Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:52 AM - Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (Tracy Crook)
2. 08:23 AM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (Bubblehead)
3. 10:20 AM - Spinner fit to prop cutout ? (Bill Schlatterer)
4. 11:26 AM - Re: Re: Re:Alternative engines (c.ennis@insightbb.com)
5. 11:46 AM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) ()
6. 12:30 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Sam Buchanan)
7. 12:30 PM - Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (Ollie Washburn)
8. 12:34 PM - The Ethanol Fantasy (Rick Galati)
9. 01:01 PM - Re: The Ethanol Fantasy (John Jessen)
10. 01:01 PM - Airnav:Mogas (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
11. 01:02 PM - Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (Rob Prior)
12. 01:13 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines ()
13. 01:16 PM - Alternate Engines (John Fasching)
14. 01:31 PM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) ()
15. 01:46 PM - Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) ()
16. 01:57 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Ken Arnold)
17. 02:31 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (JFLEISC@aol.com)
18. 02:39 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (JFLEISC@aol.com)
19. 02:43 PM - Re: Airnav:Mogas (John W. Cox)
20. 02:51 PM - Re: The Ethanol Fantasy (John W. Cox)
21. 03:38 PM - Re: RV-4 Question (Charlie England)
22. 04:06 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
23. 04:22 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Ed Holyoke)
24. 04:46 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Sam Buchanan)
25. 07:22 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Kelly McMullen)
26. 07:41 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Sam Buchanan)
27. 08:03 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Kelly McMullen)
28. 08:06 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (William Britton)
29. 08:26 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Scott)
30. 08:46 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (William Britton)
31. 08:50 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Sam Buchanan)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM, <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car
> based engines are at least several or all
> of the following:
>
> -heavier
> -More noise
> -low on power
> -fuel burn same or higher than air cooling
> -more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)
>
I've already confessed that alternative engines are a mistake for most
builders but couldn't let this go unchallenged :>)
-Heavier
Not necessarily. My Mazda powered RV-4 empty weight (but including engine
oil) is 948 lbs. This is at the light end of the spectrum.
-More noise
True, but only when not running a muffler. Measured with a sound pressure
instrument, my muffled rotary was a couple of db less than a Lyc on fly-by
at same airspeed.
-Low on power
My rate of climb solo with 1/2 tanks on a standard day is 2650 fpm with a
fixed pitch prop. This was measured back when I was running an early 13B
rated at 160 HP. No documentation to support that, just my word. That same
engine turned in a standing start average speed of 209.2 MPH in 2003 and
217.56 MPH in 2004 Sun 100 air races. These are numbers you can verify.
After all the agony of installing an alternative engine (and there was a
lot), it was all worth it for that radio call - "Race 25, Race 29 is passing
high and outside" for the first place win in Category 8. Life is defined
by moments like that!
- Fuel burn higher
Sometimes yes. At low altitude, it looks like I burn about 5% more than an
agressively leaned Lycoming. The guys that run ROP Lycs burn slightly more
than I do. My fuel numbers look best at high altitude. At 15,500 ft.
throttled back to 172 mph TAS it burns 6 GPH. Most RV drivers think this
is fantastic but a lot of Lyc powered RVs could show similar numbers if they
throttled back a bit.
None of this was accomplished by spending cubic dollars, fancy airframe mods
or ultra precise building. The RV-4 was built on a $20k budget (1994
dollars) and most pilots would describe it as 'rough around the edges'. I
do think it was built with a good understanding of how cooling drag is
minimized in a liquid cooled installation. I'm sure Honda could do better
but true, there ain't no money in it for them.
Tracy Crook
>
>
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
[quote="rv7(at)b4.ca"]On 6:45 2008-03-08 wrote:
> Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
> you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
> not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
> in a car.
>
>
1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph. That's a pretty fast car that
you're driving for 2000 hours. Unless you really meant "1 to 2 million
miles," in which case you're only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000
hours. Most cars on the road today would do well to average 40mph, let
alone 60.
[quote]
Someone needs to check their math!
1/2 million miles/2000 hrs = 250 mph
1 million miles/2000 hrs = 500 mph
2 million miles/2000 hrs = 1000 mph ----- not 60-120!
--------
John Dalman
Elburn, IL
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168572#168572
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: | Spinner fit to prop cutout ? |
Just mounted the prop - Hartzell BA and now need to fit the spinner. 7a
with o-360. It has not been run yet so there has never been any oil
circulating from the engine to the prop. Is there any problem twisting
the prop from coarse to fine pitch by hand to fit the prop relief in the
spinner cutout? Any way to damage the prop? Any way to make it easier?
How much effort would be "normally" required to twist it from coarse to
fine?
Help appreciated!
Thanks
Bill S
7a Ark
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:Alternative engines |
John,
As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any insight into what's right
or what's wrong about flying with auto fuel, I only know what I read. Having
said that, I fly with a certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In
order to maintain that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole carburation
system to some other special improved system, voids the certification
and I must remove the factory data plate from my engine. I realize that some
would see no problem with this, though it does reduce the perceived value of
your aircraft in some buyers minds. As I recall Lyc. does not sanction the use
of auto fuel in any of its engines, STC's from the EAA and Peterson are not recomended
by them.
As for the RV-4 ethanol group, I understand they are financed and backed by the
corn lobby, and their aircraft are set up and altered to run on alcohol. I would
suppose the engines are all de-certified(notice, I didn't say "assume") .
In the past, pre ethanol, it was assumed to be safe to run autogas IF you could
find your specific engine listed in the STC's from the EAA or Peterson. I feel
the addition of alcohol has negated that presumption of safety. The EAA even
sells an alcohol detection kit for use by it's STC holders and others because
too high a precentage of alcohol voids the STC.
If I were willing and determined enough to run an auto engine conversion in my
aircraft, I would certainly try auto fuel with alcohol, Just as I ran auto fuel
in my Lyc. before alcohol became the government mandated additive of the moment.
Finally, cheaper fuel is a poor reason to risk your investment of time and money,
not to mention your hide, on a questionable fuel. But that's just my opinion,
others with opinions may differ.
Charlie
---- Original Message -----
From: "John W. Cox" johnwcox@pacificnw.com
Subject: RE: RV-List: Re:Alternative engines
> <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
> Charlie, Thank You. There is an ASTM standard which I
> understood was
> required of all aircraft flying. This was a condition not
> restricted to
> just certificated production aircraft but experimental built as well.
> It has something to do not just with octane but the diverse difference
> of the Reid Pressure Value when Ethanol in any amount is added.
>
> Clearly there are some who feel experimental built can fly on corn
> squeezing. My understanding was that No ethanol was
> allowed. And yet
> there was a feature story in one of my aviation pubs of a three ship
> RV-4 group which flies with E-85. I remain confused and curious.
>
> John Cox
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie
> EnglandSent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 6:37 PM
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Alternative engines
>
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
> c.ennis wrote:
> > Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
> >
> > FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
> >
> > Among other comments, the article says this..
> >
> > "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be
> used in
> > aircraft for the following reasons:
> >
> > * The addition of alcohol to automobile
> > gasoline adversly affects the
> > volatility of the fuel, which could
> > cause vapor lock.
> >
> > * Alcohol present in automobile
> > gasoline is corrosive and not
> > compatible with the rubber seals and
> > other materials used in aircraft, which
> > could lead to fuel system deterioration
> > and malfunction.
