Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Flight to Lake Havasu

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Flight to Lake Havasu
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/5/2009 7:24:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  pennington(at)q.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  I    don't know how to explain this, but as I noted before, my engine burns    less Premium Auto Fuel per hour than AvGas. 	


 

 Gary,

     I just re read your Lake Havasu flight report and  this time actually noticed your statement / question (above) about the  difference of auto gas verses AvGas fuel burns.  And the fact that you got  slightly better fuel burns and thus used less fuel when you were  using auto gas.  The reason for this is that auto  gas is more volatile than avgas, and because of this you may actually see  slightly lower fuel usages.  There can  be some downsides, such as higher  vaporization, a higher potential for vapor lock, and perhaps more carburetor  icing.  Another thing to  remember is that auto  gas has looser manufacturing specifications and quality control is less  stringent, so actual quality and performance may vary widely from load to  load.  Hope this  helps.

 Blue Skies,

 Buz 

 Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.

  [quote][b]

pennington(at)q.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:33 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  Thanks for the info Buz. 

  

 So far, I haven't experienced any problems with Auto Fuel. While navigating  Flagstaff yesterday, (it was very cold), I anticipated carb ice on my  descent, but had no problems.

  

 I read an article a couple years ago in "Kit Planes" magazine on  the use of AvGas. Photos showed combustion chambers of aircraft engines after  using AvGas. Surfaces were encrusted with lead deposits which eventually caused  seizure. I'm rationalizing the use of Auto Fuel as beneficial because it does  not contain lead. I suppose time will tell.

  

 Anyway, thanks again for your insight.

  

 Happy flying.

 Gary

 [quote]   ---

baproe(at)online.no
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:32 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

A little gasoline trivia - Since I am in the industry I thought that I would let you know what I know about crudes and gasolines.  As a starter I am not in the refining business.  I am in the E&P (Exploration and Production) end and I usually lose interest after the stuff comes out of the ground.  Firstly, crude varies dramatically from condensates that can be used directly in your car to heavy oil that is the consistency of peanut butter.   As we are turning more to alternate crudes we are producing more peanut butter and less light sweet stuff.  Refineries must set up for the type of crude being run and what product is being produced.    Two things that are not widely known:  There are only a few places that oil is refined and the product is transported across the country via pipelines.  Here is the thing, all companies use the same pipeline system.  So at the other end you don’t really know who produced the product.  The product must be on spec before it enters the pipeline and the specs are very tightly controlled.  The difference between ExxonMobil and Chevron is not the base product but the additives and blending at the terminals.  Secondly, I can count at least 18 formulations of gasoline that are used around the country.  Summer vs. winter, high density traffic areas (EPA reformulated e.g. Ca and other major population centers) and high altitude areas.  Each of these carries three grades of fuels.  Do the math.  The gasoline needs to have the proper octane, and it needs to have the proper Reid vapor pressure, or RVP.   Buz referred to the fuels vapor pressure are an important factor.  Fuels with a high RVP will begin to boil if your tank is sitting there in 100+ F heat.  Not Good.  This is the difference between summer and winter blends even when the octane remains the same.  As you all know atmospheric pressure is 14.7 pounds/in2  at sea level and the pressure decreases with altitude.  When the atmospheric pressure is less than the RVP the fuel will begin to boil.  This occurs in a carburetor earlier with the lower pressure (Vapor Lock). The EPA has declared that summer gasoline blends may not exceed 7.8 psi in some locations, and 9.0 psi in others.   I don’t know how high the cheaper winter blends can go.  Now you know why the gasoline is more expensive in the summer.  The octane and RVP is controlled by the blend. Ok, back to the refineries.  Gasoline is composed of many different hydrocarbons. Crude oil enters a refinery, and is processed through various units before being blended into gasoline. A refinery may have a fluid catalytic cracker (FCC), an alkylate unit, and a reformer, each of which produces gasoline blending components. Alkylate gasoline, for example, is valuable because it has a very high octane, and can be used to produce high-octane (and higher value) blends. Light straight run gasoline is the least processed stream. It is cheap to produce, but it has a low octane. The refinery mixes these components together to meet the product specifications.  The RVP is controlled by the butane percentage.  All the components vary but Butane has a RVP of 52.  This is much higher than the other components so the summer blends only contain about 2% butane.  So what does this mean for aviation use of gasolines that are spec’ed for use in ground based autos.  Well it depends on the engine and fuel delivery system.  There is a constant balance between the auto manufactures, environmental issues and commerciality.  Engines have changed,  these changes have resulted in changes fuel specs.  It has all gotten more complex and the spec have gotten more stringent.  There is an effort to create a new fuel spec for Avgas with out lead.  The primary issue is not the ability to come up with a fuel but one that is compatible with the old engine designs and installed base.  

