Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:07 AM - MOGAS related Crashes, ouch ()
2. 05:20 AM - Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch (linn Walters)
3. 08:34 AM - Re: Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (Bill Schlatterer)
4. 08:49 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Larry Mac Donald)
5. 09:27 AM - Re: Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Konrad L. Werner)
6. 09:39 AM - Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch (Jerry Springer)
7. 10:12 AM - Re:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
8. 10:28 AM - Re: Fuel Efficiency (Konrad L. Werner)
9. 10:49 AM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Vincent Osburn)
10. 12:06 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Mickey Coggins)
11. 12:36 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Ron Lee)
12. 02:04 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Tom Gummo)
13. 02:08 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
14. 02:11 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Olen Goodwin)
15. 02:14 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Olen Goodwin)
16. 02:30 PM - Fossil energy or What! (James H Nelson)
17. 02:52 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (JOHN STARN)
18. 03:33 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Joe Larson)
19. 03:33 PM - Re: Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Tracy Crook)
20. 04:01 PM - Re: Re:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... (Tracy Crook)
21. 04:12 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Tracy Crook)
22. 04:26 PM - Re: Dinosaur Dung /... SAY WHAT? (Konrad L. Werner)
23. 04:28 PM - Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch (Jim Sears)
24. 05:54 PM - Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) (Bob J.)
25. 06:16 PM - Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
26. 07:23 PM - Re: Need Help with Cowling Ducts (N395V)
27. 07:35 PM - Re: Dinosaur Dung /... SAY WHAT? (Chris W)
28. 07:54 PM - RV Fuel Efficiency, Page AZ and Antelope Canyon (Ron Lee)
29. 07:56 PM - Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 (dick martin)
30. 08:02 PM - Bleeding the brakes (Bobby Hester)
31. 08:14 PM - Re: Dinosaur Dung /... SAY WHAT? (JAMES BOWEN)
32. 08:21 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (David Maib)
33. 08:30 PM - Re: non-swiveling tail wheel (Tim Bryan)
34. 10:16 PM - Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol (Stan Jones)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
>> <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
>> is more susceptible to vapor lock.
>>
>From: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>
>
>George and I have had some discussion on this subject
>off line; and, I thought the topic was over with.
>
>Sorry, Goerge; but, you still have that one backwards,
>which helps to debunk the rest of what you say. Don't
>worry, I have had a hard time keeping this one straight,
>myself. :-)
>
>(para-phrase) I only know of one accident from using
>auto gas.
What did you say, you only heard of one accident?
One accident attributed to autogas? ha ha That is not
correct.
A quick NTSB search with the words *automotive fuel*
found about 250 hits. I cut it down to experimental and
*automotive fuel* and got about 50 hits.
I guess you have your facts wrong, so does that debunks
the rest of what you say. That's OK, I was wrong once
years ago.
>
>I thought the topic was over with
>
Well you thought wrong. I am sorry, too dumb to be
straightened out. When you are an expert, you expect
people to believe you. Sorry, to disappoint you.
Here you go Mr. Expert :-)
-More carb ice
-More water in the carb
-More unexplained power loss
Just a few select AUTOMOTIVE FUEL mishaps:
Power Loss in-flight hot day? hummmm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA91LA108&rpt=fi
RV's with fuel pressure problem hot day, more hummm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
Gee handling your own fuel can contaminate it? You think
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA033&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05CA144&rpt=fi
Carb ice more likely with auto fuel?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA035&rpt=fi
Mystery or auto fuel? Many unexplained loss of power
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA103&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98LA038&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi
Oops MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) and other additives
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX91DUJ01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060706X00876&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85LA127&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX83FA246&rpt=fi
Water and corrosion in the carb again and again?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN84FTG01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95LA051&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL03FA142&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 050211X00183&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL97LA003&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86LA168&rpt=fi
(this was only a few of many)
I see anecdotal evidence that auto fuel may have directly
or indirectly contributed to the grief of some of the above
pilot's and their plane?
I know by using your expert advice and procedures you can
avoid ALL the above? Well may be not all. The ones that
concern me the most are unexplained power loss on
hot days. (hint hint, over, do you copy, vapor lock, Roger?)
Note: Jim's mission in life is to promote auto fuel. He is doing
a great job. When anyone talks about risk it means nothing,
because it's not their fleshy buttock in the seat.
I don't CARE. Just be informed.
IF YOU USE AUTO FUEL AND SELF FUEL, aka HANDLE
FUEL, PLEASE BE CAREFUL. THERE ARE RISK AND IT
IS NOT ALL SUNSHINE AND BUTTERFLY'S.
It may not be as bad as I make it sound, but it is not as
great and carefree ( in my not so expert opinion) as Jim
makes it sound.
To use 1/2 auto and 1/2 avgas in each tank sounds weird
to me. Don't you trust your fuel? What do you all think. If you
don't trust you fuel to fly on, for all operations, do you want
it in your plane? ME? not so much. YOU? decide for yourself.
I don't care; I just suggest you know what you're getting.
If you do use AUTO FUEL contact Jim. He knows way more
than I do. However I know enough in 12,000 hours of flying
to know how to stay out of trouble. I want to be an expert
in power off emergency landings, but I never want to have
to prove I am an expert for real. I want to always have a
choice when and where I land. Using Avgas is just that little
bit better in my humble but ever so right opinion. :-)
It is NOT all about money as Jim makes it sounds. What
does and off field landing cost? I hope only bent metal.
Safety first, economy second.
Boy I hope you have learned I have spoken and there is
nothing left to be said. ha ha ha ha. Just kidding. Good
debate, learned a lot, but lets keep it to facts and opinion
and not personal comments.
Have a NICE DAY. George M :-)
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
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: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
I only read a few of the accident reports, and none that I read said
that Auto fuel CAUSED the accident. There was one stupid pilot trick
where he took off with an engine that wasn't running properly, and
others that said they couldn't explain the power loss. One accident was
a certificated airplane, maintained by the owner/pilot (not an A&P).
What stupid pilot trick did he do? I dunno. They didn't say what the
CAUSE was.
And carb ice doesn't usually (almost never???) come from water in the
fuel, but from water in the atmosphere. Water and fuel system corrosion
are a natural hazard of having your plane tied down on the ramp, but
that never shows up in an NTSB report.
I don't have the time to cull through thousands of accident reports
(although my home page is the NTSB accident/month page), and I see far
more stupid pilot tricks than I see accidents that occurred when using
auto fuel. I thank you for the list though, because I didn't know that
there were that many accidents where auto fuel was used. But again,
none of the reports that I read said auto fuel CAUSED the accident.
There was the inference that it MIGHT have contributed to the accident
though.
Linn
do not archive
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> Well you thought wrong. I am sorry, too dumb to be
> straightened out. When you are an expert, you expect
> people to believe you. Sorry, to disappoint you.
>
> Here you go Mr. Expert :-)
>
> -More carb ice
> -More water in the carb
> -More unexplained power loss
>
> Just a few select AUTOMOTIVE FUEL mishaps:
>
>
> Power Loss in-flight hot day? hummmm
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA91LA108&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA91LA108&rpt=fi>
>
>
> RV's with fuel pressure problem hot day, more hummm
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi>
>
>
> Gee handling your own fuel can contaminate it? You think
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA033&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA033&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05CA144&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05CA144&rpt=fi>
>
>
> Carb ice more likely with auto fuel?
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA035&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA035&rpt=fi>
>
>
> Mystery or auto fuel? Many unexplained loss of power
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA103&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA103&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98LA038&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98LA038&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi>
>
>
> Oops MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) and other additives
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX91DUJ01&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX91DUJ01&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060706X00876&key=1
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060706X00876&key=1>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85LA127&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85LA127&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX83FA246&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX83FA246&rpt=fi>
>
>
> Water and corrosion in the carb again and again?
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN84FTG01&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN84FTG01&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95LA051&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95LA051&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL03FA142&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL03FA142&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 050211X00183&key=1
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 050211X00183&key=1>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL97LA003&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL97LA003&rpt=fi>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86LA168&rpt=fi
> <http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86LA168&rpt=fi>
>
> (this was only a few of many)
>
>
> I see anecdotal evidence that auto fuel may have directly
> or indirectly contributed to the grief of some of the above
> pilot's and their plane?
