Aviation fuel - price of crude...

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:

It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
each density altitude that we fly at, which is, of course preposterous.
Now I am not arguing *for* the archaic engine designs now currently in
use by we average GA airplane owner. Perhaps if FAA certification was
not so costly, ponderous then engines of more modern design could be
be made affordable enough for the average guy to install in his plane.
(yes I know some of these engines already exist but will they ever
be STC'd for the current fleet????)

Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far more
advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This technology
gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air mixtures and ignition
timing based upon real time conditions so they can always operate at maximum
efficiency at any altitude or temperature (after being warmed up of course).
Different fuel blends are not necessary unless you carry emission standards to
exaggerated extremes, which is exactly what is going on in this
country today.

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:

It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
each density altitude that we fly at, which is, of course preposterous.
Now I am not arguing *for* the archaic engine designs now currently in
use by we average GA airplane owner. Perhaps if FAA certification was
not so costly, ponderous then engines of more modern design could be
be made affordable enough for the average guy to install in his plane.
(yes I know some of these engines already exist but will they ever
be STC'd for the current fleet????)

Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far more
advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This technology
gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air mixtures and ignition
timing based upon real time conditions so they can always operate at maximum
efficiency at any altitude or temperature (after being warmed up of course).
Different fuel blends are not necessary unless you carry emission standards to
exaggerated extremes, which is exactly what is going on in this
country today.

Still, none of this has anything to do with long-term supply and demand.
While tar sands and deep offshore drilling almost certainly ensure we won't
simply run out of the stuff in our lifetime, prices will almost certainly
rise significantly.

Beyond all this discussion of gasoline one must consider the fact that
there is hardly a manufacturing operation or product that does not rely
on petroleum products/by-products of one type or another. Even the few
that don't will probably have packaging that does. Petro chemicals and
lubricants are used in everywhere and this use is continuing to grow.

We need to start thinking out of the box and utilize every avenue at our
disposal to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and energy.
Simply focusing on conservation or resigning ourselves to "be like Europe"
will not get the job done.

Still, none of this has anything to do with long-term supply and demand.
While tar sands and deep offshore drilling almost certainly ensure we won't
simply run out of the stuff in our lifetime, prices will almost certainly
rise significantly.

Beyond all this discussion of gasoline one must consider the fact that
there is hardly a manufacturing operation or product that does not rely
on petroleum products/by-products of one type or another. Even the few
that don't will probably have packaging that does. Petro chemicals and
lubricants are used in everywhere and this use is continuing to grow.

We need to start thinking out of the box and utilize every avenue at our
disposal to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil and energy.
Simply focusing on conservation or resigning ourselves to "be like Europe"
will not get the job done.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
middle-east.

That is so bogus. "If we can send men to the moon, then why can't..." First
of all, we barely managed to send men to the moon. We haven't done it in
thirty years and can't do it now.

Secondly, sending men to the moon is one technology and is possible.
Perpetual motion is not possible, and a lot of energy-saving pipedreams
amount to a wish for perpetual motion.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

This country developed the atom bomb and sent men to the moon when it
wanted to...if we elect politicians with real honesty and courage, we
can *easily* do it again and become energy independent of the
middle-east.

That is so bogus. "If we can send men to the moon, then why can't..." First
of all, we barely managed to send men to the moon. We haven't done it in
thirty years and can't do it now.

Secondly, sending men to the moon is one technology and is possible.
Perpetual motion is not possible, and a lot of energy-saving pipedreams
amount to a wish for perpetual motion.

This is partly true but the original premise was the having these different
formulations was adding significant cost to the price of gas. Since gas
needs to be different for different markets anyway, there is little added
cost. The market is so large that even with 30 different formulations each
is produced in huge volumes and none of them are specialty products in the
way that avgas is. As Friedrich points out, vapor pressure has to be varied
with temperature. Refiners have always had different formulations for
different climates and for summer and winter. If all gas was the same,
consumers wouldn't be happy with the product.

Mike
MU-2

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
But Friedrich!
The reasons here in the States that the gas is different has nothing to
do with the reasons you put forth. The reasons here is because a group of
politicians pass laws for the tree huggers, to make more anti-pollution
standards that the gas industry in this country is not equipped to handle.
And before the tree huggers get offended, AHHH go get in YOUR car and
drive
to work just like everybody else..earth murderer!!!!HAHA
But anyways , hard starting in altitude and extreme cold has nothing to
do with the political agenda of our gas problems. It should be those
reasons
you put forth, but sadly it is our government over legislating..as it
tends
to do!

