Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:51 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Scott)
2. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (scott bilinski)
3. 06:12 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Chuck Jensen)
4. 07:37 AM - FW: Skybolt Fasteners (NEIL HENDERSON)
5. 07:46 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Mauri)
6. 09:12 AM - Re: The Ethanol Fantasy (Tracy Crook)
7. 09:15 AM - Re: Airnav:Mogas (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
8. 10:17 AM - Re: FW: Skybolt Fasteners (Ralph E. Capen)
9. 10:24 AM - Ethanol not from corn (dave@rv-7.com)
10. 11:09 AM - Re: Ethanol not from corn (Chuck Jensen)
11. 01:04 PM - Re: The Ethanol Fantasy (Jim Fogarty at Lakes & Leisure Realty)
12. 01:05 PM - Re: FW: Skybolt Fasteners (Randy Lervold)
13. 01:09 PM - Re: Ethanol not from corn (Rick Galati)
14. 02:01 PM - Re: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb (Reak, Brad)
15. 02:06 PM - Calaveras County Airport Fly-In Event (Larry Mersek)
16. 02:09 PM - Re: Re: Ethanol not from corn (Terry Watson)
17. 03:56 PM - Re: Ethanol not from corn (Gordon or Marge)
18. 04:39 PM - Re: Ethanol not from corn (Chris W)
19. 06:00 PM - Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (cknauf)
20. 06:08 PM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) ()
21. 06:15 PM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) ()
22. 06:38 PM - Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) ()
23. 06:45 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Jerry Isler)
24. 06:52 PM - Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (n801bh@netzero.com)
25. 07:14 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Sherman Butler)
26. 07:15 PM - Liquid cooling (Wheeler North)
27. 07:18 PM - Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (Ron Lee)
28. 08:13 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Dave Bergh)
29. 08:32 PM - Re: Liquid cooling (Gordon or Marge)
30. 09:26 PM - Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (Tracy Crook)
31. 10:04 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Kelly McMullen)
32. 10:17 PM - Re: Liquid cooling (Rob Prior)
33. 10:18 PM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (Kelly McMullen)
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Thanks Bill. I'll do some searching on the internet to see if I can
figure it out. I'll have to start with the price of a bushel of
corn...I too wish there was a way we could cease buying ANY oil from the
Mideast. That might certainly change their lifestyle a bit :) do not
archive.
Scott
William Britton wrote:
> 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 <mailto:acepilot@bloomer.net>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto: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 <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
>
>
>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 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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
It takes 3 to make 5 so your only really getting 2. I talked with Doctor Dennis
Helder a while back, he is in charge of the E85 program. I also talked to the
corn association to see how many bushels of corn per acre, and to keep my plane
in E85 would take 25 acres a year. Of course that was a while back when E85
would have been 2.85 a gallon.
Scott
RV-8a
----- Original Message ----
From: Scott <acepilot@bloomer.net>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 3:46:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
Thanks Bill. I'll do some searching on the internet to see if I can figure it
out. I'll have to start with the price of a bushel of corn...I too wish there
was a way we could cease buying ANY oil from the Mideast. That might certainly
change their lifestyle a bit :) do not archive.
Scott
William Britton wrote:
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
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
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
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
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
gmcjetpilot...rambling...surely you jest. Nothing but the facts from
the "scrambled letters after the name man". Has more ratings than a
movie. gmcjectpilot is a fountain of B.S. (basic science). :-)
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of William Britton
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
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
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: | FW: Skybolt Fasteners |
_____
From: Neil & Maureen [mailto:neil.mo@btinternet.com]
Sent: 10 March 2008 13:51
Subject: Skybolt Fasteners
Listers
I'm planning on using Skybolt fasteners on the rear edge of the top cowl. I
find the standard Vans hinges in the other positions to work very well it's
just a pain pulling the rear pins through the oil door.
I'm told 3.5" spacing is about right and I would therefore require 14 sets.
Does anyone know the part numbers of the parts that I would require? I'm
assuming that I'll need to simply fix a flange in place of the hinge to
accept the receptacles. Any input would be appreciated.
Neil Henderson RV9a Flying - RV7 90% done 90% to go
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Your half right. The real big winner is the Arthur Daniels Midland
(ADM). This company has spent millions of dollars to get corn ethanol
into our fuels and ,now, they get a piece of the total action as well as
subsidies from the Federal Government. The corn ethanol thing is one of
the biggest rip-offs the Feds have put on the people.
On a side note, while the Montana legislature was being beat up by the
"greenies" to include ethanol in mogas, the Montana Pilots Assoc and
several other user groups got together to issuer one grade of mogas was
ethanol free. So, in Montana, you can be assured that 91 octane is
ethanol free.
Mauri
RV-8 finishing still
Polson, MT
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 2:43 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 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: The Ethanol Fantasy |
FWIW, This is not a formal test but I have burned mostly auto fuel (some of
which contained ethanol) over the past 14 years. The sloshing compound (no
longer recommended by Van's) turned to mush and clogged filters a couple
of times. Fortunately I noticed falling fuel pressure and caught it before
the fan quit turning. Proseal has been unaffected so far.
Tracy Crook
Mazda powered RV-4, 1600+ hrs.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:48 PM, John W. Cox <johnwcox@pacificnw.com> wrote:
> 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
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *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.com/Navigator?RV-List*
>
> *href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> *href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c*
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Airnav:Mogas |
In a message dated 3/10/2008 12:03:05 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
rv-list@matronics.com writes:
Subject: RE: RV-List: Airnav:Mogas
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
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
Correct you are John. I'd never trust a mogas pump so would test a sample
first for ethanol. I doubt if a sane FBO would sell 10% gasahol anyway.
