Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:29 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Mickey Coggins)
2. 12:52 AM - Re: D10A magnetic sensor alignment (Jeff Point)
3. 04:15 AM - Re: Heat muff overheat? (Dale Ensing)
4. 05:02 AM - RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines (glen matejcek)
5. 05:45 AM - Mixture adjustment (Shirley Harding)
6. 05:54 AM - Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines ()
7. 06:25 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (David Burnham)
8. 06:40 AM - Re: Heat muff overheat? (Larry Bowen)
9. 07:15 AM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (linn Walters)
10. 07:19 AM - Re: Mixture adjustment (D.Bristol)
11. 07:22 AM - Re: Engine alignment (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
12. 07:28 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Joe Larson)
13. 07:28 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Larry Pardue)
14. 07:49 AM - Re: RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Charlie Kuss)
15. 07:49 AM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (sportav8r@aol.com)
16. 07:52 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Chuck Jensen)
17. 07:54 AM - Re: RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines (sportav8r@aol.com)
18. 08:51 AM - Lightspeed with Keyswitch and 1 Mag Wiring (Tim Olson)
19. 09:00 AM - Re: Mixture adjustment (Ed Holyoke)
20. 09:12 AM - 4 into 1 exhaust (Ed Holyoke)
21. 09:29 AM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (linn Walters)
22. 09:29 AM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (linn Walters)
23. 09:55 AM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Rob Prior (rv7))
24. 11:02 AM - Re:MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
25. 11:15 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Chris W)
26. 11:22 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Chris W)
27. 11:39 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Chris W)
28. 11:51 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Joseph Larson)
29. 12:28 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Eric Ekberg)
30. 12:28 PM - Re: Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (Phil Sisson, Litchfield Aerobatic Club)
31. 12:44 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Mickey Coggins)
32. 01:05 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Joseph Larson)
33. 01:32 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Ed Holyoke)
34. 02:12 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
35. 02:55 PM - Re: Mixture adjustment (Kyle Boatright)
36. 02:55 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Larry Pardue)
37. 03:26 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Terry Watson)
38. 04:30 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Joseph Larson)
39. 04:53 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
40. 04:53 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Jerry Springer)
41. 04:57 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Chris W)
42. 06:04 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Chris W)
43. 07:17 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (scott bilinski)
44. 07:17 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Joe Larson)
45. 07:30 PM - Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines (pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper))
46. 07:32 PM - Re: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over? (Emrath)
47. 07:38 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (low pass)
48. 08:53 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Olen Goodwin)
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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> .... As you surmised, it does
> not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of
> fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find
> something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a hydrocarbon,
> like oil it produces carbon dioxide. But the enviro-wackos have ignored
> that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL
> fossil fuels.
I can't seem to find any indication on any environmentalist website
that says they support ethanol. In fact, I found these two articles
which show that the Sierra Club (kind of a poster child for
environmentalist organizations) opposed subsidies for ethanol
production.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-03-03-2.html
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17809/article_detail.asp
It's the agriculture industry pushing taxpayer funded subsidies
for ethanol, not the environmentalists. Since we already spend
billions each year subsidizing petroleum products, it's not
surprising to see the Ag people fighting their way to the trough.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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: D10A magnetic sensor alignment |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com>
Ditto what Dan said. Getting the thing level and plumb is not as hard
is they make it sound.
Get yourself a digital level. Lay it across the top of the Dynon face
and compare it to a level laid across the longerons, and you've got the
roll axis figured out. Make a board about 6 inches long and 4 inches
tall, so that you can lay the board on the top of the Dynon body
(lengthwise) and lay the level on that. Obviously make sure the wood
shim has exactly parallel sides. Bingo, you've got the pitch axis
figured. As for the yaw axis, you can get it close by measuring against
other bulkheads, including the instrument panel, but I think this is the
least critical of the three, since changes to the yaw axis are what you
are measureing with the unit, and a degree or 2 of install error will be
cancelled out in the calibration process.
As for mounting, I think my solution is about the easiest. Make an
aluminum mount to get it close, then use the brass screws and washers as
shims to get it dead nuts on.
http://home.mindspring.com/~rv6/RV6site/Dynon.htm
Jeff Point
RV-6
Milwaukee
13 days and counting till Osh......
>
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: Heat muff overheat? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff during
the
> summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
> cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat muff,
it
> may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you
think?
> > Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
>
Larry,
I have a hot/cold air mixer valve that dumps a small portion of the heated
air when set for full cold air to the cabin. It does this thru a hole in the
valve that is about 5/8" diameter as I remember. I also have two heat muffs
in series so the heated air passing thru the valve is quite warm. Have 120
hours on the system and no indication of deterioration of the system.
This would seems to indicate that you could perhaps substantially block the
2" opening but allow some air to continually pass to moderate the muff
temperature.
Dale Ensing
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 MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Charlie-
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: | Mixture adjustment |
Listers, I know this was discussed very recently - but I haven't been able
to find the info I want in the archives. Finger trouble no doubt. I find
that my Superior O-360 doesn't respond immediately to a very small increase
in throttle on approach. It has been suggested by those who know more about
this that I do, that the mixture is slightly "weak" at idle power. Which way
should I turn the adjuster to make it run a little richer - anticlockwise or
clockwise?
Thanks guys
Shirley Harding
RV6 half way through test period
DO not archive
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: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
>posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
> Oh? I'm sure glad you told me. I've been flying on
> auto gas for 20 years and don't have every part of
> my fuel system insulated. I do insulate the lines with
> firesleeve and do put blast tubes to the pump.That's
> it. My Cheetah didn't even have the blast tubes.Jim
> Sears in KY
Jim:
Thanks for the very detailed response, I learned a
lot. You clearly have way more experience with Auto
Gas in planes than I. However you miss quote or
miss read a few things. No need to repeat
everything, but let me address a few things.
I think you gloss over and paint a very rosy picture
that may be less than typical. I think your fuel
savings is at the extreme MAX of what is possible.
In the real world it's much less, but first.......
First let be say the most important thing is Auto gas
in planes CAN cause loss of power, engine failure.
That is the main reason for NOT using it.
The important thing to remember 160, 180 and 200
HP Lycomings need premium Auto gas and that is
NOT available for purchase right out of an airport pump.
One better consider the facts of hauling fuel around
to fill your plane from the corner gas station: Hassle,
legality, safety and lack of availability away from
home.
The price savings if you HAUL YOUR own gas can
be good, especially IF you can use 80/87 octane.
However if you buy from the airport if avail, the price
diff between AVgas and MOgas is often measured in
dimes not dollars. Any one can do a search for gas
prices nation wide.
Avgas avg $4.28 min $2.90 max $7.05
Mogas (auto) avg $3.17 min $1.75 max $5.10
Premium (auto) avg $3.35 min $x.xx max $x.xx
As you can see price varies; 100LL can
be CHEAPER than AUTO GAS!
Yes you can play games and that the Low of
one and the high of another and go WOW, look
at that. The real world and Murphy's law says
the savings will be much smaller. IF you just
look at average you can see you will may be
save $1.00 on average. That is about $8.00/hr on
my plane.
OK, that is great, about 100 hrs a year that is $800.
However 1/2 of my flying is X-C and I likely could not
get premium auto gas, so that savings is $400, but
than again I might find some $3.00 AVgas.
That $400 will cost me the hassle of hauling and
storing fuel. Add the worry of Vapor Lock.... no thanks.
If you need premium, again check the price of
premium auto gas (from the corner station) & AVgas.
Premium Autogas can be over $3.00/gal. AVgas
in the low-mid $3-$4 range. Not the $1.50 you say. I
believe you but not everyone lives in Kentucky, which
has the lowest car gas price nation wide. Good
for you Mr. Smug. You have a very provincial and
narrow focus, other (most) states, savings not so great.
If you are going to go around the patch in KY than
haul your own gas might work. Travel cross country
and buy MOgas at the airport, the price difference is
not that great. ANY ONE can verify that for themselves.
If your engine was certified for 91/96 octane you need to
get Premium and you will not fine that in a X-C flight. If
you price premium Vs. AVgas the price is again in
dimes not dollars.
Again this is easy to look up on the web. Assume 50
cent savings per gal and 8 gal an hr burn, $ 4.00.
Say it is double that, $8.00. Is it worth it to flame out
your engine on a hot day takeoff? Will that gas
savings rebuild your airplane you just Ball'ed up in
the corn field (if you are lucky).
Good for you that you live in a state that does not
require Alcohol or Ethanol. It is widely known that
your days are numbered. The good old Fed Gov will
force that down our / your throat sooner than later.
I am glad your RV-6A is working well. However a
Grumman Cheetah is a BIG cowl compared, and the
exhaust pipes do not snake and wrap around the
Carb like they do on a RV. I do know that.
To quote Lycoming why not to use Auto fuel:
ENGINE FAILURE.
Yea I know Lycoming does not know anything.
Yea I know you have done it and live a charmed life
and nothing ever will go bad because of your
experience in Kentucky. Vapor Lock is a REAL
issue. Please don't gloss that over, that is
disingenuous and not forthright.
Pouring your OWN gas into your plane is NOT
allowed at most Muni Airports. Even large gas
tanks on personal property are regulated and
restricted by law.
Also there is a big difference in one 5 gal gas can
and a 55 gal barrel or ten (5) gal jugs. Check out Haz
material laws for your state, I know. Just because you
can get away with it, may not be a good reason to do it.
I am sure gas station attendants will question you filling
your 10 jugs that are more than a car fill-up by a factor
of 3 or 4. Handling Gas is not without danger.