Personally,  I would have more faith in a fuel that is specifically designed for the engine that I intend to put it in.  If you know the fuel specs and the manufacture specs then you should be good to go.  

   

Brian P.        

  

From: owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of N1BZRich(at)aol.com

 Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 3:02 AM

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Lightning-List: Flight to Lake Havasu  

  

       

In a message dated 2/5/2009 7:24:04 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, pennington(at)q.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		    

I don't know how to explain this, but as I noted before, my engine burns less Premium Auto Fuel per hour than AvGas.   	
  

    

Gary,  

    

    I just re read your Lake Havasu flight report and this time actually noticed your statement / question (above) about the difference of auto gas verses AvGas fuel burns.  And the fact that you got slightly better fuel burns and thus used less fuel when you were using auto gas.  The reason for this is that auto gas is more volatile than avgas, and because of this you may actually see slightly lower fuel usages.  There can be some downsides, such as higher vaporization, a higher potential for vapor lock, and perhaps more carburetor icing.  Another thing to remember is that auto gas has looser manufacturing specifications and quality control is less stringent, so actual quality and performance may vary widely from load to load.  Hope this helps.  

    

Blue Skies,  

    

Buz   

  

       

  

Need a job? Find an employment agency near you.   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

       [quote][b]

pennington(at)q.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  Hello Brian

  

 You obviously know your gas. Although, I wasn't able to determine any  significant difference between auto fuel and avgas from your response.

  

 Thanks for your help.

  

 Gary Pennington

 [quote]   ---

selwyn

Joined: 12 Mar 2008
Posts: 102
Location: Australia

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:52 am Post subject: Re: Flight to Lake Havasu

Fascinating post!



Now for the trivia question of the day.  You mentioned light sweet crude.  I can relate the "light" to consistency and volatility but, given that we are talking about variations on a basically black gluggy substance, where does the "sweet" come from.

_________________
Cheers, Selwyn
Kit 66 VH-ELZ

baproe(at)online.no
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:16 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

As Far as I can tell the primary difference between Avgas and auto gas falls

into three buckets:



Octane rating - relates to the activation energy of the fuel.  High

performance high compression engines require high activation energies

(higher octane ratings).  If you have to low of octane your engine will

knock, the fuel will ignite to early (pre ignition).  They say for cars you

can run the lowest octane fuel that does not cause your engine to knock and

you are wasting your money on more expensive fuel.



REID Vapor pressure - the pressure at standard temperature the fuel will

vaporize (boil).  Avgas has a RVP of 6.38 psi and auto gas varies summer

winter ...  The summer gas is no greater than 7.8.  rather it will vaporize

at a lower density altitude.



Additives - Chemicals are added to the gas to do specific reasons.  Like

Tetra-ethyl lead to cheaply effectively raise the octane of gasoline.  It

does not do us much good however.  And my favorite Ethanol.  What a shame.

It takes far more fuel and energy to make than the energy output.  It is

nasty stuff in your tank as well.  Add a little water and the water will

hide in the Ethanol on the ground and separate as you gain altitude.  The

point is the additives may or may not be compatible for use in an aircraft.



The terms that we describe curde such as light heavy sour sweet. Are kinda

slang terms.



Light/Heavy - refers to the specific gravity and flow ability of the crude

low values like 20 API Molasses like and 40 lighter fluid.  It has

implications on how expensive it will be to get out of the ground.



Sweet vs Sour refers to the amount of sulfur in the crude.  Sulfur is costly

and dangerous to deal with. (So2) is very poisonous...  Sweet is better than

sour.



--

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:32 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/23/2009 1:16:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  baproe(at)online.no writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  It takes    far more fuel and energy to make than the energy  output. 	


 

 Can you offer some chapter and verse for this statement?

  

 I hear it from time to time and I wonder if it is like some of the other  crap we are being fed by the media these days.  Some pretend that the only  use for the corn is in making ethanol and they conveniently forget about the  huge market for brewers grain.

