Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.

Maybe Lycoming should start researching Ethenol powered aero engines
:-) With global warming, we can turn Canada into a giant corn field.

On 1 Jul 2005 13:37:32 -0700, "M" > wrote:

>
>Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
>ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
>avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
>see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
>of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.

I see avgas for well over $3.00 at many airports, so $5.00 can't be
too far away. I agree 100% that this will have a negative affect on
aircraft pricing, particularly those with larger engine(s).

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
> avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
> see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
> of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.
>
> Maybe Lycoming should start researching Ethenol powered aero engines
> :-) With global warming, we can turn Canada into a giant corn field.
>
Suddenly I feel a little better, we are around AUD $1.30 for AVGAS at
present.
This USA pricing is going to accelerate the development of these new fuel
efficient, longer TBO, less parts diesel cycle engines - just reading the
test on one in a C182 in Aust Flying Mag. However, AVTUR will probably then
go up in price.

Problem with ethanol is I believe it has less volumetric efficiency and more
prone to vapour lock but I'd be interested to hear comment.

My experience has been that alternative fuels start off well but when a
Government starts losing taxes on mainstream fuels as a consequence they
usually bump up the tax etc on the alternative fuel. LPG in Oz a classic
example.
Diesel out here is dearer than unleaded motor fuel, is a big user so not
more expensive to supply, and is cracked out of the refining process at an
earlier stage therefore probably cheaper to produce.
I might take up something cheaper like ocean yacht racing?
Brian

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
> avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
> see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
> of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.

I suspect people said the same thing when av gas went past $.50 a gallon.
The price of gasoline is still well behind the inflation curve.

My income is very far behind the inflation curve as is the price of
wheat.

On 1 Jul 2005 13:37:32 -0700, "M" > wrote:

>
>Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
>ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
>avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
>see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
>of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.
>
>Maybe Lycoming should start researching Ethenol powered aero engines
>:-) With global warming, we can turn Canada into a giant corn field.


We have it bad in the UK where at my local airport they charge
1 pound 20 pence per litre of avgas which at current rates converts
to around 8 dollars 16 cents per US gallon.

M > wrote:

> We'll probably
> see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
> of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.

Yes. With the specter of ATC fees on the horizon and continually rising
fuel prices, I am very concerned about the potential for a large drop in GA
flying, which translates to a drop in aircraft prices.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"M" wrote:
>
> Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
> avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
> see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the
> value
> of used airplanes.

I agree, which is why I have temporarily abandonded the idea of moving
up to a more powerful airplane. I'm making the long-shot bet that in
five years I'll be able to pick up a used Cirrus or Lancair for half
what they're going for new now. I'll be able to by a lot of $5 avgas
with the savings. If I'm wrong, so what? I just think now is a poor
time to be buying.

> It's really depressing just to think about it.

Depends on your point of view.

> Maybe Lycoming should start researching Ethenol powered aero engines
> :-) With global warming, we can turn Canada into a giant corn field.

??

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

On 1-Jul-2005, "SR20GOER" > wrote:

> Suddenly I feel a little better, we are around AUD $1.30 for AVGAS at
> present.



AUD $1.30 = USD $0.98. Are we talking per gallon here (and is it imperial
or US) or per liter?

-Elliott Drucker

"Clay" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> My income is very far behind the inflation curve as is the price of
> wheat.

I would suggest a different source of income.

On 1-Jul-2005, "M" > wrote:

> Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
> avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
> see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
> of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.


Despite the anti-market shenanigans of OPEC, the price of oil and its
derivatives is classically governed by supply and demand. And even with
China's exploding economy and our faltering one, US consumption --
particularly gasoline for private automobiles -- still dominates demand. At
some point on the price scale people are going to stop buying gas-hog SUVs
and start driving much more fuel-efficient cars. That will have a huge
impact on demand and will probably slow crude oil price increases

SUV sales are already slumping, the dominant reason for financial
difficulties at Ford and GM. If auto gas prices go much higher, sales of
gas-guzzlers will probably tank completely.

In the meantime, the relative efficiency of my Arrow, compared to a
comparably performing C-182 -- is looking better all the time.

--
-Elliott Drucker

You might want to ask Canada if the're interested in this scheme... huh?
Last time I checked, we were an independent country. Progressive... maybe,
but independant.

Maybe looking inward would be more useful mon ami? I know it's hard as an
American, but humour the rest of us.


:-) With global warming, we can turn Canada into a giant corn field.
>

M wrote:
> Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
> avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
> see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
> of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.

I have another take on all this. High AVGAS prices mean high mo-gas
prices also. When you look at the time wasted and fuel burned
driving long distances on clogged roads these days, airplanes start
looking pretty good in comarison.

Personally I hate driving and don't mind paying a premium over mogas
to get there direct in 1/3 of the time. Driving (to me) is frustrating
where flying is not at all. There will always be people out there
that want to travel quickly and escape the masses on the highways.

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
. com...
> >
> > Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> > ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
> > avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
> > see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
> > of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.
>
> I suspect people said the same thing when av gas went past $.50 a gallon.
> The price of gasoline is still well behind the inflation curve.
>

Quite!

http://txfx.net/2005/06/22/oil-prices-peak-well-no/

http://www.fintrend.com/ftf/images/charts/Oil_inflation_20050404.gif


Matt
--
"The American people will never knowingly
adopt socialism, but under the name of
liberalism they will adopt every fragment of
the socialist program until one day America
will be a socialist nation without ever knowing
how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, six-time
Socialist Party presidential candidate and
one of the founders of the ACLU.

> Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average

I think the real threat to aviation is once again insurance. Let's not
forget that in the 80's many of the major single-engine manufacturers
stopped producing aircraft due to liability costs.

The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater than fuel
costs.

They stopped producing single engine aircraft because due to their own
stupidity their product liability insurance premiums became outrageous
and more importantly, it became obvious that corporate jets were
radically more profitable to build with their cheap Wichita floor space
and Kansas scab state labor.

The solution to me is simple, although far from obvious....outlaw
product liability insurance. When it's fight or die, they will build a
defensible airplane (they do for ag pilots) and never, never, never
settle out of court. Trial lawyers will quit taking small aircraft
cases on contingent fee arrangements and the problem will stop-what
attorney wants to be handed the keys to a cheesily built plant in
central Kansas???

"M" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> ownership in the U.S?

It would take some major, major changes in our collective psyche to
seriously worry about the cost of fuel. For every one of us that drops off
the bottom because we can no longer afford aviation, its just a
re-evaluation of our priorities.... I am sure that a new millionaire will be
created at the top to take over.

How could we possible be *worried* about fuel? The most popular weekend
sport on the continent (me, too) is watching 43 cars burn something like
4,000 gallons of gas in a few hours.... going nowhere special, and using
outdated pollution-contributing carburetor technology to do it with, no
less.

That would run my full-size fuel-injected Chevrolet for nearly 100,000
miles.

There are many threats to GA, but fuel-prices is one of the lesser ones,
IMHO.

> demonstrated total ignorance about product liability
(as well as punctuation and grammar)...
> They stopped producing single engine aircraft because due to their own
> stupidity their product liability insurance premiums became outrageous
> and more importantly, it became obvious that corporate jets were
> radically more profitable to build with their cheap Wichita floor space
> and Kansas scab state labor.
>
> The solution to me is simple, although far from obvious....outlaw
> product liability insurance. When it's fight or die, they will build a
> defensible airplane (they do for ag pilots) and never, never, never
> settle out of court. Trial lawyers will quit taking small aircraft
> cases on contingent fee arrangements and the problem will stop-what
> attorney wants to be handed the keys to a cheesily built plant in
> central Kansas???

What planet are you on?

"Charles Oppermann" > wrote in message
...
> > Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> > ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
>
> I think the real threat to aviation is once again insurance. Let's not
> forget that in the 80's many of the major single-engine manufacturers
> stopped producing aircraft due to liability costs.
>
> The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater than
fuel
> costs.


My full coverage insurance is an insignificant speck compared to the total
cost of owning.

So you wonder what's going to happen to general aviation because of the
high prices of avgas? Acquire yourself an aircraft which will fly on
auto fuel.

I have a lovely 172G with autogas STC and will sell it to you for a
reasonable price.

Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, Ollie North, and Kenneth Starr all support
the ACLU. Does that mean they are socialists?

I fly, own an airplane, and I support the ACLU, although I think it
picks and chooses its cases with a touch of hypocrisy.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> So you wonder what's going to happen to general aviation because of the
> high prices of avgas? Acquire yourself an aircraft which will fly on
> auto fuel.
>
> I have a lovely 172G with autogas STC and will sell it to you for a
> reasonable price.

Why fly a 172 when you shortly will be able to rum the big iron? There's a
Lycoming TSIO-540 running in OK on avgas.

http://www.engineteststand.com/testdata.htm

http://www.taturbo.com/prismad.jpg

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, Ollie North, and Kenneth Starr all support
> the ACLU. Does that mean they are socialists?

First, do you have a cite for LaPierre and North? Starr, being a lawyer,
probably would support them.

And yes, to an extend, North and Starr have a lot of socialist in them
(can't speak for LaPierre).

In any case, your point is a non-sequitur.

> I fly, own an airplane, and I support the ACLU, although I think it
> picks and chooses its cases with a touch of hypocrisy.

A _LOT_ of hypocrisy. Their original premise was not a matter of "principle
of free speech". It was to avoid stifling the Communist Party USA's
propaganda. Their main, original funding came from the Soviet NKVD (as
demonstrated by the Soviet Archives). When they take on the universities and
their speech code they'll have demonstrated they are no longer puppets.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
>> I suspect people said the same thing when av gas went past $.50 a gallon.
>> The price of gasoline is still well behind the inflation curve.
>
> Quite!
>
> http://txfx.net/2005/06/22/oil-prices-peak-well-no/
>
> http://www.fintrend.com/ftf/images/charts/Oil_inflation_20050404.gif

Huh? If the price of gas or oil were "well behind the inflation curve", then
the inflation-adjusted price would show an overall *decrease*. In fact,
though, the inflation-adjusted price (according to the graph you cite) is
now *three times* what it started as. It's true that the inflation-adjusted
increase has been non-monotonic, according to the graph (there was a brief
earlier spike above the present level); nontheless, the price has--both
recently and overall--raced far ahead of the inflation curve, not behind it
as you state.