Liability.
Jerry Cochran
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
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: FW: Skybolt Fasteners |
I used an .063 flange and a spacer in some places to get the cowl thickness correct.....
They have a kit - which I got for my 6A and installed last summer.
I also got a half dozed of each of the individual parts as spares.....
-----Original Message-----
>From: NEIL HENDERSON <neil459@btinternet.com>
>Sent: Mar 10, 2008 10:33 AM
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RV-List: FW: Skybolt Fasteners
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>From: Neil & Maureen [mailto:neil.mo@btinternet.com]
>Sent: 10 March 2008 13:51
>To: 'rv-list@matronics.com'
>Subject: Skybolt Fasteners
>
>
>
>Listers
>
>
>
>I'm planning on using Skybolt fasteners on the rear edge of the top cowl. I
>find the standard Vans hinges in the other positions to work very well it's
>just a pain pulling the rear pins through the oil door.
>
>I'm told 3.5" spacing is about right and I would therefore require 14 sets.
>Does anyone know the part numbers of the parts that I would require? I'm
>assuming that I'll need to simply fix a flange in place of the hinge to
>accept the receptacles. Any input would be appreciated.
>
>
>
>Neil Henderson RV9a Flying - RV7 90% done 90% to go
>
>
>
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: | Ethanol not from corn |
I haven't heard anybody weighing in on "Cellulosic Ethanol". Some sources
say it has three times the Net energy that Corn Ethanol has since the
energy input to produce the biomass it is derived from is reduced.
At least there is a chance of non food crop produced Ethanol being
commercially produced. The science seems to work since they are producing
it in small amounts now. Anybody have input about this other source?
David Richardson
http://rv-7.com
finishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
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: | Ethanol not from corn |
I have only one correction to your post, that being about only a small amount of
cellulosic ethanol being produced. That's true in the U.S., but in Brazil,
they produce massive quantities (world leader) of cellulosic ethanol (from sugar
cane stalks, I believe). The reason they don't export more of it to the U.S.
is the U.S. slaps a 30%-50% tariff on it. I assume we can thank Archer-Daniel
Midlands and their buddies for that. As things stand right now, I'd rather
send my fuel dollars to Brasil than ________ (insert name of any Middle Eastern
country as well as Venezuela).
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of dave@rv-7.com
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 12:21 PM
Subject: RV-List: Ethanol not from corn
I haven't heard anybody weighing in on "Cellulosic Ethanol". Some sources
say it has three times the Net energy that Corn Ethanol has since the
energy input to produce the biomass it is derived from is reduced.
At least there is a chance of non food crop produced Ethanol being
commercially produced. The science seems to work since they are producing
it in small amounts now. Anybody have input about this other source?
David Richardson
http://rv-7.com
finishing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
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: The Ethanol Fantasy |
If the Wright Bros had never flew the first plane would we be flying
today? Guys, it's not about the ethanol, it is about the dream of
making our world a better place for the next generation. It's about the
opportunity to fly your plane on a beautiful day because the Wright Bros
had this dream of flight. Look at this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1983190/posts
Look further down the road and just maybe something will come out of the
research that will make our planes fly for less or even better.
Jim Fogarty
RV9A Builder MN
----- Original Message -----
From: John Jessen
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 2:58 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.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Checked by AVG.
3/8/2008 10:14 AM
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: FW: Skybolt Fasteners |
Yep, check this page...
http://www.romeolima.com/RV3hq/Airframe/airframe.htm#Finish
Randy Lervold
----- Original Message -----
From: NEIL HENDERSON
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 7:33 AM
Subject: RV-List: FW: Skybolt Fasteners
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: Neil & Maureen [mailto:neil.mo@btinternet.com]
Sent: 10 March 2008 13:51
To: 'rv-list@matronics.com'
Subject: Skybolt Fasteners
Listers
I'm planning on using Skybolt fasteners on the rear edge of the top
cowl. I find the standard Vans hinges in the other positions to work
very well it's just a pain pulling the rear pins through the oil door.
I'm told 3.5" spacing is about right and I would therefore require 14
sets. Does anyone know the part numbers of the parts that I would
require? I'm assuming that I'll need to simply fix a flange in place of
the hinge to accept the receptacles. Any input would be appreciated.
Neil Henderson RV9a Flying - RV7 90% done 90% to go
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: Ethanol not from corn |
Chuck,
I feel your rage but for the record, sugar is the second most profitable crop in
the U.S. only exceeded by tobacco. The Florida Everglades produces hundreds
of tons of the stuff each year. Don't assume Archer Daniel Midland is behind
sugar prices and tariff restrictions. Just follow the money. There is plenty
of blame to spread around and in the special case of sugar we can look to vast
sums of money that are funneled into the pockets of two little known, yet extremely
wealthy and politically powerful brothers named Alfie and Pepe Fanjul of
Palm Beach Fla. They are far and away the prime recipients of the sugar program
in the United States, estimated to cost the U.S. taxpayers 1.4 billion a year.
How? According to NBC news, our government guarantees the Fanjul brothers
22 cent per pound of sugar even though the worldwide price is 7 cents a pound.
It is argued that elements of the sugar program are custom crafted to serve
the Fanjul brothers and include import quotas and tariffs that effectively keeps
foreign sugar out of the U.S. Look no further than Canada to the north and
Mexico to the south to observe two nearby countries that enjoy sugar prices
one third the U.S. price. Not only that, it is said the Fanjul brothers have
petitioned our government to amend immigration laws so they can and do legally
bring in foreign workers who live an anonymous life of hard labor and virtual
bondage in company "housing." If more Americans really knew about the ongoing
sweetheart deal in Florida, especially as regards the Fanjul brothers and
the Florida Crystals Corp., maybe the sugar program could finally be adjusted
to truly serve the needs of the average American citizen the way the sugar program
was intended to instead of lining and relining the pockets of two fantastically
wealthy brothers and the political cover they have nurtured for years.