No thanks, and your reward for all the effort is worry if
you will lose power on takeoff or climb on a hot day.
Yes there are hotter places than Kentucky.
Thanks for the info but I think you have been somewhat
lucky. I know experimentals don't need STC btw and
said that. However you gloss over the fact some planes
can not get a STC. Than you correctly state we can
learn from STC's. Well Take the HINT. RV's are very
tight cowls and have little in common with a Grumman.
I am not saying don't do Auto gas but at least know what
you are getting into and the real RISK! That is all.
Cheers George M
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting
at 1/min.
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: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Larry,
David Pimentel at Cornell University - do a Google search you'll find it
all.
The latest is they gain about 10% BTU's over fossil fuel used. What the
environmentalists don't tell you is that for every bushel of corn used in
ethanol production, 1/3 is ethanol, 1/3 CO2 (ethanol is produced by
bacterial fermentation of carbohydrates - so much for reducing CO2
emissions); 1/3 of distillers dried grains and solubles - they are depending
on the animal feed industry to find a home for this by-product (seems like a
lot of the environmentalists are also animal rights people?)
The energy used to produce it - diesel for crop ploughing, harvesting,
drying and transport, natural gas for fertilizer production (that bad stuff
- according to the organic crowd - that allows us to feed the world - see
any pattern here) and then drying the by-product, electricity for the
fermentation process (lots).
It is going to cause the price of corn to rise. Yes, so in addition to the
55c per gallon subsidy we pay, our food is going to become ore expensive as
well.
ADM stock price is soring - lobbyists, what lobbyists.
What a deal!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On 7/5/06, DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <
> dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>
> No reputable source is needed Larry. The fact of the matter is, you can
> not
> get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along with some
> water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch). So.......it takes some
> OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to
> distill the water out and get the pure alcohol. As you surmised, it does
> not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of
> fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find
> something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a
> hydrocarbon,
> like oil it produces carbon dioxide. But the enviro-wackos have ignored
> that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL
> fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully
> renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't consider
> CO2
> a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something "evil"
> about
> it!
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
>
>
> _________________________Original Message_________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:45:43 PM PST US
>
> Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that
> authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
> energy than we get back? How can that make sense if oil is in
> short supply? Why waste .3 gallons of it?
>
>
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: Heat muff overheat? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Larry Bowen" <Larry@BowenAero.com>
Thanks Dale and others for the input. Yes, I have the standard heat
muff/heat box/etc setup. The objective is to patch the 2" "hole" in the
baffling to maximize cyl head cooling during the hottest summer months.
Taking the whole system out is an option, but patching the baffling hole
is a simpler option.
--
Larry Bowen
Larry@BowenAero.com
http://BowenAero.com
Dale Ensing wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
>
>>
>> Are there any problems closing off the air flow to the heat muff during
> the
>> summer months? It's air supply is a 2" hole off the baffling behind
>> cylinder #3. My concern is that without the flow through the heat muff,
> it
>> may get too hot and melt or burst into flames or worse! What do you
> think?
>> > Larry Bowen, RV-8 196 Hrs.
>>
>
> Larry,
> I have a hot/cold air mixer valve that dumps a small portion of the heated
> air when set for full cold air to the cabin. It does this thru a hole in
> the
> valve that is about 5/8" diameter as I remember. I also have two heat
> muffs
> in series so the heated air passing thru the valve is quite warm. Have 120
> hours on the system and no indication of deterioration of the system.
> This would seems to indicate that you could perhaps substantially block
> the
> 2" opening but allow some air to continually pass to moderate the muff
> temperature.
> Dale Ensing
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: | Re: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
I've tried to stay out of this food fight, but want to make a few
comments. I've been using Auto fuel in my Pitts (modified O-360-A4A
with high lift cam) and PS-5 (modified too for increased fuel flow)
pressure carburetor for 26 years now. In Florida. With no electrical
system. It really likes hi-test (92 or 93) but will run on 87 if the
engine doesn't get hot like when doing heavy akro.
George appears to be in the anti auto fuel camp and I'm on the other
side. I'm not going to convince George (or anyone else) that they
should switch to auto fuel. If they want to, great, and if they want to
use a strictly 100LL diet, that's great too. My only complaint is that
George makes statements without any FACTS to back them up. Like Jim,
I've used auto fuel in my Grumman too. For years. The only gripe I
have with Auto fuel is that it coats the inside of the sight gauges with
a red film over time, and I have to disassemble them to clean them.
Like Jim, I find that the benefits outweigh the hassle of carting fuel
to the airport. The benefits have all been discussed here already so I
won't repeat them. For me, the purchase cost is lower, and then I can
remove the federal excise tax when I file for my federal taxes. Legally.
Just my two pennies worth. YMMV and the best you can do with this
disagreement is to agree to disagree and move on. If you're interested
in using auto fuel, do your own research. I know, it'll take some time,
but best to get the facts separated from urban legend. Learn what
typically creates vapor lock and how to ameliorate the contributing
factors. All I ask is that you approach the fuel dilemma with an open
mind and do your fueling safely. And do your own research. There are
experts out there, and they may, or may not, be listening on these lists.
Linn
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> >posted by: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net
> <mailto:jmsears@adelphia.net>>
> > Oh? I'm sure glad you told me. I've been flying on
> > auto gas for 20 years and don't have every part of
> > my fuel system insulated. I do insulate the lines with
> > firesleeve and do put blast tubes to the pump.That's
> > it. My Cheetah didn't even have the blast tubes.Jim
> > Sears in KY
>
> Jim:
>
> Thanks for the very detailed response, I learned a
> lot. You clearly have way more experience with Auto
> Gas in planes than I. However you miss quote or
> miss read a few things. No need to repeat
> everything, but let me address a few things.
>
>
> I think you gloss over and paint a very rosy picture
> that may be less than typical. I think your fuel
> savings is at the extreme MAX of what is possible.
> In the real world it's much less, but first.......
>
>
> First let be say the most important thing is Auto gas
> in planes CAN cause loss of power, engine failure.
> That is the main reason for NOT using it.
>
>
> The important thing to remember 160, 180 and 200
> HP Lycomings need premium Auto gas and that is
> NOT available for purchase right out of an airport pump.
>
>
> One better consider the facts of hauling fuel around
> to fill your plane from the corner gas station: Hassle,
> legality, safety and lack of availability away from
> home.
>
>
> The price savings if you HAUL YOUR own gas can
> be good, especially IF you can use 80/87 octane.
> However if you buy from the airport if avail, the price
> diff between AVgas and MOgas is often measured in
> dimes not dollars. Any one can do a search for gas
> prices nation wide.
>
>
> Avgas avg $4.28 min $2.90 max $7.05
>
> Mogas (auto) avg $3.17 min $1.75 max $5.10
>
> Premium (auto) avg $3.35 min $x.xx max $x.xx
>
>
> As you can see price varies; 100LL can
> be CHEAPER than AUTO GAS!
>
> Yes you can play games and that the Low of
> one and the high of another and go WOW, look
> at that. The real world and Murphy's law says
> the savings will be much smaller. IF you just
> look at average you can see you will may be
> save $1.00 on average. That is about $8.00/hr on
> my plane.
>
> OK, that is great, about 100 hrs a year that is $800.
>
> However 1/2 of my flying is X-C and I likely could not
> get premium auto gas, so that savings is $400, but
> than again I might find some $3.00 AVgas.
>
> That $400 will cost me the hassle of hauling and
> storing fuel. Add the worry of Vapor Lock.... no thanks.
> If you need premium, again check the price of
> premium auto gas (from the corner station) & AVgas.
> Premium Autogas can be over $3.00/gal. AVgas
> in the low-mid $3-$4 range. Not the $1.50 you say. I
> believe you but not everyone lives in Kentucky, which
> has the lowest car gas price nation wide. Good
> for you Mr. Smug. You have a very provincial and
> narrow focus, other (most) states, savings not so great.
>
> If you are going to go around the patch in KY than
> haul your own gas might work. Travel cross country
> and buy MOgas at the airport, the price difference is
> not that great. ANY ONE can verify that for themselves.
>
> If your engine was certified for 91/96 octane you need to
> get Premium and you will not fine that in a X-C flight. If
> you price premium Vs. AVgas the price is again in
> dimes not dollars.
>
> Again this is easy to look up on the web. Assume 50
> cent savings per gal and 8 gal an hr burn, $ 4.00.
> Say it is double that, $8.00. Is it worth it to flame out
> your engine on a hot day takeoff? Will that gas
> savings rebuild your airplane you just Ball'ed up in
> the corn field (if you are lucky).
>
> Good for you that you live in a state that does not
> require Alcohol or Ethanol. It is widely known that
> your days are numbered. The good old Fed Gov will
> force that down our / your throat sooner than later.
>
> I am glad your RV-6A is working well. However a
> Grumman Cheetah is a BIG cowl compared, and the
> exhaust pipes do not snake and wrap around the
> Carb like they do on a RV. I do know that.
>
> To quote Lycoming why not to use Auto fuel:
> ENGINE FAILURE.
>
> Yea I know Lycoming does not know anything.
>
> Yea I know you have done it and live a charmed life
> and nothing ever will go bad because of your
> experience in Kentucky. Vapor Lock is a REAL
> issue. Please don't gloss that over, that is
> disingenuous and not forthright.
>
> Pouring your OWN gas into your plane is NOT
> allowed at most Muni Airports. Even large gas
> tanks on personal property are regulated and
> restricted by law.