--Gary

> "The American people will never knowingly
> adopt socialism, but under the name of
> liberalism they will adopt every fragment of
> the socialist program until one day America
> will be a socialist nation without ever knowing
> how it happened." -- Norman Thomas, six-time
> Socialist Party presidential candidate and
> one of the founders of the ACLU.

Doesn't it embarrass you to propagate such a suspicious-looking quote
without citing any source for it? (For one thing, people don't normally
*announce* a deception that they're hoping will succeed; for another,
liberalism may look socialist to right-wingers, but it doesn't look that way
to liberals or to socialists, so why would it look that way to Thomas?)

--Gary

Charles Oppermann wrote:
>
> The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater than fuel
> costs.

Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was something
like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to around $1,300 the last
few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February was less than that.

I've heard that twins have gotten expensive, though, but maybe that's just for
new pilots?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

> Personally I hate driving and don't mind paying a premium over mogas
> to get there direct in 1/3 of the time. Driving (to me) is frustrating
> where flying is not at all. There will always be people out there
> that want to travel quickly and escape the masses on the highways.

Amen, brother.

And it's up to those of us who have seen the GA light to show them "The
Way"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > So you wonder what's going to happen to general aviation because of the
> > high prices of avgas? Acquire yourself an aircraft which will fly on
> > auto fuel.
> >
> > I have a lovely 172G with autogas STC and will sell it to you for a
> > reasonable price.
>
> Why fly a 172 when you shortly will be able to rum the big iron? There's a
> Lycoming TSIO-540 running in OK on avgas.
>
> http://www.engineteststand.com/testdata.htm
>
> http://www.taturbo.com/prismad.jpg

I'll believe that when I see it. Test stands are inadequate to
simulate flight conditions. In the meantime only low-power,
lower-compression engines are legal for mogas.

Cylinder pressures, heat, and many other considerations in a TSIO-540
don't make it a good candidate for high-volatility mogas. I don't know
of any injected or turbocharged aircraft engine which could safely run
on mogas.

We have big-engine aircraft like Pathfinders and Bonanzas on our field
with vapor-lock all the time, and that's with the blue gas.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > So you wonder what's going to happen to general aviation because of
the
> > > high prices of avgas? Acquire yourself an aircraft which will fly on
> > > auto fuel.
> > >
> > > I have a lovely 172G with autogas STC and will sell it to you for a
> > > reasonable price.
> >
> > Why fly a 172 when you shortly will be able to rum the big iron? There's
a
> > Lycoming TSIO-540 running in OK on avgas.
> >
> > http://www.engineteststand.com/testdata.htm
> >
> > http://www.taturbo.com/prismad.jpg
>
> I'll believe that when I see it. Test stands are inadequate to
> simulate flight conditions. In the meantime only low-power,
> lower-compression engines are legal for mogas.
>
> Cylinder pressures, heat, and many other considerations in a TSIO-540
> don't make it a good candidate for high-volatility mogas. I don't know
> of any injected or turbocharged aircraft engine which could safely run
> on mogas.

That's correct with CURRENT ignition systems.

> We have big-engine aircraft like Pathfinders and Bonanzas on our field
> with vapor-lock all the time, and that's with the blue gas.

Well, vapor lock has nothing to do with the type of fuel you're running.

> > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> > >
> > > Why fly a 172 when you shortly will be able to rum the big iron?
There's
> a
> > > Lycoming TSIO-540 running in OK on avgas.
> > >
> > > http://www.engineteststand.com/testdata.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.taturbo.com/prismad.jpg
> >
> > I'll believe that when I see it. Test stands are inadequate to
> > simulate flight conditions.

Such as?

Matt Barrow wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, Ollie North, and Kenneth Starr all support
> > the ACLU. Does that mean they are socialists?
>
> First, do you have a cite for LaPierre and North? Starr, being a lawyer,
> probably would support them.

I found it about a month ago at abcnews.com. I don't know if it's
still there.
>
> And yes, to an extend, North and Starr have a lot of socialist in them
> (can't speak for LaPierre).
>
> In any case, your point is a non-sequitur.

Well, I guess it would be if it were MY point.
>
> > I fly, own an airplane, and I support the ACLU, although I think it
> > picks and chooses its cases with a touch of hypocrisy.
>
> A _LOT_ of hypocrisy. Their original premise was not a matter of "principle
> of free speech". It was to avoid stifling the Communist Party USA's
> propaganda. Their main, original funding came from the Soviet NKVD (as
> demonstrated by the Soviet Archives). When they take on the universities and
> their speech code they'll have demonstrated they are no longer puppets.

Gosh, you sound like a John Bircher, or a conspiracy theorist. ACLU
took on the Communications Decency Act and got it declared null and
void. It constantly monitors Bill of Rights violations by big brother.
All due respect, I don't give a damn who founded it or about some
unsubstantiated gossip claiming to have come from soviet archives.