> >
> > * Alcohol present in automobile
> > gasoline is subject to phase separation,
> > which happens when fuel is cooled
> > as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
> > higher altitude. When the alcohol
> > separates from the gasoline, it may
> > carry water that has been held in
> > solution and that cannot be handled by
> > the sediment bowl.
> >
> > * Alcohol present in automobile
> > gasoline reduces the energy content of
> > the fuel. Methanol has approximately
> > 55 percent of the energy content of
> > gasoline, and ethanol has
> > approximately 73 percent of the
> > energy of automobile gasoline.
> > The greater amount of alcohol in
> > the automobile gasoline, the greater
> > the reduction in the airdraft's range."
> >
> > The article goes on with several reccomendations.
> > The most explicite says.
> > "ii. Automobile gasolines
> > containing alcohol
> > (methanol or ethanol) are
> > not acceptable, unless
> > specifically approved by the
> > TC or STC.
> >
> > For Further Information Contact
> >
> > Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,
> > Small Airplane Directorate; phone:
> > (816) 329-4135; email: peter.rouse@faa.gov
> <mailto:peter.rouse@faa.gov>
> >
> > Charlie Ennis
> > RV-6A
> Isn't the document talking about type-certified a/c?
>
> All the points are typical 'conventional wisdom' arguments
> against
> alcohol blend fuels, very similar to the type of 'conventional
> wisdom'
> arguments used against auto fuels in general. (You can
> make analogous
> arguments against jet fuel, & planes seem to fly ok on that.)
>
> Even with all those arguments in play, did you notice the last
> paragraph?
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RV-List Email Forum -
> _-
> = - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> _-
> = - List Contribution Web Site -
> _-
> = -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
>From: "mike humphrey"
><mike109g6@insideconnect.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
>So was the Model T Ford. It's called -
>Progress. When is the
>production of 100LL supposed to be
>stopped?
We will eventually go to 96UL or 98UL
like Europe and 80% of all aircraft will
run nicely on that, including my O-360 Lyc.
>Another US manufacturer that can't keep
>up with times-like the auto industry.
>What kind of car do you drive? Where is
>it built? Not US, is it, I bet?
You got me two Acuras, and a '67
Camano.
>The 'issues' pointed out as to reasons
>against, are simply based in conjecture.
>There is absolutely no data to support:
>heavier, more drag, increase
>cost and not better economy or
>performance. Zip, Nada. Those are not
>constructive arguments, only opinions.
>With regards to that rant following, the
>person has never built/flown a
You just don't know what you are talking
about. All the EAA cross country races
are won by TCM/Lyc. All the Reno racers
in the top gold ultimate class are P&W
radials, with a few V12 merlins as also
ran. The sport class is mostly TCM/Lyc
with occasionally falcon V12 water cooled
race engine. Put up or shut up. There is
lots of talk but no proof on your part.
Van did a fly of on Power Sport Rotaries.
We are talking 200HP rotaries (alleged)
with $9,000 electric MT props and all
they could do was match or slightly beat
a 180 Lyc, at the cost of an extra 4 or 5
gal and hour and lots of noise. Van
tested an Eggenfellner RV-9A against a
320 Lyc factory RV-9A. Again OK but
nothing better. In fact the Egg ran hot,
slower and gas mileage was not better. It
also made not less noise or vibration,
just different buzzy high Freq noise and
vibration (because the engine is spinning
fast).
Conjecture? Negative Mike, I have been in
EAA since 1985 and followed alternative
engines carefully. I have a masters in
engineering, 9 FAA ratings and 12,000
hours, 1,500 hours in RV's. It is true.
Cooling drag with most (not all) water
cooled adaptations are higher than air-
cooled engines. To be fair air-cooling
has 70 years of R&D with millions if not
billions spend on optimizing it.
>Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything
>that he states that it doesn't.
I have no idea what that means? However
if you are running a freight or corporate
business with some C421's or Aerostars or
Rockwell commanders (piston) I can see
where FADEC would be worth it. However
for GA and 100-150 hours a year, FADEC is
a lot to do about nothing. You need all
these sensors to work and all you get is
one less knob. I love the mixture control
on my plane and the work load of moving
it 4 times a flight is well, a no
brainier. The EFI on car engines don't
work well. Real World Solution and SDS
have EFI or ECU's for car to airplane
conversions. The RWS even give the pilot
a mixture control. My point is EFI is
great for a car going from idle to
acceleration and idle to acceleration
over and over. In a plane at one power
setting 90% of the time, other wise its
wide open or coasting, EFI or ECU's or
FADEC has little value for way more
complication and a million extra failure
modes.
>Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
>But one should leave the
>emotional outburst for the pulpit.
There is no emotion. I am an airline
pilot and have an engineering degree.
It's all fact and science. You on the
other hand WANT so badly for something
NEW and better and you believe all the
hype. The Lyc/TCM are brilliant pieces of
engineering. Any short coming is a
planned compromise not some hair brained
screw up. They are indeed state of the
art. Physics and the laws of
thermodynamics have not changed in the
last 1000 years, as far as I know. You
can't compare CAR duty to an airplane's.
>What I was trying to point out is
>that if US A/C engine manufacturers
>don't look past today, tomorrow
>will make them extinct.
That is a fair point. So the new
DeltaHawk Diesel, where is that? The
Thielert Diesel had a dual flame out
because the ECU died because the
batteries where low or something? The new
Diamond twin crashed. People using the
engine are having terribly short TBO.
You can't make a "LIGHT" diesel PROGRESS!
Look if I was starting a new engine from
scratch in the 180 HP range, it would be
a horizontally opposed, air cooled direct
drive, hyd prop, engine. Hummmm what
would that look like? Oh yea it would
look like a Lycoming or TCM.
There is something to be said for a Lyc
with dual mags (self powered) and a
mechanical fuel injection or carb. They
are dead simple, reliable even if they
are "farm tractor" technology they don't
stop flying EVER, unless you run out
of gas or something really big lets loose.
Electrical independence is GOLDEN.
Most of the car improvements has been
in the electronics, which is a milestone
for cars, but not so much needed in a
piston plane.
>I'd be the first to admit that I hate
>change. But sometimes it's necessary
>for survival. Enough on this subject,
>it's like beating a dead horse, Mike H
Yes Mike you beat the horse, burned it,
ate it, **** it out and than threw it on
the wall, ha ha.
I know you want something better but when
you fly Lycs like I did everyday for
years and years as a CFI and Freight
pilot and corporate pilot, you will
appreciate them more than have fear and
loathing out of ignorance. You are
listing to the kool-aid drinkers who
think automotive engines are the best
thing in the world. The thing that kills
aircraft engines is sitting for weeks and
months and years at a time. You fly every
day and keep the engine within limits
(which is easy) and change the oil, it
will last to TBO. If your car sat for
weeks and weeks and years than you jumped
in and started it, and got on the free
way and drove 120 mph for 4 hours, than
parked it for a few months and did that
again, with out changing the oil and
running it as hot as you can get it. I
guarantee your car engine would not last
very long. Stop believing all the bad
things you hear about Lycs and TCM.
TCM/Lycs are out there flying 1000's and
1000's of hours every day/wk world wide.
Yes stuff happens and a lot of it has to do
with abuse and poor maintenance. When it
comes to the design and QC of the parts
and materials they are SECOND TO NONE.