>
> I know by using your expert advice and procedures you can
> avoid ALL the above? Well may be not all. The ones that
> concern me the most are unexplained power loss on
> hot days. (hint hint, over, do you copy, vapor lock, Roger?)
>
> Note: Jim's mission in life is to promote auto fuel. He is doing
> a great job. When anyone talks about risk it means nothing,
> because it's not their fleshy buttock in the seat.
>
> I don't CARE. Just be informed.
>
> IF YOU USE AUTO FUEL AND SELF FUEL, aka HANDLE
> FUEL, PLEASE BE CAREFUL. THERE ARE RISK AND IT
> IS NOT ALL SUNSHINE AND BUTTERFLY'S.
>
> It may not be as bad as I make it sound, but it is not as
> great and carefree ( in my not so expert opinion) as Jim
> makes it sound.
>
> To use 1/2 auto and 1/2 avgas in each tank sounds weird
> to me. Don't you trust your fuel? What do you all think. If you
> don't trust you fuel to fly on, for all operations, do you want
> it in your plane? ME? not so much. YOU? decide for yourself.
>
> I don't care; I just suggest you know what you're getting.
>
> If you do use AUTO FUEL contact Jim. He knows way more
> than I do. However I know enough in 12,000 hours of flying
> to know how to stay out of trouble. I want to be an expert
> in power off emergency landings, but I never want to have
> to prove I am an expert for real. I want to always have a
> choice when and where I land. Using Avgas is just that little
> bit better in my humble but ever so right opinion. :-)
>
> It is NOT all about money as Jim makes it sounds. What
> does and off field landing cost? I hope only bent metal.
>
> Safety first, economy second.
>
> Boy I hope you have learned I have spoken and there is
> nothing left to be said. ha ha ha ha. Just kidding. Good
> debate, learned a lot, but lets keep it to facts and opinion
> and not personal comments.
>
>
> Have a NICE DAY. George M :-)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=41244/*http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Pete, just curious and you sound like someone who would really know so I
have a question. I understand adding the "local content" for season and
geography in the auto fuel side but I am under the impression that 100LL is
the same everywhere.
Is 100LL blended at the tank farms and then delivered locally, in which case
the transportation/distribution costs would be slightly higher or does it
come from one main refinery and then get trucked across the country in which
case the difference in price might be very recognizable?
Also wondered if 100LL and Jet goes through the normal pipeline distribution
system or is it land-hauled because of the extremely low volumes compared to
auto fuel?
We appear to have a pretty amazing system for auto fuel distribution but I
am wondering if there is a drastically different distribution cost to av
fuel?
Thanks Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Pete Cowper
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 2:36 PM
--> RV-List message posted by: pcowper@webtv.net (Pete Cowper)
The seasonal blending and geographical blending by automotive gasoline
refiners does have a significant effect on the operation of the engines.
When I was Terminal Superintendent of the Union 76 tank farms at San Diego
and Imperial (El Centro) Terminals back in the early 1980's, we used to back
haul the Imperial "desert gasoline" for the coastal San Diego's California
Highway Patrol during certain seasons of the year for fuelling the 24/7
patrolcars that ran severe duty periods of idling and high speed pursuits.
As engines used in aircraft adopt modern automotive computers utilizing such
monitors as temperature probes and O2 sensors, the engines will be able to
finely tune themselves as they encounter differing weather and altitudes.
With the 1930's technology of many of our Lycoming & Continental aircraft
engines, this thread has been informative with its cautions and could
prevent damage from unexpected power off landings or even save some lives.
If a plane is based on a private strip at a rural home, farm or ranch where
automotive gasoline for vehicles and equipment can be delivered by
commercial tankwagon, the savings can be measurable if the automotive fuel
is found to be adequate for the aircraft engine.
Our local fairly busy airport, with commercial airline service on its
6,559 foot runway with ILS, only pumps 150,000 gallons of Aviation gasoline
a year. If this were a corner filling station pumping only 150,000 gallons
in just a month - it would be facing closure for being uneconomical.
Refiners are making aviation gasoline more as a service than a profit
center. We need to continue to educate ourselves about alternate fuels as
aviation gasoline will no doubt have to change from the currently available
100LL to a fuel that has other shared applications to make it at least
marginally profitable to produce and distribute.
As to the flamers and naysayers . . . "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've
already made up my mind."
Pete Cowper
RV-8 #81139 (working on fuselage)
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com>
Dean,
The United states produces about 60% of the world's Co2.
This comes from cars, trucks and furnaces and it is a big deal.
Co@ reflects the suns long wave radiations back into space
and contributes greatly to global warming. It also mixes well
with sulfur dioxide to form smog. Think Los Angelas. I agree
with everything else you wrote. It would seem the
environmentalists are quick to complain about things and want
quick answers but are not willing to do the required studies to
come up with responsible alternatives.
Larry Mac Donald
lm4@juno.com
Rochester N.Y.
Do not achcive
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:09:19 -0400 "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
<dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net> writes:
> --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>
, if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully
> renewable and generates no toxic waste products or
CO2 (I don't consider CO2 a hazard to our planets
health) they would still find something
"evil" about it!
>
> Dean Psiropoulos
> RV-6A N197DM
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
But with a SIGNIFICANT SPEED DIFFERENCE over said micro car . . . . . .
do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: Dan Beadle
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 3:49 PM
To: 'rv-list@matronics.com'
Subject: RE: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
And, airplane mileage is often 10-25% less, improving real economy to
right up there with a micro car.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 2:05 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
RV planes aren't gas guzzlers! At 8000 ft on an economy cruise
setting
you get over 24 mpg (assuming no head wind) I would say that's
pretty
good. Fly at 10,000ft or 11,000ft and you get even better millage.
That's better than I get in my Ford Ranger. It's only about 6 mpg
away
from what some call a high millage for cars. My 24 mpg figure was
based
on the range listed on Van's website for an RV-7 at 55% power with
the
160 hp engine.
do not archive.
Chris W
KE5GIX
Good data point, I hadn't read that on Van's site.
I typically fly higher than 8000 feet, and since I've always been an
efficiency freak, my engine monitor has a readout directly in MPG (based
on TAS and fuel flow). I spend a lot of time tweaking & tuning to eke
out that last possible .1 mpg on those long cross countries. At 15,500
I can do a little better than 30 MPG at 175 mph TAS. Anyone else into
fuel efficiency? I'd love to hear your numbers. I honestly don't know
how the rotary engine compares to a Lyc when flown for max efficiency.
But I suspect it isn't much different.
While I have always been into energy efficiency, I have grown weary
of the painfully stupid mass media debate on the subject. Many of the
same folks who demand better fuel economy standards are often the same
ones to decry small cars as dangerous. Now I intend to use all the
fuel I want while dreading the day someone decides that private aviation
is too much of a security risk.
Tracy Crook (Wacko of many types)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/7/2006
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
--> RV-List message posted by: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> What did you say, you only heard of one accident?
>
> One accident attributed to autogas? ha ha That is not
> correct.
>
> A quick NTSB search with the words *automotive fuel*
> found about 250 hits. I cut it down to experimental and
> *automotive fuel* and got about 50 hits.
>
> I guess you have your facts wrong, so does that debunks
> the rest of what you say. That's OK, I was wrong once
> years ago.
>
> >
> >I thought the topic was over with
> >
>
> Well you thought wrong. I am sorry, too dumb to be
> straightened out. When you are an expert, you expect
> people to believe you. Sorry, to disappoint you.
>
> Here you go Mr. Expert :-)
>
> -More carb ice
> -More water in the carb
> -More unexplained power loss
>
> Just a few select AUTOMOTIVE FUEL mishaps:
George, while I thank you for the time you spent putting together the
reports they do not really help with your side of the discussion.
For as many hits as you found with the words auto fuel I could if I had
the time find many more example of
the same types of accidents with aircraft using strictly avgas. I am
sure you as I do as a flight instructor read the
accident reports everyday. The only situation where I agree with you is
in the handling process where fuel can
become contaminated with water or crud.
Jerry
do not archive
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
Tracy,
With due respect, Van's tested two more or less identical rotary conversions
in the "RV-Ator, 2nd issue of 2005. These were both RV-8's built as "twins"
by two friends and retired pilots, Jim Clark and Gerry Gustafson. These were
Powersport Rotaries and turned out beautifully. I had the pleasure of
viewing them and talking to both men at Van's Homecoming 2004.
