Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:11 AM - test (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
2. 03:51 AM - Re: Re: 4 into 1 exhaust (Dana Overall)
3. 06:05 AM - Re: sun sahdes (Dale Ensing)
4. 06:17 AM - remove (David Fenstermacher)
5. 06:21 AM - Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (glen matejcek)
6. 07:11 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Finn Lassen)
7. 07:59 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Antoine Moulin)
8. 08:28 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
9. 08:53 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (John Huft)
10. 08:59 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Mickey Coggins)
11. 10:41 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Tom Gummo)
12. 10:48 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Antoine Moulin)
13. 11:28 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta))
14. 11:49 AM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (Mickey Coggins)
15. 12:47 PM - Gluing Canopy (James H Nelson)
16. 02:13 PM - Videos for sale - From The Ground Up - RV8 (Michael B.)
17. 03:18 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (bertrv6@highstream.net)
18. 03:46 PM - Re: sun shades (Albert Gardner)
19. 03:52 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
20. 05:31 PM - The TRUTH about MOGAS ()
21. 06:01 PM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (Olen Goodwin)
22. 06:01 PM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (dsvs@comcast.net)
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 |
|
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: 4 into 1 exhaust |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" <bo124rs@hotmail.com>
>From: "dannylsmith" <dsmit132@bellsouth.net>
>Aircraft Exhaust does not do RV exhausts anymore but Tom Heid at Aerospace
>Welding may. I sent him my engine type and sump info for him to give me an
>answer.
>Tom Heid
>Aerospace Welding
>952-890-1511
I called yesterday and was told they are just tooling up (sounded like, "we
want to tool up") for production in a month and did not have any pricing
yet.
Oh my bad, I thought this was an aviation forum and not fossil
fuel..............only a joke you guys...........fossil fuel, fossil fuel,
fossil fuel, solor power, solor power, solor power, tree hugger, tree
hugger, tree hugger:-) There, I feel like I'm contributing!!
Dana Overall
Richmond, KY i39
RV-7 slider, Imron black, "Black Magic"
O 360 A1A, C/S C2YK-1BF/F7666A4
http://rvflying.tripod.com/id30.html
do not archive
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=45219#45219
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
>
> I was wanting to get some feedback on the kroger sunshade. I just got one
> for my -8, but after looking at it, and my canopy, and reading the
> instructions I am worried about it scratching the canopy over time...
> Anyone have any experience with this?
>
Bill,
have had a Koger sun shade in my 6A for year and a half with no noticeable
scratches on the canopy. When I put it in, I suspected there may eventually
be some rub marks (not really scratches) on the canopy but not so bad that
they can't be rub out. I had some pretty bad scratches from the building
process that I was able to eliminate so I am not worried about the Koger sun
shade.
I like it and not sorry I put it in.
Dale Ensing
in sunny NC
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: David Fenstermacher <davidfenster@comcast.net>
remove
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: | Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
Hi Walt-
As I understand it, the thick bead specified in the sikaflex instructions
is to account for differential thermal expansion of the plastic window and
metal window frame. The difference between the coefficient of thermal
expansion for plex and steel is huge. With fiberglass and plex the
difference is very much smaller, and should require a much thinner layer of
adhesive. I can't give you any hard numbers at the moment, as I've not
found real consistent numbers for the different coefficients yet, but I do
believe a fairly thin layer is in order. Perhaps this topis is right up
the alley of someone on this list?.
snip-It appears that Sikaflex would be ruled out due to the reqirement to
have a 3/16" bead between the skirt and canopy/ frame.
Walt Shipley
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
John, you do know he's got an IO-540 in his Super-8, don't you?
Finn
John Huft wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
>
>
> Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
>> <mstewart@iss.net>
>>
>> I glued mine. There is no reason why you could not get a bead in there.
>> There is so little pressure on the canopy and skirt, the bead is of
>> little consequence anyway IMHO. 250hours at speeds other RV-8's only
>> dream about:)
>>
>> Best,
>> Mike
>> Do not archive
>>
>>
>
>
> Well, Mike, I'm not sure WHO is dreaming...why don't you show for one
> of the races and give us a demo?
