is that NONE of the US-made cars designed
to use E85 have engines specifically designed for that purpose, they
are all basically gas engines with the mass flow computer adjusted to
burn either E85, gas, or a mix. A friend of mine in California
recently sent me an article about engines being produced in Sweden
that get 60-80 mpg on ethanol because theyspecifically designed for
ethanol. Sweden has decided to be petroleum-free within 10 years,
and theyb are the current leaders in this kind of engine design
research.
The big problem with any internal combustion engine is that about 70%
of any fuel's energy is lost as heat; reduce that number and you can
really improve engine efficiency. That's what the Swedes are
focusing on & it appears to be paying off.
Sorry for the long, off-topic post, but as I said, this topic gets my
back up, and some day, fuel type and availability for flying will be
an even bigger issue than it is now.
As far as I'm concerned, the only real, long-term solution to
reducing our dependence on oil is significant reduction of total
energy demand, combine with a sensible program of alternative
renewable enrgy production, and at this point, I think the jury is
still out on what the best mix of alternatives is.
Kip Gardner
At 5:37 PM -0800 2/2/07, Mike Volckmann wrote:
>From what I have been reading one burns 100 BTUs of natural gas to
>produce 80-120 BTUs of ethanol (from corn numbers change if you are
>using sugar cane). Sounds like playing at being green while
>accomplishing nothing to get to reduce the US's dependency on
>petroleum. I would agree that bio-diesel run in small motors like
>the new VW bug shows a lot more promise.
>
>Mike
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: gus notti
>To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 5:47:38 PM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: E-85 (was Fuel Tank)
>
>Why would you want too? E85 is a joke, it's not solving any energy
>issues just creating more. I know that's a very hard truth but
>that's the way it is.
>I'm a active ag producer, As a grower Bio-Diesel is the way to go
>after we start producing small 4 cylinder motors like the Germans
>currently do. 50 + MPG that where the potential lays!
>
>
>Good luck. I know that's a BIG can of worms.....
--
North Canton, OH
---------------------------------
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Don Emch at Oshkosh |
Don,
Not to twist your arm as we all only get a certain amount of vacation
time, (unless you're a retired Suthern gentleman like Corky who's dance
card is generally open)
but you'd get the serious attention of the aircraft judges if you were
to take your plane to Oshkosh this summer. They like it when they can
still smell the paint
in the hot sun:)
Mike C.
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Taylorcraft Gathering, Alliance, Ohio |
With regard to what Don Emch said in talking to Forrest Barber
(owner/operator of Barber Field in Alliance where the annual Taylorcraft
Fly-In
is held) about having a combined event with Taylorcrafts, Pietenpols,
and Aeroncas I couldn't help but smile as that is what has been going on
(without a name tag or official announcement) for YEARS. July 6,7&
8th this year. http://www.barberaircraft.com/
There are normally a nice variety of older taildraggers there with
Saturday AM to about 2 PM being the peak attendance.
Mike C.
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
Hi Dan,
Find your self a tall glass jar (about 6" highwill do) slender (about 1
1/2" or so diameter) with a lid. An olive or hot pepper jar is the one
I use.
About 1/4 of the way up from the bottom put a line around the jar..
Fill the jar up to the line with water. Fill the rest of the way with
gas. Put lid on and mildly shake it. Wait about a minute and check
your water level at the line. If the water level is above the line (you
made water) then there is alcohol in the fuel. Alcohol and water
combine, gas does not combine with water. If water level is still at
the mark then gas does not contain alcohol.
EAA also sells a fuel tester for about $15 to $20 but I'd rather buy the
olives for about $2, eat the olives then make a tester. I'm not cheap
but I've been know to squeek when I walk.
Hope this helps and hope to see you in person at Brodhead this year.
Gene
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | EAA Chapter 1279 Pietenpol Project Update in Southern |
California
I thought I'd give our group a quick update, courtesy of Steve
Williamson, EAA Chapter 1279's President,
by passing along an update of how they are progressing on their chapter
project.
For more history on the project (and some very good photos) go here:
http://www.eaa1279.org/Pietenpol.htm
Steve has shown some great leadership on this project and has a good
group to work with so it sounds like
this new airplane will be taking to the air in just a few short years or
less. Thanks for keeping us posted guys !