The article is quite extensive, as was the testing, but I'll just mention
that at cruise with identical speeds, the article states "But, in all cases,
even at equal speeds, they burned more fuel than the reciprocation engines."
Also... "The rotaries were definitely noiser inside and out." For instance, at
cruise Van's RV8 burned 5.05 gals and the two rotaries 7.65 and 7.1
respectively. This was a round trip of 140nm.
So it appears from their data that rotaries, at least these two, burn
substantially more fuel. What do you think? I don't have a scanner, but would be
happy to fax or mail copies.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
That was seriously Cool data Dan.
Thanks also to Ed Bundy who supplied his numbers. It is surprisingly
hard to find RV drivers who keep track of this stuff (too busy having
fun in these things which I also understand : )
be a significant advantage. If you ever get the chance Dan, I'd like
to see you do the same test but instead of dropping manifold pressure
only, try dropping the prop rpm to get the same fuel flow numbers you
used. This should reduce pumping losses and result in even better
numbers. "Do not operate" zones on the prop rpm is the only possible
problem I can think of. I don't have that problem with my fixed pitch
wood prop but I have to put up with very high pumping losses, especially
at low altitude (which is another reason I cruise high).
Bottom line is that based on this info, I don't see a nickel's worth of
difference between the Lyc (when run LOP) and my Mazda rotary when it
comes to fuel economy. Cleanliness of the airframe makes more
difference than the engine. I always burn less fuel than the guys who
run Lycs ROP.
The horror stories about the fuel consumption of the rotary are based on
automotive experience. Ironically, the rotary is at it's worst in auto
use. The lower the engine load, the worse the rotary is. Car's
typically run at 10% or less power settings. At low power settings the
flame goes out in the large quench areas of the rotary combustion
chamber resulting in more unburned mixture. The higher the power load
is, the longer the flame stays lit and more complete combustion results.
The crumby results on the rotary RV-8 comparisons they did at Van's home
drome were the results of two factors.
1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage. They
should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two
engine types (it is not the same).
2. The EFI controllers used with the Powersport engines do not allow
the pilot to optimize the mixture. They were essentially running at
full rich the whole time. The designers of it did not consider the
users capable of deciding this and programmed what they thought was the
safest mixture setting (rich).
Tracy Crook
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Efficiency |
Mike,
Are you saying that you have your airplane completely finished, except
for a not yet available engine that you are waiting for? This could take
forever, like the ZOCHE Aerodiesel, which I first heard about back in
good old Nineteen-Eighty-Eight! So why not hang a low-/mid time
Lycoming on it for the time being, and by the time it may be worn out
and in need of an overhaul, then you can swap it out in favor of this
pixie duster propulsion system. But at least you keep the regular dust
of the airframe until then...
(Or use the Thielert product if you NEED to have a diesel!)
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Duran
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 12:17 PM
Subject: RV-List: Fuel Efficiency
I'm also into fuel efficiency, and would like to suggest that you
folks calculating NM/gal plug travel destinations into maps.google and
then compare the efficiency of your airplane travel with that of driving
a stupid utility vehicle going the same distance. If you haven't
already. The curvier the roads, the better to fly.
If Deltahawk ever gets their stuff together I'll finish this 7A and
start doing some "extreme" efficiency/mileage experiments :-). Anyone
else waiting on this pixie-dust engine?
Mike Duran
M20C
7A - airframe finished, treading water
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/7/2006
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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Vincent Osburn" <flyby41@earthlink.net>
With no disrespect intended to anyone.... man made global warming is a
farce I believe.....
"Carbon dioxide does occur naturally, of course, and is essential to
life on Earth, as it is an essential chemical component in the
photosynthesis process of plants."
"When Mount Pinatubo erupted it pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere than
humans did in the entire industrial age. The concern over anthropogenic CO2
emmissions is politics dressed up as science."
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2005/08/09/is-co2-a-pollutant/
> The United states produces about 60% of the world's Co2.
> This comes from cars, trucks and furnaces and it is a big deal.
> Co@ reflects the suns long wave radiations back into space
> and contributes greatly to global warming.
DO NOT ARCHIVE
> [Original Message]
> From: Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com>
> To: <rv-list@matronics.com>
> Date: 7/9/2006 8:57:54 AM
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Vincent Osburn wrote:
> With no disrespect intended to anyone.... man made global warming is a
> farce I believe.....
There were a lot of naysayers in the 60s and 70s about the effects
of smoking, too.
Just look at the money behind the people that say that global
warming is not real. Don't believe what anyone says, check out
the facts for yourself. The truth is out there!
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
> The United states produces about 60% of the world's Co2.
>This comes from cars, trucks and furnaces and it is a big deal.
>Co@ reflects the suns long wave radiations back into space
>and contributes greatly to global warming.
Nothing personal but anyone who touts the "global warming" crisis
and does not take into account the natural variation in Earth's temperature
is not credible. Besides, don't plant consume CO2?
Ron Lee
Do not archive
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
I tried to stay out of this BUT ...
First, I am over 55+ old.
Second, I am a trained Chemist and Computer Scientists. (Subjects with my
masters degrees)
I also built a Harmon Rocket. (This is the RV-List)
I teach chemistry, math and computer science at two local colleges.
After reading tons of stuff on the subject, I realize that I KNOW NOTHING
ABOUT IT.
I really think that scientists are in two camps: the first is the side that
is paying them (Follow the money, just like several people have stated) and
others are in the side that will get them money. If there is NO problem,
there is NO money. If you can make it look like there is a problem, money
will be thrown at you. Why is it in the newspapers, No problem - NO NEWS.
Problem - BIG NEWS. You only really hear from the "Problem" folks.
The other two camps are metal planes verse plastic ones (this is the
RV-List).
Why do I bring up my age: in the 60's and 70's and maybe even the early
80's. All I heard was about global cooling and the coming ice age. Now
scientists using the SAME DATA are telling us that it is global warning.
The book the "Population Bomb" stated that we would be living shoulder to
shoulder by now. Funny, I don't hear anything about it anymore. The OZONE
hole got bigger and smaller without any help from mankind in the past.
What about constant speed props compared to fix pitch (this is the RV-list).
If the earth is getting warmer, could it be the sun is getting hotter. Look
it up, the sun goes through cycles too and we are in a period where it is
hotter. If that is the case, could it the sun and have nothing to do with
mankind that there maybe a world wide temperature change.
What about tandem verse side by side seating (this is the RV-List).
What about the fact, that the earth has had several ice ages. That means it
got cold then it got warn then it got cold and then it got warm .... Once
again, mankind wasn't able to change the cycle or better yet create one.
But Van can and does produce a great series of kits (This is the RV-List).
Take another case, what if it was a good idea to melt all the polar ice. Go
find a scientist that could find a way to do it. CAN'T BE DONE with current
technology. So why do you think my car and plane will do it?
AOA, required or just a nice toy (This is the RV-List).
IS THERE A PROBLEM?: MAYBE. Should we try to be NICER to the planet: YOU
BET.
But anybody who claims to know is full of sh_t.
Of course, this is just one slightly educated man's opinion, who also built
a Harmon Rocket (This is the RV-List).
What next:
Abortion - Pro-Life
Tax Cuts for the Rich
War - Antiwar
that list is too long.
I am too old to be climbing on and off the soapbox. :-) If you clearly
want to take exception to anything I wrote, PLEASE email directly. As most
likely, I will be deleting any more emails on this subject on the RV-List
without reading them.
Can we talk about flying or building RVs again? I even have some fun F-4
stories that would be closer to the subject of this mailing list than this
rubbish. (OF COURSE, THIS IS THE RV-LIST).
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom & Cathy Ervin" <tcervin@valkyrie.net>
Agree, and one other small problem. The 28 active volcanoes account for
better than 77% of the worlds Co2 and are a primary reason the earth has
cooled and heated for about 80 cycles according to ice core samples. If all
man/animal made Co2 were eliminated (not feasible since we must breath) you
would still need to handle the other 90% Plus of the contributor's.....again
not feasible by today's technology.
Ohio was once a tropical swamp and despite all the "Emotional Rhetoric"
could very well be again due to the "NORMAL Cycle" the earth continues to go
through. By the way any solution for the Super Nova of our Sun in just a few
Billion YEARS?
DO NOT ARCHIVE Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 11:42 AM
> --> RV-List message posted by: Larry Mac Donald <lm4@juno.com>
>
> Dean,
> The United states produces about 60% of the world's Co2.