>
> John
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: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Antoine Moulin" <amoulin@qc.aira.com>
Hi,
Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and after about
3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
Antoine Moulin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:20 AM
> --> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi Walt-
>
> As I understand it, the thick bead specified in the sikaflex instructions
> is to account for differential thermal expansion of the plastic window and
> metal window frame. The difference between the coefficient of thermal
> expansion for plex and steel is huge. With fiberglass and plex the
> difference is very much smaller, and should require a much thinner layer
> of
> adhesive. I can't give you any hard numbers at the moment, as I've not
> found real consistent numbers for the different coefficients yet, but I do
> believe a fairly thin layer is in order. Perhaps this topis is right up
> the alley of someone on this list?.
>
>
> snip-It appears that Sikaflex would be ruled out due to the reqirement to
> have a 3/16" bead between the skirt and canopy/ frame.
>
> Walt Shipley
>
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
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: | Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
This is the first I have heard of any canopy glue failures using
Sikaflex.
Can you provide any info as to the installation? Were all the
manufacturers installation instructions followed? Scuffing, cleaner,
primer, bead?
Was the separation in flight or noticed on the ground?
Details would be very helpful for others.
Thanks
Mike
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Antoine Moulin
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 10:58 AM
--> RV-List message posted by: "Antoine Moulin" <amoulin@qc.aira.com>
Hi,
Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and after
about
3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
Antoine Moulin
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:20 AM
> --> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek"
<aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
> Hi Walt-
>
> As I understand it, the thick bead specified in the sikaflex
instructions
> is to account for differential thermal expansion of the plastic window
and
> metal window frame. The difference between the coefficient of thermal
> expansion for plex and steel is huge. With fiberglass and plex the
> difference is very much smaller, and should require a much thinner
layer
> of
> adhesive. I can't give you any hard numbers at the moment, as I've
not
> found real consistent numbers for the different coefficients yet, but
I do
> believe a fairly thin layer is in order. Perhaps this topis is right
up
> the alley of someone on this list?.
>
>
> snip-It appears that Sikaflex would be ruled out due to the reqirement
to
> have a 3/16" bead between the skirt and canopy/ frame.
>
> Walt Shipley
>
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
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: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
Yes, Finn, I know. It would seem that means he can blow more hot air.
I just can't help but be suspicious of these airplanes...Super-6,
Super-7, Super-8, Rockets, Harmon and F-1. Why is it they never show up
for a race like the AirVenture Cup? I think is because then they would
have to stop bragging about how fast they are. I think the truth is the
airplanes are so far out of balance with that 6-cylinder in front they
just burn more gas, and produce more hot air.
The gauntlet has been tossed.
John
Finn Lassen wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
>
> John, you do know he's got an IO-540 in his Super-8, don't you?
>
> Finn
>
> John Huft wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
>>
>>
>> Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
>>> <mstewart@iss.net>
>>>
>>> I glued mine. There is no reason why you could not get a bead in there.
>>> There is so little pressure on the canopy and skirt, the bead is of
>>> little consequence anyway IMHO. 250hours at speeds other RV-8's only
>>> dream about:)
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Mike
>>> Do not archive
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, Mike, I'm not sure WHO is dreaming...why don't you show for one
>> of the races and give us a demo?
>>
>> John
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.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: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Antoine Moulin wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Antoine Moulin"
>
> Hi,
> Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and after
> about 3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
> Antoine Moulin
Salut Antoine,
Which sikaflex product did you use?
Why do you think it didn't work for you?
How did you end up attaching the canopy?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
I have a Harmon Rocket-II with an IO-540 J4A5 and a MT four blade prop. I
have never made the claim that my plane was faster. I am now 10 knots
slower because of the four bladed prop. With the 2 prop Hartzell, the plane
was faster. My engine is stock 250 HP. My tests which were done a long
time ago showed that I trued out at 180 Knots (no wind) at 10.5 gph in the
10500/11500 altitude range.. Now with the MT prop, I cruise at 170 Knots
True. (However, the four bladed prop does look great with my military paint
scheme.)
I am a first time builder and I built on a budget. There was no attempt to
maximize for speed as most Rockets have built up engines with more than 250
HP, so my plane would not have been able keep up anyway. I built to fly!
What I have found is that when I fly with other RVs, my fuel flows are
within a couple of tenths and my MP is lower.
Lets get to what is really important. I build my plane for me. It puts a
smile on my face every time I fly it. Harmon Rocket-II cockpit is bigger
than the RV-4 it is based on. It even has more room for the backseater.