Mike C.
________________________________
From: ThePhoebusC@aol.com [mailto:ThePhoebusC@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 11:24 PM
Subject: SoCal Pietenpol Progress
Hi Michael.
We here at EAA Chapter 1279 (So Calif) are progressing nicely
with our Pietenpol project. At the moment our fuselage is upside down
as we complete our gear legs. They're basically done except for the
final contouring (see photos below). While the fuselage is upside down,
I would like to attach one or two stringers down the underside of the
fuselage. The main purpose would be to create a "trough" to allow any
accumulated moisture to flow toward a drain hole in the tail as the
plane rests on the tailwheel.
I noticed on your video that you installed two stringers on the
underside of your Piet with an inspection plate for checking the
elevator idler arm. I intended to simply install an inspection plate.
But the idea of having a hinged door to allow you to reach up in there
is appealing. Did you build a frame for attaching the inspection door?
The door seems to be attached using a "piano hinge." What does the
hinge attach to? (a sketch/.jpg image will be posted to the list
shortly)
Any guidance you can offer would be appreciated. Thanks for
your reply. See photos below.
Steve Williamson, Pres.
EAA Chapter 1279
French Valley, CA
Rough cut legs and fittings.
Close up of fittings and spreader bar.
Checking wheels for fit.
Installing tires.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | bellcrank area: belly access door idea |
This was my response to Chapter 1279's question on a possible belly
access solution under the
elevator bellcrank area.
I've sketched out how I did my elevator bellcrack access panel
and I hope you can make out that I basically just boxed in an area
roughly 9" x 12" (give or take and 1") and then reinforced the
box with the yellow highlighted spruce reinforcement pieces in order
that
the fabric, once glued to the perimeter of that box, when shrunk
, would not distort the belly stringers and boxed area in an outward
fashion.
The boxed access area stayed a rectangle and I cut and fitted
a sheet of aluminum to act as a hinged (at the front) access panel.
(I don't see why velcro wouldn't work either or other types of
fasteners)
This panel works well for initial installation of your elevator
control cables as well as cotter pinning and/or safety wiring that
normally needs
to take place in there. I also found this panel very useful in
allowing light into the fuselage for my inspections. With my seat back
being
hinged and this belly access panel, I can really get a good
amount of light (and some of my forehead) in there to do inspections or
retrieve wayward items that have migrated back there like
sunglasses, charts, gum, candy, and pens.
Sorry this drawing isn't to scale or in CAD and would probably
make Tony Bingelis cringe, but I hope it answers your question.
I know there is no way I'd want to work on safety wiring
turnbuckles up in there on the bellcrank thru just a normal inspection
hole or
two-----but it can be done.
Mike C.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
There are a few FBO's out there that still have MoGas pump, next to the AvGas
pump. Do they have the responsibility of checking to make sure there isn't
any Alcohol in the MoGas fuel ?? When it's available, I always use the MoGas
pump, but I trust there isn't any Alcohol.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
p.s. I use my fuel sump tool to check for Alcohol at home, but I don't
bother to check when on a cross country flight.
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: bellcrank area: belly access door idea |
There is another way. Check with Oscar Zuniga.
CMC
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tour De Corky |
I heard that most of them look like that Colonel Sanders guy (with or
without the glasses).
On 1/31/07, harvey.rule@sympatico.ca <harvey.rule@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> I didn't see any pics of Corky,just the plane ,trailor and truck.I was
> hoping to see what a sawtherner looks like.HAHAHA!
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
So Kip and Beth,
If you read what you wrote, there's a line in there that just makes a
complete mockery of the argument that E85 is efficient...unless we can
get some data to explain it. Here it is:
> The current energy "return" for GASOLINE is 0.8X (i.e. it takes more
> energy to pump, refine & produce Gas than you get back).
There are two angles to this logic challenging statement.
First, since we are so dependent on the oil and only recently (last 20
years or so) have been riding on gasoline hybrids with ethanol as a
summer component and since none of the trucks and trains within the last
50 years have burned a lump of coal or a roentgen of radioactivity or a
kilowatt of solar or wind generated energy to deliver gasoline, how was
there ever been a gallon of gasoline left to drop in the tank under the
filling station pump? To create a quart of lubricating oil?