  

 You can reply to me directly and save the others if you like

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  

  

  [quote][b]

sttwig(at)wabroadband.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:16 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

Brian,



Please reply on line.  Being a farmer (not corn) I have a feeling for the

energy inputs that go into a farm commodity and I believe your statement

is true, but have no factual basis.  I , too would be interested in what

you have to say.



Steve Sundquist

Kit #48



 	  Quote: 	
		   In a message dated 2/23/2009 1:16:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

 baproe(at)online.no writes:



 It takes  far more fuel and energy to make than the energy  output.

 Can you offer some chapter and verse for this statement?



 I hear it from time to time and I wonder if it is like some of the other

 crap we are being fed by the media these days.  Some pretend that the only

  use

 for the corn is in making ethanol and they conveniently forget about the

 huge

 market for brewers grain.



 You can reply to me directly and save the others if you like



 Doug Koenigsberg

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:51 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/23/2009 1:16:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  baproe(at)online.no writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  And my    favorite Ethanol.  It takes far more fuel and energy to make than the    energy output. 	


 

 Brian,

     Along that same line, the auto fuel in this  somewhat metropolitan area where I live all contains 10%  ethanol.  If I search for auto fuel without ethanol when not in this  area I can very occasionally find some in outlaying rural areas.  The  reason, I always look for it, is my car and my truck both get about  15% better gas mileage when using fuel without ethanol.  And that 15%  mileage improvement has been pretty consistent every time I can get a tank  full without the ethanol additive.  As far as I am concerned, the ethanol  additive to save fuel is just a bunch of "hoodoo"  that the politicians  from the corn growing states have put over on us.  

 Buz 

  

 Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today.

  [quote][b]

Charles R Gallagher

Joined: 19 Feb 2008
Posts: 27

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:40 pm Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

Ethanol facts from Cornell University  http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm  The 10% mandate for clean air in high population areas has a big price tag. Regards,CRG

Bookmarks Toolbar 

--- On Mon, 2/23/09, N1BZRich(at)aol.com <N1BZRich(at)aol.com> wrote:

[quote]From: N1BZRich(at)aol.com <N1BZRich(at)aol.com>

Subject: Re: Re: Flight to Lake Havasu

To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

Date: Monday, February 23, 2009, 1:43 PM



      In a message dated 2/23/2009 1:16:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  baproe(at)online.no writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  And my    favorite Ethanol.  It takes far more fuel and energy to make than the    energy output. 	


 

 Brian,

     Along that same line, the auto fuel in this  somewhat metropolitan area where I live all contains 10%  ethanol.  If I search for auto fuel without ethanol when not in this  area I can very occasionally find some in outlaying rural areas.  The  reason, I always look for it, is my car and my truck both get about  15% better gas mileage when using fuel without ethanol.  And that 15%  mileage improvement has been pretty consistent every time I can get a tank  full without the ethanol additive.  As far as I am concerned, the ethanol  additive to save fuel is just a bunch of "hoodoo"  that the politicians  from the corn growing states have put over on us.  

 Buz 

  



 Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today.            [quote][b]

baproe(at)online.no
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:50 pm Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

I would rather be talking about plans to get involved in a Lightning and

flying one.  I do enjoy the chat.  



Ok I am a little flip and I hope I haven't offended anyone.  This is my

assessment of the energy balance.  I will refer to the most current

estimates of the energy balance.  I have seen several estimates that very

widely depending on what side you are on and what you want to hear.  I will

quote the current USDA estimates



"US Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34% more

energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it into

ethanol."



This means that for every unit of energy that you put into ethanol you yield

1.34 units.  OK I overstated it.  At best this is a very inefficient. 



Buz - the reason you do not get as good of mileage is that ethanol has a

lower BTU content than gasoline.  

Ethanol 84.4 KBTU 

Gasoline 125 KBTU 

Diesel 138.7 KBTU.  



This is also why Diesel engines get better mileage.  Not as much punch per

gallon.

--

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:33 pm Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/23/2009 2:51:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  N1BZRich(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Brian,

       Along that same line, the auto fuel in this    somewhat metropolitan area where I live all contains 10%    ethanol.  If I search for auto fuel without ethanol when not in this    area I can very occasionally find some in outlaying rural areas.  The    reason, I always look for it, is my car and my truck both get about    15% better gas mileage when using fuel without ethanol.  And that 15%    mileage improvement has been pretty consistent every time I can get a    tank full without the ethanol additive.  As far as I am concerned, the    ethanol additive to save fuel is just a bunch of "hoodoo"  that the    politicians from the corn growing states have put over on  us.  