The two people, who helped me the most build it, weigh in at 230 and 280. I
am also no light weight. The Harmon Rocket-II with the battery up front has
a very forward CG. I can however, fly with a person who weight 318 pounds
in the back seat and still be within limits.. There is NO RV-4 that I know
of that can do that. Most RV-4's and RV-8's have to be careful about flying
a large person in the rear seat. If I can close the canopy with you in the
backseat, you can fit inside the seatbelt, and you don't interfere with the
stick, etc, I can and mostly will give you a ride.
No I don't race but I have given over one hundred and thirty different
people rides in the 280+ hours in the last four years. You go ahead and
race, I will continue to share my love of flying with as many people as I
can. Different strokes for different folks.
While my plane isn't that fast, I will met you overhead APV (OK, in the next
valley to stay out of the traffic pattern). As we pass head-on, the fight
will be on. Your speed will only help you if you are running away. :-)
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 8:56 AM
> --> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
>
> Yes, Finn, I know. It would seem that means he can blow more hot air.
>
> I just can't help but be suspicious of these airplanes...Super-6, Super-7,
> Super-8, Rockets, Harmon and F-1. Why is it they never show up for a race
> like the AirVenture Cup? I think is because then they would have to stop
> bragging about how fast they are. I think the truth is the airplanes are
> so far out of balance with that 6-cylinder in front they just burn more
> gas, and produce more hot air.
>
> The gauntlet has been tossed.
>
> John
>
>
> Finn Lassen wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
>>
>> John, you do know he's got an IO-540 in his Super-8, don't you?
>>
>> Finn
>>
>> John Huft wrote:
>>
>>> --> RV-List message posted by: John Huft <rv8@lazy8.net>
>>>
>>>
>>> Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote:
>>>
>>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)"
>>>> <mstewart@iss.net>
>>>>
>>>> I glued mine. There is no reason why you could not get a bead in there.
>>>> There is so little pressure on the canopy and skirt, the bead is of
>>>> little consequence anyway IMHO. 250hours at speeds other RV-8's only
>>>> dream about:)
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Mike
>>>> Do not archive
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Mike, I'm not sure WHO is dreaming...why don't you show for one of
>>> the races and give us a demo?
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>> http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
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: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Antoine Moulin" <amoulin@qc.aira.com>
Bonjour Mickey,
I used Sikaflex 295, primer 209,cleaner 205, the plexiglass and the frame
was well sanded and thickness controled with popsicle wood sticks. I think
the trouble is the paint that I used on the frame.The fix was holes and pop
rivets. I am making the skirt rigth now so in few days I may have some
pictures available.
Antoine
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:58 AM
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Antoine Moulin wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Antoine Moulin" Hi,
>> Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and after
>> about 3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
>> Antoine Moulin
>
> Salut Antoine,
>
> Which sikaflex product did you use?
> Why do you think it didn't work for you?
> How did you end up attaching the canopy?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
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: | Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" <mstewart@iss.net>
So it separated at the paint and not the glue?
That would make sense to me. I have no doubt the glue is tougher than
the paint its glued to.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Antoine Moulin
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 1:47 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: "Antoine Moulin" <amoulin@qc.aira.com>
Bonjour Mickey,
I used Sikaflex 295, primer 209,cleaner 205, the plexiglass and the
frame
was well sanded and thickness controled with popsicle wood sticks. I
think
the trouble is the paint that I used on the frame.The fix was holes and
pop
rivets. I am making the skirt rigth now so in few days I may have some
pictures available.
Antoine
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 11:58 AM
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Antoine Moulin wrote:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Antoine Moulin" Hi,
>> Just for your information, I did a RV-3 canopy with Sikaflex and
after
>> about 3 weeks the canopy got unglued!
>> Antoine Moulin
>
> Salut Antoine,
>
> Which sikaflex product did you use?
> Why do you think it didn't work for you?
> How did you end up attaching the canopy?
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
>
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: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Antoine Moulin wrote:
> I used Sikaflex 295, primer 209,cleaner 205, the plexiglass and the
> frame was well sanded and thickness controled with popsicle wood sticks.
> I think the trouble is the paint that I used on the frame.The fix was
> holes and pop rivets. I am making the skirt rigth now so in few days I
> may have some pictures available.
> Antoine
Wow, I hope the paint was the problem. My canopy frame was
powder-coated from the factory, and it seems to be stuck on
pretty well.