> This comes from cars, trucks and furnaces and it is a big deal.
> Co@ reflects the suns long wave radiations back into space
> and contributes greatly to global warming. It also mixes well
> with sulfur dioxide to form smog. Think Los Angelas. I agree
> with everything else you wrote. It would seem the
> environmentalists are quick to complain about things and want
> quick answers but are not willing to do the required studies to
> come up with responsible alternatives.
> Larry Mac Donald
> lm4@juno.com
> Rochester N.Y.
> Do not achcive
>
>
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 01:09:19 -0400 "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net> writes:
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS"
>> <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>>
> , if we had the "perfect" energy source that's fully
>> renewable and generates no toxic waste products or
> CO2 (I don't consider CO2 a hazard to our planets
> health) they would still find something
> "evil" about it!
>>
>> Dean Psiropoulos
>> RV-6A N197DM
>
>
>
Message 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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
So...are you saying there is no natural fluctuation of the earth's climate?
The Sahara was farm country a few thousand years ago and turned desert way
before the machine age, and even before the human population explosion
occurred. What about the redwood cones found above the arctic circle? I
don't say emissions of various kinds have NO effect, but how can the events
(volcanic and otherwise) that produce far more CO2 than decades of man made
emissions be discounted? I'm curious also how we can presume to know the
average temperature of a point on the earth's surface when records have been
kept for only a hundred years or so. Is it the same kind of science that
can build a complete culture from a couple of knife points and a molar?
No offense, but it seems the science that's out there is pretty selectively
chosen by the supporters of the current global warming theory. There's lots
that point the other way, too.
The people pushing the global warming theory aren't exactly operating out of
the back of a VW bus, either. There's plenty of money on both sides and
people on both sides making a living advocating their particular position.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 1:00 PM
> --> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Vincent Osburn wrote:
>> With no disrespect intended to anyone.... man made global warming is a
>> farce I believe.....
>
> There were a lot of naysayers in the 60s and 70s about the effects
> of smoking, too.
>
> Just look at the money behind the people that say that global
> warming is not real. Don't believe what anyone says, check out
> the facts for yourself. The truth is out there!
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
> do not archive
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "Olen Goodwin" <ogoodwin@comcast.net>
Thank you, Tom Gummo. Excellent post and many points made.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 2:58 PM
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
>
> I tried to stay out of this BUT ...
>
> First, I am over 55+ old.
>
> Second, I am a trained Chemist and Computer Scientists. (Subjects with my
> masters degrees)
> I also built a Harmon Rocket. (This is the RV-List)
> I teach chemistry, math and computer science at two local colleges.
> After reading tons of stuff on the subject, I realize that I KNOW NOTHING
> ABOUT IT.
>
> I really think that scientists are in two camps: the first is the side
> that is paying them (Follow the money, just like several people have
> stated) and others are in the side that will get them money. If there is
> NO problem, there is NO money. If you can make it look like there is a
> problem, money will be thrown at you. Why is it in the newspapers, No
> problem - NO NEWS. Problem - BIG NEWS. You only really hear from the
> "Problem" folks.
>
> The other two camps are metal planes verse plastic ones (this is the
> RV-List).
>
> Why do I bring up my age: in the 60's and 70's and maybe even the early
> 80's. All I heard was about global cooling and the coming ice age. Now
> scientists using the SAME DATA are telling us that it is global warning.
> The book the "Population Bomb" stated that we would be living shoulder to
> shoulder by now. Funny, I don't hear anything about it anymore. The
> OZONE hole got bigger and smaller without any help from mankind in the
> past.
>
> What about constant speed props compared to fix pitch (this is the
> RV-list).
>
> If the earth is getting warmer, could it be the sun is getting hotter.
> Look it up, the sun goes through cycles too and we are in a period where
> it is hotter. If that is the case, could it the sun and have nothing to
> do with mankind that there maybe a world wide temperature change.
>
> What about tandem verse side by side seating (this is the RV-List).
>
> What about the fact, that the earth has had several ice ages. That means
> it got cold then it got warn then it got cold and then it got warm ....
> Once again, mankind wasn't able to change the cycle or better yet create
> one.
>
> But Van can and does produce a great series of kits (This is the RV-List).
>
> Take another case, what if it was a good idea to melt all the polar ice.
> Go find a scientist that could find a way to do it. CAN'T BE DONE with
> current technology. So why do you think my car and plane will do it?
>
> AOA, required or just a nice toy (This is the RV-List).
>
> IS THERE A PROBLEM?: MAYBE. Should we try to be NICER to the planet: YOU
> BET.
> But anybody who claims to know is full of sh_t.
> Of course, this is just one slightly educated man's opinion, who also
> built a Harmon Rocket (This is the RV-List).
>
> What next:
> Abortion - Pro-Life
> Tax Cuts for the Rich
> War - Antiwar
> that list is too long.
>
> I am too old to be climbing on and off the soapbox. :-) If you clearly
> want to take exception to anything I wrote, PLEASE email directly. As
> most likely, I will be deleting any more emails on this subject on the
> RV-List without reading them.
>
> Can we talk about flying or building RVs again? I even have some fun F-4
> stories that would be closer to the subject of this mailing list than this
> rubbish. (OF COURSE, THIS IS THE RV-LIST).
>
>
> Tom Gummo
> Apple Valley, CA
> Harmon Rocket-II
>
> do not archive
>
> http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fossil energy or What! |
--> RV-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Right on Gummy, Lets get back to building!!
Jim
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JOHN STARN" <jhstarn@verizon.net>
BUT TOM: Ya left off the proper taxi wheel location and which primer to use
or not to use at all.
Sorry folks, he got away from me this morning as I went to Costco. BUT for
those of you that have been on the list for a while, ya'll know that if it's
wrong it's my FAULT. Do Not Archive KABONG 8*)
----- Original Message -----
<T.gummo@verizon.net>
>
> I tried to stay out of this BUT ...
>
> First, I am over 55+ old.
>
> Second, I am a trained Chemist and Computer Scientists. (Subjects with my
> masters degrees)
> I also built a Harmon Rocket. (This is the RV-List)
> I teach chemistry, math and computer science at two local colleges.
> After reading tons of stuff on the subject, I realize that I KNOW NOTHING
> ABOUT IT.
>
> I really think that scientists are in two camps: the first is the side
> that is paying them (Follow the money, just like several people have
> stated) and others are in the side that will get them money. If there is
> NO problem, there is NO money. If you can make it look like there is a
> problem, money will be thrown at you. Why is it in the newspapers, No
> problem - NO NEWS. Problem - BIG NEWS. You only really hear from the
> "Problem" folks.
>
> The other two camps are metal planes verse plastic ones (this is the
> RV-List).
>
> Why do I bring up my age: in the 60's and 70's and maybe even the early
> 80's. All I heard was about global cooling and the coming ice age. Now
> scientists using the SAME DATA are telling us that it is global warning.
> The book the "Population Bomb" stated that we would be living shoulder to
> shoulder by now. Funny, I don't hear anything about it anymore. The
> OZONE hole got bigger and smaller without any help from mankind in the
> past.
>
> What about constant speed props compared to fix pitch (this is the
> RV-list).
>
> If the earth is getting warmer, could it be the sun is getting hotter.
> Look it up, the sun goes through cycles too and we are in a period where
> it is hotter. If that is the case, could it the sun and have nothing to
> do with mankind that there maybe a world wide temperature change.
>
> What about tandem verse side by side seating (this is the RV-List).
>
> What about the fact, that the earth has had several ice ages. That means
> it got cold then it got warn then it got cold and then it got warm ....
> Once again, mankind wasn't able to change the cycle or better yet create
> one.
>
> But Van can and does produce a great series of kits (This is the RV-List).
>
> Take another case, what if it was a good idea to melt all the polar ice.
> Go find a scientist that could find a way to do it. CAN'T BE DONE with
> current technology. So why do you think my car and plane will do it?
>
> AOA, required or just a nice toy (This is the RV-List).
>
> IS THERE A PROBLEM?: MAYBE. Should we try to be NICER to the planet: YOU
> BET.
> But anybody who claims to know is full of sh_t.
> Of course, this is just one slightly educated man's opinion, who also
> built a Harmon Rocket (This is the RV-List).
>
> What next:
> Abortion - Pro-Life
> Tax Cuts for the Rich
> War - Antiwar
> that list is too long.