   Buz 

	


 

 Buz,

  

 It would be great if the science backed you up.

  

 Actually 20% ethanol will give the best gas mileage.

  

 But dont believe me, check out this http://poet.com/ethanol/performance.asp?ir=

  

 And this http://poet.com/ethanol/power_sky.asp

  

  

 POET has the most state of the art Ethanol plants.  Did I mention my  cousin was running one?

  

 Feel free to start at the home page.

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  [quote][b]

Kayberg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:52 pm Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/23/2009 4:51:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  baproe(at)online.no writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  

"US    Department of Agriculture study concludes that ethanol contains 34%    more

energy than is used to grow and harvest the corn and distill it    into

ethanol."



This means that for every unit of energy that you put    into ethanol you yield

1.34 units.  OK I overstated it.  At best    this is a very inefficient. 



	


 

  

  

 Thanks.  I got it.

  

 They dont take in to account the feed grain byproducts.  

 Typical  government stats.  

  

 Fermenting the sugars to make alcholol doesn't remove the protein in  corn.   That means it can be used as a feed grain for cattle mostly,  tho it can be fed to hogs or chickens.   I guess they dont bother to  subtract the units it takes to use feeds.

  

 But another way to look at it is as a way to get natural gas into cars,  since most ethanol plants use natural gas to heat the mash and then to remove  the water in the yellowcake.   T Boone Pickens wants to put it in your  car directly, but converting it to ethanol is a little simpler.

  

 Having said all that, I do dislike the presence of ethanol in ALL the fuel  except 100LL.   It was nice to fill up this past summer on E85 for a  dollar a gallon less than regular gas.   But that was in the ol  minivan.  And yes E85 milage is less than regular gas.

  

 We can move on from this thread as far as I am concerned.

  

 Thanks all

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  

  

  [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 5:11 pm Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

Well, Doug, what do you expect the POET web page to say since the   POET Research Center, located in Scotland, SD, was the first  commercial ethanol plant in South Dakota.  They are promoting their  own product and of course are going to have the figures to make themselves look  good.  I, on the other hand, am a totally independent research facility of  two different vehicles and I pay my own way, and my miles does  vary.  In fact, every one I have asked about their mileage using 10%  ethanol say the same thing - anywhere from 10% to 20% LESS fuel mileage.   

  

 Anyway, try a really independent study - not an ethanol producer (POET) and  not me.  See what Cornell University has to say at:  http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

 Let me summarize for you in case you don't want to look it up.  A  Cornell University AG expert says, "Adding up the energy costs of corn  production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one  gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000  BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the  energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there  is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs."

  

 Another source says Ethanol has 84.4 KBTUs of energy and Gasoline has 125  KBTUs.  Looks to me like my research agrees with the above and not POET who  is trying hard to sell ethanol.

  

 But as I have said so many times before, your mileage may vary.

 Buz

  



 Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today.

  [quote][b]

Kayberg(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:36 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/23/2009 8:12:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  N1BZRich(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		      

   Anyway, try a really independent study - not an ethanol producer (POET)    and not me.  See what Cornell University has to say at:  http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm

   Let me summarize for you in case you don't want to look it up.  A    Cornell University AG expert says, "Adding up the energy costs of corn    production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make    one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only    77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than    the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol,    there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs."

	


 

  

 Cornell University is well known for it's liberal bent as well as being  located in a farm area that has been the slowest in the nation to distill  ethanol. ...since we are questioning motives.

  

 I am just saying that they cheat by adding the energy costs of corn  production despite ethanol not being the only resulting product.    Thus the figure of 131,000 BTUs is bogus.    It also has some age  to it, but that is another story.  POET has much more efficient plants than  the numbers this is based on.  But since they are competitve, privately  owned and industry leaders; their exact numbers are classified.  But they  are making money where the CO-OPs are not.

  

 In the Maryland area, ethanol is here to stay because it is the best and  cheapest replacement for MTBE.  Clean air standards around here require  winter fuels to be oxygenated and MTBE is nasty stuff. 