Answering Matt's statement that vapor lock has nothing to do with the
type of fuel: One reason why the FAA is reluctant to grant STC's for
mogas is because of its vapor-lock propensities. There have been
studies and plenty of discussion about the differences in vapor
pressure at the same temperature and pressure between avgas and mogas.
There was some discussion not long ago, iirc, in RAH. Google and you
will find.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, Ollie North, and Kenneth Starr all support
> > > the ACLU. Does that mean they are socialists?
> >
> > First, do you have a cite for LaPierre and North? Starr, being a lawyer,
> > probably would support them.
>
> I found it about a month ago at abcnews.com. I don't know if it's
> still there.
> >
> > And yes, to an extend, North and Starr have a lot of socialist in them
> > (can't speak for LaPierre).
> >
> > In any case, your point is a non-sequitur.
>
> Well, I guess it would be if it were MY point.

And what the hell IS your point?

> >
> > > I fly, own an airplane, and I support the ACLU, although I think it
> > > picks and chooses its cases with a touch of hypocrisy.
> >
> > A _LOT_ of hypocrisy. Their original premise was not a matter of
"principle
> > of free speech". It was to avoid stifling the Communist Party USA's
> > propaganda. Their main, original funding came from the Soviet NKVD (as
> > demonstrated by the Soviet Archives). When they take on the universities
and
> > their speech code they'll have demonstrated they are no longer puppets.
>
> Gosh, you sound like a John Bircher, or a conspiracy theorist.

And you sound like you haven't a clue what you're talking about and pull
crap out of your ass as your suits your whimsey. As you demonstrate below,
you're not only full of it, but have a tenuous grasp of reality.

> ACLU
> took on the Communications Decency Act and got it declared null and
> void.

After a whole bunch of others beat them to it buy nearly a year.

> It constantly monitors Bill of Rights violations by big brother.

Yeah, like the college speech codes? How totally full of ****!

Like I said, as long it their boys are theBIG BROTHERS...

> All due respect, I don't give a damn who founded it or about some
> unsubstantiated gossip claiming to have come from soviet archives.

(Such a man of principles!! :~( )
Man, you are totally in LaLa land!

Thanks for making substantiating my points.

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Answering Matt's statement that vapor lock has nothing to do with the
> type of fuel: One reason why the FAA is reluctant to grant STC's for
> mogas is because of its vapor-lock propensities. There have been
> studies and plenty of discussion about the differences in vapor
> pressure at the same temperature and pressure between avgas and mogas.
> There was some discussion not long ago, iirc, in RAH. Google and you
> will find.
>


http://www.avweb.com/news/maint/187232-1.html

-------------------------
A large proportion of low-compression aircraft engines from both Lycoming
and Continental were originally certificated for operation on 80/87 octane
aviation gas. Most Lycoming O-235, O-290 and O-320 engines fall in this
category, and so do some of the larger O-360 and O-540 engines. Most
Continental O-200, O-300 and O-470 engines, and some of the fuel-injected
IO-470 and IO-520 engines can run it as well.
So, if you have a low-compression engine, can you just fill it up with
autogas and take off? Nope, you've got to get an appropriate STC -- and
despite what you may have heard elsewhere, it is very important to get that
STC, even though it usually will consist of one or two pieces of paper, plus
new decals for your fuel ports.

Why is the STC important? While unleaded autogas provides sufficient octane
to substitute for 80/87 avgas in low-compression engines, there are other
differences that can cause problems when using autogas in some engine
installations. The two most significant are lower vapor pressure -- which
can lead to vapor lock -- and incompatibility between some of the additives
in autogas and some components (particularly seals) in some aircraft fuel
systems.

In order to qualify for an STC, a particular airframe/engine combination has
to be rigorously tested, to include either a 150 hour engine endurance test
or 500 hour flight test, under controlled conditions. The tests also include
checking operation at high ambient temperatures, which can create vapor
lock. Some aircraft don't pass -- the Piper Apache and Comanche-250, and
Cessna Skyhawk with Avcon's 180HP conversion all failed testing, and cannot
legally run autogas.

In a nutshell, by buying the STC you are paying for a bunch of research and
testing to verify that it really is safe to use autogas in the
airframe/engine combination you have. In a few cases, you may be required to
have modifications made or the STC may authorize only premium (91 octane or
higher) autogas. For example, Petersen Aviation's STC for Piper
PA-28-160, -161, -180, and -181 models requires replacing the electric boost
pump and running premium gas.

-----------------------------

On 4-Jul-2005, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> Well, vapor lock has nothing to do with the type of fuel you're running.


On 4-Jul-2005, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> While unleaded autogas provides sufficient octane
> to substitute for 80/87 avgas in low-compression engines, there are other
> differences that can cause problems when using autogas in some engine
> installations. The two most significant are lower vapor pressure -- which
> can lead to vapor lock -- and incompatibility between some of the
> additives in autogas and some components (particularly seals) in some
> aircraft fuel
> systems.


