Cost of gas is beginning to hurt

Matt Barrow wrote:
"Larry Stimely" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:
"gatt" wrote in message
...
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.
Bull **** in spades.

Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;
Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in
the
history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to
mention
GA itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.
There are several industries with higher profit margins; they just don't
have the volume or the breath of market. Exxon pumped something like 250
billion gallons last year.

BTW, while the oil companies make 12-15 cents, take a look at the
government
take:

Federal rate of 18.4 cents/gallon and the states (Excise & Other) at 18
(Montana) to
64 cents (NY), 60.1 (Hawaii), California (60.0) per gallon.

The average tax on gas is 45.9 cent/gallon (Federal & State) as of last
fall (2005).

And don't give that BS about government using it for infrastructure; our
roads are deteriorating since half goes into the general funds and the
remainder goes largerly to politically connected pork projects.

So who is doing the bleeding?

Here's a dollar: buy a clue.
I think the future of general aviation belongs to diesel. I've been doing
a little research on the Thielert 172/182 and the economics of it are
compelling. You're talking about the difference between ~17.5 gph and
~11.5 gph on a 182...and the diesel has seventy percent fewer moving parts
in it.

There's also significant concern about the ongoing availability of 100LL.

So...all I have to do is sell my wife on the idea of buying a Thielert 172
with a glass panel.

Fat chance.

Any lowdown on something in the range of 300-350 HP?

Haven't heard anything. Right now I'm just trying to get my skills to
the point where I'm ready to solo, get the private ticket and find an
economical way to build some time.

I'm still very new at this. Give me some time.

On Apr 24, 10:35 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
"gatt" wrote in message

...



"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

It is the oil companies that are doing the stiffing.

Bull **** in spades.

Oil Companies have averaged 12-15 cents profit on each gallon;

Meanwhile, quarter after quarter they're making the highest profits in the
history of human civilization, while the national economy--not to mention
GA itself--slowly bleed out due to high costs of transportation.

There are several industries with higher profit margins; they just don't
have the volume or the breath of market. Exxon pumped something like 250
billion gallons last year.

BTW, while the oil companies make 12-15 cents, take a look at the government
take:

Federal rate of 18.4 cents/gallon and the states (Excise & Other) at 18
(Montana) to
64 cents (NY), 60.1 (Hawaii), California (60.0) per gallon.

The average tax on gas is 45.9 cent/gallon (Federal & State) as of last fall
(2005).

And don't give that BS about government using it for infrastructure; our
roads are deteriorating since half goes into the general funds and the
remainder goes largerly to politically connected pork projects.

So who is doing the bleeding?

Here's a dollar: buy a clue.
--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

Yep, if you want to rape people you don't join industry, you join
gov't.

-Robert

Nowhere in the website does it give the octane rating for the kerosene,
which it lists as "86%-98%." The octane boost has to come from the other
2%-14%. If there is so much kerosene in it, I would not trust its
efficacy.

Remember, octane is not a measure of power or energy. It is a measure
of knock (detonation) resistance.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"M" wrote in message
oups.com...

What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.

It part of a big bore engine.

True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87.

80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

I'm sure they'll do fine on
SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.

My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
fuel doesn't do GA much good.

You better dig into things before making such a statement. You're speaking
from a vacuum.


Don't tell the government that 80/87 is a leaded fuel. They have made such
a big deal out of it being unleaded so it won't poison your platinum
catalytic converter that afterburns your exhaust to clean up the combustion
partial products! :-)

There has been a move afoot for some time to eliminate 100 octane "Low Lead"
aviation fuel, because it is the only leaded fuel still being made in the
US. Then all aircraft would have to use the available unleaded fuel.

My experience with the big modern engines is somewhat limited since my
newest airplane left the factory in the spring of 1955, about the time I
started college. However, I can say with the authority of experience that
the IO-520's that I have flown not only demand 100LL but are finicky about
that. I have gotten brands of 100LL that the 520 definately didn't like,
and brands that caused her to hum along just fine.