>
> Also there is a big difference in one 5 gal gas can
> and a 55 gal barrel or ten (5) gal jugs. Check out Haz
> material laws for your state, I know. Just because you
> can get away with it, may not be a good reason to do it.
>
> I am sure gas station attendants will question you filling
> your 10 jugs that are more than a car fill-up by a factor
> of 3 or 4. Handling Gas is not without danger.
>
> No thanks, and your reward for all the effort is worry if
> you will lose power on takeoff or climb on a hot day.
>
> Yes there are hotter places than Kentucky.
>
> Thanks for the info but I think you have been somewhat
> lucky. I know experimentals don't need STC btw and
> said that. However you gloss over the fact some planes
> can not get a STC. Than you correctly state we can
> learn from STC's. Well Take the HINT. RV's are very
> tight cowls and have little in common with a Grumman.
>
> I am not saying don't do Auto gas but at least know what
> you are getting into and the real RISK! That is all.
>
> Cheers George M
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
> rates starting at 1/min.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman7/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39666/*http://messenger.yahoo.com>
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: | Re: Mixture adjustment |
Shirley,
If the throttle cable is too long, you will have quite a bit of "lost
motion" in it, this is caused by the wire moving sideways in the sheath
where the cable bends. My first cable was about 6" too long and had this
exact problem. I cured it by using the correct length cable. It needs to
be as straight and direct as possible.
Dave B. -6 So Cal
EAA Technical Counselor
Shirley Harding wrote:
> Listers, I know this was discussed very recently - but I haven't been
> able to find the info I want in the archives. Finger trouble no doubt.
> I find that my Superior O-360 doesn't respond immediately to a very
> small increase in throttle on approach. It has been suggested by those
> who know more about this that I do, that the mixture is slightly
> "weak" at idle power. Which way should I turn the adjuster to make it
> run a little richer - anticlockwise or clockwise?
>
>
>
> Thanks guys
>
>
>
> Shirley Harding
>
> RV6 half way through test period
>
>
>
> DO not archive
>
>
>
>
>
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: Engine alignment |
In a message dated 07/04/2006 7:07:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
bo124rs@hotmail.com writes:
So, when I placed the upper cowling in place, there is an increasing gap
from top to bottom. Me thinks this does not look right!!
>>>>>
Hi Dana- Can't really say about the mounts, but looking at the picture of the
cowl/spinner fit, from what I've seen (my own and quite a few others) this is
a standard fit from Vans. Not hard to fix- if interested holler at me...
Mark
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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Joe Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
I'm one of those enviro-wackos mentioned in Dean's letter. Yep, I
believe we should get off the oil-based economy so that we can stop
caring how much the people in the mideast hate each other, so we can
stop shelling out billions to foreign countries to fuel our cars, and
so that we can reduce the harmful effects petroleum has on our
environment. Oh, and it's running out, anyway.
That makes me a wacko, I guess.
Dean, this is a public list with people from all walks of life.
Check your facts before you go about intentionally insulting a bunch
of people whom you clearly haven't bothered to try to understand.
Don't continue to post like an ignorant bigot. Environmentalists are
generally smart people who care about the world around them. They
usually have pretty good reasons for the positions they take.
Instead of assuming they are wackos, maybe you should actually try to
understand their reasoning. You may continue to feel the other side
is more important, but at least you'll have made an informed decision.
They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people who spike trees,
for instance, but I understand their position), but the bulk of
environmentalists have solid science at their backs. Some of them
even have financial data in mind, too (as I do).
In any case, as another poster has said, it's not the
environmentalists who are pushing for ethanol. It's the farm
industry. Ethanol is a big political button in all the corn states.
Despite the scientific evidence.
Environmentalists, however, tend to listen to the scientists. When
there's scientific evidence against something, we tend to say, "Let's
not go that way." So us enviro-wackos aren't telling you to use
ethanol.
However, you don't need to use petroleum to produce ethanol. You can
use the energy in ethanol to produce more ethanol. Okay, you have a
chicken and egg thing, but once you have a barrel of ethanol, you can
use that barrel to make more ethanol. If you want to sell a barrel
of ethanol, first you have to make 5 barrels. Sell one barrel. Use
the remaining 4 to make 5 more. Sell 1. That's the ratio. (Or I
might be off by one, it might be 6 to sell 1, I'm going from memory).
Oh, and the poster who linked to the Sierra Club (yes, I'm a member)
-- the poster child for us enviro-wackos is Greenpeace. I'm not a
member, but I periodically give them money. They state an anti-
ethanol policy the same as the Sierra Club.
-Joe
On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:09 AM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>
> No reputable source is needed Larry. The fact of the matter is,
> you can not
> get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along
> with some
> water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch). So.......it takes
> some
> OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to
> distill the water out and get the pure alcohol. As you surmised,
> it does
> not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get
> rid of
> fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find
> something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a
> hydrocarbon,
> like oil it produces carbon dioxide. But the enviro-wackos have
> ignored
> that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of
> those EVIL
> fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source
> that's fully
> renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't
> consider CO2
> a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something
> "evil" about
> it!
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
>
>
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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Thanks for the information David. Somewhere in all the quoting my name got
put in the wrong place. My only input was that I think subsidies should be
eliminated. I think the free market is a great way to find out the true
value of an idea.
Larry
On 7/5/06 7:22 AM, "David Burnham" <daverv6a@gmail.com> wrote:
> Larry,
>
> David Pimentel at Cornell University - do a Google search you'll find it all.
>
> The latest is they gain about 10% BTU's over fossil fuel used. What the
> environmentalists don't tell you is that for every bushel of corn used in
> ethanol production, 1/3 is ethanol, 1/3 CO2 (ethanol is produced by bacterial
> fermentation of carbohydrates - so much for reducing CO2 emissions); 1/3 of
> distillers dried grains and solubles - they are depending on the animal feed
> industry to find a home for this by-product (seems like a lot of the
> environmentalists are also animal rights people?)
>
> The energy used to produce it - diesel for crop ploughing, harvesting, drying
> and transport, natural gas for fertilizer production (that bad stuff -
> according to the organic crowd - that allows us to feed the world - see any
> pattern here) and then drying the by-product, electricity for the fermentation
> process (lots).
>
> It is going to cause the price of corn to rise. Yes, so in addition to the 55c
> per gallon subsidy we pay, our food is going to become ore expensive as well.
>
> ADM stock price is soring - lobbyists, what lobbyists.
>
> What a deal!
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
>
> On 7/5/06, DEAN PSIROPOULOS <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net> wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <
>> dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net <mailto:dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net> >
>>
>> No reputable source is needed Larry. The fact of the matter is, you can not
>> get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along with some
>> water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch). So.......it takes some
>> OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc) to
>> distill the water out and get the pure alcohol. As you surmised, it does
>> not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get rid of
>> fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find
>> something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a hydrocarbon,
>> like oil it produces carbon dioxide. But the enviro-wackos have ignored
>> that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of those EVIL
>> fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully
>> renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't consider CO2
>> a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something "evil" about
>> it!
>>
>> Dean Psiropoulos
>> RV-6A N197DM
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _________________________Original Message_________________________________
>>
>>
>> Time: 04:45:43 PM PST US
>>
>> Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that
>> authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
>> energy than we get back? How can that make sense if oil is in
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Glen,
You can try anything you want. If it damages the engine you're the
only one who has to pay. I fully intend to use auto fuel in my RV8A.
I'm currently trying to find someone to make a tuned 4 into 1 exhaust
system for the A model RVs. With the capability to reduce your fuel
consumption by .75 to 1 gallon per hour, a 4 into 1 tuned exhaust is
one of the best investments you can make in your RV. Check out the
CAFE Foundation's web site for more info.
Charlie
>--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
>Thanks, Charlie-
>
>glen matejcek
>aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Linn-
I'm a bigtime mogas user and one of the guys who hauls premium mogas home to the
hangar by the hundred-gallon tankload. I have been filing for a rebate on the
~15 cents/gallon state road tax for years, but was unaware you could get back
the federal tax as well, which should be quite substantial. How do I go about
doing that?
Thanks.
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 10:15:46 -0400
I've tried to stay out of this food fight, but want to make a few comments. I've
been using Auto fuel in my Pitts (modified O-360-A4A with high lift cam) and
PS-5 (modified too for increased fuel flow) pressure carburetor for 26 years
now. In Florida. With no electrical system. It really likes hi-test (92 or
93) but will run on 87 if the engine doesn't get hot like when doing heavy akro.
George appears to be in the anti auto fuel camp and I'm on the other side. I'm
not going to convince George (or anyone else) that they should switch to auto
fuel. If they want to, great, and if they want to use a strictly 100LL diet,
that's great too. My only complaint is that George makes statements without
any FACTS to back them up. Like Jim, I've used auto fuel in my Grumman too.
For years. The only gripe I have with Auto fuel is that it coats the inside of
the sight gauges with a red film over time, and I have to disassemble them to
clean them. Like Jim, I find that the benefits outweigh the hassle of carting
fuel to the airport. The benefits have all been discussed here already so I
won't repeat them. For me, the purchase cost is lower, and then I can remove
the federal excise tax when I file for my federal taxes. Legally.