>
> I am too old to be climbing on and off the soapbox. :-) If you clearly
> want to take exception to anything I wrote, PLEASE email directly. As
> most likely, I will be deleting any more emails on this subject on the
> RV-List without reading them.
>
> Can we talk about flying or building RVs again? I even have some fun F-4
> stories that would be closer to the subject of this mailing list than this
> rubbish. (OF COURSE, THIS IS THE RV-LIST).
>
>
> Tom Gummo
> Apple Valley, CA
> Harmon Rocket-II
>
> do not archive
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: Joe Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
You mean, the plans in the rain forests?
Hmm. What rain forests? All I see is farmland.
-J
On Jul 9, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Ron Lee wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Ron Lee <ronlee@pcisys.net>
>
>
> Nothing personal but anyone who touts the "global warming" crisis
> and does not take into account the natural variation in Earth's
> temperature
> is not credible. Besides, don't plant consume CO2?
>
> Ron Lee
>
> Do not archive
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
The fuel economy test was based on a side by side cross country trip
where the prop rpm was to be held at a certain rpm (2500 as I recall)
and the speed held at various airspeeds by throttle position. This test
was reported in two places, the RVator and in Sport Aviation (or was it
Kitplanes, memory slipping) and I can't remember which one reported the
specifics of the test conditions.
I'll see if I can dig up the article in my stacks of stuff for
attribution.
Tracy Crook
----- Original Message -----
From: Mickey Coggins<mailto:mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
--> RV-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
<mick-matronics@rv8.ch<mailto:mick-matronics@rv8.ch>>
> 1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage.
They
> should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two
> engine types (it is not the same).
Tracy,
What is the fixed prop RPM rule? I don't recall reading anything
about this in the article. Apologies if it was there and I missed it.
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/<http://www.rv8.ch/>
#82007 finishing
do not archive
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV-List>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
=========================
==========
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel..... |
Hi Jerry,
I've read the articles (those were the planes I was referring to) and do
not dispute the results at all, as I said, the rotaries had 'crumby'
results. I only offered the reasons why I believe these two rotary
powered planes did so poorly on the tests. My RV-4 is not nearly as
clean (aerodynamically due to fit and finish) as those beautiful RV-8s
but I get significantly better fuel economy when I try to duplicate
those test conditions. I don't have a CS prop so can't do it perfectly.
The main difference is, I have full control of mixture and they do
not.
As far as the noise issue, both of the RV-8s now have an improved
muffler system since that test was done and are much quieter. Ask Jim
& Gerry about that for details.
Tracy Crook
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry2DT@aol.com<mailto:Jerry2DT@aol.com>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
Tracy,
With due respect, Van's tested two more or less identical rotary
conversions in the "RV-Ator, 2nd issue of 2005. These were both RV-8's
built as "twins" by two friends and retired pilots, Jim Clark and Gerry
Gustafson. These were Powersport Rotaries and turned out beautifully. I
had the pleasure of viewing them and talking to both men at Van's
Homecoming 2004.
The article is quite extensive, as was the testing, but I'll just
mention that at cruise with identical speeds, the article states "But,
in all cases, even at equal speeds, they burned more fuel than the
reciprocation engines." Also... "The rotaries were definitely noiser
inside and out." For instance, at cruise Van's RV8 burned 5.05 gals and
the two rotaries 7.65 and 7.1 respectively. This was a round trip of
140nm.
So it appears from their data that rotaries, at least these two, burn
substantially more fuel. What do you think? I don't have a scanner, but
would be happy to fax or mail copies.
Jerry Cochran
Wilsonville, OR
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
Subject: Re: RV-List:Fuel economy / was Fossil energy fuel.....
That was seriously Cool data Dan.
Thanks also to Ed Bundy who supplied his numbers. It is
surprisingly
hard to find RV drivers who keep track of this stuff (too busy
having
fun in these things which I also understand : )
be a significant advantage. If you ever get the chance Dan, I'd
like
to see you do the same test but instead of dropping manifold
pressure
only, try dropping the prop rpm to get the same fuel flow numbers
you
used. This should reduce pumping losses and result in even better
numbers. "Do not operate" zones on the prop rpm is the only
possible
problem I can think of. I don't have that problem with my fixed
pitch
wood prop but I have to put up with very high pumping losses,
especially
at low altitude (which is another reason I cruise high).
Bottom line is that based on this info, I don't see a nickel's worth
of
difference between the Lyc (when run LOP) and my Mazda rotary when
it
comes to fuel economy. Cleanliness of the airframe makes more
difference than the engine. I always burn less fuel than the guys
who
run Lycs ROP.
The horror stories about the fuel consumption of the rotary are
based on
automotive experience. Ironically, the rotary is at it's worst in
auto
use. The lower the engine load, the worse the rotary is. Car's
typically run at 10% or less power settings. At low power settings
the
flame goes out in the large quench areas of the rotary combustion
chamber resulting in more unburned mixture. The higher the power
load
is, the longer the flame stays lit and more complete combustion
results.
The crumby results on the rotary RV-8 comparisons they did at Van's
home
drome were the results of two factors.
1. The fixed prop RPM rule put the rotaries at a disadvantage.
They
should have allowed the pilots to set it at best economy for the two
engine types (it is not the same).
2. The EFI controllers used with the Powersport engines do not
allow
the pilot to optimize the mixture. They were essentially running at
full rich the whole time. The designers of it did not consider the
users capable of deciding this and programmed what they thought was
the
safest mixture setting (rich).
Tracy Crook
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: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
God that was good Gummo! Laughed so hard I pissed in my flight suit.
(This is the RV-list)
Tracy Crook
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Gummo<mailto:T.gummo@verizon.net>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo"
<T.gummo@verizon.net<mailto:T.gummo@verizon.net>>
I tried to stay out of this BUT ...
First, I am over 55+ old.
Second, I am a trained Chemist and Computer Scientists. (Subjects
with my
masters degrees)
I also built a Harmon Rocket. (This is the RV-List)
I teach chemistry, math and computer science at two local colleges.
After reading tons of stuff on the subject, I realize that I KNOW
NOTHING
ABOUT IT.
I really think that scientists are in two camps: the first is the side
that
is paying them (Follow the money, just like several people have
stated) and
others are in the side that will get them money. If there is NO
problem,
there is NO money. If you can make it look like there is a problem,
money
will be thrown at you. Why is it in the newspapers, No problem - NO
NEWS.
Problem - BIG NEWS. You only really hear from the "Problem" folks.
The other two camps are metal planes verse plastic ones (this is the
RV-List).
Why do I bring up my age: in the 60's and 70's and maybe even the
early
80's. All I heard was about global cooling and the coming ice age.
Now
scientists using the SAME DATA are telling us that it is global
warning.
The book the "Population Bomb" stated that we would be living shoulder
to
shoulder by now. Funny, I don't hear anything about it anymore. The
OZONE
hole got bigger and smaller without any help from mankind in the past.
What about constant speed props compared to fix pitch (this is the
RV-list).
If the earth is getting warmer, could it be the sun is getting hotter.
Look
it up, the sun goes through cycles too and we are in a period where it
is
hotter. If that is the case, could it the sun and have nothing to do
with
mankind that there maybe a world wide temperature change.
What about tandem verse side by side seating (this is the RV-List).
What about the fact, that the earth has had several ice ages. That
means it
got cold then it got warn then it got cold and then it got warm ....
Once
again, mankind wasn't able to change the cycle or better yet create
one.
But Van can and does produce a great series of kits (This is the
RV-List).
Take another case, what if it was a good idea to melt all the polar
ice. Go
find a scientist that could find a way to do it. CAN'T BE DONE with
current
technology. So why do you think my car and plane will do it?
AOA, required or just a nice toy (This is the RV-List).
IS THERE A PROBLEM?: MAYBE. Should we try to be NICER to the planet:
YOU
BET.
But anybody who claims to know is full of sh_t.
Of course, this is just one slightly educated man's opinion, who also
built
a Harmon Rocket (This is the RV-List).
What next:
Abortion - Pro-Life
Tax Cuts for the Rich
War - Antiwar
that list is too long.
I am too old to be climbing on and off the soapbox. :-) If you
clearly
want to take exception to anything I wrote, PLEASE email directly. As
most
likely, I will be deleting any more emails on this subject on the
RV-List
without reading them.