My poor old main ride also has a three hundred horsepower engine and burns
exactly the same amount of fuel per horsepower per hour as the IO-520. It
actually get a bit MORE efficiency because an airplane runs on thrust, not
horsepower. My 1800rpm cruise allows considerably more pounds of thrust
per horsepower than the higher cruise rpms of the more modern engines. Of
course I squeeze my 300 horsepower out of a measly 680 cubic inches instead
of 520. That does add a few pounds of weight and a bit of frontal area. I
also have half again as many cylinders hanging in the breeze as the little
520! :-)

Plan now. The 10th or 11th ( I lost count several years ago ) annual
rec.aviation annual EVENT at Pinckneyville is coming up soon. It is planned
this year for May 18, 19, and 20. It is an unparalleled opportunity to
actually see some of the people you have exchanged various views with on the
internet. If you have never heard of the Pinckneyville Flyin see the
unofficial FAQ at http://www.ousterhout.net/pjy-faq.html

If you still have any questions you will have to come to the flyin to get
them answered. Or, perhaps, merely rendered irrelevant. :-)

We would appreciate any folks planning to attend drop an email to Mary at
and let her know how many folks are coming and what days.
It is a long way to the nearest grocery store and even farthur to a good
liquor store from the airport and we don't want to run out of essential
supplies! :-)

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

Justin Gombos wrote:

But since you bring it up, a gasoline engine can actually burn
(bio)diesel safely, as long as it's mixed with at least 90% gasoline.
It would essentially be the equivelent of very high octane gasoline.
Are you familiar with those "octane boosters" sold in 8 dollar retail
bottles with all the fancy graphics? Lookup the MSDS on it - it's
only kerosene (iow, fuel oil)

There are problems with biodeisel at altitude. It may never be
viable for aircraft. Pie in the sky is for people on the ground.

C J Campbell wrote:

Okay, doing some further checking, Democrats controlled both houses in
2005. The Dems had a 26-23 majority in the Senate and a 55-43 majority
in the House.

Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.

"Highflyer" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"M" wrote in message
oups.com...

What's really strange is all those new 4 seaters are designed with
engine requiring 100LL, instead of 91/96.

It part of a big bore engine.

True, but IO-470J/K can run on 80/87.

80/87 is leaded fuel. That's even a worse problem than 100LL.

I'm sure they'll do fine on
SR-20 airframe. It also won't be very hard for TCM engineers to
reduce the compression ratio a bit and make IO-550 run on 91/96.

My point is the aircraft manufacturers are short sighted. Relying on
a fuel that's going to be increasingly more expensive than automotive
fuel doesn't do GA much good.

You better dig into things before making such a statement. You're
speaking from a vacuum.


Don't tell the government that 80/87 is a leaded fuel. They have made
such a big deal out of it being unleaded so it won't poison your platinum
catalytic converter that afterburns your exhaust to clean up the
combustion partial products! :-)

Right you are...I was thinking 100 or the old other stuff (heavily leaded).

It is amazing, how many people fail to realize that the 30% of aircraft that
HAVE TO HAVE 100LL are the ones that do 70% (or more) of the flying hours.

The recreational aircraft that can burn Sterno, rubbling alcohol, or Jack
Daniels, just don't make much of a market.

Matt Barrow wrote:

And what is the threshold for compression ratio?

Why does my current 7.5:1 CR still need 100LL when my older 8.5:1 did as
well?

Sorry, I must have missed this post over the weekend. Is your current
engine turbocharged? I'm scratching my head trying to come up with a 7.5:1
engine that requires 100LL.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:30:06 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

You must operate the aircraft (including the engine) iaw the limitations.
Those limitations will include minimum standards for the fuel. As long as
you could show your batch of diodiesel meets those standards, you
should be fine.

Hmm, I always wondered about that. I used to own a 1941 Taylorcraft
(with A-65 engine), and the type certificate simply said "73 octane
minumum". No mention of "aviation gasoline" or whatever... seemed to
me that implied that auto gas should be legal, even without an STC.

-Dana

--
--
If replying by email, please make the obvious changes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, who put a "stop payment" on my reality check?

In article ,
Dana M. Hague d(dash)m(dash)hague(at)comcast(dot)net wrote:

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 06:30:06 -0400, Bob Noel
wrote:

You must operate the aircraft (including the engine) iaw the limitations.
Those limitations will include minimum standards for the fuel. As long as
you could show your batch of diodiesel meets those standards, you
should be fine.

Hmm, I always wondered about that. I used to own a 1941 Taylorcraft
(with A-65 engine), and the type certificate simply said "73 octane
minumum". No mention of "aviation gasoline" or whatever... seemed to
me that implied that auto gas should be legal, even without an STC.

-Dana

Those engines were certificated to use unleaded gas. Remember "Phillips
66"? It was 66 octane; "Union 76" was 76 octane.

In WW-II liason aircraft used "combat gas," which was somewhere around
80 octane (there is somebody out there who can clarify this).