Hmm.... either there are two Matt Barrows (using the same e-mail address)
or else he is schizophrenic. Judging from some of his political views, I'd
say the later is a distinct possibility.
--
-Elliott Drucker

> wrote in message
news:OWiye.14793$mr4.13119@trnddc05...
> On 4-Jul-2005, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> Well, vapor lock has nothing to do with the type of fuel you're running.
>
>
> On 4-Jul-2005, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> While unleaded autogas provides sufficient octane
>> to substitute for 80/87 avgas in low-compression engines, there are other
>> differences that can cause problems when using autogas in some engine
>> installations. The two most significant are lower vapor pressure -- which
>> can lead to vapor lock -- and incompatibility between some of the
>> additives in autogas and some components (particularly seals) in some
>> aircraft fuel
>> systems.
>
>
> Hmm.... either there are two Matt Barrows (using the same e-mail address)
> or else he is schizophrenic. Judging from some of his political views,
> I'd
> say the later is a distinct possibility.
> --
> -Elliott Drucker

I'm keeping out of the politics on this one, except to say that two out of
every one of us could be schizophrenic.
After talking to a Shell Guru at a seminar my understanding is that the
vapour pressure issue with mogas can be of real concern and that mogas is
best used for low altitude work. His other push was the relative quality of
avgas versus mogas - not just in manufacture but in distribution. With what
I find in many of the auto fuel filters I change, I'd have to agree. I have
had about 15 cases from one local servo in the past 8 to 10 weeks. Now
that, in Oz, ethanol is included in much mogas, not to mention the odd
toluene shonk, I would be wary about mogas use for long haul or high
altitude. Also goes without saying that you don't get as far on a litre of
fuel containing ethanol and/or toluene.
Brian

George Patterson wrote:
> Charles Oppermann wrote:
>
>>
>> The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
>> than fuel costs.
>
>
> Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
> something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
> around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
> was less than that.
>

Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
costs.

> wrote in message
news:OWiye.14793$mr4.13119@trnddc05...
> On 4-Jul-2005, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > Well, vapor lock has nothing to do with the type of fuel you're running.
>
>
> On 4-Jul-2005, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
> > While unleaded autogas provides sufficient octane
> > to substitute for 80/87 avgas in low-compression engines, there are
other
> > differences that can cause problems when using autogas in some engine
> > installations. The two most significant are lower vapor pressure --
which
> > can lead to vapor lock -- and incompatibility between some of the
> > additives in autogas and some components (particularly seals) in some
> > aircraft fuel
> > systems.
>
>
> Hmm.... either there are two Matt Barrows (using the same e-mail address)
> or else he is schizophrenic. Judging from some of his political views,
I'd
> say the later is a distinct possibility.

It's called correcting myself.

You call it schizophrenia, I call it maturity.

Get a ****ing clue, statist prick!

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> George Patterson wrote:
> > Charles Oppermann wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
> >> than fuel costs.
> >
> >
> > Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
> > something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
> > around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
> > was less than that.

Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past several
years, that fits.

> >
>
> Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
> about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
> costs.

Do you recall the 1994 act that brought back the aviation industry from
deaths door?

Do you recall WHAT it did?

Do you comprehend that engineering is not OMNISCIENT? Do you also recall
that only a handful of suits had anything to do with real negligence?

Your post demonstrates a real negligence of harebrained ideology...that of
making excuses most people wouldn't accept from a ten year-old.

GFY.

On 5-Jul-2005, "Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> > Hmm.... either there are two Matt Barrows (using the same e-mail
> > address)
> > or else he is schizophrenic. Judging from some of his political views,
> I'd say the latter is a distinct possibility.
>
> It's called correcting myself.
>
> You call it schizophrenia, I call it maturity.
>
> Get a ****ing clue, statist prick!


Yeah, right.

For a while I was confused. How could someone as clearly challenged by the
English language (and common logic) as Mr. Barrow have composed the lucid
and intelligent comments in his second post regarding vapor lock (which
completely contradicted his earlier post on THE SAME DAY)? However, I took
his advice to heart and "got a clue." A simple Google search on the phrase
"incompatibility between some of the additives in autogas" pointed me to the
following website:
http://www.aviation-indonesia.com/mod.php?mod=knowledge&op=printarticle&knid=16
It seems that in addition to his wealth of other shortcomings Mr. Barrow is
also a plagiarist.
--
-Elliott Drucker

> wrote in message
news:hByye.50$VN3.15@trnddc01...
> For a while I was confused. How could someone as clearly challenged by
> the
> English language (and common logic) as Mr. Barrow have composed the lucid
> and intelligent comments in his second post regarding vapor lock (which
> completely contradicted his earlier post on THE SAME DAY)? However, I
> took
> his advice to heart and "got a clue." A simple Google search on the
> phrase
> "incompatibility between some of the additives in autogas" pointed me to
> the
> following website:
> http://www.aviation-indonesia.com/mod.php?mod=knowledge&op=printarticle&knid=16
> It seems that in addition to his wealth of other shortcomings Mr. Barrow
> is
> also a plagiarist.

Actually, he did cite the source of the words in that post, though it may
not have been obvious that he was doing so.

--Gary

Does the phrase "fermented grape juice" spring lightly to the tongue?

Jim




>> For a while I was confused. How could someone as clearly challenged by
>> the
>> English language (and common logic) as Mr. Barrow have composed the lucid
>> and intelligent comments in his second post regarding vapor lock (which
>> completely contradicted his earlier post on THE SAME DAY)?

On 5-Jul-2005, "Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> Actually, he did cite the source of the words in that post, though it may
> not have been obvious that he was doing so.

It appears that the citation was somehow blocked from the viewing window of
my news reader, but I see it now upon re-loading the post. My apologies to
Mr. Barrow for the comments regarding plagiarism.

