Ethanol Powered Aircraft

Jim Burns wrote:
Unless corn prices rise significantly, the US will not produce enough corn
to meet current market demands PLUS enough to produce enough ethanol to
treat 100% of the gasoline.

Oh but wait... enviro-fascists will demand that we have MORE
ethanol production and use. That little green thingy looks so
cute on vehicles too doncha know.

Do something... do *anything*.. throw more MONEY at the problem
(money is green!!) to make us feel like we are doing something
good! Just do NOT even mention exploration or production for
more of own petroleum resources.

ktbr wrote:

snip

Do something... do *anything*.. throw more MONEY at the problem
(money is green!!) to make us feel like we are doing something
good! Just do NOT even mention exploration or production for
more of own petroleum resources.


If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

There are areas oil companies can and should explore and they are
doing that. The fundamental problem is that as long as Saudi oil costs
a dollar a barrel to lift there is no way serious capital expenditure
is going into alternate sources because as they do the Saudis will drop
the price. They are a low grade bunch of whores. They are literally
pigs, living off their cash flow as if there is no tomorrow. The idea
of seriously restricting supply to keep their nation solvent for more
than a few decades more is unimaginable to them-they are all old men
making the decisions and they will be dead before then.

As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
$5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
engineering sense.

Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

As far as aviation goes, the first and foremost totally unnecessary
and wasteful expenditure of money to fly is the delta between aviation
fuel and the fuel every other engine runs on. If you are flying on
$5/gallon avgas, 2/5ths of your fuel budget is wasted. Light aircraft
must run on generally available, non-aviation-specific fuels as a
matter of principle more than the actual cost. There is no solid
technical reason why aircraft flying at the speeds and altitudes light
aircraft most all spend their time at need an exotic and specially
toxic fuel, which is why banishment of avgas will please me. If we were
flying P-51s or Connies at FL 400 the argument for low-RVP fuels with
octane ratings based on different procedures than R+M/2 would make
engineering sense.


oh...So... since YOU don't fly any of these aircraft, the fuel they
use should banned. And you could care less whether they fly or not...
Who cares if most flight schools use airplanes that burn this fuel.
You are knee-jerkingly ignorant of the facts and that is a sad
comentary.

Sheesh... GA doesn't need anymore enemies... hopefully you are not
a pilot.

ktbr wrote:
Bret Ludwig wrote:

If you are talking about the ANWR I wholeheartedly agree with keeping
it wholly and totally off limits. The oil companies will destroy the
whole area.

Have you ever been up to ANWR? Its a frozen tundra. The area that
was *specifically* set aside for oil exploration is about the size
of a postage stamp on a football field. Please eduxcate yourself
before blathering off like that.

Tell you what fellow, *you* are the one who needs an education!

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Oh, and *you* have almost certainly never been to ANWR if you
think all it is is "frozen tundra"! Some people (those with a
bit more knowledge than you) are aware that frozen tundra is
some pretty awesome landscape.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 05:19:12 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote in :

The 1002 Area of ANWR is 1.5 *million* acres, and the amount of
that which is going to be affected with exploration and possible
production of oil... is 1.5 *million* acres. Even with your
limited education you'll recognize that as slightly bigger than
anything you can even imagine.

Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

The point is, it's a short term fix anyway. If the oil gets so scarce
a small quantity is needed truly at any cost, then get it there. Not
now. Let oil go high enough to get alternatives capitalized, with a
price floor if necessary, lest the Saudis pull the rug out from under
the billion dollar investments needed.

Grumman-581 wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:40:25 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:
Perhaps 23,437.5 square miles, or an area 153 miles on a side, is
easier to visualize. :-)

In other words, a medium sized Texas ranch...

Or to be more to the point, about 1/10th the size of all of
little ol' Texas itself. Obviously there aren't any ranches in
Texas anything near that size. The 1002 Area of ANWR absolutely
dwarfs the largest ranch in Texas. It dwarfs at least the two
largest ranches *combined*. I didn't try to see, but it is possible
that all ranches in Texas put together might actually equal the size
of the 1002 Area in ANWR...

Somewhat larger than a few states. About the size of West
Virginia, and larger than 9 states to be specific.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

ktbr wrote:



oh...So... since YOU don't fly any of these aircraft, the fuel they
use should banned. And you could care less whether they fly or not...
Who cares if most flight schools use airplanes that burn this fuel.
You are knee-jerkingly ignorant of the facts and that is a sad
comentary.


Even given a unlimited fuel supply they will be out of the air well
within my lifetime unless highly modified or someone starts making
R-3350 Turbocompound and RR Merlin parts again including cases, banks
and cranks. The Connies could now be converted to turboprop in the
stock nacelle and with the stock blades (the hub, or at least the pitch
mechanism, would need changing depending on whether a single or double
shaft engine were used) but a turbine Mustang just isn't a Mustang and
Allisons are in the same boat.

Running them on straight ethanol would be the easy mod.

Besides, I thought we were done "aggrandizing WWII"......((ROTFLMAO)).

Bret Ludwig wrote:
Even given a unlimited fuel supply they will be out of the air well
within my lifetime unless highly modified or someone starts making
R-3350 Turbocompound and RR Merlin parts again including cases, banks
and cranks.

Can you provide any information to back that statement up?

The Connies could now be converted to turboprop in the
stock nacelle and with the stock blades (the hub, or at least the pitch
mechanism, would need changing depending on whether a single or double
shaft engine were used) but a turbine Mustang just isn't a Mustang and
Allisons are in the same boat.

Turbine engines are extremely expensive.... turbine conversions have been
certified for a few types but waay to expensive for most people. You
are not gonna get people who own classic airplanes to pretty much destroy
their collector value by installing a turbine... even if it could be done.


Running them on straight ethanol would be the easy mod.

If its so easy why haven't you come out with the kit and STC for all these
airplanes? Can wee sue you if things don't work out?

Besides, I thought we were done "aggrandizing WWII"......((ROTFLMAO)).


I don't think you are running on all cylinders.