Thanks for the information!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Hi Mickey,
I've been reading with interest about the glued canopy on the
"8". I have a 9-A and did the Sikaflex 295/209/205 route. I used PVC
tubing that had an inner diameter that matched the canopy tubing. I don't
remember the wall thickness but it was around 1/8 to 3/16" thick. I
cleaned the powder coated frame from Van's and lightly sanded the areas
where the glue would go. Basically got rid of the shinny surface. Then
went about fitting the canopy and getting final trimming as it raised the
canopy off the frame the 3/16" all around. I had to watch out because
the canopy had been trimmed in length on the sides for the regular
installation. (not good). But I went merrily along the way. Fortunately
there was enough plexi on the sides to let the screws capture it and
still get to the support on the frame. I did have to make new side
skirts that were taller than the originals but that was a no brainer. I
glued the for and aft hoop and the backbone tubes with Sikaflex. It took
me a bit of learning to limit the glue on the plexi and the tape
(electrical) to try to keep a nice edge. I found out that I needed to
remove the tape right after I did the glue. If I let it stay until the
glue skinned over, I found out that the tape removal also took the
skinned glue with it in many places. It doesn't look as nice. I used pop
sickle sticks to form the exposed edges of the glue to smooth it out. It
was done during April and it seems to be strong and doesn't look as it
will come loose. Of course, I'm not flying yet as I'm doing FWF but the
canopy has no screws any place except along the side. I think it looks
good.
Jim Nelson
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: | Videos for sale - From The Ground Up - RV8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Michael B." <brewtoo@yyhmail.com>
For sale: Full set of EAA's "From the Ground Up" series covering the building of
an RV-8. 13 episodes.
http://www.buildersbooks.com/from_the_ground_up.htm
http://www.eaa.org/communications/eaanews/ftgu.html
Original tapes. Just like new.
$68 shipping included.
Please reply by email. brewtoo@yyhmail.com
Thanks,
Michael
--
_______________________________________________
Get your free email from http://www.yyhmail.com
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: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
Quoting Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com>:
> --> 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
> > >
> > >
> > THEN I SAY, YOU ARE ALL WRONG... YOU SEE..THE NEXT SAY I AM WRONG
THIS WILL NEVER END...WASTE OF TIME.
BERT
RV6A
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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 |
|
--> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" <ibspud@adelphia.net>
I've been flying with the Koger sunshade on my slider 9A the past 2-1/2
years here in 'sunny' Arizona and it is a lifesaver. Flew the first year
without it and I now wonder why it took me so long to put one in. Broke one
of the plastic clamps and they sent a new bow gratis. The small sunspots are
nice to cover up the direct sun in the windscreen but I think I'd be well
done with out the sunshade.
Albert Gardner
Yuma, AZ
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: | Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
YOU'RE WRONG! Wait, what were we talking about again?
:-)
Do not archive
no archive
no archive
non archivii
archivieren Sie nicht
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 5:14 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net
Quoting Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com>:
> --> 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
> > >
> > >
> > THEN I SAY, YOU ARE ALL WRONG... YOU SEE..THE NEXT SAY I AM WRONG
THIS WILL NEVER END...WASTE OF TIME.
BERT
RV6A
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: | The TRUTH about MOGAS |
I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but
I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives
or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)
I appreciate the passion and support some have
for MOgas. Hey 5,10 and 15 years of successfully
operation is not bad. I appreciate the sense of
humor as well.
Now for facts.
besides the OCTANE molecule (distilled petroleum).
Gas has 200 of chemicals in it, some are good
for aviation some not,
Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
is more susceptible to vapor lock.
Auto gas, even premium does NOT have the same
octane as 100LL Avgas by quite a bit.
Low octane can cause detonation, and uncontrolled
burning of fuel which can lead to severe engine
damage.
In the past Av gas came in grades of 80-87; 91-98,
100-130 and 115-145. That has given way to the
ubiquitous 100/100LL
Why two numbers? The low number is the lean octane
rating and the higher number is rich octane rating.
There are four ways to measure fuel for octane:
Automotive Research, Automotive Motor,
Aviation Lean and Aviation Rich.
Auto gas has one rating and is average of lean and
rich rating and there are two methods as listed
above.
Aviation gas lean is about equal to automotive motor
octane.100LL avgas if sold at the car pump would be
105. Premium 91 octane MOgas sold as Avgas
would be about equiv to 86UL.
STC for Mogas was when 80/86 went a way and
the low compression engines ran terrible on the
default gas grade 100/100LL. Despite the LL
(Low Lead) designation, there's a lot of lead in
100LL. Therefor low compression engines
designed to run on low octane fuel did not
need or work well on leaded fuel. Lead boost
octane. That was the beginning of STC's for
automotive unleaded (UL) fuels for aircraft as a substitute for low lead/UL 80
octane.
Just because the FAA approves STC's is not mean
much in a high compression homebuilt.
Lycomings come in to flavors, which are certified
for 80 octane and have a compression ratio about
7.2:1CR or have about 8:50:1CR and are certified
for 100/100LL gas, or the old 91/96 Avgas grade.
If you buy the Super gas at the mini-mart and it
said 92 octane it is only worth about 87 octane.
We assume you test it for ethanol and alcohol
every time of course.
Can you run your 91/96 octane Lyc on it? Well that
is subject to debate, but it does not fly in my plane.
I guess you can reduce the timing advance a little
as a precaution?
Lycoming strongly recommends NOT using MOGAS.
Lycoming does know about auto gas and in fact
makes a very low compression O360 for flying in
third world countries to run on low grade fuel.
Unfortunately most 320's and 360's have 8:50:1CR
and need the 91/96 (100LL) gas.
If you are willing to test, haul and store your
own auto gas and run your engine on less than the
recommended octane, than OK, do that. If you have
a low compression engine than auto gas makes more
sense.
You may want to look into reducing your timing and
all the other things I mentioned about keeping the
fuel cool, that where somewhat ridiculed by the
MOgas experts. I would do everything I could to
assure no loss of power due to vapor lock.
If you have a 7:1CR engine than it is safer from an
octane stand point, as long as it does not have the
alcohol and ethanol. (However ethanol does increase
the octane rating, see below).
If you get a load of ethanol gas you run the risk
of water contamination since it absorbs water. Once
airborne it cools the water comes out of the fuel
and water contamination result in loss of power.
Carb ice is more likely with ethanol (alcohol).
That is why it is important to test your auto gas.
Also ethanol is not compatible with the rubber
and gaskets used in aircraft and they will swell,
which has caused aircraft engines to stop in the
past.
These are facts. If you do go auto fuel please please
ask lots of questions of those who are experts in the
topic. I think we have a few on this list (seriously :-)
I am not an expert but than I don't have to jump of a
bridge to know it might hurt when I hit the water. I
know if your engine stops while flying in a plane it
can be a bad thing. MOgas is NOT as good as
AVgas. The debate is it good enough. May be.
What I know about auto gas is enough to discourage
me.
Ethanol does help octane so if you can get some
"sub grade" fuel before the distribution puts in
the additives, like ethanol you can expect a 5% hit
on octane. So basic fuel planned for 91 octane
with ethanol is really 89 octane without the ethanol.
This is like 84 aviation. To get "sub grade" you need
to get it at the distribution terminal before they add
the ethanol.
84 octane is not enough for higher compression 91/96
engines. If you have a 80 octane O320 140/150HP Lyc,
than by all means go for it.
Some debate about reducing timing for the high
compression engines.
Lycoming is testing UL blends and the gas companies
are working on the 95UL as a 100/100LL replacement.
Remember there are more high compression than low
compression engines. Also the real fire breathing high
end piston engines, turbo charged and so on NEED
the high end gas, only make up 30% of the fleet but
use 70% of the gas. So all you C65 & C85 engine
Piper Cubs are stuck using the 95 octane but with
the UL it should be OK.
IF I HAD an 80 octane engine AND the gas prices
kept going up I would consider auto gas it. (THERE I
SAID IT, ARE YOU HAPPY....)
As I said for the real world guy $400-$800 is about
what you can expect to save per year. Some of the
guys who live where fuel is cheap and ethanol is not
forced down their throat, good for them. If you have a
High compression engine and ethanol free fuel is hard
to find at the pump than not so good.
For the convenience of pulling up to the airport pump,
filling with very high octane fuel, with very high vapor
pressure and knowing there's no bad chemicals in it
with out having to test it, is worth it to me.
To each his own, I'll never say never but at some
point I just will not fly as much or at all, sadly.
---------------------------------
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS |
I haven't researched enough to know which has the higher vapor
pressure...auto or aviation fuel...but the higher the vapor pressure,
the more likely to vapor lock, not the other way around. If indeed the
auto gas has lower vapor pressure as you say, it would be less likely to
vapor lock than avgas.
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 6:25 PM
Subject: RV-List: The TRUTH about MOGAS
I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but
I would like present some of the FACTS, negatives
or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)
I appreciate the passion and support some have
for MOgas. Hey 5,10 and 15 years of successfully
operation is not bad. I appreciate the sense of
humor as well.
Now for facts.
besides the OCTANE molecule (distilled petroleum).
Gas has 200 of chemicals in it, some are good
for aviation some not,
Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
is more susceptible to vapor lock.
Auto gas, even premium does NOT have the same
octane as 100LL Avgas by quite a bit.
Low octane can cause detonation, and uncontrolled
burning of fuel which can lead to severe engine
damage.
In the past Av gas came in grades of 80-87; 91-98,
100-130 and 115-145. That has given way to the
ubiquitous 100/100LL
Why two numbers? The low number is the lean octane
rating and the higher number is rich octane rating.
There are four ways to measure fuel for octane:
Automotive Research, Automotive Motor,
Aviation Lean and Aviation Rich.
Auto gas has one rating and is average of lean and
rich rating and there are two methods as listed
above.
Aviation gas lean is about equal to automotive motor
octane.100LL avgas if sold at the car pump would be
105. Premium 91 octane MOgas sold as Avgas
would be about equiv to 86UL.
STC for Mogas was when 80/86 went a way and
the low compression engines ran terrible on the
default gas grade 100/100LL. Despite the LL
(Low Lead) designation, there's a lot of lead in
100LL. Therefor low compression engines
designed to run on low octane fuel did not
need or work well on leaded fuel. Lead boost
octane. That was the beginning of STC's for
automotive unleaded (UL) fuels for aircraft as
a substitute for low lead/UL 80 octane.
Just because the FAA approves STC's is not mean
much in a high compression homebuilt.
Lycomings come in to flavors, which are certified
for 80 octane and have a compression ratio about
7.2:1CR or have about 8:50:1CR and are certified
for 100/100LL gas, or the old 91/96 Avgas grade.
If you buy the Super gas at the mini-mart and it
said 92 octane it is only worth about 87 octane.
We assume you test it for ethanol and alcohol
every time of course.
Can you run your 91/96 octane Lyc on it? Well that
is subject to debate, but it does not fly in my plane.
I guess you can reduce the timing advance a little
as a precaution?
Lycoming strongly recommends NOT using MOGAS.
Lycoming does know about auto gas and in fact
makes a very low compression O360 for flying in
third world countries to run on low grade fuel.
Unfortunately most 320's and 360's have 8:50:1CR
and need the 91/96 (100LL) gas.
If you are willing to test, haul and store your
own auto gas and run your engine on less than the
recommended octane, than OK, do that. If you have
a low compression engine than auto gas makes more
sense.
You may want to look into reducing your timing and
all the other things I mentioned about keeping the
fuel cool, that where somewhat ridiculed by the
MOgas experts. I would do everything I could to
assure no loss of power due to vapor lock.
If you have a 7:1CR engine than it is safer from an
octane stand point, as long as it does not have the
alcohol and ethanol. (However ethanol does increase
the octane rating, see below).
If you get a load of ethanol gas you run the risk
of water contamination since it absorbs water. Once
airborne it cools the water comes out of the fuel
and water contamination result in loss of power.
Carb ice is more likely with ethanol (alcohol).
That is why it is important to test your auto gas.
Also ethanol is not compatible with the rubber
and gaskets used in aircraft and they will swell,
which has caused aircraft engines to stop in the
past.
These are facts. If you do go auto fuel please please
ask lots of questions of those who are experts in the
topic. I think we have a few on this list (seriously :-)
I am not an expert but than I don't have to jump of a
bridge to know it might hurt when I hit the water. I
know if your engine stops while flying in a plane it
can be a bad thing. MOgas is NOT as good as
AVgas. The debate is it good enough. May be.
What I know about auto gas is enough to discourage
me.
Ethanol does help octane so if you can get some
"sub grade" fuel before the distribution puts in
the additives, like ethanol you can expect a 5% hit
on octane. So basic fuel planned for 91 octane
with ethanol is really 89 octane without the ethanol.
This is like 84 aviation. To get "sub grade" you need
to get it at the distribution terminal before they add
the ethanol.
84 octane is not enough for higher compression 91/96
engines. If you have a 80 octane O320 140/150HP Lyc,
than by all means go for it.
Some debate about reducing timing for the high
compression engines.
Lycoming is testing UL blends and the gas companies
are working on the 95UL as a 100/100LL replacement.
Remember there are more high compression than low
compression engines. Also the real fire breathing high
end piston engines, turbo charged and so on NEED
the high end gas, only make up 30% of the fleet but
use 70% of the gas. So all you C65 & C85 engine
Piper Cubs are stuck using the 95 octane but with
the UL it should be OK.
IF I HAD an 80 octane engine AND the gas prices
kept going up I would consider auto gas it. (THERE I
SAID IT, ARE YOU HAPPY....)
As I said for the real world guy $400-$800 is about
what you can expect to save per year. Some of the
guys who live where fuel is cheap and ethanol is not
forced down their throat, good for them. If you have a
High compression engine and ethanol free fuel is hard
to find at the pump than not so good.
For the convenience of pulling up to the airport pump,
filling with very high octane fuel, with very high vapor
pressure and knowing there's no bad chemicals in it
with out having to test it, is worth it to me.
To each his own, I'll never say never but at some
point I just will not fly as much or at all, sadly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different.
Just radically better.
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: The TRUTH about MOGAS |
, snip
>
> Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
> is more susceptible to vapor lock.
>
>>
Get it straight George. The higher the vapor pressure the more chance of vapor
lock. And BTW av gas does have lower vapor pressure for that exact reason.
Don
Content-Type: Multipart/alternative;
boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4597_1152320450_1"
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4597_1152320450_1
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<DIV>I am not ANTI Mogas or anyone who uses it, but <BR>I would like present some
of the FACTS, negatives <BR>or CON's, in addition to all the PRO drinking the
<BR>cool-aid comments for MOGAS. :-)</DIV> <DIV><BR>I appreciate the passion
and support some have <BR>for MOgas. Hey 5,10 and 15 years of successfully
<BR>operation is not bad. I appreciate the sense of <BR>humor as well.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Now for facts.</DIV> <DIV><BR>besides the OCTANE molecule (distilled
petroleum).</DIV> <DIV>Gas has 200 of chemicals in it, some are good <BR>for
aviation some not, </DIV> <DIV><BR>Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which
means it <BR>is more susceptible to vapor lock.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Auto gas, even
premium does NOT have the same <BR>octane as 100LL Avgas by quite a bit.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Low octane can cause detonation, and uncontrolled <BR>burning of fuel
which can lead to severe engine <BR>damage.</DIV> <DIV><BR>In the past Av
gas came in grades of 80-87; 91-98, <BR>100-130
and 115-145. That has given way to the <BR>ubiquitous 100/100LL</DIV> <DIV><BR>Why
two numbers? The low number is the lean octane <BR>rating and the higher
number is rich octane rating. </DIV> <DIV><BR>There are four ways to measure
fuel for octane: <BR>Automotive Research, Automotive Motor, <BR>Aviation Lean
and Aviation Rich.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Auto gas has one rating and is average of
lean and <BR>rich rating and there are two methods as listed <BR>above. </DIV>
<DIV><BR>Aviation gas lean is about equal to automotive motor <BR>octane.100LL
avgas if sold at the car pump would be <BR>105. Premium 91 octane MOgas sold
as Avgas <BR>would be about equiv to 86UL. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>STC
for Mogas was when 80/86 went a way and <BR>the low compression engines ran
terrible on the <BR>default gas grade 100/100LL. Despite the LL <BR>(Low
Lead) designation, there's a lot of lead in <BR>100LL. Therefor low compression
engines <BR>designed to run on low octane fuel
did not <BR>need or work well on leaded fuel. Lead boost <BR>octane. That
was the beginning of STC's for <BR>automotive unleaded (UL) fuels for aircraft
as <DIV>a substitute for low lead/UL 80 octane.</DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just because the FAA approves STC's is not mean </DIV> <DIV>much
in a high compression homebuilt.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Lycomings come in to flavors,
which are certified <BR>for 80 octane and have a compression ratio about <BR>7.2:1CR
or have about 8:50:1CR and are certified <BR>for 100/100LL gas, or
the old 91/96 Avgas grade. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>If you
buy the Super gas at the mini-mart and it <BR>said 92 octane it is only worth
about 87 octane. <BR>We assume you test it for ethanol and alcohol </DIV> <DIV>every
time of course. </DIV> <DIV><BR>Can you run your 91/96 octane Lyc on
it? Well that <BR>is subject to debate, but it does not fly in my plane. <BR>I
guess you can reduce the timing advance a little
<BR>as a precaution?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lycoming strongly recommends
NOT using MOGAS.</DIV> <DIV><BR>Lycoming does know about auto gas and in fact
<BR>makes a very low compression O360 for flying in <BR>third world countries
to run on low grade fuel. <BR></DIV> <DIV>Unfortunately most 320's and 360's
have 8:50:1CR <BR>and need the 91/96 (100LL) gas.</DIV> <DIV><BR>If you are
willing to test, haul and store your <BR>own auto gas and run your engine on
less than the <BR>recommended octane, than OK, do that. If you have <BR>a low
compression engine than auto gas makes more <BR>sense. </DIV> <DIV><BR>You
may want to look into reducing your timing and <BR>all the other things I mentioned
about keeping the <BR>fuel cool, that where somewhat ridiculed by the </DIV>
<DIV>MOgas experts. I would do everything I could to </DIV> <DIV>assure
no loss of power due to vapor lock.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>If you have
a 7:1CR engine than it is safer from an
<BR>octane stand point, as long as it does not have the <BR>alcohol and ethanol.
(However ethanol does increase <BR>the octane rating, see below).</DIV>
<DIV><BR>If you get a load of ethanol gas you run the risk <BR>of
water contamination since it absorbs water. Once <BR>airborne it cools the water
comes out of the fuel <BR>and water contamination result in loss of power.
</DIV> <DIV><BR>Carb ice is more likely with ethanol (alcohol). <BR></DIV>
<DIV>That is why it is important to test your auto gas.<BR>Also ethanol is not
compatible with the rubber <BR>and gaskets used in aircraft and they will swell,
<BR>which has caused aircraft engines to stop in the <BR>past. </DIV> <DIV><BR>These
are facts. If you do go auto fuel please please <BR>ask lots of questions
of those who are experts in the <BR>topic. I think we have a few on this
list (seriously :-)</DIV> <DIV><BR>I am not an expert but than I don't have
to jump of a <BR>bridge to know it might hurt
when I hit the water. I <BR>know if your engine stops while flying in a plane
it <BR>can be a bad thing. MOgas is NOT as good as </DIV> <DIV>AVgas. The debate is
it good enough. May be. </DIV> <DIV><BR>What I know about auto
gas is enough to discourage </DIV> <DIV>me. </DIV> <DIV><BR>Ethanol
does help octane so if you can get some <BR>"sub grade" fuel before the distribution
puts in <BR>the additives, like ethanol you can expect a 5% hit <BR>on
octane. So basic fuel planned for 91 octane </DIV> <DIV>with ethanol is really
89 octane without the ethanol. <BR>This is like 84 aviation. To
get "sub grade" you need <BR>to get it at the distribution terminal before they
add </DIV> <DIV>the ethanol.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>84 octane is
not enough for higher compression 91/96 <BR>engines. If you have a 80 octane O320
140/150HP Lyc, <BR>than by all means go for it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some debate about reducing timing for
the high </DIV> <DIV>compression engines.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Lycoming
is testing UL blends and the gas companies <BR>are working on the 95UL as
a 100/100LL replacement. </DIV> <DIV><BR>Remember there are more high compression
than low <BR>compression engines. Also the real fire breathing high <BR>end piston
engines, turbo charged and so on NEED <BR>the high end gas, only
make up 30% of the fleet but <BR>use 70% of the gas. So all you C65
& C85 engine </DIV> <DIV>Piper Cubs are stuck using the 95 octane but
with </DIV> <DIV>the UL it should be OK.</DIV> <DIV><BR>IF I HAD an 80 octane
engine AND the gas prices </DIV> <DIV>kept going up I would consider auto gas
it. (THERE I </DIV> <DIV>SAID IT, ARE YOU HAPPY....)</DIV> <DIV><BR>As I
said for the real world guy $400-$800 is about </DIV> <DIV>what you can expect
to save per year. Some of the </DIV> <DIV>guys who live where fuel is cheap
and ethanol is not </DIV> <DIV>forced down their
throat, good for them. If you have a </DIV> <DIV>High compression engine and
ethanol free fuel is hard </DIV> <DIV>to find at the pump than not so good.</DIV>
<DIV><BR>For the convenience of pulling up to the airport pump, <BR>filling
with very high octane fuel, with very high vapor <BR>pressure and knowing
there's no bad chemicals in it </DIV> <DIV>with out having to test it, is worth
it to me.</DIV> <DIV><BR>To each his own, I'll never say never but at some
</DIV> <DIV>point I just will not fly as much or at all, sadly. </DIV><p> 
<hr size=1>Sneak preview the <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=40762/*http://www.yahoo.com/preview"> all-new Yahoo.com</a>. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4597_1152320450_1--
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! --
|