-Elliott Drucker

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Does the phrase "fermented grape juice" spring lightly to the tongue?

Scotch.

Dalwhinnie or Talasker.

>
> Jim
>
> >> For a while I was confused. How could someone as clearly challenged by
> >> the
> >> English language (and common logic) as Mr. Barrow have composed the
lucid
> >> and intelligent comments in his second post regarding vapor lock (which
> >> completely contradicted his earlier post on THE SAME DAY)?

Anyone ever heard of correcting a previous mistake?

Anyone ever done it without having to be bludgeoned with a crow bar? Nah!!

Considering your "normal" person , who will run with a mistake for years, or
even generations, I an imagine it is SHOCKING.

But then, I fully grasp (despite my being "challenged by the English
language") that words really do have objective meaning and I do consider
good hard evidence, rather than just my whims.

Were it only that others here had such honesty and integrity.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> But then, I fully grasp (despite my being "challenged by the English
> language") that words really do have objective meaning and I do consider
> good hard evidence, rather than just my whims.
>
> Were it only that others here had such honesty and integrity.

Honesty and integrity? We still await an explanation of your claim to have
gotten your July 4th misinformation from a "historical journal", American
History Digest--a journal whose existence has gone unnoticed by both the
Library of Congress and Google. (Moreover, when you first posted the
article, you credited it to "Source Unknown"--a peculiar "author" for a
journal piece, though standard for a chain-email.)

We're also waiting for you to either substantiate or retract the implausible
defamatory quote you attributed to Norman Thomas.

When Elliott learned he'd made a mistaken accusation earlier in this thread,
he promptly retracted it and apologized. *That's* what honesty and integrity
look like.

--Gary

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
>> Does the phrase "fermented grape juice" spring lightly to the tongue?

> Scotch.
>
> Dalwhinnie or Talasker.


Mmm. Two fingers.

....leaves eight for typing, by my count :-)


Montblack
"No going to the dark side!" - Sideways (2004)

("Martin Hotze" wrote)
>> AUD $1.30 = USD $0.98. Are we talking per gallon here (and is it
>> imperial
>> or US) or per liter?

> wouldn't it be nice to have the metric system finally in use ALL over the
> world?


Marty Marty Marty

Um, that's all I've got ...because you're right.


Montblack

In article >, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

> wouldn't it be nice to have the metric system finally in use ALL over the
> world?

why? My airplane doesn't have anything metric in it. :-)

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>George Patterson wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Oppermann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
>>>>than fuel costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
>>>something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
>>>around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
>>>was less than that.
>
>
> Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past several
> years, that fits.
>
>
>>Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
>>about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
>>costs.
>
>
> Do you recall the 1994 act that brought back the aviation industry from
> deaths door?
>
> Do you recall WHAT it did?
>
> Do you comprehend that engineering is not OMNISCIENT? Do you also recall
> that only a handful of suits had anything to do with real negligence?
>
> Your post demonstrates a real negligence of harebrained ideology...that of
> making excuses most people wouldn't accept from a ten year-old.
>
> GFY.

GFY? You're pretty mature. It's really cute when someone uses that
phrase right after comparing someone else to a 10 year old.

Capping liablity for plane manufacturers does nothing to hold down the
cost of insurance for owners and pilots. As a matter of fact one could
assume it would make that insurance go up, since people who can longer
sue the manufacturers will have to try harder to get it from the owners
and pilots. But our insurance hasn't gone up, despite all those eeevil
trial lawyers.

The fact that you are missing or ignoring is that when it comes to
affecting the price of insurance, lawsuits and legal settlements badly
trail the investment returns that insurance companies get in influence.

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>George Patterson wrote:
> >>
> >>>Charles Oppermann wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
> >>>>than fuel costs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
> >>>something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
> >>>around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
> >>>was less than that.
> >
> >
> > Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past
several
> > years, that fits.
> >
> >
> >>Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
> >>about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
> >>costs.
> >
> >
> > Do you recall the 1994 act that brought back the aviation industry from
> > deaths door?
> >
> > Do you recall WHAT it did?
> >
> > Do you comprehend that engineering is not OMNISCIENT? Do you also recall
> > that only a handful of suits had anything to do with real negligence?
> >
> > Your post demonstrates a real negligence of harebrained ideology...that
of
> > making excuses most people wouldn't accept from a ten year-old.
> >
> > GFY.
>
> GFY? You're pretty mature. It's really cute when someone uses that
> phrase right after comparing someone else to a 10 year old.

It fits.

Now, try addressing your stupid remarks instead of trying to deflect
attention from your onw stupidity.

>
> Capping liablity for plane manufacturers does nothing to hold down the
> cost of insurance for owners and pilots.

Didn't say it did. If you would bother to read what I'd said it was:

Patterson: Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium
was
something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
was less than that.

Barrow: Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past
several
years, that fits.

For your stunted brain, that means that the accident safety record has led
to lower insurance rates.

> As a matter of fact one could
> assume it would make that insurance go up, since people who can longer
> sue the manufacturers will have to try harder to get it from the owners
> and pilots. But our insurance hasn't gone up, despite all those eeevil
> trial lawyers.

You can't comprehend the difference between PILOT'S insurance rates, and
MANUFACTURERS insurance rates?