<< snipped
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Tsk, tsk. Shame on people who listen to Enviro-wackos who do stupid
stuff like listen to scientists. You won't catch me consulting those
Ivy Tower Egg-Heads. I get all my facts from Rush Limbaugh, so I know
it's the straight scoop.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joe Larson
> Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 10:06 AM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Joe Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
>
> I'm one of those enviro-wackos mentioned in Dean's letter. Yep, I
> believe we should get off the oil-based economy so that we can stop
> caring how much the people in the mideast hate each other, so we can
> stop shelling out billions to foreign countries to fuel our cars, and
> so that we can reduce the harmful effects petroleum has on our
> environment. Oh, and it's running out, anyway.
>
> That makes me a wacko, I guess.
>
> Dean, this is a public list with people from all walks of life.
> Check your facts before you go about intentionally insulting a bunch
> of people whom you clearly haven't bothered to try to understand.
> Don't continue to post like an ignorant bigot. Environmentalists are
> generally smart people who care about the world around them. They
> usually have pretty good reasons for the positions they take.
> Instead of assuming they are wackos, maybe you should actually try to
> understand their reasoning. You may continue to feel the other side
> is more important, but at least you'll have made an informed decision.
>
> They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people who spike trees,
> for instance, but I understand their position), but the bulk of
> environmentalists have solid science at their backs. Some of them
> even have financial data in mind, too (as I do).
>
> In any case, as another poster has said, it's not the
> environmentalists who are pushing for ethanol. It's the farm
> industry. Ethanol is a big political button in all the corn states.
> Despite the scientific evidence.
>
> Environmentalists, however, tend to listen to the scientists. When
> there's scientific evidence against something, we tend to say, "Let's
> not go that way." So us enviro-wackos aren't telling you to use
> ethanol.
>
> However, you don't need to use petroleum to produce ethanol. You can
> use the energy in ethanol to produce more ethanol. Okay, you have a
> chicken and egg thing, but once you have a barrel of ethanol, you can
> use that barrel to make more ethanol. If you want to sell a barrel
> of ethanol, first you have to make 5 barrels. Sell one barrel. Use
> the remaining 4 to make 5 more. Sell 1. That's the ratio. (Or I
> might be off by one, it might be 6 to sell 1, I'm going from memory).
>
> Oh, and the poster who linked to the Sierra Club (yes, I'm a member)
> -- the poster child for us enviro-wackos is Greenpeace. I'm not a
> member, but I periodically give them money. They state an anti-
> ethanol policy the same as the Sierra Club.
>
> -Joe
>
> On Jul 5, 2006, at 12:09 AM, DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>
> > --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
> > <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
> >
> > No reputable source is needed Larry. The fact of the matter is,
> > you can not
> > get 100% ethanol directly from ANY source, it always comes along
> > with some
> > water mixed in (ever make, wine beer or hooch). So.......it takes
> > some
> > OTHER source of heat (fossil fuel, nuclear energy, wind power, etc)
to
> > distill the water out and get the pure alcohol. As you surmised,
> > it does
> > not make sense, it's just enviro-wackos stabbing at anything to get
> > rid of
> > fossil fuels. When we've succeeded in replacing oil, they will find
> > something wrong with alcohol to bitch about. Since alcohol is a
> > hydrocarbon,
> > like oil it produces carbon dioxide. But the enviro-wackos have
> > ignored
> > that fine little detail right now, they just want to get rid of
> > those EVIL
> > fossil fuels. Trust me, if we had the "perfect" energy source
> > that's fully
> > renewable and generates no toxic waste products or CO2 (I don't
> > consider CO2
> > a hazard to our planets health) they would still find something
> > "evil" about
> > it!
> >
> > Dean Psiropoulos
> > RV-6A N197DM
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: RE MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
Keep me posted on that exhaust, Charlie. Interest level would be very high for
me...
-Stormy
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 10:47:01 -0400
Glen,
You can try anything you want. If it damages the engine you're the only one who
has to pay. I fully intend to use auto fuel in my RV8A. I'm currently trying
to find someone to make a tuned 4 into 1 exhaust system for the A model RVs.
With the capability to reduce your fuel consumption by .75 to 1 gallon per hour,
a 4 into 1 tuned exhaust is one of the best investments you can make in your
RV. Check out the CAFE Foundation's web site for more info.
Charlie
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Charlie-
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
http://wiki.matronics.com
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________
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: | Lightspeed with Keyswitch and 1 Mag Wiring |
--> RV-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
This is a repost of previous info. I had a builder ask me about it
and I couldn't find it in the archives well, so I thought I'd
resend it with a good subject line.
-----
Wiring a Keyswitch Ignition - Lightspeed Plasma III/II+ ignition and a Mag
Another non-RV10 builder, Dave Sundberg passed this on to me previously,
and I wired mine this way and it indeed works fine. It does seem a bit
like black magic, but seeing as it works fine I won't be complaining.
Test it out before and after you run the engine, but it should work fine.
The configuration is a Mag on the Left side, feeding the lower plugs,
and a Lightspeed Plasma III (or II+) feeding the top plugs as the Right
system. Note that allthough Lightspeed calls it a keyswitch "Option",
it's always on the system, just optional to connect.
* The P-Lead from the Mag goes to the L-Terminal on the Switch with
the shield connected to the GRN terminal on the mag and not connected to
anything on the switch end.
* The P-Lead from the LS (Pin 1) goes to the R-Terminal on the
switch and the shield (Pin 9) goes to the GRN-Terminal in the center of
the switch.
* Do not connect the jumper from the R-Term to the GRN-Terminal
next to it.
* Do not connect the center GRN-Terminal on the switch to aircraft
ground. Both ignitions are grounded out with the switch in the OFF position.
Dave had been flying and it was working for him. I am flying too and
it's working great for me. I had previously spent time hooking mine up
and ohming things out and was confused as heck. I also was confused in
that the P-Lead on the mag is seemingly shorted to ground even with the
wire disconnected, so I couldn't easily tell that it would be grounded
by the switch. (Turns out this is normal) If you hook it all up, except
for the mag P-Lead, you can indeed see that they ground the way their
supposed to by using your ohmmeter.
I also have this posted on my Electrical Tips section on my site.
Tim
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
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: | Mixture adjustment |
Shirley,
Use an inspection mirror to look at the head of the mixture adjustment
screw. It'll have little arrows and markings of R and L for rich and
lean.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shirley Harding
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 5:43 AM
Listers, I know this was discussed very recently - but I haven't been
able to find the info I want in the archives. Finger trouble no doubt. I
find that my Superior O-360 doesn't respond immediately to a very small
increase in throttle on approach. It has been suggested by those who
know more about this that I do, that the mixture is slightly "weak" at
idle power. Which way should I turn the adjuster to make it run a little
richer - anticlockwise or clockwise?
Thanks guys
Shirley Harding
RV6 half way through test period
DO not archive
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: | 4 into 1 exhaust |
Charlie,
Have you talked to these people?
http://www.aircraftexhaust.net/
I see that the have one that doesn't list the A models, but maybe
they'll make one up for you.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie Kuss
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 7:47 AM
Glen,
You can try anything you want. If it damages the engine you're the only
one who has to pay. I fully intend to use auto fuel in my RV8A. I'm
currently trying to find someone to make a tuned 4 into 1 exhaust system
for the A model RVs. With the capability to reduce your fuel
consumption by .75 to 1 gallon per hour, a 4 into 1 tuned exhaust is one
of the best investments you can make in your RV. Check out the CAFE
Foundation's web site for more info.
Charlie
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Charlie-
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
Email Forum -
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
- NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI -
http://wiki.matronics.com <http://wiki.matronics.com/>
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 21
| 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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
> Linn-
>
> I'm a bigtime mogas user and one of the guys who hauls premium mogas
> home to the hangar by the hundred-gallon tankload. I have been filing
> for a rebate on the ~15 cents/gallon state road tax for years, but was
> unaware you could get back the federal tax as well, which should be
> quite substantial. How do I go about doing that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Stormy
>
There's a federal form you file with your taxes. Try 4136 .... go to
http://www.irs.gov/ and search for 4136
Linn
Message 22
| 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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
> Linn-
>
> I'm a bigtime mogas user and one of the guys who hauls premium mogas
> home to the hangar by the hundred-gallon tankload. I have been filing
> for a rebate on the ~15 cents/gallon state road tax for years, but was
> unaware you could get back the federal tax as well, which should be
> quite substantial. How do I go about doing that?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Stormy
>
There's a federal form you file with your taxes. Try 4136 .... go to
http://www.irs.gov/ and search for 4136
Linn
Message 23
| 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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Rob Prior (rv7)" <rv7@b4.ca>
On 9:32:12 2006-07-05 linn Walters <pitts_pilot@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> There's a federal form you file with your taxes. Try 4136 .... go to
> http://www.irs.gov/ and search for 4136
Direct link:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4136.pdf
-Rob
Message 24
| 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:MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
George (aka gmcjetpilot),
Cheapskates? Puhleeze!!!
With due respect, not all of us are highly paid Boeing drivers such as
yourself :-) ... As soon as my XP-IO360 flies (soon, very soon...), I fully intend
to save myself 4.05-2.93=1.12/gal x 8.5=9.52x150hrs/yr= $1428. That is
enough to entirely offset the cost of insurance each year. I think that is
significant.
Hauling it to the airport? No problem for anyone with a pickup. Aux transfer
tanks of any config like the farmers use to fuel their tractors, combines,
etc. are available all over the country complete with hoses/pumps. Totally
legal, BTW... Or, in my case the 1994 F-150 with dual tanks, and 50 gal
capacity, a bit of creative plumbing will get the job done nicely.
According to my engine manual, Superior not only allows the use of 91 oct,
but encourages it, FWIW...