  

 There is a lot more to the ethanol story.  But again, I personally  wish it was not there for aviation uses., or at least until more legitimate  research is done.  

  

 Doug 

  [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

Hi again Doug,

     Your comment about Cornell being known for it's  liberal bent would seem to tell me that they would be very pro ethanol, and thus  not spouting the other side of the story.  Anyway, POET's or Cornell's  research really doesn't matter to me, as my own independent car and truck keep  telling me that they get 15% less fuel mileage when using fuel with 10%  ethanol.  And I can tell you for sure that my car and truck are not  liberals - also both being red, they are not conservative either.  They are  independents.  So stick that in your tail pipe and smoke it.    

     See you at SNF?

 Buz

 Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today.

  [quote][b]

Kayberg(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:10 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/24/2009 9:25:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  N1BZRich(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     Hi again Doug,

       Your comment about Cornell being known for it's    liberal bent would seem to tell me that they would be very pro ethanol, and    thus not spouting the other side of the story.  Anyway, POET's or    Cornell's research really doesn't matter to me, as my own independent car and    truck keep telling me that they get 15% less fuel mileage when using fuel with    10% ethanol.  And I can tell you for sure that my car and truck are not    liberals - also both being red, they are not conservative either.  They    are independents.  So stick that in your tail pipe and smoke it.      

       See you at SNF?

   Buz

	


 

  

 One of the problems with the whole ethanol question is the lack of good  data.  The research quoted in the POET website was done at South Dakota  State.   They discovered a 1% better mileage using 20%  ethanol....despite the differences in BTU's.   It would appear that  Ethanol has a better, cleaner burn and that might account for the unexpected  increase in mileage.  Of course that will not happen in your  vehicles.  

  

 Are you using auto fuel in your simulated Lightning?    How  has that worked out?  Do you test for water content?

  

 Which brings up another point.  Actually a serious one.    There is no real testing done at the pumps to determine the true alcohol  content.  You might be filling your vehicles up with water or 5% ethanol or  who knows?   Ethanol is not shipped through pipelines (it cleans them  out) but by rail cars.  That can make blending for delivery to stations a  less than precise event.  To my knowledge, there is little testing done  other than to verify the "proof" as it leaves the plant.    I  suspect that Fred and Charley at the ol fuel terminal just take the data of the  gasoline, (reed vapor pressure, RON or whatever)  and staple the proof test  done when the railcar left Iowa to the rest of the paperwork and call it  good.  Then they each urinate into the tank and it is delivered to your  station.  The water that leaks into the storage tank just hides in the  Ethanol and it is sold to you!   It might have up to 10% Ethanol, 1%  water....let me see was that by volume or weight?    Well, you  get the point.

  

 Brazil has set the world standard for a country that is the size of the  U.S. yet runs on ethanol.   Yet we seem to have little interest in how  they are doing so.

  

 As to politics, the agricultural publications were very puzzled by the  rejection of ethanol by McCain and the support of it by Obama.  It seemed  like it should have been the other way around...if indeed it takes more btu's to  make ethanol than it delivers.  This is not the forum for politics, but had  it not  been for the high prices ethanol plants were willing to pay last  spring and summer,  Congress might be trying to bail out grain farmers  along with banks, Wall Street and everything else.   Oil prices were  high at planting and harvesting, but so were the grain prices.   Both  are depressed now.   Ethanol plants are currently running significant  losses.

  

 Since you seem concerned about my tailpipe, I shall bring my recent  colonoscopy pictures to Sun n Fun for your abject perusal. [img]http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d20638/02[/img]

  

 Doug Koenigsberg

  [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 7:37 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/24/2009 10:10:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  Kayberg(at)aol.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Are you    using auto fuel in your simulated Lightning? 	


 

 No, Doug, I have never used anything but aviation fuel in any of my  airplanes.  To me the extra trouble you have to go through to get it to the  airport and the worry that it might have ethanol in it is just not worth the  potential money saved.  And it is getting almost impossible to find auto  fuel without ethanol.  So I just call the truck or pull up to the self  serve pump at the airport if they have one.  

  

 And as to your recent colonoscopy pictures, just send them on now as a  jpeg file and I will put them in the next Lightning Newsletter as the  centerfold photo.  Some of our builders may want a laugh.    Or maybe even it could be in the technical tips section on how you developed the  perfect exhaust system and you could include some words on how to use a  reamer.  Anyway, thanks for sharing.  You are a real pooper - OOPS, I  mean trooper.  