Can we talk about flying or building RVs again? I even have some fun
F-4
stories that would be closer to the subject of this mailing list than
this
rubbish. (OF COURSE, THIS IS THE RV-LIST).
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html<http://mysite.verizon.net/t.
gummo/index.html>
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List<http://www.matronics.com/Navig
ator?RV-List>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
http://www.matronics.com/contribution<http://www.matronics.com/contributi
on>
=========================
==========
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: Dinosaur Dung /... SAY WHAT? |
So, what actually happened to the RV-List ? ? ?
Does anyone know where it went? Just curious!
----- Original Message -----
From: Tracy Crook
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
God that was good Gummo! Laughed so hard I pissed in my flight suit.
(This is the RV-list)
Tracy Crook
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Gummo
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
I tried to stay out of this BUT ...
First, I am over 55+ old.
Second, I am a trained Chemist and Computer Scientists. (Subjects
with my
masters degrees)
I also built a Harmon Rocket. (This is the RV-List)
I teach chemistry, math and computer science at two local colleges.
After reading tons of stuff on the subject, I realize that I KNOW
NOTHING
ABOUT IT.
I really think that scientists are in two camps: the first is the
side that
is paying them (Follow the money, just like several people have
stated) and
others are in the side that will get them money. If there is NO
problem,
there is NO money. If you can make it look like there is a problem,
money
will be thrown at you. Why is it in the newspapers, No problem - NO
NEWS.
Problem - BIG NEWS. You only really hear from the "Problem" folks.
The other two camps are metal planes verse plastic ones (this is the
RV-List).
Why do I bring up my age: in the 60's and 70's and maybe even the
early
80's. All I heard was about global cooling and the coming ice age.
Now
scientists using the SAME DATA are telling us that it is global
warning.
The book the "Population Bomb" stated that we would be living
shoulder to
shoulder by now. Funny, I don't hear anything about it anymore.
The OZONE
hole got bigger and smaller without any help from mankind in the
past.
What about constant speed props compared to fix pitch (this is the
RV-list).
If the earth is getting warmer, could it be the sun is getting
hotter. Look
it up, the sun goes through cycles too and we are in a period where
it is
hotter. If that is the case, could it the sun and have nothing to
do with
mankind that there maybe a world wide temperature change.
What about tandem verse side by side seating (this is the RV-List).
What about the fact, that the earth has had several ice ages. That
means it
got cold then it got warn then it got cold and then it got warm ...
Once
again, mankind wasn't able to change the cycle or better yet create
one.
But Van can and does produce a great series of kits (This is the
RV-List).
Take another case, what if it was a good idea to melt all the polar
ice. Go
find a scientist that could find a way to do it. CAN'T BE DONE with
current
technology. So why do you think my car and plane will do it?
AOA, required or just a nice toy (This is the RV-List).
IS THERE A PROBLEM?: MAYBE. Should we try to be NICER to the
planet: YOU
BET.
But anybody who claims to know is full of sh_t.
Of course, this is just one slightly educated man's opinion, who
also built
a Harmon Rocket (This is the RV-List).
What next:
Abortion - Pro-Life
Tax Cuts for the Rich
War - Antiwar
that list is too long.
I am too old to be climbing on and off the soapbox. :-) If you
clearly
want to take exception to anything I wrote, PLEASE email directly.
As most
likely, I will be deleting any more emails on this subject on the
RV-List
without reading them.
Can we talk about flying or building RVs again? I even have some
fun F-4
stories that would be closer to the subject of this mailing list
than this
rubbish. (OF COURSE, THIS IS THE RV-LIST).
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.veriz==================
=========================
=======Navigator Photoshare, and much much ;
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
=========================
nbsp; Email List ;
=========================
=========================
nbsp; generous bsp;
title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
=========================
================
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
No virus found in this incoming message.
7/7/2006
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
Since George has taken offense to our discussion, I think it best to
stop this discussion, now. It's obvious he has his own ideas based on
whatever he can come up with that supports his position. I have mine
based on what I've read and have actually experienced in the 2000 hours
I've flown with auto fuel. If any of you want to continue supporting
his narrative, be my guest. If you want to constructively discuss the
use of auto gas in your airplane, I'll answer any questions I can
offline. I'm no expert, and have never claimed to be; but, I do have
experience with its use in my airplanes. I've found that experience to
be a great teacher. That works for me and may not for others. If not,
follow George's lead and stay far away from the auto gas pumps. Be safe
with whatever you do.
Jim in KY
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 7:00 AM
Subject: RV-List: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch
>> <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Auto gas has lower vapor pressure, which means it
>> is more susceptible to vapor lock.
>>
>From: "Jim Sears" <jmsears@adelphia.net>
>
>
>George and I have had some discussion on this subject
>off line; and, I thought the topic was over with.
>
>Sorry, Goerge; but, you still have that one backwards,
>which helps to debunk the rest of what you say. Don't
>worry, I have had a hard time keeping this one straight,
>myself. :-)
>
>(para-phrase) I only know of one accident from using
>auto gas.
What did you say, you only heard of one accident?
One accident attributed to autogas? ha ha That is not
correct.
A quick NTSB search with the words *automotive fuel*
found about 250 hits. I cut it down to experimental and
*automotive fuel* and got about 50 hits.
I guess you have your facts wrong, so does that debunks
the rest of what you say. That's OK, I was wrong once
years ago.
>
>I thought the topic was over with
>
Well you thought wrong. I am sorry, too dumb to be
straightened out. When you are an expert, you expect
people to believe you. Sorry, to disappoint you.
Here you go Mr. Expert :-)
-More carb ice
-More water in the carb
-More unexplained power loss
Just a few select AUTOMOTIVE FUEL mishaps:
Power Loss in-flight hot day? hummmm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA91LA108&rpt=fi
RV's with fuel pressure problem hot day, more hummm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
Gee handling your own fuel can contaminate it? You think
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA033&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05CA144&rpt=fi
Carb ice more likely with auto fuel?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA035&rpt=fi
Mystery or auto fuel? Many unexplained loss of power
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA103&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98LA038&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi
Oops MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) and other additives
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX91DUJ01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060706X00876&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85LA127&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX83FA246&rpt=fi
Water and corrosion in the carb again and again?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN84FTG01&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95LA051&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL03FA142&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 050211X00183&key=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL97LA003&rpt=fi
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86LA168&rpt=fi
(this was only a few of many)
I see anecdotal evidence that auto fuel may have directly
or indirectly contributed to the grief of some of the above
pilot's and their plane?
I know by using your expert advice and procedures you can
avoid ALL the above? Well may be not all. The ones that
concern me the most are unexplained power loss on
hot days. (hint hint, over, do you copy, vapor lock, Roger?)
Note: Jim's mission in life is to promote auto fuel. He is doing
a great job. When anyone talks about risk it means nothing,
because it's not their fleshy buttock in the seat.
I don't CARE. Just be informed.
IF YOU USE AUTO FUEL AND SELF FUEL, aka HANDLE
FUEL, PLEASE BE CAREFUL. THERE ARE RISK AND IT
IS NOT ALL SUNSHINE AND BUTTERFLY'S.
It may not be as bad as I make it sound, but it is not as
great and carefree ( in my not so expert opinion) as Jim
makes it sound.
To use 1/2 auto and 1/2 avgas in each tank sounds weird
to me. Don't you trust your fuel? What do you all think. If you
don't trust you fuel to fly on, for all operations, do you want
it in your plane? ME? not so much. YOU? decide for yourself.
I don't care; I just suggest you know what you're getting.
If you do use AUTO FUEL contact Jim. He knows way more
than I do. However I know enough in 12,000 hours of flying
to know how to stay out of trouble. I want to be an expert
in power off emergency landings, but I never want to have
to prove I am an expert for real. I want to always have a
choice when and where I land. Using Avgas is just that little
bit better in my humble but ever so right opinion. :-)
It is NOT all about money as Jim makes it sounds. What
does and off field landing cost? I hope only bent metal.
Safety first, economy second.
Boy I hope you have learned I have spoken and there is
nothing left to be said. ha ha ha ha. Just kidding. Good
debate, learned a lot, but lets keep it to facts and opinion
and not personal comments.
Have a NICE DAY. George M :-)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: The TRUTH about MOGAS (very long) |
Here's one for the "you're gonna die because you use autogas" folks:
Today's OAT: 87 deg F.