Patrick
"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi kontiki,

They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different
from that in AZ.
and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
money and wasted time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.

It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

This is partly true but the original premise was the having these different
formulations was adding significant cost to the price of gas. Since gas
needs to be different for different markets anyway, there is little added
cost. The market is so large that even with 30 different formulations each
is produced in huge volumes and none of them are specialty products in the
way that avgas is. As Friedrich points out, vapor pressure has to be varied
with temperature. Refiners have always had different formulations for
different climates and for summer and winter. If all gas was the same,
consumers wouldn't be happy with the product.

Mike
MU-2

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
But Friedrich!
The reasons here in the States that the gas is different has nothing to
do with the reasons you put forth. The reasons here is because a group of
politicians pass laws for the tree huggers, to make more anti-pollution
standards that the gas industry in this country is not equipped to handle.
And before the tree huggers get offended, AHHH go get in YOUR car and
drive
to work just like everybody else..earth murderer!!!!HAHA
But anyways , hard starting in altitude and extreme cold has nothing to
do with the political agenda of our gas problems. It should be those
reasons
you put forth, but sadly it is our government over legislating..as it
tends
to do!

Patrick
"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Hi kontiki,

They have always done this. Gasoline in MN needs to be different
from that in AZ.
and WHY? This is NOT necessary, it is pure politics and costs us all
money and wasted time and overhead. Thank you again Mr. Negative.

It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Friedrich Ostertag wrote:

It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
each density altitude that we fly at, which is, of course preposterous.
Now I am not arguing *for* the archaic engine designs now currently in
use by we average GA airplane owner. Perhaps if FAA certification was
not so costly, ponderous then engines of more modern design could be
be made affordable enough for the average guy to install in his plane.
(yes I know some of these engines already exist but will they ever
be STC'd for the current fleet????)

Actually the lower preasure and lower temperature tend to cancel each other
out so density altitude is not a big problem. The problem is that the gas
that works well in high hot locaitons like Reno at 100F wouldn't allow your
engine to start in Minneapolis at -20. There simply wouldn't be enough
vapor preasure. Using fuel formulated for cold temperatures would cause
vapor lock at high, hot locations.


Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far more
advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This
technology
gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air mixtures and ignition
timing based upon real time conditions so they can always operate at
maximum
efficiency at any altitude or temperature (after being warmed up of
course).
Different fuel blends are not necessary unless you carry emission
standards to exaggerated extremes, which is exactly what is going on in
this
country today.


It doesn't matter how advanced the engine is if the fuel won't vaporize, the
engine won't start.

Mike
MU-2

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Friedrich Ostertag wrote:

It IS neccessary. Just to name an example, evaporation proporties need
to be adjusted to climatic conditions. Try and fill your car in AZ,
preferably at a high altitude location, then drive it to one of the
northern states without refueling (probably won't work with the mileage
you get on current US cars..:-)) and try to start it in the morning at
below freezing temperatures. You will be surprised.

By that logic then, we'd need to have a different blend of AVGAS for
each density altitude that we fly at, which is, of course preposterous.
Now I am not arguing *for* the archaic engine designs now currently in
use by we average GA airplane owner. Perhaps if FAA certification was
not so costly, ponderous then engines of more modern design could be
be made affordable enough for the average guy to install in his plane.
(yes I know some of these engines already exist but will they ever
be STC'd for the current fleet????)

Actually the lower preasure and lower temperature tend to cancel each other
out so density altitude is not a big problem. The problem is that the gas
that works well in high hot locaitons like Reno at 100F wouldn't allow your
engine to start in Minneapolis at -20. There simply wouldn't be enough
vapor preasure. Using fuel formulated for cold temperatures would cause
vapor lock at high, hot locations.


Motor vehicle engines are not weight limited and are generally far more
advanced in design than the average piston aircraft engine. This
technology
gives them the capability to adjust their fuel air mixtures and ignition
timing based upon real time conditions so they can always operate at
maximum
efficiency at any altitude or temperature (after being warmed up of
course).
Different fuel blends are not necessary unless you carry emission
standards to exaggerated extremes, which is exactly what is going on in
this
country today.


It doesn't matter how advanced the engine is if the fuel won't vaporize, the
engine won't start.

Mike
MU-2