  

 Buz

 Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today.

  [quote][b]

baproe(at)online.no
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:19 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

My last words on this.  It was kinda fun.    

   

If I had a plane!! I would have more to contribute than sharing a little trivia and starting a political battle.    

   

I would stick to the manufactures recommendations lead no lead whatever.  I just want to be sure I know what I am getting.  I would trust the FBO to furnish proper Mogas or avgas. Fermentation products should not be burnt but drank –specifically Beer.  I am happy to pay that tax.  

   

I would like to go flying with you Clive sometime when I am in Aberdeen.  

   

Brian P  

         

  

From: owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-lightning-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kayberg(at)aol.com

 Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 4:09 PM

 To: lightning-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: Flight to Lake Havasu  

  

       

In a message dated 2/24/2009 9:25:27 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, N1BZRich(at)aol.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		      

Hi again Doug,  

    

    Your comment about Cornell being known for it's liberal bent would seem to tell me that they would be very pro ethanol, and thus not spouting the other side of the story.  Anyway, POET's or Cornell's research really doesn't matter to me, as my own independent car and truck keep telling me that they get 15% less fuel mileage when using fuel with 10% ethanol.  And I can tell you for sure that my car and truck are not liberals - also both being red, they are not conservative either.  They are independents.  So stick that in your tail pipe and smoke it.     

    

    See you at SNF?  

    

Buz  

  	
  

    

   

    

One of the problems with the whole ethanol question is the lack of good data.  The research quoted in the POET website was done at South Dakota State.   They discovered a 1% better mileage using 20% ethanol....despite the differences in BTU's.   It would appear that Ethanol has a better, cleaner burn and that might account for the unexpected increase in mileage.  Of course that will not happen in your vehicles.    

    

   

    

Are you using auto fuel in your simulated Lightning?    How has that worked out?  Do you test for water content?  

    

   

    

Which brings up another point.  Actually a serious one.   There is no real testing done at the pumps to determine the true alcohol content.  You might be filling your vehicles up with water or 5% ethanol or who knows?   Ethanol is not shipped through pipelines (it cleans them out) but by rail cars.  That can make blending for delivery to stations a less than precise event.  To my knowledge, there is little testing done other than to verify the "proof" as it leaves the plant.    I suspect that Fred and Charley at the ol fuel terminal just take the data of the gasoline, (reed vapor pressure, RON or whatever)  and staple the proof test done when the railcar left Iowa to the rest of the paperwork and call it good.  Then they each urinate into the tank and it is delivered to your station.  The water that leaks into the storage tank just hides in the Ethanol and it is sold to you!   It might have up to 10% Ethanol, 1% water....let me see was that by volume or weight?    Well, you get the point.  

    

   

    

Brazil has set the world standard for a country that is the size of the U.S. yet runs on ethanol.   Yet we seem to have little interest in how they are doing so.  

    

   

    

As to politics, the agricultural publications were very puzzled by the rejection of ethanol by McCain and the support of it by Obama.  It seemed like it should have been the other way around...if indeed it takes more btu's to make ethanol than it delivers.  This is not the forum for politics, but had it not  been for the high prices ethanol plants were willing to pay last spring and summer,  Congress might be trying to bail out grain farmers along with banks, Wall Street and everything else.   Oil prices were high at planting and harvesting, but so were the grain prices.   Both are depressed now.   Ethanol plants are currently running significant losses.  

    

   

    

Since you seem concerned about my tailpipe, I shall bring my recent colonoscopy pictures to Sun n Fun for your abject perusal. [img]http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d20638/02[/img]  

    

   

    

Doug Koenigsberg  

   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7 	  Quote: 	
		   	
8 	  Quote: 	
		   	
9

       [quote][b]

N1BZRich(at)AOL.COM
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:42 am Post subject: Flight to Lake Havasu

In a message dated 2/24/2009 1:20:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  baproe(at)online.no writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     

My last words on    this.  It was kinda fun.  	


 

 Hi Brian,

     Yes, it was kind of fun and perhaps we did learn  something.  But I do hope that everyone realizes that, in reality, Doug and  I actually are good friends and occasionally enjoy some "back and forth" with  words of wisdom for each other.  

 Blue Skies,

 Buz

 Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today.

  [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Lightning-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum