---------------------------------------------------------- RV-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 07/07/06: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:11:35 AM PST US From: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" Subject: RV-List: test do not archive ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 03:51:26 AM PST US From: "Dana Overall" Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: 4 into 1 exhaust --> RV-List message posted by: "Dana Overall" >From: "dannylsmith" >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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:05:13 AM PST US From: "Dale Ensing" Subject: Re: RV-List: sun sahdes --> RV-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:17:58 AM PST US From: David Fenstermacher Subject: RV-List: remove --> RV-List message posted by: David Fenstermacher remove ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:21:04 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:11:44 AM PST US From: Finn Lassen Subject: Re: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: Finn Lassen 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 > > > Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote: > >> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:59:58 AM PST US From: "Antoine Moulin" Subject: Re: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> 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 ----- Original Message ----- Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:20 AM > --> RV-List message posted by: "glen matejcek" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:28:55 AM PST US From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" Subject: RE: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" 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" 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" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:53:12 AM PST US From: John Huft Subject: Re: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: John Huft 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 > > 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 >> >> >> Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote: >> >>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" >>> >>> >>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:59:54 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:41:35 AM PST US From: "Tom Gummo" Subject: Re: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" 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 > > 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 >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta) wrote: >>> >>>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:48:25 AM PST US From: "Antoine Moulin" Subject: Re: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: "Antoine Moulin" 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:28:48 AM PST US From: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" Subject: RE: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: "Stewart, Michael (ISS Atlanta)" 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" 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 > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:49:05 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: RV-List: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:47:46 PM PST US From: James H Nelson Subject: RV-List: Gluing Canopy --> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:07 PM PST US From: "Michael B." Subject: RV-List: Videos for sale - From The Ground Up - RV8 --> RV-List message posted by: "Michael B." 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:18:54 PM PST US From: bertrv6@highstream.net Subject: RE: RV-List: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol --> RV-List message posted by: bertrv6@highstream.net Quoting Chuck Jensen : > --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > > 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 > > > > 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" > > > > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:46:52 PM PST US From: "Albert Gardner" Subject: RE: RV-List: sun shades --> RV-List message posted by: "Albert Gardner" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:52:49 PM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: RV-List: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol --> RV-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" 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 : > --> RV-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" > > 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 > > > > 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" > > > > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:31:04 PM PST US From: 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. --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 06:01:02 PM PST US From: "Olen Goodwin" Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:01:46 PM PST US From: dsvs@comcast.net Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
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. --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4597_1152320450_1--