Second, if we move over to the perspective that we have to get off the
petroleum and do it now, how do you beat the physics of E85 producing
20% fewer BTUs yet costing less energy to service the same refueling
facilities.
I don't care if that is a government think tank, their numbers are
indicating that their methodology is way off in estimating the
efficiency of the two processes. It begins, in fact, to take on the
appearance of a less than unbiased set of calculations.
If we were to do this correctly, we'd have to recognize that we're
trying to use logic to work with an illogical entity, that of consensus
science (which ain't science if it's merely based on consensus rather
than measurement and reproducability of results).
Numbers like that tell me that the statistitician set a zero value
(there goes empirical measurement!) before measuring costs and then
skewed his measurements with an apple to orange comparison of
transforming the raw element, refining the product, delivering the
refined product and then consuming it. In this case, he set zero below
the actual zero in order to set the current fuel production cost at .8
times actual in an effort to offset the 20% efficiency loss in BTUs. I'd
love to see the non-comparative elements used in the calculations (the
apples).
That's pseudo science, man.
The ONLY argument which favors ethanol today is that it is renewable. It
is certainly less efficient in raw BTU value. And since it continues to
produce a hydro-carbon exhaust, it cannot beat the simple organic
chemistry and rules of physics which produce the carbon-replacement
table. It's that table which dictates which elements will combine with
free elements anywhere, not just in the atmosphere. It's that 'feature'
of carbon which leads to the great greenhouse gas debate.
Also, when looking at this stuff, let's remember Occum's Razor coupled
with Einstein's Addendum:
Occum's Razor: for the set of 'known' facts, the simplest answer which
addresses the most of those facts is probably the truth.
Einstein's Addendum: Yes, but make that answer no simpler!!
SO, the simplest statment is that 20% fewer BTUs means creating more
hydro-carbon exhaust per unit of work performed.
Now, let's find someone to do some honest math on this. Obviously, the
Director of Renewable Energy is starting to look like a salesman
employed by the government or else he simply thinks the rest of us are
idiots.
Call the director and get him to show us where we're ignorant.
Greg Chapman
Kip and Beth Gardner wrote:
> <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
>
> Boy,
>
> This whole topic gets my back up, there is just SO much misinformation
> out there right now. I'm an Agricultural Scientist & I've been
> following a lot of this argument for the past 10 years, recently because
> it's become part of my work.
>
> Except for a few discredited critics, (the most commonly quote one being
> David Pimental at Cornell University, an entemologist who gets a lot of
> his funding from the oil industry), the data indicates that the energy
> return from corn-based ethanol is between 1.67 and 2.5X greater than the
> energy you put in, depending on the distillery setup. The Brazilians
> get back about 5-7x from sugar cane because of the way they grow,
> harvest & utilize the whole plant in their distilling processes.
>
> The current energy "return" for GASOLINE is 0.8X (i.e. it takes more
> energy to pump, refine & produce Gas than you get back).
>
> These numbers come directly from the Director of the National Renewable
> Energy Lab in Colorado, the arm of the Fed Gov't responsible for all
> renwables research, whom I spoke with at length last Spring.
>
> However, I'm not suggesting that corn-based ethanol is a good long-term
> solution, it's not possible to grow enough corn to offset our energy
> needs. Even if 90% of the corn grown in this country was used for
> ethanol, it would only produce enough ethanol to meet about 6% of demand.
>
> One "silver lining" to corn ethanol is that the residues (called dried
> distiller's grains, or DDG'S) make a superior, cheap livestock feed, and
> are very underused in the market. The part of corn that gets converted
> to alcohol (the starch) is actually not utilized efficiently in the
> digestive tracts of hogs and cattle, so removing it from the corn
> through the distilling process actually makes the corn a better feed.
>
> Cellulosic ethanol (made from switch grass, agricultural waste, waste
> paper, etc), has the potential to meet about 50% of our current gasoline
> consumption, but again there is not enough of these resources to meet
> all of current demand, and the technology is still under development.
> The enrgy return on this kind of ethanol is typically around 4-5x with
> the current "pilot' technology, and will probably be at least that good
> at industrial scales.
>
> Biodiesel is a great, energy-dense fule, but again, it's not possible to
> produce enough to meet anything more than a fraction of demand, even
> with high mpg engines in wide use. I'm actually gearing up to make my
> own biodiesel from waste cooking oil (otainable for free from your local
> Chinese restraunt), so I agree, it's a great fuel, but it's potential is
> just as limited by agricultural realities as ethanol.
>
> The final point to consider is that NONE of the US-made cars designed to
> use E85 have engines specifically designed for that purpose, they are
> all basically gas engines with the mass flow computer adjusted to burn
> either E85, gas, or a mix. A friend of mine in California recently sent
> me an article about engines being produced in Sweden that get 60-80 mpg
> on ethanol because theyspecifically designed for ethanol. Sweden has
> decided to be petroleum-free within 10 years, and theyb are the current
> leaders in this kind of engine design research.
>
> The big problem with any internal combustion engine is that about 70% of
> any fuel's energy is lost as heat; reduce that number and you can really
> improve engine efficiency. That's what the Swedes are focusing on & it
> appears to be paying off.
>
> Sorry for the long, off-topic post, but as I said, this topic gets my
> back up, and some day, fuel type and availability for flying will be an
> even bigger issue than it is now.
>
> As far as I'm concerned, the only real, long-term solution to reducing
> our dependence on oil is significant reduction of total energy demand,
> combine with a sensible program of alternative renewable enrgy
> production, and at this point, I think the jury is still out on what the
> best mix of alternatives is.
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> At 5:37 PM -0800 2/2/07, Mike Volckmann wrote:
>
>> From what I have been reading one burns 100 BTUs of natural gas to
>> produce 80-120 BTUs of ethanol (from corn numbers change if you are
>> using sugar cane). Sounds like playing at being green while
>> accomplishing nothing to get to reduce the US's dependency on
>> petroleum. I would agree that bio-diesel run in small motors like the
>> new VW bug shows a lot more promise.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: gus notti <gus_notti@yahoo.com>
>> To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
>> Sent: Friday, February 2, 2007 5:47:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: E-85 (was Fuel Tank)
>>
>> Why would you want too? E85 is a joke, it's not solving any energy
>> issues just creating more. I know that's a very hard truth but that's
>> the way it is.
>> I'm a active ag producer, As a grower Bio-Diesel is the way to go
>> after we start producing small 4 cylinder motors like the Germans
>> currently do. 50 + MPG that where the potential lays!
>>
>>
>>
>> Good luck. I know that's a BIG can of worms.....
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
Greg,
The point you are missing here is that all of the enrgy-consuming
processes that go into producing any fuel (or altered energy form)
need to go into the energy-balance equation. For Petroleum
(gasoline), that includes the energy costs of getting the crude out
of the ground, shipped to ther refinery, the energy cost of creating
the extraction/distribution/refining infrastructure, the energy
needed to do the actual refining, etc. etc. etc. Add all that up &
you get the 0.8X figure.
What it amounts to is that we are using a lot of energy to create
different, more usable energy forms. The same kind of accounting
applies to generating electricity, burning coal, making ethanol, you
name it. In some cases you get back more than you put in & some
times you get less. The fact that we haven't had massive fuel
shortages is that up to now, we've had a large surplus of available
"raw" energy (if you will) to make these conversions without going
into a total net energy loss. T o say that no coal, nuclear energy or
whatever has gone to make refined petroleum products is a complete
distortion of the energy-use pattern in this country. Indirectly, ALL
of those forms of energy have made their way into every gas tank in
the world over the past century.
The rest of your argument falls apart on that basic misunderstanding,
no psuedoscience involved. And, BTW, the NREL lab is not a think
tank, it's a working, hands-on research center, and anyone can
access their raw data and do the math for themselves.
I'm not busting on you personally, but this whole discussion is just
an example of how little most people understand about the wasy we use
energy in the industrialized world.
BT, Gus, glad to hear how far you have gotten towards getting off
the grid. I'll be building a house in the next couple of years, and
it will be a net energy producer, incorporating both energy reducing
features, as well as PV panels (or wind turbine) and a biogas
generator to convert the sewage stream to methane. Right now I'm
renting & there are a limited # of things I can do to reduce my
energy usage, but I still use a lot less than my neighbors & live
comfortably.