Suits agains PILOTS are for accidents of negligence, MANUFACTURERS suits are
for product defects, even ones that have been flying just fine for 40 or 50
years. MANUFACTURERS also have much deeper pockets than 99% of most pilots.

> The fact that you are missing or ignoring is that when it comes to
> affecting the price of insurance, lawsuits and legal settlements badly
> trail the investment returns that insurance companies get in influence.

You are missing the point of lawsuits: PILOTS versus MANUFACTURERS.

Oh, and my insurance premiums have stay stable now for six years as I moved
from a T210, to a Beech 56, and now to a Beech 36. They have gone up $50
since 2000.


So GAFC before you try to cast aspersions. Then learn the basic language and
basic law.

Then GTFU.

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>George Patterson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Charles Oppermann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The cost of insuring an aircraft has skyrocketed at a rate greater
>>>>>>than fuel costs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium was
>>>>>something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
>>>>>around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
>>>>>was less than that.
>>>
>>>
>>>Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past
>
> several
>
>>>years, that fits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Please don't get in the way of Barrow's ideologically-driven complaining
>>>>about trial lawyers through the proxy of imagined increases in insurance
>>>>costs.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you recall the 1994 act that brought back the aviation industry from
>>>deaths door?
>>>
>>>Do you recall WHAT it did?
>>>
>>>Do you comprehend that engineering is not OMNISCIENT? Do you also recall
>>>that only a handful of suits had anything to do with real negligence?
>>>
>>>Your post demonstrates a real negligence of harebrained ideology...that
>
> of
>
>>>making excuses most people wouldn't accept from a ten year-old.
>>>
>>>GFY.
>>
>>GFY? You're pretty mature. It's really cute when someone uses that
>>phrase right after comparing someone else to a 10 year old.
>
>
> It fits.
>
> Now, try addressing your stupid remarks instead of trying to deflect
> attention from your onw stupidity.
>
>
>>Capping liablity for plane manufacturers does nothing to hold down the
>>cost of insurance for owners and pilots.
>
>
> Didn't say it did. If you would bother to read what I'd said it was:
>
> Patterson: Really? That wasn't the case when I owned my Maule. The premium
> was
> something like $1,700 the first year (1995-96), but it came down to
> around $1,300 the last few years. IIRC, the quote I got last February
> was less than that.
>
> Barrow: Seeing as the accident rate has declined dramatically over the past
> several
> years, that fits.
>
> For your stunted brain, that means that the accident safety record has led
> to lower insurance rates.
>
>
>>As a matter of fact one could
>>assume it would make that insurance go up, since people who can longer
>>sue the manufacturers will have to try harder to get it from the owners
>>and pilots. But our insurance hasn't gone up, despite all those eeevil
>>trial lawyers.
>
>
> You can't comprehend the difference between PILOT'S insurance rates, and
> MANUFACTURERS insurance rates?
>
> Suits agains PILOTS are for accidents of negligence, MANUFACTURERS suits are
> for product defects, even ones that have been flying just fine for 40 or 50
> years. MANUFACTURERS also have much deeper pockets than 99% of most pilots.
>
>
>>The fact that you are missing or ignoring is that when it comes to
>>affecting the price of insurance, lawsuits and legal settlements badly
>>trail the investment returns that insurance companies get in influence.
>
>
> You are missing the point of lawsuits: PILOTS versus MANUFACTURERS.
>
> Oh, and my insurance premiums have stay stable now for six years as I moved
> from a T210, to a Beech 56, and now to a Beech 36. They have gone up $50
> since 2000.
>
>
> So GAFC before you try to cast aspersions. Then learn the basic language and
> basic law.
>
> Then GTFU.

Despite the screaming immaturity of your name-calling and "go ****
yourself" responses (I wonder if you run your business that way, I
assume not since you seem to be successful at it), I reviewed the thread
and realized I had misattributed, it was Charles Opperman who made the
assertion I was attributing to you and refuting, so for that error I
apologize. I don't know what GAFC stands for but I assume it's
something just as mature as GFY and its variants.

for the rest of it, while the accident rate is down the cost of repairs
from accidents is up. However all of that pales in comparison to
insurers' investment returns and the amount of competition (or lack of
it) in an insurance market in determining what rates are.

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:37:32 -0700, M wrote:

>
> Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
> avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
> see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
> of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Most people don't realize some simple
facts about oil and fuel costs.

One, the price we pay per barrel has zero to do with its availability. The
price we pay is basically a speculative futures price based on
estimates of what the market will bare. Fact is, oil companies around the
world are making record profits.

Two, there is now more known oil in the world than there has ever been in
the history of mankind. The only thing that changes is where it's at, how
cost effective it is to obtain it, and what quality the oil is. With the
prices as high as they are now, VAST supplies of oil suddenly become
economically feasible.

Three, as the price per barrel sits above $50/barrel, especially above
$60/barrel, MANY, MANY, MANY alternative fuel options become economically
feasible. Heck, if they would lift the ban on hemp (which is not pot) in
the US, ethanol can actually become a viable fuel source without
government support; as is the case for corn-ethanol production, which at
best, is at a break even form an energy perspective. Meaning, it takes
about as much energy to produce ethanol from corn as we get back out of
it. As a rule of thumb, it actually takes more energy to make
corn-based ethanol than we get out of it. Hemp is known to provide up to
3x better yeild, per year, than corn and requires no pesticides (unlike
corn). Other alternatives include pure bio-fuels and even purely
synthetic options. Synthetics are expensive but becomes feasible around
$50+/barrel.

So why don't we see fuel more options? Simple ecomonics. The oil
companies don't want to invest the billions into processing more low cost
crude (<$28/barrel) because they want to be assured a return on their
investment. If oil prices fall, it's harder to get that return on new
refineries. Alternate fuel supplies take time to bring to market and the
new entries require a stable market to justify the investment. In the
global picture, war = unstable oil markets; which is where speculation
comes in. If five years from now, prices have continued to rise, then I
think you'll start to see MANY alternatives can start to come into the
equation which will lower our fuel costs again. ...as theory goes anyways... ;)

Cheers,

Greg

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:37:32 -0700, M wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyone worries about what the rising avgas price to the light plane
> > ownership in the U.S? I have absolutely no doubt that the average
> > avgas price will surpass $5/gallon in about 5 years. We'll probably
> > see a significant drop of GA flying, along with a big drop of the value
> > of used airplanes. It's really depressing just to think about it.
>
> I wouldn't worry about it too much. Most people don't realize some simple
> facts about oil and fuel costs.
>
> One, the price we pay per barrel has zero to do with its availability. The
> price we pay is basically a speculative futures price based on
> estimates of what the market will bare. Fact is, oil companies around the
> world are making record profits.
>
> Two, there is now more known oil in the world than there has ever been in
> the history of mankind.

Quite...and right now, a surplus is being generated. Where the surplus is
going is into storage and reserves.

http://www.trendmacro.com/a/luskin/20050627luskinSMC.asp

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 13:37:32 -0700, M wrote:

>>
>> One, the price we pay per barrel has zero to do with its availability.
>> The
>> price we pay is basically a speculative futures price based on
>> estimates of what the market will bare. Fact is, oil companies around
>> the
>> world are making record profits.
>>
>> Two, there is now more known oil in the world than there has ever been in
>> the history of mankind.
>
> Quite...and right now, a surplus is being generated. Where the surplus is
> going is into storage and reserves.
>

Funny you say that. Here in Oz the Arabs always seem to raise their oil
prices just in time for school holidays, holiday weekends, and so on. Some
would suggest profiteering by the oil companies but our Government watchdog
can never find proof, as the Govt creams a fortune in taxes on the fuel
sales.
Brian

"SR20GOER" > wrote in message
...
>>
> >> Two, there is now more known oil in the world than there has ever been
in
> >> the history of mankind.
> >
> > Quite...and right now, a surplus is being generated. Where the surplus
is
> > going is into storage and reserves.
> >
>
> Funny you say that. Here in Oz the Arabs always seem to raise their oil
> prices just in time for school holidays, holiday weekends, and so on.
Some
> would suggest profiteering by the oil companies but our Government
watchdog
> can never find proof, as the Govt creams a fortune in taxes on the fuel
> sales.

You need to read up a bit on how oil trades on the world markets.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "SR20GOER" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
>> >> Two, there is now more known oil in the world than there has ever been
> in
>> >> the history of mankind.
>> >
>> > Quite...and right now, a surplus is being generated. Where the surplus
> is
>> > going is into storage and reserves.
>> >
>>
>> Funny you say that. Here in Oz the Arabs always seem to raise their oil
>> prices just in time for school holidays, holiday weekends, and so on.
> Some
>> would suggest profiteering by the oil companies but our Government
> watchdog
>> can never find proof, as the Govt creams a fortune in taxes on the fuel
>> sales.
>
> You need to read up a bit on how oil trades on the world markets.
>

I have some idea of how oil trades but there comes a time when the constant
coincidence of the price rise occurring to coincide with large parts of the
population going travelling by vehicle streatches beyond the realms of
probability or 3 sigma if you prefer. The current diesel price, given it is
cracked out early in the process, is even more laughable.
Brian

"SR20GOER" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "SR20GOER" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> >> >> Two, there is now more known oil in the world than there has ever
been
> > in
> >> >> the history of mankind.
> >> >
> >> > Quite...and right now, a surplus is being generated. Where the
surplus
> > is
> >> > going is into storage and reserves.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Funny you say that. Here in Oz the Arabs always seem to raise their
oil
> >> prices just in time for school holidays, holiday weekends, and so on.
> > Some
> >> would suggest profiteering by the oil companies but our Government
> > watchdog
> >> can never find proof, as the Govt creams a fortune in taxes on the fuel
> >> sales.
> >
> > You need to read up a bit on how oil trades on the world markets.
> >
>
> I have some idea of how oil trades but there comes a time when the
constant
> coincidence of the price rise occurring to coincide with large parts of
the
> population going travelling by vehicle streatches beyond the realms of
> probability or 3 sigma if you prefer. The current diesel price, given it
is
> cracked out early in the process, is even more laughable.

Right now (actually the past couple years), the biggest jump in fuel use is
industrial applications in China and India.

Also, at this time, more oil is being produced than is being consumed,
mainly going into strategic reserves.