They dispense large sums of money to gain political access while covering all
the bases. One brother is a Democrat and the other is a Republican.
cjensen(at)dts9000.com wrote:
> ......The reason they don't export more of it to the U.S. is the U.S. slaps a
30%-50% tariff on it. I assume we can thank Archer-Daniel Midlands and their
buddies for that..... Chuck Jensen-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168867#168867
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: RV-7 Best climb and rate of climb |
I have and RV7A with O360 180HP and the same Sensenich prop. I just completed
my testing a few weeks ago and here is a summary of what I did and learned.
1. Do testing early in the morning, my afternoon data was thrown out because I
could never get the plane stabilized.
2. I live in Colorado at around 5000ft so had take my data from 7000ft to 8000ft.
3. Climbs were stated at about 6200ft to be stabilized by 7000ft.
4. Data was taken from 60kias to 110kias at 5kt increments, with a minimum of four
runs in opposite directions. As I learned more I took more data from 80 to
95kts.
5. The OAT varied from 5C to 8C over the test period (three mornings at the same
time).
6. Plane, pilot and fuel averaged, 1525 lbs.
7. Testing always started with full fuel but fuel is burned during the test and
I could only guess at the exact weight during a particular test.
8. Climb rate data from a particular airspeed was averaged.
9. Climb rate data was Graphed and Vx computed from the tangent to the best rate
of climb as described in AC90-89A pages 47 and 48.
My result was:
Vy = 88KIAS
Vx = 72KIAS
Things I learned:
Wow, this was harder than I imagined. When I look at my best rate of climb curve
it is very flat from 80 to about 100kts but there is a small peak at 88kts.
The Vy data isn't very useful because climbing at 88kts produces a deck angle
that is much too high to be safe, I cannot see over the nose and it's uncomfortable
for pilot and passenger. Also, I need to get the speed higher to achieve
CHT under 400F on warm days. In practice I find the 110kts is a better climb
speed.
I've estimated my best glide speed to be 80KIAS.
Brad
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: | Calaveras County Airport Fly-In Event |
RVators,
The annual Calaveras Airport Day Event is coming up soon and I would
like to extend an invitation to the RV community to attend Sat. April
26. We had a great variety of aircraft flying in last year with more
that 30 of them RV types. Looking forward to seeing many new (and old)
RV's flying in!
--Larry Mersek
N336RV
Calaveras Air Fair 2008
Apr. 26-San Andreas, CA. Calaveras County Airport (KCPU)-Fly-In & Open
House 8am-5pm.
Aircraft static displays, Local non-profit food vendors, Classic car and
Military vehicle displays,
$5 scenic airplane rides, Radio control airplane display, and more!
Kathy Zancanella: kz@mlode.com or Larry Mersek:
1rv6flyer@internet49.com
Airport Info: (209) 736-2501
http://www.co.calaveras.ca.us/departments/admin/airport.asp
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KCPU
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: Ethanol not from corn |
As long as the government has the power to reward some at the expense of
others, there will be smart people to game the system at other's expense. We
don't need to adjust the various subsidies -- we need to eliminate them, and
then eliminate the power to grant them.
There are very, very few ideas so good that passing a law to make them
mandatory won't make bad ideas, or granting a little subsidy won't distort
beyond recognition.
I grew up on a little "family farm" in the Nooksack River valley of Western
Washington. I will forever be thankful that it didn't occur to anyone
running for county commissioner that maybe they should subsidize stumps.
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Galati
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 1:07 PM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Ethanol not from corn
.... maybe the sugar program could finally be adjusted to truly serve the
needs of the average American citizen the way the sugar program was intended
to instead of lining and relining the pockets of two fantastically wealthy
brothers and the political cover they have nurtured for years. They
dispense large sums of money to gain political access while covering all the
bases. One brother!
is a Democrat and the other is a Republican.
cjensen(at)dts9000.com wrote:
> ......The reason they don't export more of it to the U.S. is the U.S.
slaps a 30%-50% tariff on it. I assume we can thank Archer-Daniel Midlands
and their buddies for that..... Chuck Jensen-
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168867#168867
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: | Ethanol not from corn |
I haven't heard anybody weighing in on "Cellulosic Ethanol". Some sources
say it has three times the Net energy that Corn Ethanol has since the energy
input to produce the biomass it is derived from is reduced.
At least there is a chance of non food crop produced Ethanol being
commercially produced. The science seems to work since they are producing
it in small amounts now. Anybody have input about this other source?
David Richardson
http://rv-7.com
finishing
Dave: Suggest you look at R Squared Energy Blog. As of now (3-10-08 6:40pm
edt) the 4th article comments on cellulosic ethanol. I'll try to write down
the address. Robert Rapier claims to have been in the energy business for
some years in various capacities. You may find his site to be of interest.
Http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/ I am not sure if the last slash is
needed but if it doesn't work just try googling as above.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
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: Ethanol not from corn |
dave@rv-7.com wrote:
>
> I haven't heard anybody weighing in on "Cellulosic Ethanol". Some sources
> say it has three times the Net energy that Corn Ethanol has since the
> energy input to produce the biomass it is derived from is reduced.
>
> At least there is a chance of non food crop produced Ethanol being
> commercially produced. The science seems to work since they are producing
> it in small amounts now. Anybody have input about this other source?
>
I heard on the news a while back that making ethanol from switch grass
yields around 7 to 10 times more energy out than in, where corn is like
1.3 out for 1 in. And from what I understand it is a lot easier to grow
switch grass than corn since switch grass is basically a weed. For
aircraft use I still think Diesel is the best way to go. We just have
to wait for the various diesel engine options in the works.
For those who don't know, pretty much any diesel engine will run fine on
jet fuel (certainly any diesel engine designed for use in an airplane)
so finding fuel for a diesel powered plane isn't hard. And since diesel
engines are more efficient than gas, that means you need less weight of
diesel than gas to go the same distance, and since diesel weighs more
per gallon, you can go a lot further on a tank of diesel than you can on
a tank of gas.
Do not archive.
--
Chris W
KE5GIX
"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"
Ham Radio Repeater Database.
http://hrrdb.com
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Sorry I'm keeping this forum off-topic, but as a Minnesota resident this ethanol
game is driving me crazy.
The study I read was done by the U of MI. The conclusion was that the Net Energy
Balance of ethanol was slightly better than petroleum, BUT ONLY after they
added several "other" factors like less reliance on imported oil from unstable
countries, creation of American jobs. Without those credits, it took more BTUs
to make a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself produced. I'm sorry, but
the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for such improvisation. When you think
about it, by using fossil fuel to produce ethanol, we are actually using more
petroleum than we would have if we didn't mess with ethanol in the first place.
So, we're really just burning through the dwindling oil endowment even
faster.
Go nuclear!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168918#168918
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
Tracy I respect you and AGREE 100% with you. I never put
down alternative engines. I stated fact. Now how long have
you worked on you plane in hours? How many hours of
R&D and tweaking have you done? The answer is it does
not matter, because you are having fun. But bolt a Lyc on
it will give you known performance and less tinkering.
It is just a fact. Of ALL the alternative engines, the Mazda
conversion is the lightest and one of the best performers.
However the gas milage, noise and even oil use are not
trivial, and it's almost impossible to do anything about; it's
just inherent in the desgin. I have had Rotary Mazda's
since the 70's: RX2, RX3, RX7 and my friend has a
RV8. She gets terrible gas milage, has to use special
oil and needs to put oil in between oil changes. That
is a fact. That is how rotaries work. Even compared
to other sport cars with the same performance as the
RX8, like the Z car, the Mazda is a gas hog, and that
is in a car, "city millage", "highway milage". An aircraft
engine operates at very high power settings like 75%.
Car engines, are usually using less than 1/3 of rated
power. What does it take to do 65mph, 60-80hp?
I'll leave it to this article on the Power Sport rotaries
which by all account where some of the most beautify
highly mod 13B's and PSRU's. Van's aircraft had a fly
off between two Identical RV-8's with Power Sport
rotaries (no longer avaiable) and two factory RV-8's with
Lycs, 180HP & one 200 HP.
http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/3117/rotary22ms.jpg
http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/4323/rotary14wv.jpg
For some reason the 200hp RV-8 was slower than the
180HP RV-8? (May be tired from being a demo plane?)
Still the Power Sports DID VERY well. I want to point that
out. They had the same or few more mph or fpm more
speed & climb than the 180HP Lyc. The PS RV's did weigh
more than even the heavier 200HP lyc engine and
significantly more than the 180hp RV. They did burn
copious amounts of fuel above beyond the Lycs,
not trivial, like 4 gal/hr !
Also ground test showed the noise to be noticeably higher,
even bringing people out side to listen.
These are just facts Tracy not put downs. I am tired of
one thing. Alternative engines NEED to stand on their
own merits. I understand the Lyc being attack or used
as the gold standard. I know YOU don't do that. You
stand on your own feet and tell the truth good bad or
ugly. You don't sugar coat problems. However you are
the keeper of the flame and are a proponent and
enthusiast for the engine. Nothing wrong with that.
How many races have you or other Alt engines won?
Well you won the 160HP class sun and fun race one
year. I consider you to be a total straight shooter no BS,
but I'll point out, why did you run in the 160 HP class?
I mean really if you are getting 180HP performance
than you should have ran in that class. In the 180HP
class you would have been an also ran. Not a put down
just numbers and facts. Races can be a good benchmark
or not. The best test is by side by side flights as Van
did above, with unbiased observers. of course the test
needs to be repeatable.
I'll say, if I was going to do a non Lyc RV it wont be
a RWS, rotary with your PSRU and probably be
turbo (to keep noise down and get some more
efficiency).
Any one wanting to do a rotary, there is one place
you need to go, Tracy and RWS, the nicest people
and honest with smart designs. However be realistic,
you are not going to be BETTER than a Lycoming.
You just are not, it will be a tad heavier (I know I
track RV weights), it will not be as fast (unless it's
turbo and you fly high with O2) and it will always
burn more gas. It is true of the RX8 Mazda automobile
and it is true of a rotary in a plane.
Also if you DIY and roll your own Mazda with RWS
you can beat most Lycs in cost. However I have
$12,000 in an overhauled Lyc and $2,500 in an
OH Hartzell I bought for a prop shop. Not bad.
Granted a new fixed pitch prop Lyc (160 or 180hp)
is going to be about $25k. The numbers on most
Mazda conversions can be done in the $16k ball
park with fixed wood prop.
All the best to you Tracy, I am big fan, I just fly a Lycoming and GE and P&W.
>>From: "Tracy Crook" <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
>>Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 :>)
---------------------------------
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
Right that is my point, car engines are not worked as hard or long as a plane engine
so there is no comparison, at least millage or speed wise or even continuous
higher power output for an aircraft engine. It is just a totally different
mission and the engines reflect that. People are amazed at there Lexus. I get
it, but its a car not a plane. You also have all this steel and insulation and
long tail pipes.....big radiator...etc.....Can you imagine every time you drove
your car, you had to start off climbing "Pikes Peak" at 100 mph, just to
get going, than drive down the freeway at 120 mph, every trip.
From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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 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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
>From: "William Britton" <william@gbta.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
Well I do care and resent you saying 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
Right, uhmm huha. Sure. Farmers don't get subsidies.
>My grandad tells me that back in the '40's and '50's he sold wheat for
>nearly $2.50/bushel.
>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.
Don't know how we got onto wheat, but your are right US is bread
basket of the world with best agraculture bar none. What does
that have to do with all the tea in china?
>As for the ethanol thing you are right about it being a scam. However,
See WE AGREE, I'll buy you a beer!
>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.
I agree, and if we listened to Jimmy Carter in the 70's and when every
on sold thier Caddy for a Honda Civic went down that road and we
also did not MESS up Nuke power which we need more of, than we
would not be in this mess. We learned our lesson in the 70's but
forgot and SUV's abound. I love the Mom loading her shopping
into this monster SUV with her 1.5 kids. What a waste.
>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.
No no no no I never said that. Many farmers struggle. I know. I am just
saying CORN ehtonal is NOT the answer and we need to work on
the other kinds of ehtonal, switch grass or what ever. We need solar,
wind, nuke as well. AND MOST OF ALL... we need to conserve. Yes
I know that is un-American but we need to use less energy. You hear
figures about if all cars got like 50 mpg we could get off of most forign
oil.
FACT OIL WILL RUN OUT. We used a 1/3rd of the easist oil to
get in the last 100 years. The next 1/3rd will be much harder to get
and we are using it at an a rate, accelerating at such a fantastic
rate (as China/India explode), we will use that 1/3rd in the next
40 years or less? Than the wars will break out. Oh wait too late
they already have.
Tax money to help farmers grow things that don't work is dumb.
I am all for providing subsides to grow the right crops the right
way with out screwing up all the other crops. How? I don't know
we need MORE farms, new ones growing switchgrass or sugar
cane (I know it will not grow in KS.)
>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
I guess we totally agree. I am sorry but we agree. Bummer for you.
Cheers Goerge, love farmers, hate politichians.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
cknauf wrote: Go nuclear!
Right on brother! We make 1800 MW of electricity from clean nuclear power
every day, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. We refuel after operating
about 500 days at 100 % power. Think how much coal, natural gas, or oil we
don't burn because of this.
Jerry Isler
Control Room Supervisor and
Licensed Senior Reactor Operator
Do Not Archive
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
A couple of tmes a year I have to chime in to straighten out the facts.
Alot of auto / truck engines are run hard... Take for example a Uhaul /
Ryder rental truck. They are underpowered from the get go. People rent t
hem and overload them till the tires blow out. They start them up, never
let them warm up and hit the interstate, hold the throttle wide open ti
ll they get to the other side of the country, unload it, return it to th
e local dealer. A few days later the truck heads back across the countr
y, doing it all over again. Week after week. month after month... ya thi
nk this isn't a torture test ?????????????
Take the marine applications. They use automotive blocks, heads cranks,
yada, yada. Most boaters hit the boat ramp, dump it off the trailer, sta
rt it, don't let it warm up and spend the day on the lake running wide o
pen. Sometimes running it through rough water making the boat jump out o
f the water, this causes the motor to overrev alot and then when it hits
the water again it instantly loads the drivetrain. A plane cannot creat
e that kind of abuse, but day after day, week after week boats do this t
o engines and ya know what... They live to run another summer, and summe
rs after that... So your theory is suspect at best and BS at worst...
Ben Haas
A true auto engine conversion addict.
www.haaspowerair.com
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
Right that is my point, car engines are not worked as hard or long as a
plane engine so there is no comparison, at least millage or speed wise o
r even continuous higher power output for an aircraft engine. It is just
a totally different mission and the engines reflect that. People are am
azed at there Lexus. I get it, but its a car not a plane. You also have
all this steel and insulation and long tail pipes.....big radiator...etc
.....Can you imagine every time you drove your car, you had to start off
climbing "Pikes Peak" at 100 mph, just to get going, than drive down th
e freeway at 120 mph, every trip. From: "Rob Prior" <rv7@b4.ca>
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
========================
====
_____________________________________________________________
Garage overflowing? Click for steel buildings that are durable and easy
to install.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4uigju3zRt2vmuCm1wS
NZoZwTWelUvyHFulBAjnux0oxHVZh/
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Hi
For ethanol to replace gasoline we will need mandatory multi fuel cars. Brazil
required cars to be multi-fuel. then worked on the science and economics of
ethanol. Then when the price structure worked for ethanol the consumer freely
made the choice.
do not archive
Sherman Butler
RV-7a Wings
N497GS reserved
Carlsbad, NM
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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 |
|
Hmmpf,
Seems like the laws of thermal dynamics are pretty clear about heat
rejection, it takes what it takes regardless of medium used.
The only advantage liquid cooling has is the capacity to provide a heat
reservoir, to absorb it when too much is being generated, and to retain it
when not enough is being generated.1
The rejection of heat off of aluminum radiator fins versus cylinder cooling
fins is the same if the delta T between the fins and air is the same. Typical
coolant based radiators need to be a bit larger per HP because the engine
designers are shooting for lower temps (220deg vs 350deg) But a radiator that
was designed for aircraft use, or a coolant medium that allowed for higher
operating tempertures would solve all the proscribed complaints.
Unfortunately there is no real science to the claims made in this argument
because the P51 is the only one mentioned that was designed completely to be
both liquid cooled and aircraft. The auto conversions are not using radiators
or coolant designed to be in an aircraft, nor is the aircraft discussed
designed to be using a liquid cooled engine.
If you put a bullet in the sump or oil tank of a radial it will stop
producing power relatively quickly, just like the P-51. And it is a mistake
to say that the 51 will drop dead if they loose their coolant. That is not
true. They will need overhaul after landing but they will produce power when
decidedly overheated particularly if one backs off the power. Of note here is
that while I have tagged a few birds I've yet to take in any lead so the
stray sniper arguement is a bit of a reach.
The fact that one design wins a race over another means nothing to this
discussion without a discussion about mean time between overhauls and rate of
catastrophic failures, which data likely shows happening more often as a
function of more HP being produced (along with winning) versus type of
cooling system used.
The down side of liquid cooling is sophistication and the inherent cost. But
something exotic like micro ducting of a high temp coolant in the cowl or
wing skins would provide all the surface cooling one would ever need with no
extra drag, and viola, eliminate the cooling inlet/outlets all together while
also having a huge thermal reservoir for extra long straight up climbouts.
So it is time for someone to invent a low cost high strength lightweight
smooth cooling blanket that can be worked like 2024, and then use oil cooling
systems off the main oil pump. I think the point of the original poster is
that there are ways to get to a better design if we are willing to be a
little open about it.
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
"A true auto engine conversion addict."
Sometimes people ask if scuba diving is good in Cancun Mexico.
My response is that if it were, dive shops would make trips there
instead of (or in addition to) Cozumel Mexico. So I have to reach
the conclusion that scuba diving in Cancun does not compare to
Cozumel.
I see the auto conversion in aircraft the same way. If auto conversions
were so great then they would have become very prevalent. Since
they have not, I reach the conclusion that they are inferior.
Do as you wish but if you ever try to sell your airplane the reality
of your choice will become obvious.
Ron Lee
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) |
Bill,
Well put. The farm bill is really more of a =93food bill=94 with all of
the
nutrition and food stamp programs it contains. Direct payments amount
to
less than 25% of the new proposed Farm Bill. In the case of our county
in
Idaho, govt. payments accounted for only 0.039% of total gross income
for
our producers! On average the grower gets less than 20 cents out of
every
food dollar and in many cases it is considerably less for most
commodities.
That loaf of bread has only 13 cents worth of wheat in it. Who gets the
other $2.37? The price increases being seen in today=92s food costs are
more
energy driven than raw product driven.
We have to get off foreign oil and soon. Oil traded above $108/ bbl
today.
We might look at $3.40 diesel as cheap (ouch) in hindsight if this trend
continues. That should scare all of us. Corn ethanol is not THE
answer,
but can be PART of the answer, along with other renewable resources. We
are
on the path with cellulosic and it will happen in time. In the mean
time I
prefer to keep our energy dollars =93in country=94 and tell the likes of
Chavez
to go to *&##.
Like you, I am proud to feed the world and don=92t ask for much in
return, but
it really is irritating when people criticize producers unfairly using
bad
information.
People shouldn=92t criticize US agriculture or US Ag policy on a full
stomach!
We supply the most abundant, most affordable and safest food supply in
the
world. US consumers have the best deal going of any citizens in any
developed country.
Sorry for the off subject rant and now back to your regularly scheduled
programming!
Dave Bergh,
Mountain Home, ID
RV6 sloooooow build
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of William Britton
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: 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: HYPERLINK "mailto:gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com"gmcjetpilot@yahoo.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/N
avigator?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
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List"http://www.matronics.com/Navi
gat
or?RV-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
7.5.518 /
Checked by AVG.
12:00
AM
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 |
|
-----Original Message-----
Fr
Unfortunately there is no real science to the claims made in this argument
because the P51 is the only one mentioned that was designed completely to be
both liquid cooled and aircraft. The auto conversions are not using
radiators or coolant designed to be in an aircraft, nor is the aircraft
discussed designed to be using a liquid cooled engine.
If you put a bullet in the sump or oil tank of a radial it will stop
producing power relatively quickly, just like the P-51. And it is a mistake
to say that the 51 will drop dead if they loose their coolant. That is not
true. They will need overhaul after landing but they will produce power when
decidedly overheated particularly if one backs off the power.
Wheeler:
There were, of course, many aircraft designed and built exclusively for
liquid cooled engines. The P-51 is mentioned as one of the best. Liquid
cooling does not equate to lower drag. Properly done it can be good. Not
many are that good and you hit it when you referred to the basic design as
important in such aircraft. The design of diffusers, heat exchangers and
discharge nozzles is not trivial and responds to longer flow channels. If
one truly wants liquid cooling and low drag the original design should
accommodate it.
With regard to losing power as a result of engine damage, a couple of
anecdotes might be illuminating. A few years ago a local pilot departed
Toledo Express in his P-51D with an apparent defect in the cooling system.
The engine destroyed itself within 22 nm and the ensuing forced landing cost
the lives of two people. On the other hand a friend of mine flew his P-47
from France to England and successfully landed at an emergency strip after a
20mm shell physically removed 7 cylinders from the bottom of his R-2800. He
said he knew it was running rough but his wingman said his oil loss didn't
look too bad.
Gordon Comfort
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
Absolutely, the Lycoming IS the Gold Standard. It is very hard to beat a
purpose built engine with that many years of development.