Methanol? Easy as pie to test for. Alcohol-free mogas has been available
year round outside our metro area. (KPDX). However, if the politicians have
their way, may not continue...
Illegal to have a tank on your own property? Tell it to my local fire
marshall who issues the permits to anyone with an acre of ground for "farm use"
of
course... Obviously George, you are not a country boy... hoho...
Cheers,
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
Time: 02:39:28 AM PST US
ANY CAR GAS OR MO GAS HAS LOWER VAPOR
PRESSURE AND IS SUBJECT TO VAPOR LOCK.
JUST A NOTE: MO gas is what you can buy out of a pump
at the airport, MO gas for Motor Gas. Auto Fuel, is what you
get at the corner gas station. MO Gas is like 86 octane.
If you need 91 octane you need to get premium from the
corner gas station. The problem is your plane is at the
airport. (not much price difference from premium to 100LL)
So to use Auto fuel in your plane you are faced with the
hassle of hauling fuel to the plane. This can be a huge
hassle, dangerous and illegal. At most airports and with
state highway laws (hazardous material transport) a NO
NO. You are just not going to be hauling eight 5 Gal jerry
cans around or 55 gal barrels with gas easily. I can see
all the cheapskates thinking of the cost savings they
will get. In fact the saving is small if impractical for
91 octane engines. If you have a low compression engine
that can run on MO gas than sure there is some advantage.
HOWEVER A RV tight cowl is NOT ideal for MO gas
operations.
Also price of MO Gas is not that much less than 100LL or
can you even get MO gas widely. Some times MO gas cost
more than 100LL. So you might be taking abut $4.00/hr
savings for all the hassle.
Fuel Injection has nothing to do with it, it is compression
ratio. All the original STC's where for low compression
engines that where made for like 80 octane.
There are premium gas STC's for Lyc 320/360's with the
8.5:1 CR, which needs 91 octane, but not all planes can
pass the test and get a STC, even after much effort.
A 150HP O320 is a low octane engine, a O235 is NOT.
The INSTALLATION is critical. When a STC for auto
fuel is given it is for the installation as well as the engine.
YES I know we are experimental but you can't ignore
physics. I recall airplane like the older Mooney's
with the O360 can't get a STC for premium auto fuel
because of vapor lock. Like RV's the Mooney have
very tight cowls. Don't compare the Piper with a huge
cowl and a RV with a very tight cowl and exhaust pipes
snaking all around near fuel lines.
The overall issue is you will not get AUTO GAS with out
all the hamburger helper and modified fuel like alcohol
and ethanol. I remember in Washington state, in the
winter they went to an alcohol blend fuel. My gas
milage went in the crapper. That is the other issue.
Car gas is NOT CONSISTANT. It varies widely by
region, session and testing is a hassle.
If you do go auto fuel insulate and heat shield EVER
part of the fuel system and add a vapor return line
even for Carb engines.
>From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
>
>My RX-8 rotary (10 : 1 CR) powered RV-4 runs best and
>gets best fuel economy on 87 octane. I burn 100LL in a
>pinch but plug life is greatly reduced.
Automotive and aircraft engines are two differnt things. RX8
cars strictly call for premium and use 2 qts of oil between
oil changes, and also get terriable gas millage. I know you
are a rotary expert Tracy but a water cooled car engine
piston or rotary is not an aircooled aircraft engine.
My Lyc plug life is 1000 hour plus on 100LL.
I am not picking on you Tracy but you have to take
the good with the bad. Good, you can use auto fuel;
Bad, your engine is noisier, heavier and burns way
more fuel than a Lycoming for equivalent performance.
>Best experts I've read say that almost all aircraft engines
>would work fine on 91 octane mogas.
Most aircraft engines where certified for 91, like 320 (160HP)
and 360 (180 hp) Lycoming. So that is a no brainer, The
problem is the MO gas you can buy at the airport is way
less than 91 octane, like 80/86.
If you want premium AUTO fuel you have to haul. And the
idea of having your own tank, even on your own property
is likely to be illegal in most states.
<snip>
Message 25
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
Time: 04:45:43 PM PST US
> Would someone please point us to a reputable reference that
>authenticates it requires more fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
>energy than we get back? How can that make sense if oil is in
>short supply? Why waste .3 gallons of it?
>
>
if you don't care about my rantings on alternative energy delete now.
do not archive
I don't have any good references but I can tell you that it is not as
simple as what you have heard and here is my understanding.
In order to refine any fuel it takes energy. If you don't get more
energy out of the refined fuel than you put in, you are wasting your
time. Unless of course the fuel you are refining is for a very
specialized purpose, like the liquid hydrogen to launch the space
shuttle. When it comes to creating ethanol, you can create it from a
number of different bio sources. Corn is all the rage here in the USA
and it does seem like a bit of a waste. The numbers I have heard range
from 1.3 to .8 units of energy out for every unit of energy in. I think
that is where the takes more than you get people are getting their
argument from. If it is done right you don't do get more out than you
put in. On the other hand if you use sugar, like they do in Brazil, I
have heard that you can get as much as 7 times more energy out as you
put in. Alternative fuels make a lot of sense if you do it right.
Ethanol from corn is not doing it right. A much easier and better
alternative fuel is bio diesel, which gives you much more out than you
put in. This is just a wild guess but I would be willing to bet that
you could get corn oil out of the corn and convert that to bio diesel
and get a lot more energy out than you do making corn into ethanol. It
also has the added advantage that any diesel engine will, with out
modification, run on bio diesel, they will last longer running it too.
There are some older vehicles that have rubber fuel lines that bio
diesel will eventually dissolve but modern vehicles use materials that
are compatible and it is an easy fix if you have an older vehicle. The
only down side to bio diesel is an exaggerated version of the biggest
problem with regular diesel, it will gel up at a relatively high
temperature. So if you live in a cold climate you have to take measures
against that. The easiest thing is to mix the bio with winterized
diesel. The colder it is the higher percentage of winterized diesel you
need. That is another nice thing about bio diesel, you can mix it at
any ratio with "dino" diesel. Honda makes turbo diesel engine Civic that
get a real life 60+ highway mpg. That's a lot better than what hybrids
get with real life driving. To bad they don't sell them in the USA. Of
course there is little chance that the environmental wacko crowd will
like bio diesel. While it does pollute a lot less than dino diesel it
does still pollute the air. I just love the morons that push electric
vehicles as a zero emissions vehicle. Just because they don't have a
tail pipe doesn't mean they create no emissions. The emissions are just
displaced to where ever the electricity is generated to charge their
batteries. When you have to dispose of those batteries there is going
be pollution there, not to mention when they make the batteries.
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
Message 26
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
Joe Larson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Joe Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
>
> I'm one of those enviro-wackos mentioned in Dean's letter. Yep, I
> believe we should get off the oil-based economy so that we can stop
> caring how much the people in the mideast hate each other, so we can
> stop shelling out billions to foreign countries to fuel our cars, and
> so that we can reduce the harmful effects petroleum has on our
> environment. Oh, and it's running out, anyway.
>
> That makes me a wacko, I guess.
>
I agree that we would should and can significantly reduce or even
eliminate our dependence on oil from the middle east. Ethanol from
Corn is not the way to do it. (see my other post on this topic if you
want to know more on my view.) However, even if we do completely
eliminate our dependence on oil from the middle east, we will still need
to care about what goes on over there. They hate us much more than they
hate each other. When we stop buying their oil, they are going to hate
us even more. But at least we won't be funding their terrorist
activities by buying their oil.
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
Message 27
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
Joe Larson wrote:
> Dean, this is a public list with people from all walks of life.
> Check your facts before you go about intentionally insulting a bunch
> of people whom you clearly haven't bothered to try to understand.
> Don't continue to post like an ignorant bigot. Environmentalists are
> generally smart people who care about the world around them. They
> usually have pretty good reasons for the positions they take.
> Instead of assuming they are wackos, maybe you should actually try to
> understand their reasoning. You may continue to feel the other side
> is more important, but at least you'll have made an informed decision.
>
> They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people who spike trees,
> for instance, but I understand their position), but the bulk of
> environmentalists have solid science at their backs. Some of them
> even have financial data in mind, too (as I do).
>
I believe you that most people concerned about the environment are not
"wackos". However the environmentalist and groups that are the most
vocal in the media today are very high on the "wacko" scale. Even those
wackos have financial impact in mind, they want to to negatively impact
our economy. While even the wackos have science behind what they say,
they tend to ignore any and all science that doesn't support the
conclusions they want to support. Everyone knows if you go looking for
evidence that something is they way you think it is, or want it to be,
you will find it. Of course even the environmental wackos get some
things right. Any of them that are against ethanol from corn. I would
say got it right on that issue.
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
Message 28
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
Chris made some interesting comments, although I trimmed most of them
out and kept the parts on which I will comment.
Might I suggest that folks not use the term "wacko" unless you really
feel that caring about the environment means you truly are insane.
Environmentalists may have a different opinion that you do, but it's
steeped in science and concern for a polluted earth. Evidence of
Earth's destruction is all around you. For instance, just today
there is a CNN report today that a recent fisheries report by the
organization that regulates tuna fishing in Europe is suggesting the
fishery be closed. Maybe you don't care about what the Earth is
becoming and what it will be like for your grandchildren, but please
don't call people "wacko" just because they DO care.
As for liking bio diesel.... Google for "Sierra club biodiesel" and
you'll see support for it. It's somewhat tentative, of course, as
any technology can be misused.