This morning filled up with three six-gallon jugs of 87 octane gas (not 93,
not 91, but 87 octane), pulled the airplane up to the gas pump on our
airpark and added 6 gallons of 100LL. 75/25 mix. Flew to a flyin, ate
lunch then did a balloon pop contest and a spot landing contest. Had a
passenger with me. Flew around the flyin for about an hour, in the pattern
mixed in with several spam cans, super cubs, a T-6, PT-19, all in the
pattern at 100-120mph (didn't win the spot landing contest but got two out
of three balloons for a tie for first place). After we did that climbed out
to 6500 and headed home, and had some fun with some cumulus. Hottest CHT
hit 400 on the climb to 6500. After leveling off it settled back down to
365. Oil temp was 202. In other words, some ideal conditions for vapor
lock.
I'm here to tell you that I survived yet another hot but fun day using
autogas, with not even a hint vapor lock and no signs of overheating.
Regards,
Bob Japundza
RV-6 flying, F1 under const.
do not archive
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: MOGAS related Crashes, ouch |
C'mon McQueen, is this the best you can do? A quick search of the reports
containing the words "auto" & "fuel"? Didn't bother to read them, didja. I
did. Very informative, but wearily long and all of these reports that YOU CITED
offer pretty lousy support for your position on this debate. Unless y'all
wanna dig into each of these, I've commented on each below. Delete if
uninterested & do not archive-
Mark Phillips - Filtered Kroger goes in one side of my RV, 100LL on the other
& works just peachy!
In a message dated 07/09/2006 6:11:58 AM Central Daylight Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
Power Loss in-flight hot day? hummmm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA91LA108&rpt=fi
No mention of automotive fuel in probable cause statement.
RV's with fuel pressure problem hot day, more hummm
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI04CA141&rpt=fi
No mention of automotive fuel in probable cause statement.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
"An FAA inspector...found no evidence as to why the engine lost power"
Gee handling your own fuel can contaminate it? You think
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX06CA033&rpt=fi
Report states that pilot put rust/water contaminated fuel in his helicopter-
but then helicopters were never intended to fly anyway, eh? (in case you were
wondering, that was a joke...) Automotive fuel not cited as causal by NTSB
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN05CA144&rpt=fi
"Pilots failure to strain the fuel" (probable cause) plugged fuel filter as
contributing. No mention of auto fuel in findings...
Carb ice more likely with auto fuel?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA035&rpt=fi
"loss of engine power due to carburetor ice" and again, no mention of auto
fuel in probable cause statement.
Mystery or auto fuel? Many unexplained loss of power
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW95LA122&rpt=fi
Probable cause statement excerpt: "An FAA inspector, who examined the
aircraft, found no evidence as to why the engine lost power"
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=IAD05LA103&rpt=fi
"A loss of engine power for undetermined reasons"
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX98LA038&rpt=fi
"A complete loss of engine power for undetermined reasons"
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=MIA99LA134&rpt=fi
"A loss of engine power for undetermined reasons"
Oops MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) and other additives
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX91DUJ01&rpt=fi
Probable cause: "Engine failure due to improper fuel"- in Findings section:
"Fluid,fuel grade incorrect" Noteworthy here is that the NTSB made these
findings, but also tell us the aircraft was using automotive fuel. In a Volkswagen
engine. My dementia must be getting worse because I thought VWs were
automobiles- guess I'm wrong...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 060706X00876&key=1
In this preliminary report, it is stated that the Renegade in question had
fuel eight months old in it with some "stabilizer" added, and no means of
sumping the tanks. Didn't dig for the final, but my "guess" is "pilot
error".....duh...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=FTW85LA127&rpt=fi
"Softened tank sealant material was obstructing the tank strainer screen"
after this T-18 had been sitting for 8 months and no ispection of fuel system.
Another "duh" here- again no mention of auto gas in the probable cause
statement...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=LAX83FA246&rpt=fi
Probable cause statement missing- a Varieze with pax operating at 10K DA, and
no connection made between accident and auto gas.
Water and corrosion in the carb again and again?
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=DEN84FTG01&rpt=fi
Another water and debris in carb & tanks after plane was sitting all winter.
Pilot did not sump tanks (again) duh (again)
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=CHI95LA051&rpt=fi
Auto gas used, water found in carb after engine quit & plane spun in. Engine
make: Buick. Last time I check, these were common in autos, but again, I may
be wrong...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL03FA142&rpt=fi
C-172 with STC for auto gas. Guess what? Debris & water found in gas.
Another "duh" bites the dust...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 050211X00183&key=1
Witness "said that the engine sounded strong until the thud, and it did not
sputter or backfire." Preliminary report- only mention of auto gas was that
the carb contents appeared to be so. Hmmm- sounds like it was working pretty
well right up to the point the pilot spun in...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL97LA003&rpt=fi
Another case of contaminated fuel and sadly another entry into the "duh"
category...
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=ATL86LA168&rpt=fi
Another easy one- gas tank is lower than engine (according to the physics of
"gravity sucks") and pilot did not turn on boost pump. If this was the Harry
S. Truman and the control rods had been dumped on all reactors, the boat would
eventally come to a dead halt too, no? Another "duh", dammit...
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Need Help with Cowling Ducts |
--> RV-List message posted by: "N395V" <n395v@hughes.net>
Les,
Is he sure his transducer is working correctly?
I run air thru my oil cooler after it has been over the cylinders and have 30%
of the oil cooler covered and can't get my oil temps above 160 on a hot day.
--------
Milt
N395V
F1 Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=45993#45993
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dinosaur Dung /... SAY WHAT? |
--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
Konrad L. Werner wrote:
> So, what actually happened to the RV-List ? ? ?
> Does anyone know where it went? Just curious!
Did I miss the part where some one was preventing posts or replies to
posts on rv related subjects?
do not archive
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RV Fuel Efficiency, Page AZ and Antelope Canyon |
Here is a real-life example comparing flying and driving to the same
place. The plane is an RV-6A, O-360 carbureted, one Lightspeed ignition
some drag from old wheelpants and one crooked main gear fairing.
Car is a 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo, cruise control, 8 Cylinder
and automatic with full time 4WD.
Flight to Page took three hours (headwind) at 16,500 feet. Distance
about 400 statute miles using 19.5 gallons of 100LL. The comes to
20.5 miles/gallon (6.5 GPH). Add one hour for additional time before
and after the flight and the trip took four hours. As an aside, the trip
back took 2.5 hours and burned 14.9 gallons for 26.8 MPG (6 gallons/hr).
The trip back was at 17,500 feet and I had about a 30 knot tailwind.
The car trip took 12 hours each way. 600 miles at 21 MPG burned
about 28.6 gallons each way.
The plane trip was done in one day whereas the car trip took over two
days and required two nights in a hotel.
Pictures for perusal included.
Ron Lee
<http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower16Apr06_14Small.jpg>http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower16Apr06_14Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower16Apr06_79Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower16Apr06_91Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper16Apr06_19Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper16Apr06_28Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower2Jun06_006Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower2Jun06_042Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower2Jun06_108Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Lower2Jun06_112Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper2Jun06_032Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper2Jun06_072Small.jpg
http://www.pcisys.net/~ronlee/Upper2Jun06_167Small.jpg
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Gluing Canopy Skirt - RV-8 |
--> RV-List message posted by: "dick martin" <martin@gbonline.com>
Mike,
In reference to your comment "speeds that other RV8s can only dream abount".
This statement has left me with a bit of skepticism.
I am assuming that this statement means that your RV8 is faster than all of
the others. It would seem to me that you would be anxious to demonstrate
your prowess in the Air Venture Race just before Oshkosh. Their is still
time to squeeze in a potentially class winning participant. Contact Eric
White immediately and he may be able to squeeze you in the Race.
I , John Huft and Dave Anders would really enjoy some j
"high speed" competition.
Dick Martin
RV8 N233M
the fast one
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2006 9:07 AM
> --> 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 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Bleeding the brakes |
I tried to bleed the brakes with a little pump can like others have
talked about doing. Well it made a big mess and did not work well. I
asked a fellow RV builder (thanks Larry) about how he did it and found
out from him that I could make a small pump sprayer into a pressurized
brake bleeder. Here is how I made mine and it works great. It does take
two people to do the job. I bought a 1-1/2 quart pump sprayer from Lowes
allow with three different size pieces of tubing I put the tubing
together and zip tied them to help hold them together. I used a small
plug that came out of an instrument to attach another short piece of
tubing to use as an overflow line to hold on the reservoir so the extra
brake fluid could be caught in a bottle. Now this is the to do this job!
When the job is all done the tubing can be stored in the tank to keep
from losing it.
--
My new email address: bobbyhester@charter.net
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A N857BH SB wings-QB Fuse-XPO360 engine :-)
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dinosaur Dung /... SAY WHAT? |
--> RV-List message posted by: "JAMES BOWEN" <jabowenjr@hotmail.com>
Ya I think the moderator/ s are getting a little too uptight here.
Jim Bowen
RV-8
>From: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Dinosaur Dung /... SAY WHAT?
>Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:33:00 -0500
>
>--> RV-List message posted by: Chris W <3edcft6@cox.net>
>
>Konrad L. Werner wrote:
>
>>So, what actually happened to the RV-List ? ? ?
>>Does anyone know where it went? Just curious!
>
>Did I miss the part where some one was preventing posts or replies to posts
>on rv related subjects?
>
>do not archive
>
>--
>Chris W
>KE5GIX
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
--> RV-List message posted by: David Maib <dmaib@mac.com>
Thank you Tom Gummo!!
do not archive
On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Tom Gummo wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
I tried to stay out of this BUT ...
First, I am over 55+ old.
Second, I am a trained Chemist and Computer Scientists. (Subjects
with my masters degrees)
I also built a Harmon Rocket. (This is the RV-List)
I teach chemistry, math and computer science at two local colleges.
After reading tons of stuff on the subject, I realize that I KNOW
NOTHING ABOUT IT.
I really think that scientists are in two camps: the first is the
side that is paying them (Follow the money, just like several people
have stated) and others are in the side that will get them money. If
there is NO problem, there is NO money. If you can make it look like
there is a problem, money will be thrown at you. Why is it in the
newspapers, No problem - NO NEWS. Problem - BIG NEWS. You only
really hear from the "Problem" folks.
The other two camps are metal planes verse plastic ones (this is the
RV-List).
Why do I bring up my age: in the 60's and 70's and maybe even the
early 80's. All I heard was about global cooling and the coming ice
age. Now scientists using the SAME DATA are telling us that it is
global warning. The book the "Population Bomb" stated that we would
be living shoulder to shoulder by now. Funny, I don't hear anything
about it anymore. The OZONE hole got bigger and smaller without any
help from mankind in the past.
What about constant speed props compared to fix pitch (this is the RV-
list).
If the earth is getting warmer, could it be the sun is getting
hotter. Look it up, the sun goes through cycles too and we are in a
period where it is hotter. If that is the case, could it the sun and
have nothing to do with mankind that there maybe a world wide
temperature change.
What about tandem verse side by side seating (this is the RV-List).
What about the fact, that the earth has had several ice ages. That
means it got cold then it got warn then it got cold and then it got
warm .... Once again, mankind wasn't able to change the cycle or
better yet create one.
But Van can and does produce a great series of kits (This is the RV-
List).
Take another case, what if it was a good idea to melt all the polar
ice. Go find a scientist that could find a way to do it. CAN'T BE
DONE with current technology. So why do you think my car and plane
will do it?
AOA, required or just a nice toy (This is the RV-List).
IS THERE A PROBLEM?: MAYBE. Should we try to be NICER to the planet:
YOU BET.
But anybody who claims to know is full of sh_t.
Of course, this is just one slightly educated man's opinion, who also
built a Harmon Rocket (This is the RV-List).
What next:
Abortion - Pro-Life
Tax Cuts for the Rich
War - Antiwar
that list is too long.
I am too old to be climbing on and off the soapbox. :-) If you
clearly want to take exception to anything I wrote, PLEASE email
directly. As most likely, I will be deleting any more emails on this
subject on the RV-List without reading them.
Can we talk about flying or building RVs again? I even have some fun
F-4 stories that would be closer to the subject of this mailing list
than this rubbish. (OF COURSE, THIS IS THE RV-LIST).
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
wiki.matronics.com
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: non-swiveling tail wheel |
How do you identify the non-swivel by looking at it and what is involved
in
replacing it to a swivel type? My fuse kit was purchased in 1993. I don
't
believe my tailwheel will swivel. Something I only recently discovered w
hen
I installed my chains. I plan to remove them this weekend to find out i
f I
can swivel and am bound up or doesn't swivel. (Then throw the chains awa
y
and install tail lynx system)
Tim RV-6
-------Original Message-------
--> RV-List message posted by: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
It will go 90, but not much more than that before the
chains bind up. Another words, the chains are the
limiting factor..the will swivel but the chains
inhibit the movement. Will be upgrading to swivel
tailwheel soon!
Paul Besing
--- Jeff Point <jpoint@mindspring.com> wrote:
> --> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Point
> <jpoint@mindspring.com>
>
> Does anyone know how much travel the old style
> non-swiveling tail wheels
> had? I'm looking for degrees side to side from
> center.
>
> Jeff Point
> RV-6
> Milwaukee
> do not archive
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
> Admin.
>
>
__________________________________________________
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
Message 34
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Fossil energy fuel to produce ethanol |
Good on you Tom. I have been deleting them unread for days.
Atan
-------Original Message-------
--> RV-List message posted by: David Maib <dmaib@mac.com>
Thank you Tom Gummo!!
do not archive
On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Tom Gummo wrote:
--> RV-List message posted by: "Tom Gummo" <T.gummo@verizon.net>
I tried to stay out of this BUT ...
First, I am over 55+ old.
Second, I am a trained Chemist and Computer Scientists. (Subjects
with my masters degrees)
I also built a Harmon Rocket. (This is the RV-List)
I teach chemistry, math and computer science at two local colleges.
After reading tons of stuff on the subject, I realize that I KNOW
NOTHING ABOUT IT.
I really think that scientists are in two camps: the first is the
side that is paying them (Follow the money, just like several people
have stated) and others are in the side that will get them money. If
there is NO problem, there is NO money. If you can make it look like
there is a problem, money will be thrown at you. Why is it in the
newspapers, No problem - NO NEWS. Problem - BIG NEWS. You only
really hear from the "Problem" folks.
The other two camps are metal planes verse plastic ones (this is the
RV-List).
Why do I bring up my age: in the 60's and 70's and maybe even the
early 80's. All I heard was about global cooling and the coming ice
age. Now scientists using the SAME DATA are telling us that it is
global warning. The book the "Population Bomb" stated that we would
be living shoulder to shoulder by now. Funny, I don't hear anything
about it anymore. The OZONE hole got bigger and smaller without any
help from mankind in the past.
What about constant speed props compared to fix pitch (this is the RV-
list).
If the earth is getting warmer, could it be the sun is getting
hotter. Look it up, the sun goes through cycles too and we are in a
period where it is hotter. If that is the case, could it the sun and
have nothing to do with mankind that there maybe a world wide
temperature change.
What about tandem verse side by side seating (this is the RV-List).
What about the fact, that the earth has had several ice ages. That
means it got cold then it got warn then it got cold and then it got
warm .... Once again, mankind wasn't able to change the cycle or
better yet create one.
But Van can and does produce a great series of kits (This is the RV-
List).
Take another case, what if it was a good idea to melt all the polar
ice. Go find a scientist that could find a way to do it. CAN'T BE
DONE with current technology. So why do you think my car and plane
will do it?
AOA, required or just a nice toy (This is the RV-List).
IS THERE A PROBLEM?: MAYBE. Should we try to be NICER to the planet:
YOU BET.
But anybody who claims to know is full of sh_t.
Of course, this is just one slightly educated man's opinion, who also
built a Harmon Rocket (This is the RV-List).
What next:
Abortion - Pro-Life
Tax Cuts for the Rich
War - Antiwar
that list is too long.
I am too old to be climbing on and off the soapbox. :-) If you
clearly want to take exception to anything I wrote, PLEASE email
directly. As most likely, I will be deleting any more emails on this
subject on the RV-List without reading them.
Can we talk about flying or building RVs again? I even have some fun
F-4 stories that would be closer to the subject of this mailing list
than this rubbish. (OF COURSE, THIS IS THE RV-LIST).
Tom Gummo
Apple Valley, CA
Harmon Rocket-II
do not archive
http://mysite.verizon.net/t.gummo/index.html
www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
wiki.matronics.com
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
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! --
|