I do think you over state the fuel economy issue when used in aircraft
applications. The disadvantage of the rotary is much less when run at
higher percentages of power. BTW, If anything, I think your estimate of
power used in a car is high by a factor of 3 at 65 mph. This is the main
reason the rotary makes such a lousy car engine and partly why I bought a Z3
instead of an RX-8 <g> At low power settings the quench areas are huge and
unburned fuel is really bad. With higher loading, the flame front travels
farther into that ill-shaped combustion chamber and the losses are not as
bad. The lack of valve train losses help as well. As I said, it still has
about a 5% BSFC disadvantage even when well tweaked.
The PowerSport comparison was flawed for two reasons. 1. The artificial
fixing of prop rpm during the economy test. The Powersport should have been
run at lower rpm and higher manifold pressure for best economy. 2. The ECU
used by Powersport was tragically flawed in it's fuel mapping. To take best
advantage of the rotary, it should have been run well below LOP in cruise (I
cruise as much as 150 deg LOP). There are valid engineering reasons why
the rotary can be run leaner than the piston engine but that's a long
discussion. Short version: There is a stratification of mixture in the
chamber of the rotary with richest mix out near the plugs, but only above
4500 rpm. That makes it of no advantage in a car where you don't cruise
that high.
I could say that my engine does not use any oil between changes (75 hrs) but
that would be a deception. For several reasons, I don't use the factory oil
injection. Instead, I premix 2 stroke oil in the fuel (4 oz per 6 gal of
fuel). The factory injection will make it past warranty period (usually)
but engine life is at least tripled using premix. Yes, it's a hassle
sometimes but no big disadvantage in the big picture. This eliminates the
need for special oil in the crankcase. I use Mobile 1. I have yet to
wear one out so I don't know what TBO is.
Ultimately you are right. The only reason to install an alternative is for
the fun of it. There are NO other good reasons. But the fun of being your
own aircraft propulsion engineer is not to be underestimated <G>
Always a pleasure to debate this stuff with knowledgeable guys like you.
All the best,
Tracy
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:05 PM, <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Tracy I respect you and AGREE 100% with you. I never put
> down alternative engines. I stated fact. Now how long have
> you worked on you plane in hours? How many hours of
> R&D and tweaking have you done? The answer is it does
> not matter, because you are having fun. But bolt a Lyc on
> it will give you known performance and less tinkering.
>
> It is just a fact. Of ALL the alternative engines, the Mazda
> conversion is the lightest and one of the best performers.
>
> However the gas milage, noise and even oil use are not
> trivial, and it's almost impossible to do anything about; it's
> just inherent in the desgin. I have had Rotary Mazda's
> since the 70's: RX2, RX3, RX7 and my friend has a
> RV8. She gets terrible gas milage, has to use special
> oil and needs to put oil in between oil changes. That
> is a fact. That is how rotaries work. Even compared
> to other sport cars with the same performance as the
> RX8, like the Z car, the Mazda is a gas hog, and that
> is in a car, "city millage", "highway milage". An aircraft
> engine operates at very high power settings like 75%.
> Car engines, are usually using less than 1/3 of rated
> power. What does it take to do 65mph, 60-80hp?
>
> I'll leave it to this article on the Power Sport rotaries
> which by all account where some of the most beautify
> highly mod 13B's and PSRU's. Van's aircraft had a fly
> off between two Identical RV-8's with Power Sport
> rotaries (no longer avaiable) and two factory RV-8's with
> Lycs, 180HP & one 200 HP.
>
> http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/3117/rotary22ms.jpg
> http://img282.imageshack.us/img282/4323/rotary14wv.jpg
>
>
> For some reason the 200hp RV-8 was slower than the
> 180HP RV-8? (May be tired from being a demo plane?)
>
> Still the Power Sports DID VERY well. I want to point that
> out. They had the same or few more mph or fpm more
> speed & climb than the 180HP Lyc. The PS RV's did weigh
> more than even the heavier 200HP lyc engine and
> significantly more than the 180hp RV. They did burn
> copious amounts of fuel above beyond the Lycs,
> not trivial, like 4 gal/hr !
>
> Also ground test showed the noise to be noticeably higher,
> even bringing people out side to listen.
>
> These are just facts Tracy not put downs. I am tired of
> one thing. Alternative engines NEED to stand on their
> own merits. I understand the Lyc being attack or used
> as the gold standard. I know YOU don't do that. You
> stand on your own feet and tell the truth good bad or
> ugly. You don't sugar coat problems. However you are
> the keeper of the flame and are a proponent and
> enthusiast for the engine. Nothing wrong with that.
>
> How many races have you or other Alt engines won?
>
> Well you won the 160HP class sun and fun race one
> year. I consider you to be a total straight shooter no BS,
> but I'll point out, why did you run in the 160 HP class?
>
> I mean really if you are getting 180HP performance
> than you should have ran in that class. In the 180HP
> class you would have been an also ran. Not a put down
> just numbers and facts. Races can be a good benchmark
> or not. The best test is by side by side flights as Van
> did above, with unbiased observers. of course the test
> needs to be repeatable.
>
> I'll say, if I was going to do a non Lyc RV it wont be
> a RWS, rotary with your PSRU and probably be
> turbo (to keep noise down and get some more
> efficiency).
>
> Any one wanting to do a rotary, there is one place
> you need to go, Tracy and RWS, the nicest people
> and honest with smart designs. However be realistic,
> you are not going to be BETTER than a Lycoming.
> You just are not, it will be a tad heavier (I know I
> track RV weights), it will not be as fast (unless it's
> turbo and you fly high with O2) and it will always
> burn more gas. It is true of the RX8 Mazda automobile
> and it is true of a rotary in a plane.