And yeah, I know it can be a pain to collect that waste oil, I'm
working on getting them tyo give it to me in containers straight out
of the fryer.
Ohio has net metering, but unless the law has changed in the past
year, they are only required to pay what they call the "residual"
cost i.e. the difference between what it costs to prdcue power
themselves & what it would cost them to buy power from another
utility - works out to about 6 cents per kilowatt.
Kip Gardner
At 2:33 PM -0600 2/3/07, Greg Chapman wrote:
>
>So Kip and Beth,
>
>If you read what you wrote, there's a line in there that just makes
>a complete mockery of the argument that E85 is efficient...unless we
>can get some data to explain it. Here it is:
>
>> The current energy "return" for GASOLINE is 0.8X (i.e. it takes more
>> energy to pump, refine & produce Gas than you get back).
>
>There are two angles to this logic challenging statement.
>
>First, since we are so dependent on the oil and only recently (last
>20 years or so) have been riding on gasoline hybrids with ethanol as
>a summer component and since none of the trucks and trains within
>the last 50 years have burned a lump of coal or a roentgen of
>radioactivity or a kilowatt of solar or wind generated energy to
>deliver gasoline, how was there ever been a gallon of gasoline left
>to drop in the tank under the filling station pump? To create a
>quart of lubricating oil?
>
>Second, if we move over to the perspective that we have to get off
>the petroleum and do it now, how do you beat the physics of E85
>producing 20% fewer BTUs yet costing less energy to service the same
>refueling facilities.
>
>I don't care if that is a government think tank, their numbers are
>indicating that their methodology is way off in estimating the
>efficiency of the two processes. It begins, in fact, to take on the
>appearance of a less than unbiased set of calculations.
>
>If we were to do this correctly, we'd have to recognize that we're
>trying to use logic to work with an illogical entity, that of
>consensus science (which ain't science if it's merely based on
>consensus rather than measurement and reproducability of results).
>
>Numbers like that tell me that the statistitician set a zero value
>(there goes empirical measurement!) before measuring costs and then
>skewed his measurements with an apple to orange comparison of
>transforming the raw element, refining the product, delivering the
>refined product and then consuming it. In this case, he set zero
>below the actual zero in order to set the current fuel production
>cost at .8 times actual in an effort to offset the 20% efficiency
>loss in BTUs. I'd love to see the non-comparative elements used in
>the calculations (the apples).
>
>That's pseudo science, man.
>
>The ONLY argument which favors ethanol today is that it is
>renewable. It is certainly less efficient in raw BTU value. And
>since it continues to produce a hydro-carbon exhaust, it cannot beat
>the simple organic chemistry and rules of physics which produce the
>carbon-replacement table. It's that table which dictates which
>elements will combine with free elements anywhere, not just in the
>atmosphere. It's that 'feature' of carbon which leads to the great
>greenhouse gas debate.
>
>Also, when looking at this stuff, let's remember Occum's Razor
>coupled with Einstein's Addendum:
>Occum's Razor: for the set of 'known' facts, the simplest answer
>which addresses the most of those facts is probably the truth.
>Einstein's Addendum: Yes, but make that answer no simpler!!
>
>SO, the simplest statment is that 20% fewer BTUs means creating more
>hydro-carbon exhaust per unit of work performed.
>
>Now, let's find someone to do some honest math on this. Obviously,
>the Director of Renewable Energy is starting to look like a salesman
>employed by the government or else he simply thinks the rest of us
>are idiots.
>
>Call the director and get him to show us where we're ignorant.
>
>Greg Chapman
--
North Canton, OH
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
That was the point exactly of what I wrote. The two processes are
amazingly similar. Essentially, the only place where the processes
differ is in the 'harvesting' portion.
The math is flawed, completely, in that it doesn't have to be a .87x
cost to produce the petroleum product it has just come to be that way
over time as energy producers moved petroleum into a commodity based
trading and distribution system. The same will happen as Ethanol moves
into a high-demand trading system.
There is no increased effeciency to burning alcohol. The physics simply
doesn't support that answer.
Now, I'm not saying to not develop that fuel. I am indicating that most
of the major issues surrounding fuel type are not answered by ethanol
fuels. Chief amongst those not satisfied are the environmental issues
and I am tired of seeing that idea given credibility along with poor
assumptions built into the argument's supporting data.
And I don't see this as you and I cracking on each other. I do see that
the numbers do not make sense and that, 1) the comparisons are not equal
in that data and, 2)the most important problem is not being addressed by
this product: pollution.
I have to be skeptical on this stuff. For instance, people think coal
power is dirty but safer than nuclear energy if for no other reason than
radioactive waste. What they don't seem to realize is that burning coal
produces radioactive ash at an incredible rate and it actually
represents a waste management problem nearly a full magnitude greater
than does spend nuclear pellets. Now, why don't they know that? Well,
there's a large industry built around coal that, naturally, isn't going
to talk about it.
So what's the angle with Ethanol which allows us to come to these other
conclusions. Again, the simplest physics surrounding the energy to
produce a gallon of fuel cannot possibly indicate a negative for any
viable fuel source. Doing so says that we've twisted one positive proof
in order to build a negative proof. It pays to recall that there is no
such thing as proving a negative argument.
Greg
Kip and Beth Gardner wrote:
> <kipandbeth@earthlink.net>
>
> Greg,
>
> The point you are missing here is that all of the enrgy-consuming
> processes that go into producing any fuel (or altered energy form) need
> to go into the energy-balance equation. For Petroleum (gasoline), that
> includes the energy costs of getting the crude out of the ground,
> shipped to ther refinery, the energy cost of creating the
> extraction/distribution/refining infrastructure, the energy needed to do
> the actual refining, etc. etc. etc. Add all that up & you get the 0.8X
> figure.
>
> What it amounts to is that we are using a lot of energy to create
> different, more usable energy forms. The same kind of accounting
> applies to generating electricity, burning coal, making ethanol, you
> name it. In some cases you get back more than you put in & some times
> you get less. The fact that we haven't had massive fuel shortages is
> that up to now, we've had a large surplus of available "raw" energy (if
> you will) to make these conversions without going into a total net
> energy loss. T o say that no coal, nuclear energy or whatever has gone
> to make refined petroleum products is a complete distortion of the
> energy-use pattern in this country. Indirectly, ALL of those forms of
> energy have made their way into every gas tank in the world over the
> past century.
>
> The rest of your argument falls apart on that basic misunderstanding, no
> psuedoscience involved. And, BTW, the NREL lab is not a think tank,
> it's a working, hands-on research center, and anyone can access their
> raw data and do the math for themselves.
>
> I'm not busting on you personally, but this whole discussion is just an
> example of how little most people understand about the wasy we use
> energy in the industrialized world.
>
> BT, Gus, glad to hear how far you have gotten towards getting off the
> grid. I'll be building a house in the next couple of years, and it will
> be a net energy producer, incorporating both energy reducing features,
> as well as PV panels (or wind turbine) and a biogas generator to convert
> the sewage stream to methane. Right now I'm renting & there are a
> limited # of things I can do to reduce my energy usage, but I still use
> a lot less than my neighbors & live comfortably.
>
> And yeah, I know it can be a pain to collect that waste oil, I'm working
> on getting them tyo give it to me in containers straight out of the fryer.
>
> Ohio has net metering, but unless the law has changed in the past year,
> they are only required to pay what they call the "residual" cost i.e.
> the difference between what it costs to prdcue power themselves & what
> it would cost them to buy power from another utility - works out to
> about 6 cents per kilowatt.
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> At 2:33 PM -0600 2/3/07, Greg Chapman wrote:
>
>>
>> So Kip and Beth,
>>
>> If you read what you wrote, there's a line in there that just makes a
>> complete mockery of the argument that E85 is efficient...unless we can
>> get some data to explain it. Here it is:
>>
>>> The current energy "return" for GASOLINE is 0.8X (i.e. it takes more
>>> energy to pump, refine & produce Gas than you get back).
>>
>>
>> There are two angles to this logic challenging statement.
>>
>> First, since we are so dependent on the oil and only recently (last 20
>> years or so) have been riding on gasoline hybrids with ethanol as a
>> summer component and since none of the trucks and trains within the
>> last 50 years have burned a lump of coal or a roentgen of
>> radioactivity or a kilowatt of solar or wind generated energy to
>> deliver gasoline, how was there ever been a gallon of gasoline left to
>> drop in the tank under the filling station pump? To create a quart of
>> lubricating oil?
>>
>> Second, if we move over to the perspective that we have to get off the
>> petroleum and do it now, how do you beat the physics of E85 producing
>> 20% fewer BTUs yet costing less energy to service the same refueling
>> facilities.
>>
>> I don't care if that is a government think tank, their numbers are
>> indicating that their methodology is way off in estimating the
>> efficiency of the two processes. It begins, in fact, to take on the
>> appearance of a less than unbiased set of calculations.
>>
>> If we were to do this correctly, we'd have to recognize that we're
>> trying to use logic to work with an illogical entity, that of
>> consensus science (which ain't science if it's merely based on
>> consensus rather than measurement and reproducability of results).
>>
>> Numbers like that tell me that the statistitician set a zero value
>> (there goes empirical measurement!) before measuring costs and then
>> skewed his measurements with an apple to orange comparison of
>> transforming the raw element, refining the product, delivering the
>> refined product and then consuming it. In this case, he set zero below
>> the actual zero in order to set the current fuel production cost at .8
>> times actual in an effort to offset the 20% efficiency loss in BTUs.
>> I'd love to see the non-comparative elements used in the calculations
>> (the apples).
>>
>> That's pseudo science, man.
>>
>> The ONLY argument which favors ethanol today is that it is renewable.
>> It is certainly less efficient in raw BTU value. And since it
>> continues to produce a hydro-carbon exhaust, it cannot beat the simple
>> organic chemistry and rules of physics which produce the
>> carbon-replacement table. It's that table which dictates which
>> elements will combine with free elements anywhere, not just in the
>> atmosphere. It's that 'feature' of carbon which leads to the great
>> greenhouse gas debate.
>>
>> Also, when looking at this stuff, let's remember Occum's Razor coupled
>> with Einstein's Addendum:
>> Occum's Razor: for the set of 'known' facts, the simplest answer which
>> addresses the most of those facts is probably the truth.
>> Einstein's Addendum: Yes, but make that answer no simpler!!
>>
>> SO, the simplest statment is that 20% fewer BTUs means creating more
>> hydro-carbon exhaust per unit of work performed.
>>
>> Now, let's find someone to do some honest math on this. Obviously, the
>> Director of Renewable Energy is starting to look like a salesman
>> employed by the government or else he simply thinks the rest of us are
>> idiots.
>>
>> Call the director and get him to show us where we're ignorant.
>>
>> Greg Chapman
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | bellcrank area: belly access door idea |
Well, I posted this a couple of months back when the question of tailcone
access came up. The first two photos on this page-
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/repairs/repairs.html
show how Corky built in the access to the elevator bellcrank and tail area
on 41CC. It works pretty slick.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags@hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_________________________________________________________________
>From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the
Academy Awards
http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline1
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: bellcrank area: belly access door idea |
Oscar,
I'm impressed!
Gene in Tennessee
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Don Emch at Oshkosh |
Mike,
Nice comments, but I really don't think its at that level! I'd really like to
make Oshkosh, mainly because it doesn't get many Piets, they'd just rather go
to Brodhead. I can probably only get enough time for either OSH or Brodhead,
and given the choice I'd go for Brodhead. Just more my kind of thing, I guess.
Mike, are you still using the same set up on the smoke system? I've got a few
regulars that I like to go buzz when I'm out flying. Just for kicks, I've done
the air horn thing and about blew out my eardrums! (Gotta hold that thing a
long way out of the cockpit!) I've been thinking about something a little less
noisy, something like smoke. I remember you had a pretty simple setup. Is
that still working for you?
Don
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=92753#92753
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: E-85 (was Fuel Tank) |
FYI Brodhead, which by the way is a private airport, in case you
wondered, has MoGas and 100LL on the field.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd@aol.com
To: pietenpol-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: E-85 (was Fuel Tank)
There are a few FBO's out there that still have MoGas pump, next to
the AvGas pump. Do they have the responsibility of checking to make
sure there isn't any Alcohol in the MoGas fuel ?? When it's available,
I always use the MoGas pump, but I trust there isn't any Alcohol.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
p.s. I use my fuel sump tool to check for Alcohol at home, but I
don't bother to check when on a cross country flight.
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|