Electric cars -- it is presumed that electricity can be created far
more cleanly than burning fossil fuels. Even relatively dirty
electrical generation (such as coal) is still probably cleaner due to
the high technology used to scrub the pollutants.
Most technologies have some sort of tradeoff. The goal should be to
maximize some formula that takes into account economics and harmful
effects. Maximize financial gains while minimizing harmful effects.
This compromise solution may not be the most economically
advantageous, and it may have harmful effects. But that's why it's a
compromise.
Even wind turbines have negative effects from bird strikes. And some
people think that's sufficient to shut them down. I disagree.
-Joe
On Jul 5, 2006, at 1:13 PM, Chris W wrote:
> Of course there is little chance that the environmental wacko crowd
> will like bio diesel. While it does pollute a lot less than dino
> diesel it does still pollute the air. I just love the morons that
> push electric vehicles as a zero emissions vehicle. Just because
> they don't have a tail pipe doesn't mean they create no emissions.
> The emissions are just displaced to where ever the electricity is
> generated to charge their batteries. When you have to dispose of
> those batteries there is going be pollution there, not to mention
> when they make the batteries.
>
> do not archive
Message 29
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Most of the enviro types, while maybe not wackos, are illogical. The best
enviro friendly thing we have going for us these days is nuclear power. Why
are they not out there shouting that from the roof tops?? Logic doesn't
work with the majority of these people.
Eric
do not archive
Message 30
| 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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
linn Walters wrote:
> I've tried to stay out of this food fight, but want to make a few
> comments. I've been using Auto fuel in my Pitts (modified O-360-A4A
> with high lift cam) and PS-5 (modified too for increased fuel flow)
> pressure carburetor for 26 years now. In Florida. With no electrical
> system. It really likes hi-test (92 or 93) but will run on 87 if the
> engine doesn't get hot like when doing heavy akro.
>
> George appears to be in the anti auto fuel camp and I'm on the other
> side. I'm not going to convince George (or anyone else) that they
> should switch to auto fuel. If they want to, great, and if they want
> to use a strictly 100LL diet, that's great too.
I snipped the rest of Linn's posting.
Hello Linn, long time no see.
Well me and my Pitts also used auto fuel. I used it when the stations
up here were selling No Alcohol premium. It did not have a steady diet
of Auto fuel. I used it when it was convenient. And as you and I know,
we turned the Pitts engines up to 32 or 3300 very regularly.
Mine is a bendix fuel injected 180, converted from a carbureted engine.
It has no mods except for Total Seal Rings. I flew it for 20 years with
no electric starter. Hot starts were learned and it was not a real
problem even at contests, to get a "hot start hand prop" . I now have
that engine on the RV with a starter. ( I love electric starters)
I don't burn auto fuel any more because they don't sell it here without
alcohol. It would probably do just fine with the ethanol and I have
used it on very limited occasions with no known problems. Had I used it
regularly, I may have found problems. Dunno.....
One thing one must always remember ( you and I know this) is that 100 LL
is not immune to vapor lock. When I first finished the Pitts back in 81,
I used 100 LL all the time and paid about $1.55 a gallon. For those
who are not familiar, the S1S Pitts is not tightly cowled. There is
plenty of room in the cowl and plenty of clearance. But, I had on
going problems with the fuel getting hot and getting temporary engine
bobbles after powering back for awhile as in a spin or snap roll. I
also got a predictable bobble on take off almost every time after a long
taxi out... Then after "browning my shorts" a few times, I solved
the problem with wrapped lines and air blown on the fuel pump and
gascolator. Then I saw a factory airplane, I think a Piper, which had
air blown all over its fuel components, (pump and gascolator). So 100
LL fuel is not the complete answer to hot fuel problems as evidence
shows from all the fuel pump air shrouds used on Type Certificated
planes. I never had a problem when there was a steady flow of fuel
going through the system.
The whole point is, builders should stand back and look at their fuel
systems and think about it. Wrap the lines, blow some air here and there
where a component may heat up and pay some attention to routing because
100 LL can vapor lock and/or develop air bubbles in the fuel lines, even
at lower altitudes. It just behaves a little better in more critical
conditions.
These are opinions which I should keep to myself. I am pleading fifth
ammendment for errors in grammer.
And by the way, We have space to camp here on the airport 3LF,
courtesy car, and restaurants and motels are all close. Just something
to think about for your trip to or from Oshkosh. Today, our 100 LL is
selling for $3.55 , It will probably be somewhat higher by Oshkosh. On
our way home from Hondo, Texas Fly-in, we bought gas at Salem, Mo for
$3.05. Check AirNav for current pricing. We keep AirNav up to date,
Don't know about Salem, MO..
Phil in Illinois RV 6 N181RV
Do not archive
Message 31
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Chris W wrote:
> I believe you that most people concerned about the environment are not
> "wackos". However the environmentalist and groups that are the most
> vocal in the media today are very high on the "wacko" scale. Even those
> wackos have financial impact in mind, they want to to negatively impact
> our economy.
I've never heard any environmentalists say that they want to
negatively impact the economy. What the most extreme
environmentalists' goal seems to be, based on what I have read,
is for "humankind" to have no impact on nature. Some consider
this extreme in practice, and some see it as a goal or
something to keep in mind when we do things. For example, if
we can do things two ways, and one will kill off a species of
plant, and the other will not, then choosing the option that
does not kill off a species of plant sounds like a more
reasonable alternative. Of course, it's rarely that simple,
and there are usually costs involved. This is usually where
the debate centers - money.
> While even the wackos have science behind what they say,
> they tend to ignore any and all science that doesn't support the
> conclusions they want to support. Everyone knows if you go looking for
> evidence that something is they way you think it is, or want it to be,
> you will find it.
Many things in science are eventually proven wrong.
Scientific research usually starts with a hypothesis, and then
the researcher objectively looks at the data, and should be willing
to reject the hypothesis. If the researcher is not willing to
do this, then their work ceases to be science.
> Of course even the environmental wackos get some
> things right. Any of them that are against ethanol from corn. I would
> say got it right on that issue.
Understanding and communication starts with a point of agreement,
which can be an anchor for further discussion. If the
environmentalists can be right on one thing, perhaps they are
right on another. Might be worth checking into.
In any case, I agree with previous posters that if we let the
free market decide, then we'll probably come up with a winner.
Our current system that encourages the buying of political favors
makes it very difficult for us to have a free market.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 32
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. I'm sure the people
who live near Chernobyl will agree with your sentiment.
I happen to agree that nuclear power might serve as an intermediate
power source while we look for something sustainable. Fission
reactors are sustainable -- Hubbert's Peak for uranium will occur
this century, probably the first half of this century, and that's
without vastly increased demands. Now, if they can get fusion to
work for energy production....
But Eric, you really do need to watch the stereotypes. I don't think
your view on environmentalists is well-researched. Logic works
fine. Try talking to an enviro type sometime and see.
-Joe
On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Eric Ekberg wrote:
> Most of the enviro types, while maybe not wackos, are illogical.
> The best enviro friendly thing we have going for us these days is
> nuclear power. Why are they not out there shouting that from the
> roof tops?? Logic doesn't work with the majority of these people.
>
> Eric
> do not archive
Message 33
| 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: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Nothing illogical about not wanting spent fuel around for 10,000 years.
We still don't have an operational waste dump - anywhere - except in
"temporary " storage, mostly right onsite. Other than that, nuclear
power has the potential to be cleaner than most anything but solar and
wind. Here in SoCal, my money's on solar.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric Ekberg
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:08 PM
Most of the enviro types, while maybe not wackos, are illogical. The
best enviro friendly thing we have going for us these days is nuclear
power. Why are they not out there shouting that from the roof tops??
Logic doesn't work with the majority of these people.
Eric
do not archive
Message 34
| 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: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
Like everything, the whole issue here is around the definition of
wacko. People who tie themselves to trees to keep it from getting cut
down... wacko. People who are concerned about doing what they can to
make sure we don't end up with a wasteland... not wacko. Like my
definitions so far. :-)
Look, this is kind of like the old say about arguing on the Internet.
You may win but..... Anyway, I doubt anyone on this list is an
environmental wacko in reality or you wouldn't be building an aircraft
that sucks gas, needs a 8qt oil change every 25 or so hours, and greatly
contributes to noise pollution. Wacko's are nothing but extreme
fundamentalists that usually make decisions that are contrary to what
they stand for. Like the Greenpeace guys that go out in huge boats
protesting oil drilling while they suck down 200 gallons of diesel an
hour. Or the PETA celebrity that protests out in public and then jumps
into their Escalade with leather everything. Or even more timely, the
guy that straps a bomb to himself and kills 20 people in the name of
their god that specifically forbids killing people. Now THAT's wacko.
Quit worry about whether or not you fit into someone's label and start
worrying about building a gas guzzling airplane! Can we get back on
subject now.
Michael Sausen
RV-10 #352 Working on Fuselage
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Larson
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 3:06 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion. I'm sure the people
who live near Chernobyl will agree with your sentiment.
I happen to agree that nuclear power might serve as an intermediate
power source while we look for something sustainable. Fission reactors
are sustainable -- Hubbert's Peak for uranium will occur this century,
probably the first half of this century, and that's without vastly
increased demands. Now, if they can get fusion to work for energy
production....
But Eric, you really do need to watch the stereotypes. I don't think
your view on environmentalists is well-researched. Logic works fine.
Try talking to an enviro type sometime and see.
-Joe
On Jul 5, 2006, at 2:08 PM, Eric Ekberg wrote:
> Most of the enviro types, while maybe not wackos, are illogical.
> The best enviro friendly thing we have going for us these days is
> nuclear power. Why are they not out there shouting that from the roof
> tops?? Logic doesn't work with the majority of these people.
>
> Eric
> do not archive
Message 35
| 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: Mixture adjustment |
Turn the screw clockwise to lean out the mixture, counterclockwise to
enrich the mixture.
KB
----- Original Message -----
From: Shirley Harding
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:42 AM
Subject: RV-List: Mixture adjustment
Listers, I know this was discussed very recently - but I haven't been
able to find the info I want in the archives. Finger trouble no doubt. I
find that my Superior O-360 doesn't respond immediately to a very small
increase in throttle on approach. It has been suggested by those who
know more about this that I do, that the mixture is slightly "weak" at
idle power. Which way should I turn the adjuster to make it run a little
richer - anticlockwise or clockwise?
Thanks guys
Shirley Harding
RV6 half way through test period
DO not archive
Message 36
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com>
I notice that there are listers that do profess to be
environmentalists. Now I know if you do profess this there are
different possible levels, but since this is an RV list I am curious
about it.
An RV is generally built to have fun with. Most trips are strictly
for entertainment and almost no one really needs the RV. So here we
are burning lots of irreplaceable fossil fuel, loaded with poisonous
lead and with no emissions controls whatever, not to mention things
like mufflers. This is all basically just for the thrill of it.
Sometimes we just go out and do aerobatics or formation flying or
sightseeing or photography, in which case we aren't even getting
anywhere.
I'm reminded of the time all the folks at the local glider club were
sitting around after a day of flying. We could hear the dragsters at
the local dragstrip. One of the glider pilots remarked about what a
stupid hobby that is. They just spend money, burn fuel and don't
even get anywhere. This is at the end of a day using expensive
airplanes, burning lots of gas to tow unbelievably expensive german
gliders into the air in order to fly in circles and land back at the
launch point.
I think sometimes it is hard to have perspective on our own hobby.
I am worried about resources, animals, conservation, pollution and
like things, but sure don't have the guts to call myself an
environmentalist while owning a pollution spewing airplane that I
sure don't need.
So how about it? How can our airplane toys be reconciled with
environmentalism?
Boy this thread got way off topic, so please do not archive.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
Message 37
| 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: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
If I were to say "I don't agree with suicide bombers, but I understand their
position," I would expect most of you to be offended and question my
intelligence or sincerity or ethics, or all three. If I were to say, "I
don't agree with fire-bombing expensive new homes, but I understand the
fire-bomber's position," or "I don't agree with people who sabotage small
airplanes, (presumably because I don't like their noise flying over
wilderness areas) but I understand their position", I would expect all hell
to break loose, and it should. Giving sympathy to terrorists of any stripe
supports not only their cause but their tactics.
So when Joe Larson says "They are some wackos (I don't agree with the people
who spike trees, for instance, but I understand their position).", I would
expect someone to object to acceptance or sympathy for this form of
terrorism. Maybe you don't understand was it means to spike a tree. It means
to drive a spike into a tree in a location and in a manner so that it will
not be seen by the logger, and so that when a logger with a chainsaw tries
to fall (fell) the tree, he will hit the spike, causing the saw's chain to
explode off the saw and cause mayhem to the logger, or if the logger is
lucky, to destroy the huge high-speed band saw blade in the mill and cause
mayhem to the mill workers. It is a form of terrorism used to prevent the
owners of timber from harvesting timber on their own property, or timber
legally purchased from other private or public timberland owners. Unlike
tree sitters or people who chain themselves to equipment in order to prevent
something from happening, tree spikers are sabotaging the tree so that
anyone attempting to use it runs a high risk of injury or death.
So, if by "understand their position," Joe, you mean that there is any
possible justification for what they are doing; I really hope you don't know
what you are talking about.
If anyone cares, I consider myself a free-market environmentalist. I have a
university degree in forest management (now called natural resource
management) and am old enough and lucky enough to have spent time in the
timber country of the northwest when the sound of a saw cutting down a tree
was the quiet swish-swish of a long cross-cut saw being pulled back and
forth by muscle power. With parents who survived the Depression, I grew up
knowing that waste was bad - very bad - and that re-cycle and re-use were
the norm, not the exception. Maybe this is why the modern-day save-the-world
trendy authoritarian brand of environmentalism frosts me so much. Clean up
your own act before you try to tell me what I can and cannot do with what I
worked hard to have. Why do your 'solutions' to preserve an eco-system
invariably involve top-down command and control, in complete contradiction
of the natural give and take that characterizes the ecosystem itself?
My apologies to Michael and others who thought this list was about building
little airplanes.
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
Message 38
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
One shouldn't read more into what I said that what I said. I
specifically said that I don't agree with what they are doing, but I
understand their position. That is, I understand why they are doing it.
To understand someone is not remotely the same as condoning it. And
it's wrong to read that into what I said.
You can tell someone, "I understand what you are saying. I
understand why you are doing what you are doing. And you're wrong."
-Joe
do not archive
On Jul 5, 2006, at 5:24 PM, Terry Watson wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
>
> If I were to say "I don't agree with suicide bombers, but I
> understand their
> position," I would expect most of you to be offended and question my
> intelligence or sincerity or ethics, or all three. If I were to
> say, "I
> don't agree with fire-bombing expensive new homes, but I understand
> the
> fire-bomber's position," or "I don't agree with people who sabotage
> small
> airplanes, (presumably because I don't like their noise flying over
> wilderness areas) but I understand their position", I would expect
> all hell
> to break loose, and it should. Giving sympathy to terrorists of
> any stripe
> supports not only their cause but their tactics.
>
> So when Joe Larson says "They are some wackos (I don't agree with
> the people
> who spike trees, for instance, but I understand their position).",
> I would
> expect someone to object to acceptance or sympathy for this form of
> terrorism. Maybe you don't understand was it means to spike a tree.
> It means
> to drive a spike into a tree in a location and in a manner so that
> it will
> not be seen by the logger, and so that when a logger with a
> chainsaw tries
> to fall (fell) the tree, he will hit the spike, causing the saw's
> chain to
> explode off the saw and cause mayhem to the logger, or if the
> logger is
> lucky, to destroy the huge high-speed band saw blade in the mill
> and cause
> mayhem to the mill workers. It is a form of terrorism used to
> prevent the
> owners of timber from harvesting timber on their own property, or
> timber
> legally purchased from other private or public timberland owners.
> Unlike
> tree sitters or people who chain themselves to equipment in order
> to prevent
> something from happening, tree spikers are sabotaging the tree so that
> anyone attempting to use it runs a high risk of injury or death.
>
> So, if by "understand their position," Joe, you mean that there is any
> possible justification for what they are doing; I really hope you
> don't know
> what you are talking about.
>
> If anyone cares, I consider myself a free-market environmentalist.
> I have a
> university degree in forest management (now called natural resource
> management) and am old enough and lucky enough to have spent time
> in the
> timber country of the northwest when the sound of a saw cutting
> down a tree
> was the quiet swish-swish of a long cross-cut saw being pulled back
> and
> forth by muscle power. With parents who survived the Depression, I
> grew up
> knowing that waste was bad - very bad - and that re-cycle and re-
> use were
> the norm, not the exception. Maybe this is why the modern-day save-
> the-world
> trendy authoritarian brand of environmentalism frosts me so much.
> Clean up
> your own act before you try to tell me what I can and cannot do
> with what I
> worked hard to have. Why do your 'solutions' to preserve an eco-system
> invariably involve top-down command and control, in complete
> contradiction
> of the natural give and take that characterizes the ecosystem itself?
>
> My apologies to Michael and others who thought this list was about
> building
> little airplanes.
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
>
>
Message 39
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin@valkyrie.net>
These are them same Scientists who said "We are moving into an Ice Age in
the mid 1970's!" They have always claimed to be the "Only intelligent
opinion" around. "Liberal arguments always are emotion based while claiming
intellectual superiority." The Scientific Community was wrong in the 70's
and many of the same scientists are on the Global Warming Band Wagon today.
Let's get back to building RV's! DO NO ARCHIVE
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 10:06 AM
> --> RV-List message posted by: Joe Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
>
>
>. . Environmentalists are generally smart people who care about the
>world around them. They usually have pretty good reasons for the
>positions they take. Instead of assuming they are wackos, maybe you
>should actually try to understand their reasoning. You may continue to
>feel the other side is more important, but at least you'll have made an
>informed decision.
>
>>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 40
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
Terry Watson wrote:
> Maybe you don't understand was it means to spike a tree. It means
>to drive a spike into a tree in a location and in a manner so that it will
>not be seen by the logger, and so that when a logger with a chainsaw tries
>to fall (fell) the tree, he will hit the spike, causing the saw's chain to
>explode off the saw and cause mayhem to the logger, or if the logger is
>lucky, to destroy the huge high-speed band saw blade in the mill and cause
>mayhem to the mill workers. It is a form of terrorism used to prevent the
>owners of timber from harvesting timber on their own property, or timber
>legally purchased from other private or public timberland owners. Unlike
>tree sitters or people who chain themselves to equipment in order to prevent
>something from happening, tree spikers are sabotaging the tree so that
>anyone attempting to use it runs a high risk of injury or death.
>
>
>
Well said Terry, you said what I wanted to say but much better and much
politer than I would have. Having grown
up in a logger sawmill family tree spiking was a great concern and
potently very dangerous and costly. I don't call people that do that
environmentalist I call them low life scum.
Now back to getting ready to fly to Arlington EAA flyin in the morning.
Jerry
do not archive
Message 41
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
Joseph Larson wrote:
> Electric cars -- it is presumed that electricity can be created far
> more cleanly than burning fossil fuels. Even relatively dirty
> electrical generation (such as coal) is still probably cleaner due to
> the high technology used to scrub the pollutants.
>
Of course large electric plants can create energy more cleanly than a
car engine can, with the technology we have today coal plants probably
are cleaner too. Clean doesn't mean ZERO emissions, which is what
people often call electric vehicles. Right now, out side of very
physically small urban areas like NYC, electric vehicles are not even
close to practical. Someday they just might be, but only time will tell.
> Even wind turbines have negative effects from bird strikes. And some
> people think that's sufficient to shut them down. I disagree.
I'm glad you disagree, because that is exactly the kind of thing an
environmental wacko would say. I would be willing to bet that on the
average day, more birds a killed at major airports in the USA than by
every wind mill in the world in a year. I would also be surprised if
the dangers to birds from wind mills is even statistically measurable
(meaning there is so little of it that the sample size is too small for
meaningful statistics) I would also bet there are birds having fun
flying circles around the blades of wind mills right now. Another good
example of environmental wackos, is when it comes to solar electricity.
There is such a huge push for solar electric panels in parts of the
country, but they are so costly and inefficient that they aren't
practical, except in rare situations. Now that the technology exists to
make efficient stiling engines that can be placed at the center of a
parabolic mirror to concentrate enough sun light to turn the engine and
generate electricity. Even that isn't good enough for the environmental
wackos because of all that precious land in the desert covered by the
mirrors.
As I said before I believe most environmentalists are NOT wackos but it
is obvious from the projects that get the most attention and the
projects that get opposed, that the vocal minority of environmentalists
are wacko. There are good ideas that not only help the environment,
they help the pocket book. If people were serious about the environment
they would be pushing those ideas first. The one that literally baffles
me is why solar heat isn't pushed harder. In most or all of, TX, OK,
AZ, NM,CA, NV, UT, ID, CO, WY and maybe KS, you could provide over 90%
of your heating needs with solar. Unlike solar electric panels, the
solar heating system installed in a new home would pay for it's self in
less than 5 years. After which 90+% of your heat would be free.
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
Message 42
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
Chris W wrote:
> . . . there are birds having fun flying circles around the blades of
> wind mills . . .
Let me rephrase that.
I bet there are birds flying circles around the blades of wind mills
right now, laughing at people who think it is a danger to them.
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
Message 43
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Lets take it one step further, do these environmentalists have kids? Just think
how much pollution those kids will cause in there life time!
Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com> wrote: --> RV-List message posted by:
Larry Pardue
I notice that there are listers that do profess to be
environmentalists. Now I know if you do profess this there are
different possible levels, but since this is an RV list I am curious
about it.
An RV is generally built to have fun with. Most trips are strictly
for entertainment and almost no one really needs the RV. So here we
are burning lots of irreplaceable fossil fuel, loaded with poisonous
lead and with no emissions controls whatever, not to mention things
like mufflers. This is all basically just for the thrill of it.
Sometimes we just go out and do aerobatics or formation flying or
sightseeing or photography, in which case we aren't even getting
anywhere.
I'm reminded of the time all the folks at the local glider club were
sitting around after a day of flying. We could hear the dragsters at
the local dragstrip. One of the glider pilots remarked about what a
stupid hobby that is. They just spend money, burn fuel and don't
even get anywhere. This is at the end of a day using expensive
airplanes, burning lots of gas to tow unbelievably expensive german
gliders into the air in order to fly in circles and land back at the
launch point.
I think sometimes it is hard to have perspective on our own hobby.
I am worried about resources, animals, conservation, pollution and
like things, but sure don't have the guts to call myself an
environmentalist while owning a pollution spewing airplane that I
sure don't need.
So how about it? How can our airplane toys be reconciled with
environmentalism?
Boy this thread got way off topic, so please do not archive.
Larry Pardue
Carlsbad, NM
RV-6 N441LP Flying
http://n5lp.net
---------------------------------
Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Message 44
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Joe Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
I suspect the problem windmills are the smaller ones with blades that
turn very quickly. Larger windmills with slower-turning blades may
be less of a danger. But I don't know. I haven't talked to anyone
who is actually scientifically knowledgeable on the subject.
-Joe
On Jul 5, 2006, at 7:58 PM, Chris W wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
>
> Chris W wrote:
>
>> . . . there are birds having fun flying circles around the blades
>> of wind mills . . .
>
> Let me rephrase that.
>
> I bet there are birds flying circles around the blades of wind
> mills right now, laughing at people who think it is a danger to them.
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> --
> Chris W
> KE5GIX
>
>
> www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 45
| 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: MOGAS Use With FI Engines |
--> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
Does anyone know what the Research Octane + Motor Octane divided by 2
would equal for 100LL Aviation Gasoline? (R+M / 2)
The highest the R+M / 2 current pump sticker would have ever been for
the 103 octane premium (Union 76 Super & Chevron white pump) would be
about 96.
Pete Cowper
Union Oil Company of California 1972-84
Message 46
| 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: How to turn an RV-9A fuse over? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
I did something similar, but this is great. Mark is too modest to tell you,
but he is a two time winner of EAA awards, first the Lindy and now a Best
Metal. Thanks for sharing Mark.
Time: 08:40:03 PM PST US
....or just put it on a rotisserie- MUCH easier to do all kinds of stuff!
8-)
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/index.php?q=log_entry&log_id=5373
Mark
Message 47
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "low pass" <rv_8pilot@hotmail.com>
The whole pop-culture enviro movement is based upon an mostly JUNK science. Global
warming, my eye! What caused the previous warming cycles of the last million
years? Dinosaur flatulence? So we need to reduce dependence upon foreign
oil? How about opening up coastal exploration?! It's too destructive for the
US to drill off the Florida coast, but not for Cuba and China to drill there.
I'm an engineer. A real one with a degree, a license and experience in petroleum
refining. If you enviros really want to get off petroleum, then you'll have
to wait about 10-20 years while we BUILD about 200 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!!!
But we can't do that because it's such an evil danger!! You know - like the world
ending with all the "Three Mile Islands" that were destined to end the world.
So now our existing gasoline production is further bastardized with this foolish
ethanol fantasy. You want to know why gasoline costs $3.15 a gallon? In part
due to ethanol, part due to the illogical and inane efforts of the EPA and
their 50+ formulations of gasoline mandated across the US.
I'm also a naturalist. I like trees, clean water, air, birds and fish. But there's
a big difference between a naturalist and an enviro whacko. It's called
logic and science, and a lot less Algore hype-fiction.
So why do the enviros want to prohibit use of petroleum through restricted drilling,
restricted refining, displacement with ethanol? Read plank 6 of the Communist
Manifesto.
Bryan Jones
Houston
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=45095#45095
Message 48
| 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Why does it have to be all or nothing? It seems some believe if you're
an environmentalist you have to be a tree hugging, ski lift burning,
tree spiking, anti hunting, anti human life flake. If you're a
Republican or conservative, you have to want to destroy the earth to
make 27 cents. I don't understand this mindset. I and most of my
friends fall somewhere in the between. I want electricity to
refrigerate my food, I want fuel for my truck so I can enjoy the natural
(more or less) environment that I try to protect. I fly, hunt, fish,
and pick up my trash. I try to avoid using too much water, and I don't
dump my oil on the ground. I think there are ways to have modern life
without destroying the earth, and protect the environment without moving
back into a cave. As far as I'm concerned, both drag racing and
recreational flying are just fine. Neither is going to cause the end of
life as we know it. To lump all self professed "environmentalists" and
"Republicans" (for example) in with the extreme ends of each group does
a disservice to those that actually do have a position based on
something besides emotion.
IMHO, the whackos (and there are some, on both sides) have hijacked the
term "environmentalist" from those who really do care about the
environment. I think lots of those people (the whackos) don't care so
much about the environment as they need a cause. If the environmental
cause went away, they'd move to another, such as gun control, peace at
all costs, XXXX (pick a term) rights, and so forth.
do not archive.
----- Original Message -----
From: scott bilinski
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
Lets take it one step further, do these environmentalists have kids?
Just think how much pollution those kids will cause in there life time!
Larry Pardue <n5lp@warpdriveonline.com> wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Pardue
I notice that there are listers that do profess to be
environmentalists. Now I know if you do profess this there are
different possible levels, but since this is an RV list I am curious
about it.
An RV is generally built to have fun with. Most trips are strictly
for entertainment and almost no one really needs the RV. So here we
are burning lots of irreplaceable fossil fuel, loaded with poisonous
lead and with no emissions controls whatever, not to mention things
like mufflers. This is all basically just for the thrill of it.
Sometimes we just go out and do aerobatics or formation flying or
sightseeing or photography, in which case we aren't even getting
anywhere.
I'm reminded of the time all the folks at the local glider club were
sitting around after a day of flying. We could hear the dragsters at
the local dragstrip. One of the glider pilots remarked about what a
stupid hobby that is. They just spend money, burn fuel and don't
even get anywhere. This is at the end of a day using expensive
airplanes, burning lots of gas to tow unbelievably expensive german
gliders into the air in order to fly in circles and land back at the
launch point.
I think sometimes it is hard to have perspective on our own hobby.
I am worried about resources, animals, conservation, pollution and
like things, but sure don't have the guts to call myself an
environmentalist while owning a pollution spewing airplane that I
sure don't need.
So how about it? How
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! --
|