>
> Also if you DIY and roll your own Mazda with RWS
> you can beat most Lycs in cost. However I have
> $12,000 in an overhauled Lyc and $2,500 in an
> OH Hartzell I bought for a prop shop. Not bad.
> Granted a new fixed pitch prop Lyc (160 or 180hp)
> is going to be about $25k. The numbers on most
> Mazda conversions can be done in the $16k ball
> park with fixed wood prop.
>
> All the best to you Tracy, I am big fan, I just fly a Lycoming and GE and
> P&W.
>
>
> >>From: "Tracy Crook" <tracy@rotaryaviation.com<http://us.f431.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=tracy@rotaryaviation.com&YY=6843&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>
> >
> >>Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
> >On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 10:45 AM, <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com<http://us.f431.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com&YY=6843&y5beta=yes&y5beta=yes&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b>>
> 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 :>)
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Nobody talks about the units of energy needed to refine crude oil. You
start with 1 barrel and you never get close to one barrel out. Not only
that, but only perhaps 0.6 of the barrel can be of compounds available
for gasoline of any variety, maybe 0.3-0.4 of kerosene...the ratio
between kero and gas can be adjusted through cracking, but you get less
of one to get more of the other. Then you get smaller fractions as
asphalt and bunker oil....but there is a significant fraction of btus
that is consumed in the refining...whether it comes from crude, natural
gas, or coal, and whichever fuel the refinery uses it emits huge amounts
of CO2.
Depending on whose study you use, ethanol gives 1.3 to 1.6 btus for each
btu in when corn is the feedstock and the Energy Dept supports a figure
a bit above 1.3. Yes there are one or two studies that are written by
fervent opponents to ethanol, that fail to acknowledge the energy and
fuel value of the distiller's grain left from the ethanol production,
and also include figures for the energy used to manufacture the
tractors, combines, trucks and all other farm vehicles, and the energy
to heat the farmers home, etc. You decide where reality lies. Oh, and
ethanol from sugar cane, as Brazil does it, produces 8 btus for each btu
input.
Not to mention biodiesel that produces 3-5 btu per btu input, depending
on which plants are used for oil source.
cknauf wrote:
>
> Sorry I'm keeping this forum off-topic, but as a Minnesota resident this ethanol
game is driving me crazy.
>
> The study I read was done by the U of MI. The conclusion was that the Net Energy
Balance of ethanol was slightly better than petroleum, BUT ONLY after they
added several "other" factors like less reliance on imported oil from unstable
countries, creation of American jobs. Without those credits, it took more
BTUs to make a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself produced. I'm sorry,
but the laws of thermodynamics don't allow for such improvisation. When you
think about it, by using fossil fuel to produce ethanol, we are actually using
more petroleum than we would have if we didn't mess with ethanol in the first
place. So, we're really just burning through the dwindling oil endowment even
faster.
>
> Go nuclear!
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168918#168918
>
>
>
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: Liquid cooling |
On 19:12 2008-03-10 "Wheeler North" <wnorth@sdccd.edu> wrote:
> And it is a
> mistake to say that the 51 will drop dead if they loose their
> coolant. That is not true. They will need overhaul after landing but
> they will produce power when decidedly overheated particularly if one
> backs off the power.
Coincidentally, this is one of the arguments in favour of a rotary
conversion... Mazda rotaries are known for running dry and not failing. In
the event of an oil leak, your power will drop off a bit, but you won't
have to shut down. Might make the difference between an off-airport
landing risking life, limb, and airframe, and a safe landing followed by an
overhaul.
Not saying that's the only thing you should consider in an engine choice,
but it's something to consider anyway.
> So it is time for someone to invent a low cost high strength
> lightweight smooth cooling blanket that can be worked like 2024, and
> then use oil cooling systems off the main oil pump.
I think you'd find that the problem with such a system is the drag
internally, on the oil being pumped around. You'd need a pump almost as
big as your lycoming just to get the pressure necessary to push the oil
around. :)
-Rob
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
I agree with a few of your points. Corn is a poor choice for feedstock
to make ethanol.
We do need to conserve.. We could start by raising the price of airline
flights so that they were a luxury like they were before deregulation,
so that the majority of the population traveled by much more efficient
railroads. We could put major tax on all engines over 2.5 liters like
most of Europe, and tax heavy trucks for the real cost of damage they do
to the roads. We do need 50 mpg cars. They already exist. Most 2.0 liter
and smaller diesel cars are already there. Unfortunately, the President
has deemed it a constitutional right to drive a Suburban or Excursion or
Hummer with 7+ liter gas guzzling engines. Remind me again what the
price of oil and gas was when the current White House resident moved in?
We could make all the 50 year old smoke belching coal power plants clean
up to the same standards as a new plant and add carbon
sequestration..which would raise the price of energy to the point people
wouldn't waste it with so called security lighting and advertising
lighting for billboards, etc.
Oh, we have been at peak oil since about 1905. There will be some oil
for a very long time..you just won't like the price.
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> I know that is un-American but we need to use less energy. You hear
> figures about if all cars got like 50 mpg we could get off of most forign
> oil.
>
>
> FACT OIL WILL RUN OUT. We used a 1/3rd of the easist oil to
> get in the last 100 years. The next 1/3rd will be much harder to get
> and we are using it at an a rate, accelerating at such a fantastic
> rate (as China/India explode), we will use that 1/3rd in the next
> 40 years or less? Than the wars will break out. Oh wait too late
> they already have.
>
> I guess we totally agree. I am sorry but we agree. Bummer for you.
>
> Cheers Goerge, love farmers, hate politichians.
>
> *
> *
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! --
|