Aviation fuel - price of crude...

All probably true.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
.net...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
Europe-
I don't want that to be the future of GA.


Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones
ought
to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.

Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know
that
I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is
unclear.

Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere
they're
not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or
even
switch to biodiesel.

It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be
as
regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to
afford
it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible
to
a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
European solution.

Best,
-cwk.

All probably true.

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
.net...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...

"C Kingsbury" wrote in message
over 100HP, assuming of course they allow us to fly at all. Look at
Europe-
I don't want that to be the future of GA.


Nobody does, what is your proposed solution?.

Over the next five years? Mogas. We've gotta get off the 100LL before it
kills us. Many engines can run it already and higher-performance ones
ought
to be able to with things like the PRISM ignition systems.

Next decade? Diesel/Jet-A engines. Higher efficiency and longer life, and
with increased production volume costs ought to come down. I don't know
that
I'd buy a new plane right now that relies on a fuel whose supply is
unclear.

Beyond that, hydrogen may become practical- checkout www.safehydrogen.com
for one of a thousand little companies trying to turn it into a practical
power source for vehicles. Weight being a much bigger issue for airplanes
than for cars, we may see anti-gravity vehicles before we see non-Fossil
Fuel burning aircraft. Of course, if we can stop using FF everywhere
they're
not absolutely needed, we may be able to make do with what we have, or
even
switch to biodiesel.

It is of course likely still that costs will go up. At least we won't be
as
regulated as in Europe, and we will on average have higher incomes to
afford
it. But much like the dying days of the Old West, it seems like the glory
days of GA lie behind us, and our best hope of keeping flying accessible
to
a maximum number of people will in fact be LSAs, in other words, the
European solution.

Best,
-cwk.

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

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

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

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

I've been keeping an eye out looking for types of businesses that would
benefit from climate change of the sort that the tree-huggers are always
talking about. The way I see it, you make a bunch of small speculative
investments now, and if it ever comes to pass, you only need one of them to
hit in order to make a killing. Biggest problem is no one knows when it
might start to hit or what the real effects would be, so you'd probably need
to place an awful lot of bets, and the return is unclear. Perhaps I should
just start a fund and go ringing up rich individuals...

Best,
-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
I think that you are seeing the future clearly.

Mike
MU-2

I've been keeping an eye out looking for types of businesses that would
benefit from climate change of the sort that the tree-huggers are always
talking about. The way I see it, you make a bunch of small speculative
investments now, and if it ever comes to pass, you only need one of them to
hit in order to make a killing. Biggest problem is no one knows when it
might start to hit or what the real effects would be, so you'd probably need
to place an awful lot of bets, and the return is unclear. Perhaps I should
just start a fund and go ringing up rich individuals...

Best,
-cwk.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
I think that you are seeing the future clearly.

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

There was a Wall Street Journal piece about a year ago that said there were
something like 30-50 (may have been a lot more) different gas blends sold in
the US, with neighboring states (with equivalent geography/climate) often
mandating slightly different blends.

This isn't as bad as the specialized handling 100LL requires, but it does
have the effect of adding a layer of signifcant complexity to the refining
and transport of autogas. It also means that frequently only one refinery
produces a given blend, meaning any shutdowns or such can cause prices to
spike. This is why oil refiners love the idea of blends: it turns what looks
like the ultimate commodity into a more specialized product, allowing them
to maintain higher margins. I am not normally a fan of federal overruling of
state authority, but there is really no reason why we should have more than
4-5 blends sold across the US.

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.

-cwk.

"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

There was a Wall Street Journal piece about a year ago that said there were
something like 30-50 (may have been a lot more) different gas blends sold in
the US, with neighboring states (with equivalent geography/climate) often
mandating slightly different blends.

This isn't as bad as the specialized handling 100LL requires, but it does
have the effect of adding a layer of signifcant complexity to the refining
and transport of autogas. It also means that frequently only one refinery
produces a given blend, meaning any shutdowns or such can cause prices to
spike. This is why oil refiners love the idea of blends: it turns what looks
like the ultimate commodity into a more specialized product, allowing them
to maintain higher margins. I am not normally a fan of federal overruling of
state authority, but there is really no reason why we should have more than
4-5 blends sold across the US.

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.

-cwk.