Yes TCM and LYC both went through their
own crank shaft QC disaster in the early
90's for TCM and lat 90's for Lyc. There
is no excuse and they are embarrassed
(and sued). Stuff happens. However the
cranks made for 4 decades before and the
decade since are fine. Cheers
On last note about other countries are
taking or stealing Americas markets,
ie, "I drink your milkshake".
Yep it can and does and will happen. I do
like Japan car companies and the USA
ones are floundering. I hate that in all
trade agreements such as NAFTA,
trade with Euro and China, screws the
USA. They cheat and we let them.
Enough. We still have the best scientest
and engineers. They just steal, copy than
improve, while using slave labor to
undercut our market.
The LSA market
is dominated by foreign manufactures
and engine maker. Why did we make
laws (FAR's) to benefit them and exclude
American planes. Our planes are bigger
and heavier because they need to be.
Two adult men and fuel in a LSA will
be over the 600kg gross. Rotax? Is
an overpriced piece of junk. Hard to
maintain, over rated power wise, they
just had a "gear box failure". So over
weight, under powered planes for the
US market, Progress? America is a
big country with big people (sorry fat)
and little LSA's WILL BE FLOWN
over gross with two people. We need
more range and gross in America than
they do in Europe.
It is a joke and the gross should have
been raised to 1,500 or 1,600 lbs gross
so more US planes and engines could
comply. I would rather a O200 or O235
than a Rotax any day. At least TCM
is making a light O200 for the LSA
market for the Cessna LSA, which by
the way is MADE IN CHINA!
Goodgreef, yea let them drink our
milkshake, but bad mouthing Lyc is
anti-American. The Japanese, eruo
and Chinese are not brilliant, better or
smarter; they just exploit our market
while cutting off our products. Even
the US Air Force bought AIRBUS!
I can't believe it. The A300 is a piece
of junk. I KNOW! I fly the B767 and
it is way better than an Airbus, Why
do you think there are still 707's flying
as AWACS and tankers? They where
designed and built well. Northrop and
Airbus are just undercutting their price,
but they will have problems with them
and they will not last. The B52 is still
flying? Why? because its a Boeing.
I know America hating is in fashion
but not with me.
---------------------------------
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:Alternative engines |
c.ennis@insightbb.com wrote:
> John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any
> insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto
> fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a
> certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain
> that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
> factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole
> carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the
> certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my
> engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it
> does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers
> minds. <snip>
You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
Sam Buchanan
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
Are you done now---
Ollie
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >From: "mike humphrey"
> ><mike109g6@insideconnect.net>
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
>
> >So was the Model T Ford. It's called -
> >Progress. When is the
> >production of 100LL supposed to be
> >stopped?
>
> We will eventually go to 96UL or 98UL
> like Europe and 80% of all aircraft will
> run nicely on that, including my O-360 Lyc.
>
> >Another US manufacturer that can't keep
> >up with times-like the auto industry.
> >What kind of car do you drive? Where is
> >it built? Not US, is it, I bet?
>
> You got me two Acuras, and a '67
> Camano.
>
> >The 'issues' pointed out as to reasons
> >against, are simply based in conjecture.
> >There is absolutely no data to support:
> >heavier, more drag, increase
> >cost and not better economy or
> >performance. Zip, Nada. Those are not
> >constructive arguments, only opinions.
> >With regards to that rant following, the
> >person has never built/flown a
>
> You just don't know what you are talking
> about. All the EAA cross country races
> are won by TCM/Lyc. All the Reno racers
> in the top gold ultimate class are P&W
> radials, with a few V12 merlins as also
> ran. The sport class is mostly TCM/Lyc
> with occasionally falcon V12 water cooled
> race engine. Put up or shut up. There is
> lots of talk but no proof on your part.
> Van did a fly of on Power Sport Rotaries.
> We are talking 200HP rotaries (alleged)
> with $9,000 electric MT props and all
> they could do was match or slightly beat
> a 180 Lyc, at the cost of an extra 4 or 5
> gal and hour and lots of noise. Van
> tested an Eggenfellner RV-9A against a
> 320 Lyc factory RV-9A. Again OK but
> nothing better. In fact the Egg ran hot,
> slower and gas mileage was not better. It
> also made not less noise or vibration,
> just different buzzy high Freq noise and
> vibration (because the engine is spinning
> fast).
>
> Conjecture? Negative Mike, I have been in
> EAA since 1985 and followed alternative
> engines carefully. I have a masters in
> engineering, 9 FAA ratings and 12,000
> hours, 1,500 hours in RV's. It is true.
> Cooling drag with most (not all) water
> cooled adaptations are higher than air-
> cooled engines. To be fair air-cooling
> has 70 years of R&D with millions if not
> billions spend on optimizing it.
>
> >Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything
> >that he states that it doesn't.
>
> I have no idea what that means? However
> if you are running a freight or corporate
> business with some C421's or Aerostars or
> Rockwell commanders (piston) I can see
> where FADEC would be worth it. However
> for GA and 100-150 hours a year, FADEC is
> a lot to do about nothing. You need all
> these sensors to work and all you get is
> one less knob. I love the mixture control
> on my plane and the work load of moving
> it 4 times a flight is well, a no
> brainier. The EFI on car engines don't
> work well. Real World Solution and SDS
> have EFI or ECU's for car to airplane
> conversions. The RWS even give the pilot
> a mixture control. My point is EFI is
> great for a car going from idle to
> acceleration and idle to acceleration
> over and over. In a plane at one power
> setting 90% of the time, other wise its
> wide open or coasting, EFI or ECU's or
> FADEC has little value for way more
> complication and a million extra failure
> modes.
>
> >Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
> >But one should leave the
> >emotional outburst for the pulpit.
>
> There is no emotion. I am an airline
> pilot and have an engineering degree.
> It's all fact and science. You on the
> other hand WANT so badly for something
> NEW and better and you believe all the
> hype. The Lyc/TCM are brilliant pieces of
> engineering. Any short coming is a
> planned compromise not some hair brained
> screw up. They are indeed state of the
> art. Physics and the laws of
> thermodynamics have not changed in the
> last 1000 years, as far as I know. You
> can't compare CAR duty to an airplane's.
>
> >What I was trying to point out is
> >that if US A/C engine manufacturers
> >don't look past today, tomorrow
> >will make them extinct.
>
> That is a fair point. So the new
> DeltaHawk Diesel, where is that? The
> Thielert Diesel had a dual flame out
> because the ECU died because the
> batteries where low or something? The new
> Diamond twin crashed. People using the
> engine are having terribly short TBO.
> You can't make a "LIGHT" diesel PROGRESS!
> Look if I was starting a new engine from
> scratch in the 180 HP range, it would be
> a horizontally opposed, air cooled direct
> drive, hyd prop, engine. Hummmm what
> would that look like? Oh yea it would
> look like a Lycoming or TCM.
>
> There is something to be said for a Lyc
> with dual mags (self powered) and a
> mechanical fuel injection or carb. They
> are dead simple, reliable even if they
> are "farm tractor" technology they don't
> stop flying EVER, unless you run out
> of gas or something really big lets loose.
> Electrical independence is GOLDEN.
> Most of the car improvements has been
> in the electronics, which is a milestone
> for cars, but not so much needed in a
> piston plane.
>
> >I'd be the first to admit that I hate
> >change. But sometimes it's necessary
> >for survival. Enough on this subject,
> >it's like beating a dead horse, Mike H
>
> Yes Mike you beat the horse, burned it,
> ate it, **** it out and than threw it on
> the wall, ha ha.
>
> I know you want something better but when
> you fly Lycs like I did everyday for
> years and years as a CFI and Freight
> pilot and corporate pilot, you will
> appreciate them more than have fear and
> loathing out of ignorance. You are
> listing to the kool-aid drinkers who
> think automotive engines are the best
> thing in the world. The thing that kills
> aircraft engines is sitting for weeks and
> months and years at a time. You fly every
> day and keep the engine within limits
> (which is easy) and change the oil, it
> will last to TBO. If your car sat for
> weeks and weeks and years than you jumped
> in and started it, and got on the free
> way and drove 120 mph for 4 hours, than
> parked it for a few months and did that
> again, with out changing the oil and
> running it as hot as you can get it. I
> guarantee your car engine would not last
> very long. Stop believing all the bad
> things you hear about Lycs and TCM.
>
> TCM/Lycs are out there flying 1000's and
> 1000's of hours every day/wk world wide.
> Yes stuff happens and a lot of it has to do
> with abuse and poor maintenance. When it
> comes to the design and QC of the parts
> and materials they are SECOND TO NONE.
>
> Yes TCM and LYC both went through their
> own crank shaft QC disaster in the early
> 90's for TCM and lat 90's for Lyc. There
> is no excuse and they are embarrassed
> (and sued). Stuff happens. However the
> cranks made for 4 decades before and the
> decade since are fine. Cheers
>
> On last note about other countries are
> taking or stealing Americas markets,
>
> ie, "I drink your milkshake".
>
> Yep it can and does and will happen. I do
> like Japan car companies and the USA
> ones are floundering. I hate that in all
> trade agreements such as NAFTA,
> trade with Euro and China, screws the
> USA. They cheat and we let them.
> Enough. We still have the best scientest
> and engineers. They just steal, copy than
> improve, while using slave labor to
> undercut our market.
>
> The LSA market
> is dominated by foreign manufactures
> and engine maker. Why did we make
> laws (FAR's) to benefit them and exclude
> American planes. Our planes are bigger
> and heavier because they need to be.
> Two adult men and fuel in a LSA will
> be over the 600kg gross. Rotax? Is
> an overpriced piece of junk. Hard to
> maintain, over rated power wise, they
> just had a "gear box failure". So over
> weight, under powered planes for the
> US market, Progress? America is a
> big country with big people (sorry fat)
> and little LSA's WILL BE FLOWN
> over gross with two people. We need
> more range and gross in America than
> they do in Europe.
>
> It is a joke and the gross should have
> been raised to 1,500 or 1,600 lbs gross
> so more US planes and engines could
> comply. I would rather a O200 or O235
> than a Rotax any day. At least TCM
> is making a light O200 for the LSA
> market for the Cessna LSA, which by
> the way is MADE IN CHINA!
>
> Goodgreef, yea let them drink our
> milkshake, but bad mouthing Lyc is
> anti-American. The Japanese, eruo
> and Chinese are not brilliant, better or
> smarter; they just exploit our market
> while cutting off our products. Even
> the US Air Force bought AIRBUS!
> I can't believe it. The A300 is a piece
> of junk. I KNOW! I fly the B767 and
> it is way better than an Airbus, Why
> do you think there are still 707's flying
> as AWACS and tankers? They where
> designed and built well. Northrop and
> Airbus are just undercutting their price,
> but they will have problems with them
> and they will not last. The B52 is still
> flying? Why? because its a Boeing.
> I know America hating is in fashion
> but not with me.
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | The Ethanol Fantasy |
The use of ethanol is inextricably linked to political pressure that comes from
many well heeled persons and corporations driven by an agenda and glossly sold
to a gullible, if well meaning public. I am beginning to wonder if former President
Jimmy Carter had it right all along. While in office, he stated that
growing food crops to produce ethanol fuel was a morally wrong thing to do.
Given that some experts today believe that the world will soon experience global
food shortages, perhaps it is time to revisit President Carter's unpopular
view. Imagine a world in which food competes with fuel. That is a very real
prospect and only the seriously delusional will believe that a full fuel tank
is worth more than a hungry belly fueled with anger. Already, corn to ethanol
is driving an alarming increase in the price of corn products and the result
can be seen in the cereal aisle of any supermarket in the country. But that is
only the beginning. Certainly, you are free to
agree or disagree with Carter's position, politics does have a way of polarizing
people but the irrefutable and undeniable fact is this and this fact is golden:
If every single ear of corn produced in this country destined for human
consumption was diverted for ethanol production, that production would account
for only 7% of the fuel energy consumed by Americans. In addition, some would
argue that simply producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than a
gallon of ethanol produces. If we as a country met that 7% offset, that means
no corn flakes, no corn syrup, no corn casseroles, not even corn on the cob.
That seems a very high price to pay for a fuel that will never live up to the
hype. But don't tell that to Congress or the corn lobby. They just don't want
to hear it.
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: | The Ethanol Fantasy |
A very good read is "The Omnivore's Dilemma." Puts the whole corn thing
into perspective.
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:32 PM
Subject: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
The use of ethanol is inextricably linked to political pressure that comes
from many well heeled persons and corporations driven by an agenda and
glossly sold to a gullible, if well meaning public. I am beginning to
wonder if former President Jimmy Carter had it right all along. While in
office, he stated that growing food crops to produce ethanol fuel was a
morally wrong thing to do. Given that some experts today believe that the
world will soon experience global food shortages, perhaps it is time to
revisit President Carter's unpopular view. Imagine a world in which food
competes with fuel. That is a very real prospect and only the seriously
delusional will believe that a full fuel tank is worth more than a hungry
belly fueled with anger. Already, corn to ethanol is driving an alarming
increase in the price of corn products and the result can be seen in the
cereal aisle of any supermarket in the country. But that is only the
beginning. Certainly, you are free to agree or disagree with Carter's
position, politics does have a way of polarizing people but the irrefutable
and undeniable fact is this and this fact is golden: If every single ear of
corn produced in this country destined for human consumption was diverted
for ethanol production, that production would account for only 7% of the
fuel energy consumed by Americans. In addition, some would argue that
simply producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than a gallon of
ethanol produces. If we as a country met that 7% offset, that means no corn
flakes, no corn syrup, no corn casseroles, not even corn on the cob. That
seems a very high price to pay for a fuel that will never live up to the
hype. But don't tell that to Congress or the corn lobby. They just don't
want to hear it.
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 |
|
Ron,
Thank you for that. I had used Airnav while still using 100LL exclusively,
and forgot they also tell you where mogas is available. I just checked one of
my one fuel stop routes, KUAO~KBIL and happily discovered mogas available at
Pullman, WA right along the way. Gotta luv this list.
Jerry Cochran
Jerry,
I use AirNav.com for flight planning and it will choose routes with fuel
type
and price inputs. Try it-you'll like it.
Ron Burnett
---- Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote:
=============
Ron,
I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. So
when
you
go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
Jerry
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
On 8:20 2008-03-09 "Bubblehead" <jdalman2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Someone needs to check their math!
> 1/2 million miles/2000 hrs = 250 mph
> 1 million miles/2000 hrs = 500 mph
> 2 million miles/2000 hrs = 1000 mph ----- not 60-120!
Whoops, you're right! I did that quickly late at night, and erroneously
thought that doubling the distance would halve the speed.
Still, my original point stands. Most automobiles would be lucky to
average 30-40 mph over their lives, let alone 250 or more.
-Rob
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:Alternative engines |
I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness certificate
and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied with,
the airworhiness certificate remains valid.
---- Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> c.ennis@insightbb.com wrote:
> > John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any
> > insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto
> > fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a
> > certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain
> > that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
> > factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole
> > carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the
> > certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my
> > engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it
> > does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers
> > minds. <snip>
>
>
> You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
> doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
> a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
> resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
>
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: | Alternate Engines |
Without rehashing this interesting discussion, I recall recently having
somewhat the same discussion (argument) with a Subaru equipped plane's
owner, and after listenting to all the advantages of and new technology
in those auto engines, I said, "But you're missing the main point."
He said , "What's that?"
I responded, "My airplane is still flying!"
His Subie engine quit in flight and he lost the plane. Fortuantely he
survived with only minor hurts.
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
>From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
>><gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
>> you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
>> not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
>> in a car.
>1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph.
>That's a pretty fast car that you're driving
>for 2000 hours. Unless you really meant "1
>to 2 million miles," in which case you're
>only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000
>hours. Most cars on the road today would
>do well to average 40mph, let alone 60.
NO you missed the point an AIRPLANE doing
200kts for 2000 hours. That is a lot of
miles (460,000 statute miles). How far does
a car go in its life, on a good day? 1/2 that.
>> Water cooling? Who wins Reno air races
>> every year? Big air cooled radials from
>> the 40's and 50's.
>For many years Strega and Dago Red (both P-
>51's) traded the checkered flag,
>while Rare Bear (Bearcat), Dreadnought (Sea
>Fury), etc. trickled in behind.
Well not any more my friend, they can't even
come close with out blowing up. Also in WWII
the air cooled radials would get jugs shot
off and they would fly home with the
connecting rod flopping about. The P-51 got
one shot in the wrong place, it was toast.
Water hoses, radiators, pumps all things to
fail. True!
>> COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED
>> AIRPLANES.
>Cooling drag is huge in all airplanes. The
>challenge is minimizing it.
Yea but we cracked the code with
horizontally air cooled tractor driven planes.
With the NASA research done in the early
70's, people like LoPresti & Barnard have
adapted the data; we have way way lower
cooling drag. Look at an RV with a Sam James
Cowl. About 25 sq inch of inlet. Now look at
what Eggenfellner has for his latest cowl,
two huge square scoops dumping into
radiators with little pressure recovery and
lots of drag, of all kinds. The stagnant
point is out side the cowl and there is all
kinds of external drag and internal loss. It
sucks. But he had to put these big scoops
to get enough air to go through those two
little heat exchangers to avoid overheating.
Now add a turbo and altitude to the
Eggenfellner engine. They will run hot, trust
me. Water cooling is not a panacea.
Car's can afford to have a radiator the size
of a large flat screen TV when they are
only going 70 mph and are in front of a
vehicle with a large flat plate area, so
fit and drag are not issues. A plane, going
200 mph, there is no room for a radiator in
the front of a small cowl.
You are minimizing frontal area and yes it's
a challenge, you are right. However with
air cooled horz AIRCRAFT ENGINES,
you have all the heads and cylinders, plus
oil cooler to shed heat. Because the whole
engine is a heat exchanger, its easy to duct
air to and through those fins, well not easy
but well understood. Now if like in WWII
billions in today's money was put into an
all new airframe and water cooled piston
engine, yea they could do something. But
just adapting a car engine with a PSRU
and throwing in some too small heat
exchangers where they fit is not optimal.
ITS JUST NOT A QUANTUM LEAP IN
TECHNOLOGY OR PERFORMANCE.
Sorry.
ON THE OTHER HAND, the Lycoming is
ONE BIG HUGE HEAT EXCHANGER.
However instead of going from air to liquid
and engine, it's just AIR & ENGINE. No
middle man, hoses, pumps or radiators.
Also Lycoming is LIQUID COOLED!!!!!!
Yes! What I'm talking about. Lycs have
OIL COOLERS, so they are actually air
AND oil cooled just like a BMW boxer
motorcycle and Porsche 911.
Yes the liquid cooled guys have a challenge but
the problem is they are using airframes
optimized for air cooled engines. So every
thing is a jury rig make do, make it work
adapt it fit it, not optimal. There is a RV-
10 going together with a P-51 belly scoop. I
am eager to see that fly and hope for the
best. Remember the P-51 sucked unless it was
going 400 mph. It over heated on the ground.
>The P-51 was able to get *thrust* from the
>cooling system at certain power settings.
>Surely there's a way to realize similar
>gains with an automotive conversion.
-Rob
Yea I hear they shut the engine down and
flew on cooling thrust? ha-ha, Look there is no
such thing. It takes WORK or ENERGY to cool.
Yes I have heard the rumor but there is NO FREE
LUNCH in life, aviation or physics. Some where
you write out all the equations of P-51
aerodynamics and thermodynamics; you will
find a loss. Just having that scoop on the
belly with the flap open or closed is drag,
even if just parasitic drag. There is no
doubt cooling drag on reciprocating engines
is a large part of total drag. All the best.
Myths and legend does not make me think
water cooling is some panacea for GA
aircraft. P-51 does not = GA plane.
Water cooling has been around since
the Wright brothers. It is NOT new or
novel. It is in fact for all its pros has
cons, the net of which is a bit of a
negative in a GA plane, where simplicity,
lightness and low drag are king. Sorry to
burst peoples bubbles.
Lycoming and Wright, P&W and
Continental all knew what they where
doing when they made air cooled engines.
It was a choice not because of lack of
technology. It was there. It was just
not desirable.
I'll admit water cooling is "better". Meaning
it has more thermal capacity and is more
uniform and controllable (to get engines
warm faster), but water cooling can overheat.
Porsche 911 was air cooled up to 1998,
when they went to a water cooled version.
Why? Well laws on noise and pollution.
Water cooling dampens mechanical clacking
of valves and lifters. However in a plane
there is slip stream wind noise, prop noise
and exhaust noise. The difference is very
small, except on the ground to observers
outside while you taxi. Also water cooling
allows tighter piston/cyl wall clearance
which does lower pollution. Yes a Lyc
needs oil changes ever 25 hours because
it gets dirty. BTW the myth that Lycs use
oil, well they do, I go through about 1 qrt
per 16 to 18 hours. Many people get
well over 10 hrs/qt. So water cooling does
have that advantage. However I love changing
my planes oil and looking under the cowl.
On the other hand dirt bikes have mostly
all gone to water cooling, but than many
use titanium and magnesium in their engines.
A good new high tech dirt bike can cost as
much as some new econo cars.
To over take the Lyc and Continental it will take
a totally new technology with vastly better specs,
lighter, more hp per fuel burned, less expensive
and less cooling drag. Turbines fill many of these
but are vastly more expensive and burn more
fuel per HP. However after about 400-500 hp,
turbines start to earn their keep, at least for
applications that are going to be flown more
than a personal plane. Most of us only need
about 150-250 hp. Most auto engine conversions
are hard pressed to make this HP and still
be lighter. simpler more efficient. In the 100hp
and under class, car conversions are more
attractive and practical in my opinion. Still
in the 100HP range the O200 or O235 are
hard to beat.
Water cooling has little use in a plane.
If you want modern get a jet. Now a jets
for a plane that fly's 150 hrs a year by
a VFR pilot is a waste and not efficient.
Jets earn their keep in reliability and
speed, which is more for commercial
applications. Fuel burn of turbines, hp
per hp is beyond most individuals
budget.
In conclusion you should worship the
Continental & Lycoming, not vilify them.
They are engineering marvels and the grey
hairs, no doubt long retired, knew their
stuff. It comes after WWII development
that brought piston engines to their
pinnacle. Sodium filed valves than, now
roller cams, composite sumps, electronic
ignition, FADEC and so on. The Lyc and
TCM's are still evolving and getting better
and even CHEAPER. We now have not
one but THREE manufacturers of the engine
and countless others making accessories
and props for them.
They are in fact AIRCRAFT ENGINES
made for AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS, no
frill no fluff. What is great in a car commercial
like overhead cam's, 300hp (at 6 grand) or 4valve
per cyl. is not needed in a plane engine turning
2,500 rpm. If you want gear boxes and 6,000 rpm
engines, fine, go for it. Rotary? Sure but poor fuel
econ and noise are draw backs. Eggenfellner?
PSRU issues? may be? I don't know.
Go out, buy a new Lyc $21k, warranty & huge
network of support & large corporation behind
it, or go do unpaid test pilot duties for a
one man show, mom-pop business. I am cool
with either, it's your choice. Me? My engine
conversion involved converting about $12,000
into a used O360 Lyc & full overhaul. It bolted
right up to my RV-7 with factory engine mount,
cowl and a Hartzell prop. I know how fast it will
go and burn and what to expect. Done. Just
one mans opinion.
Notice I am not bashing Alt engines. I don't have to.
However notice that many alternative engine
proponents BASH Lycomings to make their self
feel better about their choice. If alternative engines
are so much better, than they could stand on
their own merits, not negative comments of Lycs.
I am just pointing to the many positive facts
about Lycs and TCM's and busting some myths
and urban legends.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Looks to me like kudzu should be the basic ingredient. We have plenty
of it here in the south. I suspect it can be obtained for almost
nothing.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Be a better friend, newshound, and
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:Alternative engines |
Correct! Just as you can't take a "certified" Lyc from a certified Piper and
replace the certified Cont in a certified Cessna with that Lyc and still
call it certified to the original aircraft. Once it has been run with a
different cooling system, prop, etc.(different from the certificate) it has no
longer been maintained as it was certified. My understanding, technically it needs
to be "torn down" and "re-certified" that nothing changed.
Jim
In a message dated 3/9/2008 3:32:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
sbuc@hiwaay.net writes:
You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
Sam Buchanan
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
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:Alternative engines |
Define "properly maintained". Example; A certified aircraft guarantees that
the airframe's cooling system won't fry the engine. No experimental can
guarantee that which is why it is "experimental".
Jim
In a message dated 3/9/2008 4:15:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
michael.phil@ca.rr.com writes:
I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness
certificate and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied
with, the airworhiness certificate remains valid
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
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 |
|
But will Air Nav list the MOgas with NO Ethanol once so many states go
GREEN at 10% or more? I will bet Oregon still lists Mogas and yet the
requirement for 10% Ethanol will give a false Positive.
John
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jerry2DT@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:59 PM
Subject: RV-List: Airnav:Mogas
Ron,
Thank you for that. I had used Airnav while still using 100LL
exclusively, and forgot they also tell you where mogas is available. I
just checked one of my one fuel stop routes, KUAO~KBIL and happily
discovered mogas available at Pullman, WA right along the way. Gotta luv
this list.
Jerry Cochran
Jerry,
I use AirNav.com for flight planning and it will choose routes with
fuel type
and price inputs. Try it-you'll like it.
Ron Burnett
---- Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote:
=============
Ron,
I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol.
So when
you
go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
Jerry
________________________________
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
<http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | The Ethanol Fantasy |
In Oregon, a state I serves as Legislative Affairs for the Oregon Pilots
Association for , the governor was in bed with a single source
distillery for Ethanol and a single lobby group to fund his 2004
re-election campaign. The bill in 2005 died in committee, In 2007 it
was a "Must Pass" at the direction of the governor (through is
Department of Agriculture). Oregon doesn't currently have enough grain
to comply with the mandate but that did not stop the Petroleum Institute
and their lobbyist from greasing the gears. We pay and subsidize the
diesel fuel to truck the grain into the state. The theory was to keep
tax dollars within the state. The Summer of 2008 should show the
availability of proper fuel supply and the "Rightness" of the Green
Legislation.
The more important question is what steps should we do to allow Ethanol
combustion with Owner Built and Maintained Aircraft. Someone recently
said to do a Proseal dilution test with Ethanol and report the findings.
Many of us have yet to hear what could be improved on during
construction to deal with the Mandated Ethanol fuel. It is only a
question of time before 100LL goes away.
John Cox
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Jessen
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
A very good read is "The Omnivore's Dilemma." Puts the whole corn thing
into perspective.
________________________________
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:32 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy
The use of ethanol is inextricably linked to political pressure
that comes from many well heeled persons and corporations driven by an
agenda and glossly sold to a gullible, if well meaning public. I am
beginning to wonder if former President Jimmy Carter had it right all
along. While in office, he stated that growing food crops to produce
ethanol fuel was a morally wrong thing to do. Given that some experts
today believe that the world will soon experience global food shortages,
perhaps it is time to revisit President Carter's unpopular view.
Imagine a world in which food competes with fuel. That is a very real
prospect and only the seriously delusional will believe that a full fuel
tank is worth more than a hungry belly fueled with anger. Already, corn
to ethanol is driving an alarming increase in the price of corn products
and the result can be seen in the cereal aisle of any supermarket in the
country. But that is only the beginning. Certainly, you are free to
agree or disagree with Carter's position, politics does have a way of
polarizing people but the irrefutable and undeniable fact is this and
this fact is golden: If every single ear of corn produced in this
country destined for human consumption was diverted for ethanol
production, that production would account for only 7% of the fuel energy
consumed by Americans. In addition, some would argue that simply
producing a gallon of ethanol consumes more energy than a gallon of
ethanol produces. If we as a country met that 7% offset, that means no
corn flakes, no corn syrup, no corn casseroles, not even corn on the
cob. That seems a very high price to pay for a fuel that will never
live up to the hype. But don't tell that to Congress or the corn lobby.
They just don't want to hear it.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
c
om/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
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: RV-4 Question |
J. Mcculley wrote:
>
> What is the range of empty weight measurements found by builders of
> RV-4 projects, in particular those with Hartzell CS props? If not
> available,
> fixed pitch Sensenich props will be OK.
>
> Jim
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've owned 2 different -4s, both built by others, both with O-320 & wood
prop, built light with only fabric covered cushions & painted interior.
One weighed 930, the other, that I'm currently flying, weighs 910.
You can figure that the c/s prop will add around 45-55 lbs (including
governor) & bigger engine would add anywhere from 15-45 lbs, depending
on engine model. Anything above that is extra paint, interior, avionics,
etc.
Charlie
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:Alternative engines |
Sorry Sam is right your engine can no longer be installed in a "Certified Aircraft"
that the engine was originally designed for. A complete tear-down and re-certification
by an authorized A&P or repair station would be required to return
it's original certified application.
Tom in Ohio
----- Original Message -----
From: "michael phil" <michael.phil@ca.rr.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2008 4:10:20 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Alternative engines
I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness certificate
and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied with,
the airworhiness certificate remains valid.
---- Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> c.ennis@insightbb.com wrote:
> > John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any
> > insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto
> > fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a
> > certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain
> > that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
> > factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole
> > carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the
> > certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my
> > engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it
> > does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers
> > minds. <snip>
>
>
> You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
> doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
> a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
> resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
>
> Sam Buchanan
>
>
>
>
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:Alternative engines |
Hey Mike,
I agree with you that the data plate doesn't have to be removed, but
what if maintainence (other than preventive) is signed off by a person
without a powerplant license? I don't think you could legally transplant
the engine back into a Cessna or Piper without an overhaul. And just to
be picky, I don't think the engine carries an airworthiness cert. It
does comply with a TCDS, though.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
michael.phil@ca.rr.com wrote:
>
> I disagree. The Lycoming engine leaves the factory with an airworthiness certificate
and as long as it is properly maintained and all AD's are complied with,
the airworhiness certificate remains valid.
>
> ---- Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> c.ennis@insightbb.com wrote:
>>
>>> John, As just another RV builder/flyer I really don't have any
>>> insight into what's right or what's wrong about flying with auto
>>> fuel, I only know what I read. Having said that, I fly with a
>>> certified Lycoming in my experimental aircraft. In order to maintain
>>> that certification it has to continue to meet all of the original
>>> factory specs. Changing parts, wether fuel system seals or the whole
>>> carburation system to some other special improved system, voids the
>>> certification and I must remove the factory data plate from my
>>> engine. I realize that some would see no problem with this, though it
>>> does reduce the perceived value of your aircraft in some buyers
>>> minds. <snip>
>>>
>> You can't have a "certified" engine in an experimental aircraft. You no
>> doubt maintain your engine the same way it would be in an aircraft with
>> a standard airworthiness certificate, and that may indeed enhance the
>> resale value, but the engine in your RV ain't "certified" to anything. :-)
>>
>> Sam Buchanan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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:Alternative engines |
Tom & Cathy Ervin wrote:
> <tcervin@embarqmail.com>
>
> Sorry Sam is right your engine can no longer be installed in a
> "Certified Aircraft" that the engine was originally designed for. A
> complete tear-down and re-certification by an authorized A&P or
> repair station would be required to return it's original certified
> application. Tom in Ohio
I don't think a tear-down and overhaul is required per the regs, only
that an IA sign the log book stating the engine complies with the type
certificate for installation in a particular certificated aircraft.
However......how many IA's will you find who will put their career on
the line without tearing down the engine and making SURE it meets
specifications before signing the book? :-)
So yes, the engine will get an overhaul before going back into a Cessna.
Sam Buchanan
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:Alternative engines |
Which is irrelevant to whether it is certified or not. As long as it is
still in its TCDS condition with the same accessories, it can go from
one experimental to another, and only a 25 hour fly off will be
required. As soon as you change something from that certified
configuration, a 40 hour test flight period is supposed to be required.
No one in their right mind is going to source an engine for a certified
aircraft from an experimental aircraft unless they are desperate. No, a
full overhaul would neither be required to determine conformity, nor
would an IA in their right mind do one if they were trying to minimize
cost/down time. Pulling a couple cylinders to verify the integrity of
the lower end, or a teardown and reassembly would be the likely action.
Cost would be less than 1/2 of an overhaul.
KM
A&P/IA
EAA Tech Counselor
Sam Buchanan wrote:
> However......how many IA's will you find who will put their career on
> the line without tearing down the engine and making SURE it meets
> specifications before signing the book? :-)
>
> So yes, the engine will get an overhaul before going back into a Cessna.
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:Alternative engines |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> Which is irrelevant to whether it is certified or not. As long as it is
> still in its TCDS condition with the same accessories, it can go from
> one experimental to another, and only a 25 hour fly off will be
> required. As soon as you change something from that certified
> configuration, a 40 hour test flight period is supposed to be required.
> No one in their right mind is going to source an engine for a certified
> aircraft from an experimental aircraft unless they are desperate. No, a
> full overhaul would neither be required to determine conformity, nor
> would an IA in their right mind do one if they were trying to minimize
> cost/down time. Pulling a couple cylinders to verify the integrity of
> the lower end, or a teardown and reassembly would be the likely action.
> Cost would be less than 1/2 of an overhaul.
> KM
> A&P/IA
> EAA Tech Counselor
Agreed. "Teardown" is the preferred term to "overhaul". But...if there
was *any* question about the integrity of the engine I bet it would get
an overhaul in most shops. And I doubt a concern to minimize the
customer's cost/downtime will override the understandable determination
to protect the career of the IA. :-)
Sam Buchanan
====================
>
> Sam Buchanan wrote:
>> However......how many IA's will you find who will put their career on
>> the line without tearing down the engine and making SURE it meets
>> specifications before signing the book? :-)
>>
>> So yes, the engine will get an overhaul before going back into a Cessna.
>
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:Alternative engines |
I don't believe you understand the difference between teardown
inspection and an overhaul. The former is nothing more than take it
apart, inspect the parts, measure dimensions, and reassemble with new
gaskets, and hopefully new bearings. Time SMOH continues on the engine.
Overhaul requires that parts be at least within service limits(most are
done to new limits), and manufacturer's recommendations for parts
replacement should be done, to give zero SMOH time and reasonable chance
of making TBO. Stuff like valves, valve seats, pistons normally get
replaced. On a teardown only the bearings and rings and gaskets would
get replaced, just like a prop strike inspection.
Sam Buchanan wrote:
>
>
> Agreed. "Teardown" is the preferred term to "overhaul". But...if there
> was *any* question about the integrity of the engine I bet it would
> get an overhaul in most shops. And I doubt a concern to minimize the
> customer's cost/downtime will override the understandable
> determination to protect the career of the IA. :-)
>
> Sam Buchanan
> ==========================================================
> _
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say that
farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
don't know why)! For years farmers have been well underpaid for their
commodities and now that we are actually getting a decent price we are
all of a sudden the blame for nearly everything -- or so it seems. My
grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he sold wheat for
nearly $2.50/bushel. Up until just the last couple years wheat was
still only $2.75 to $3/bushel. I don't know what you do for a living
but I can guarantee you that if you are in any kind of sales your prices
have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always will have the
cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world. The price of
commodities actually has very little to do with the price of food at
your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the middle men
such as millers.
As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam. However,
I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our dependency
on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers getting rich, how
about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people bitch about that. It
may or may not be the answer to our fuel problems but atleast we are
trying something besides oil.
As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag plants
about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are $150,000,
tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel has gone up
nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to need over
60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
$3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single family
farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who is
getting rich.
I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements like
yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
truth!!!
Bill Britton
Lewis, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Be a better friend, newshound, and
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
3/9/2008 12:17 PM
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
I know nothing about farming, so I will just come right out and ask.
How much corn does it take to make one gallon of ethanol? How much
would this amount of corn cost? How much electricity cost is involved
in one gallon of ethanol production? In other words, what is the total
cost to produce one gallon of ethanol? This way, I'll be able to
compare price per gallon between ethanol and gas (assuming I could burn
100% ethanol).
Scott
William Britton wrote:
> Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
> rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say
> that farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
> portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
> food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm
> bill--I don't know why)! For years farmers have been well underpaid
> for their commodities and now that we are actually getting a decent
> price we are all of a sudden the blame for nearly everything -- or so
> it seems. My grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he
> sold wheat for nearly $2.50/bushel. Up until just the last couple
> years wheat was still only $2.75 to $3/bushel. I don't know what you
> do for a living but I can guarantee you that if you are in any kind of
> sales your prices have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always
> will have the cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world.
> The price of commodities actually has very little to do with the price
> of food at your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the
> middle men such as millers.
>
> As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam.
> However, I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our
> dependency on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers
> getting rich, how about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people
> bitch about that. It may or may not be the answer to our fuel
> problems but atleast we are trying something besides oil.
>
> As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
> inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
> ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
> bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag
> plants about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are
> $150,000, tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel
> has gone up nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to
> need over 60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
> $3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single
> family farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who
> is getting rich.
>
> I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements
> like yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
> truth!!!
>
> Bill Britton
> Lewis, KS
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com <mailto:gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:43 PM
> Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
>
> Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
> of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
> ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
> more energy to make it, than you get from it.
> Land use is such it drives prices up in other
> crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
> the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
> of our money to have them grow corn, not even
> good corn). Why do we give them tax money
> and oil companies tax breaks when they are
> making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
> gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
> because they use sugar which has a positive
> energy return way superior to corn by a factor
> of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
> Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
> has less energy density and does not work
> in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
> "hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
>
> Write congress and tell them enough. Love
> farmers but enough with handing out billions.
> Most "farmers" by the way are just big
> corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
> there any wounder why Iowa is the first
> primary. Who cares about Iowa except
> once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
> system keeps us (the government) from making
> good (but hard) decisions, void of special
> interest, for the best interest of the nation.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
>
>
>href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
>href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
>href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3/9/2008 12:17 PM
>
>
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Scott, I'm sure the info you requested is out there in internet land
somewhere but I'll offer a couple answers. From one bushel (56 pounds)
of corn they can get a little over 2 gallon of ethanol. However, I
have also "heard" that it takes more energy to make ethanol than they
get out of the ethanol. I cannot say that this is true or false. It's
just something I've heard. I do know that due to the price of corn and
the relatively low price of ethanol, one of our more local ethanol
plants has closed it's doors and atleast one other plant slated for
construction has been atleast temporarily cancelled.
Please do not archive this.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
I know nothing about farming, so I will just come right out and ask.
How much corn does it take to make one gallon of ethanol? How much
would this amount of corn cost? How much electricity cost is involved
in one gallon of ethanol production? In other words, what is the total
cost to produce one gallon of ethanol? This way, I'll be able to
compare price per gallon between ethanol and gas (assuming I could burn
100% ethanol).
Scott
William Britton wrote:
Not that you care mister gmcjetpilot but I take some offense to your
rambling. You need to do some research on the farm bill. You say that
farmers get the $5 billion. In reality, farmers get a very small
portion of that. The majority of it is spent on welfare programs like
food stamps and school lunches (yes, they are part of the farm bill--I
don't know why)! For years farmers have been well underpaid for their
commodities and now that we are actually getting a decent price we are
all of a sudden the blame for nearly everything -- or so it seems. My
grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he sold wheat for
nearly $2.50/bushel. Up until just the last couple years wheat was
still only $2.75 to $3/bushel. I don't know what you do for a living
but I can guarantee you that if you are in any kind of sales your prices
have gone up since the 40's. The US has and always will have the
cheapest, most abundant supply of food in the world. The price of
commodities actually has very little to do with the price of food at
your grocery store. The price markup comes from all of the middle men
such as millers.
As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam.
However, I support it and buy ethanol every chance I get because our
dependency on foreign oil is ludicrous. You talk about farmers getting
rich, how about $102/barrel crude. Why don't more people bitch about
that. It may or may not be the answer to our fuel problems but atleast
we are trying something besides oil.
As for the farmers getting rich, have you checked out the price of
inputs for raising corn, wheat, sorghum, etc... NH3 (anhydrous
ammonia--nitrogen) is pushing $700/ton now. This time last year we
bought it for $385. A single bag of corn is pushing $250 (1 bag plants
about 2.5 acres). Not to mention equipment (planters are $150,000,
tractors are $200,000 and combines are near $300,000). Fuel has gone up
nearly 40% in the last year. Our farm alone is going to need over
60,000 gallons of diesel fuel this year and right now it is
$3.40/gallon(and no, we are not a corporate farm, we are a single family
farm going on 125 years now). You do the math and tell me who is
getting rich.
I am not crying on anybody's shoulder but blatant, rude statements
like yours really get me going and I really wish more people knew the
truth!!!
Bill Britton
Lewis, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 3:43 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Do some research on corn ethanol. It is one
of the biggest rip offs of all times. The only
ones winning are farmers. It takes almost
more energy to make it, than you get from it.
Land use is such it drives prices up in other
crops, that farmers are not growing to get on
the government corn welfair subsidy ($5 billion
of our money to have them grow corn, not even
good corn). Why do we give them tax money
and oil companies tax breaks when they are
making 35 billion in after tax profit (profit not
gross or net). Ethanol works for the Brazilians
because they use sugar which has a positive
energy return way superior to corn by a factor
of many, and the sugar by products are usable.
Of course ethanol as a fuel kind of sucks. It
has less energy density and does not work
in cold weather. That is whey it will only be a
"hamburger helper" to gas, like 10% at most.
Write congress and tell them enough. Love
farmers but enough with handing out billions.
Most "farmers" by the way are just big
corporations now with lots of lobbyist. Is
there any wounder why Iowa is the first
primary. Who cares about Iowa except
once every 4 years. Perverted and corrupt
system keeps us (the government) from making
good (but hard) decisions, void of special
interest, for the best interest of the nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Be a better friend, newshound, and
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
3/9/2008 12:17 PM
--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com
Flying Corben Junior Ace - Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
3/9/2008 12:17 PM
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:Alternative engines |
Kelly McMullen wrote:
>
> I don't believe you understand the difference between teardown
> inspection and an overhaul. The former is nothing more than take it
> apart, inspect the parts, measure dimensions, and reassemble with new
> gaskets, and hopefully new bearings. Time SMOH continues on the engine.
> Overhaul requires that parts be at least within service limits(most are
> done to new limits), and manufacturer's recommendations for parts
> replacement should be done, to give zero SMOH time and reasonable chance
> of making TBO. Stuff like valves, valve seats, pistons normally get
> replaced. On a teardown only the bearings and rings and gaskets would
> get replaced, just like a prop strike inspection.
Uhhhhhh, I think we are saying the same thing.
I'm well aware of the difference between teardown and overhaul. :-)
Sam Buchanan
========================
>
> Sam Buchanan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Agreed. "Teardown" is the preferred term to "overhaul". But...if there
>> was *any* question about the integrity of the engine I bet it would
>> get an overhaul in most shops. And I doubt a concern to minimize the
>> customer's cost/downtime will override the understandable
>> determination to protect the career of the IA. :-)
>>
>> Sam Buchanan
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! --
|