AV gas prices

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming 0320
with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
any?

thanks
Stu Fields

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> wrote:

>Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
>decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming 0320
>with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
>any?
>
>thanks
>Stu Fields
>

bloody hell that is $1 47.9 cents per litre.

how the hell do you get it that cheap?

locally it is $aus1.64 per litre. actually with the last rise it is
probably $1.70 plus.

hey stewie its not $1000 per litre. get a life and go flying.

Stealth (still flying) Pilot

[Lars[_2_]]

On 29 Apr, 14:24, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
>
> > wrote:
> >Well it has happened. *Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
> >decrease. *Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming 0320
> >with 8.5:1 compression? *If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
> >any?
>
> >thanks
> >Stu Fields
>
> bloody hell that is $1 47.9 cents per litre.
>
> how the hell do you get it that cheap?
>
> locally it is $aus1.64 per litre. actually with the last rise it is
> probably $1.70 plus.
>
> hey stewie its not $1000 per litre. get a life and go flying.
>
> Stealth (still flying) Pilot

Swedish government just passed a bill that will put the price of 100LL
at SEK 18 per litre. That is 3 US$ per litre or about 11 US$/gallon. I
heard that US truck drivers are protesting about gasolin prices in the
range of 3-4 $US/gallon. Get a grip, oil is a limited resource and we
all have to pay (much more) for it to appreciate its real value. And
yes, I am still flying, but for how long...

/Lars

[Sliker[_3_]]

I've got the same engine in my plane, it's an O-320 D2C, but there are
other number series with the same compression ratio in the 160hp
class. That engine is listed on Peterson's mogas STC site as one that
is approved for premium unleaded autofuel. So you shouldn't run into
any problems as far as detonation goes, vapor lock is another issue,
and is different in each aircraft type. Just the other day a pilot at
my local airport said that if the gas has the common 10% ethanol
added, it's vapor lock potential goes up a lot. I'm not sure about
those facts, but I think it has more to do with fuel system design.
Gravity flow systems seem almost immuned to that problem. With wing
tanks below the carb, the best setup is to have fuel pumps at the tank
"pushing" the fuel to the carb. Rather than the more common setup of
the fuel pump in the engine compartment sucking the fuel from the
tank. Peterson's website has a good dissertation about homebuilts
worth reading, in regards to fuel system design to help prevent vapor
lock.

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> wrote:

>Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
>decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming 0320
>with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
>any?
>
>thanks
>Stu Fields
>

[Sliker[_3_]]

here's what Peterson's site says about homebuilts:

HOMEBUILTS

Homebuilders can improve the fuel system of an airplane under
construction in a number of ways to reduce the likelihood of vapor
lock. NASA vents incorporated into the vent system help provide
positive pressure. Fuel pumps should be installed in the fuel tanks,
or as close to the fuel tank as possible, and should be of the maximum
pressure and flow rating allowable for the carb. Any 90° fittings
should be replaced with 45° fittings, or tubing with very smooth
gradual bends. Fittings should be made as tight as possible to prevent
air from entering the line. Lines should be secured to prevent
vibration & harmonics. Fuel lines in the engine compartment should be
insulated to prevent heat from soaking through to the fuel. Fuel lines
should not be located in close proximity to hot spots in the engine
compartment.

Composite materials used for the construction of some homebuilts may
react negatively when they come in contact with fuel. The early
Vari-eze homebuilts had a tendancy for the spar to come apart after
fuel tank leaks dribbled fuel onto the spar. Homebuilders should
contact the kit manufacturer to see if material used throughout the
airplane is compatible with the type of fuel you will be using and to
receive other recommendations.

[Bill Daniels]

Is it true that the Peterson STC prohibits any alcohol in the autogas?

"Sliker" > wrote in message
...
> I've got the same engine in my plane, it's an O-320 D2C, but there are
> other number series with the same compression ratio in the 160hp
> class. That engine is listed on Peterson's mogas STC site as one that
> is approved for premium unleaded autofuel. So you shouldn't run into
> any problems as far as detonation goes, vapor lock is another issue,
> and is different in each aircraft type. Just the other day a pilot at
> my local airport said that if the gas has the common 10% ethanol
> added, it's vapor lock potential goes up a lot. I'm not sure about
> those facts, but I think it has more to do with fuel system design.
> Gravity flow systems seem almost immuned to that problem. With wing
> tanks below the carb, the best setup is to have fuel pumps at the tank
> "pushing" the fuel to the carb. Rather than the more common setup of
> the fuel pump in the engine compartment sucking the fuel from the
> tank. Peterson's website has a good dissertation about homebuilts
> worth reading, in regards to fuel system design to help prevent vapor
> lock.
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> > wrote:
>
>>Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
>>decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming
>>0320
>>with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
>>any?
>>
>>thanks
>>Stu Fields
>>
>

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> > wrote:
>
>>Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
>>decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming
>>0320
>>with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
>>any?
>>
>>thanks
>>Stu Fields
>>
>
> bloody hell that is $1 47.9 cents per litre.
>
> how the hell do you get it that cheap?
>
> locally it is $aus1.64 per litre. actually with the last rise it is
> probably $1.70 plus.
>
> hey stewie its not $1000 per litre. get a life and go flying.
>
> Stealth (still flying) Pilot

Hell Stealth, the problem is that I still remember getting a T-34 for $12/hr
wet in an age where the restrictions were much less. Now it costs more and
the flying is getting to be a contest of obeying the regulations. There is
obviously going to be a time when the cost outweighs the enjoyment and I
have a whole raft of interests that have been put on the back burner while I
dabble in aviation. My dabbling started in 1954. Maybe it is dying of
natural causes.

Stu

[RST Engineering]

Yes, but why in the hell did you have to quote the entire previous message
to ask a one-line question?

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford


"Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote in message
...

> Is it true that the Peterson STC prohibits any alcohol in the autogas?

[Jumpin Jahosaphat]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:25:52 -0700, Lars wrote:

tealth (still flying) Pilot
>
> Swedish government just passed a bill that will put the price of 100LL
> at SEK 18 per litre. That is 3 US$ per litre or about 11 US$/gallon. I
> heard that US truck drivers are protesting about gasolin prices in the
> range of 3-4 $US/gallon. Get a grip, oil is a limited resource and we
> all have to pay (much more) for it to appreciate its real value. And
> yes, I am still flying, but for how long...
>
> /Lars

The problem Lars is the price is artificially inflated to a big degree.
As proof, in the US companies must annually report their profits. Last
year Exxon reported a profit of $4Billion US. Which is the largest profit
of ANY company of ANY product anywhere in the world, including all these
Cartel countries. The problem is one of gouging on the part of certain
companies.
John

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Jumpin Jahosaphat wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:25:52 -0700, Lars wrote:
>
> tealth (still flying) Pilot
>> Swedish government just passed a bill that will put the price of 100LL
>> at SEK 18 per litre. That is 3 US$ per litre or about 11 US$/gallon. I
>> heard that US truck drivers are protesting about gasolin prices in the
>> range of 3-4 $US/gallon. Get a grip, oil is a limited resource and we
>> all have to pay (much more) for it to appreciate its real value. And
>> yes, I am still flying, but for how long...
>>
>> /Lars
>
> The problem Lars is the price is artificially inflated to a big degree.
> As proof, in the US companies must annually report their profits. Last
> year Exxon reported a profit of $4Billion US. Which is the largest profit
> of ANY company of ANY product anywhere in the world, including all these
> Cartel countries. The problem is one of gouging on the part of certain
> companies.
> John
>

And in Sweden it is further artificially raised by the government. I'd
just a soon my money go to an oil company rather than a government I can
at least buy stock in an oil company.

That said it is to be expected that if the price of some raw product, in
this case oil, goes up the finished product is going to cost more.

Let's say you sell widgets and on day 1 widg, the raw material of
widgets cost you a $1.00. Your cost to refine widg into widget is $.50.
and you decide you want to make a 50% profit. So you sell your widgets
for $2.25.

Now years later the cost of widg has risen to $3.00 and your cost to
refine has stayed the same (which oil refining hasn't) to $.50. So now a
refined widget costs $3.50 and you wan to make the same 50% on your
money so you have to sell the widget for $5.25.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Jumpin Jahosaphat > wrote:
> The problem Lars is the price is artificially inflated to a big degree.
> As proof, in the US companies must annually report their profits. Last
> year Exxon reported a profit of $4Billion US. Which is the largest profit
> of ANY company of ANY product anywhere in the world, including all these
> Cartel countries. The problem is one of gouging on the part of certain
> companies.

Exxon Mobil said its net income for 2007 was $40.6 billion, a record for an
American company.

Royal Dutch Shell made a profit of $27.6 billion last year ($114 billion in
sales sofar this year), the biggest ever for a European company, 1st
quarter profit was $9.08 billion this year.

$89.2 billion in sales for BP, 1st quarter profit of $7.6 billion.

ConocoPhillips $4.14 billion net income for the 1st quarter. Exxon Mobil
and Chevron are both due to report 1st quarter earnings later this week.

They don't call it "black gold" for nut'n...

[Matt Whiting]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Yes, but why in the hell did you have to quote the entire previous message
> to ask a one-line question?
>
> Jim
>

Probably for the same reason that you wrote a full sentence for a one
word answer. :-)

Matt

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Jumpin Jahosaphat > wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:25:52 -0700, Lars wrote:
>
> tealth (still flying) Pilot
> >
> > Swedish government just passed a bill that will put the price of 100LL
> > at SEK 18 per litre. That is 3 US$ per litre or about 11 US$/gallon. I
> > heard that US truck drivers are protesting about gasolin prices in the
> > range of 3-4 $US/gallon. Get a grip, oil is a limited resource and we
> > all have to pay (much more) for it to appreciate its real value. And
> > yes, I am still flying, but for how long...
> >
> > /Lars
>
> The problem Lars is the price is artificially inflated to a big degree.

Like with various taxes.

> As proof, in the US companies must annually report their profits. Last
> year Exxon reported a profit of $4Billion US. Which is the largest profit
> of ANY company of ANY product anywhere in the world, including all these
> Cartel countries. The problem is one of gouging on the part of certain
> companies.
> John

Don't be so sure of that.

For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in
R&D, developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.

They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.

[Blueskies]

"Steve Hix" > wrote in message ...
>
> For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in
> R&D, developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
>
> They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.


Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field developement, etc etc are rolled in...

[Woody]

If all that profit was returned in gas price reduction it would amount to
about one tenth of a cent per gallon. No one complained all the years they
were loosing money. They also need a large r&d budget to find new oil if the
US politicians weren't so stupid and blocking them from doing their job...


"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jumpin Jahosaphat > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:25:52 -0700, Lars wrote:
>>
>> tealth (still flying) Pilot
>> >
>> > Swedish government just passed a bill that will put the price of 100LL
>> > at SEK 18 per litre. That is 3 US$ per litre or about 11 US$/gallon. I
>> > heard that US truck drivers are protesting about gasolin prices in the
>> > range of 3-4 $US/gallon. Get a grip, oil is a limited resource and we
>> > all have to pay (much more) for it to appreciate its real value. And
>> > yes, I am still flying, but for how long...
>> >
>> > /Lars
>>
>> The problem Lars is the price is artificially inflated to a big degree.
>
> Like with various taxes.
>
>> As proof, in the US companies must annually report their profits. Last
>> year Exxon reported a profit of $4Billion US. Which is the largest profit
>> of ANY company of ANY product anywhere in the world, including all these
>> Cartel countries. The problem is one of gouging on the part of certain
>> companies.
>> John
>
> Don't be so sure of that.
>
> For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in
> R&D, developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
>
> They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.

[Peter Dohm]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in R&D,
>> developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
>>
>> They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.
>
>
> Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field developement,
> etc etc are rolled in...

Not necessarily. I am not an accountant, but AFAIK you are not
automatically allowed to expense and/or depreciate everything that would
make good business sense in the year that you might expect...

[BobR]

Peter Dohm wrote:
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in R&D,
> >> developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
> >>
> >> They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.
> >
> >
> > Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field developement,
> > etc etc are rolled in...
>
> Not necessarily. I am not an accountant, but AFAIK you are not
> automatically allowed to expense and/or depreciate everything that would
> make good business sense in the year that you might expect...

Most capital expenditures must be paid for up front and depreciated
over their life. A portion of the profits will be paid out in
dividends and a large portion put back into development of new
reserves. The biggest problem from the standpoint of the oil
companies is that each new find will cost substantially more to
develop that the current fields. The high prices are helping to make
some finds that were abandoned as unprofitable look just a little
better for development. They won't be developed though unless the oil
companies feel that there will be some stability in the market.

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

BobR wrote:
>
> Peter Dohm wrote:
>
>>"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in R&D,
>>>>developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
>>>>
>>>>They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.
>>>
>>>
>>>Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field developement,
>>>etc etc are rolled in...
>>
>>Not necessarily. I am not an accountant, but AFAIK you are not
>>automatically allowed to expense and/or depreciate everything that would
>>make good business sense in the year that you might expect...
>
>
> Most capital expenditures must be paid for up front and depreciated
> over their life. A portion of the profits will be paid out in
> dividends and a large portion put back into development of new
> reserves. The biggest problem from the standpoint of the oil
> companies is that each new find will cost substantially more to
> develop that the current fields. The high prices are helping to make
> some finds that were abandoned as unprofitable look just a little
> better for development. They won't be developed though unless the oil
> companies feel that there will be some stability in the market.
>


Everybody seems to be overlooking the tax breaks and subsidies.
Without which, gas would cost us somewhere between $10 and $12 a gallon!


FWIW

Richard

[JohnO]

On Apr 30, 9:07 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> RST Engineering wrote:
> > Yes, but why in the hell did you have to quote the entire previous message
> > to ask a one-line question?
>
> > Jim
>
> Probably for the same reason that you wrote a full sentence for a one
> word answer. :-)
>
> Matt

.... and top-posted for good measure!

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Woody" > wrote:
> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Jumpin Jahosaphat > wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 06:25:52 -0700, Lars wrote:
> >>
> >> tealth (still flying) Pilot
> >> >
> >> > Swedish government just passed a bill that will put the price of 100LL
> >> > at SEK 18 per litre. That is 3 US$ per litre or about 11 US$/gallon. I
> >> > heard that US truck drivers are protesting about gasolin prices in the
> >> > range of 3-4 $US/gallon. Get a grip, oil is a limited resource and we
> >> > all have to pay (much more) for it to appreciate its real value. And
> >> > yes, I am still flying, but for how long...
> >> >
> >> > /Lars
> >>
> >> The problem Lars is the price is artificially inflated to a big degree.
> >
> > Like with various taxes.
> >
> >> As proof, in the US companies must annually report their profits. Last
> >> year Exxon reported a profit of $4Billion US. Which is the largest profit
> >> of ANY company of ANY product anywhere in the world, including all these
> >> Cartel countries. The problem is one of gouging on the part of certain
> >> companies.
> >> John
> >
> > Don't be so sure of that.
> >
> > For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in
> > R&D, developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
> >
> > They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.
>
> If all that profit was returned in gas price reduction it would amount to
> about one tenth of a cent per gallon. No one complained all the years they
> were loosing money.

But you can bet they'll be blamed for problems related to aging refinery
infrastructure and so on.

> They also need a large r&d budget to find new oil if the
> US politicians weren't so stupid and blocking them from doing their job...

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"Blueskies" > wrote:

> "Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in
> > R&D, developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
> >
> > They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.
>
> Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field developement, etc
> etc are rolled in...

Profits are what's available to use for future development. They get
spent, one way or another, down the road.

Take away the profits and enjoy watching things come to a halt.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:01:36 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> wrote:

>
>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
>>>decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming
>>>0320
>>>with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
>>>any?
>>>
>>>thanks
>>>Stu Fields
>>>
>>
>> bloody hell that is $1 47.9 cents per litre.
>>
>> how the hell do you get it that cheap?
>>
>> locally it is $aus1.64 per litre. actually with the last rise it is
>> probably $1.70 plus.
>>
>> hey stewie its not $1000 per litre. get a life and go flying.
>>
>> Stealth (still flying) Pilot
>
>Hell Stealth, the problem is that I still remember getting a T-34 for $12/hr
>wet in an age where the restrictions were much less. Now it costs more and
>the flying is getting to be a contest of obeying the regulations. There is
>obviously going to be a time when the cost outweighs the enjoyment and I
>have a whole raft of interests that have been put on the back burner while I
>dabble in aviation. My dabbling started in 1954. Maybe it is dying of
>natural causes.
>
>Stu
>

when I learnt to fly in the 70's the entire hour with instructor cost
me $aus15.
I earnt $9,200 per year.

if I blow up the costs and income figures to the present they are
still in the same ballpark ratio.

I remember locally when fuel hit 62 cents per litre. avgas accidently
became a cent a litre cheaper than avgas. just about the entire
airfield swapped from mogas to avgas.
the stupidity of using mogas when avgas is available led me to
realise that we focus on the pessimism of accountancy far too much.
locally fuel has tripled in price in the last few years. I still drive
to work, I still survive, the price of fuel in reality is just a cost.
so what, I dont buy papers and many magazines any more.

I'm building a turbulent which should see me with some cheap flying.
even cheaper than the tailwind.

I have two friends who show the way. if you want to do it just get on
with it. one is building a 2,000hp powered experimental and the other
has just bought a Yak 18T.

In a way I'm glad that you guys are giving up flying. that'll leave
more fuel for us!
bwahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahaah!

Stealth Pilot

[BobR]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> BobR wrote:
> >
> > Peter Dohm wrote:
> >
> >>"Blueskies" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in R&D,
> >>>>developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
> >>>>
> >>>>They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field developement,
> >>>etc etc are rolled in...
> >>
> >>Not necessarily. I am not an accountant, but AFAIK you are not
> >>automatically allowed to expense and/or depreciate everything that would
> >>make good business sense in the year that you might expect...
> >
> >
> > Most capital expenditures must be paid for up front and depreciated
> > over their life. A portion of the profits will be paid out in
> > dividends and a large portion put back into development of new
> > reserves. The biggest problem from the standpoint of the oil
> > companies is that each new find will cost substantially more to
> > develop that the current fields. The high prices are helping to make
> > some finds that were abandoned as unprofitable look just a little
> > better for development. They won't be developed though unless the oil
> > companies feel that there will be some stability in the market.
> >
>
>
> Everybody seems to be overlooking the tax breaks and subsidies.
> Without which, gas would cost us somewhere between $10 and $12 a gallon!
>
>
> FWIW
>
> Richard

Just imagine what a gallon of gas would cost if the oil companies had
not found so many uses for hydrocarbons beyond burning them up as
fuel. If the only product derived from a $100 barrel of oil was
gasoline a gallon of gas would cost $5 just based on the crude price
alone. A 42 gallon barrel of the best grade of crude, which is the
basis for reporting oil prices, will yield less than 20 gallons of
gasoline. When you add in transportation, refining, more
transportation, distribution and a minimum profit for each step along
the way, the prices are surprisingly low.

[Peter Dohm]

"BobR" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> cavelamb himself wrote:
>> BobR wrote:
>> >
>> > Peter Dohm wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Blueskies" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >>>"Steve Hix" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>>For starters, look at what companies like that will have to spend in
>> >>>>R&D,
>> >>>>developing new field and processes, etc etc etc.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>They're not just taking the profits and locking them up in the bank.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Profits are stated after all the costs, like R&D, new field
>> >>>developement,
>> >>>etc etc are rolled in...
>> >>
>> >>Not necessarily. I am not an accountant, but AFAIK you are not
>> >>automatically allowed to expense and/or depreciate everything that
>> >>would
>> >>make good business sense in the year that you might expect...
>> >
>> >
>> > Most capital expenditures must be paid for up front and depreciated
>> > over their life. A portion of the profits will be paid out in
>> > dividends and a large portion put back into development of new
>> > reserves. The biggest problem from the standpoint of the oil
>> > companies is that each new find will cost substantially more to
>> > develop that the current fields. The high prices are helping to make
>> > some finds that were abandoned as unprofitable look just a little
>> > better for development. They won't be developed though unless the oil
>> > companies feel that there will be some stability in the market.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Everybody seems to be overlooking the tax breaks and subsidies.
>> Without which, gas would cost us somewhere between $10 and $12 a gallon!
>>
>>
>> FWIW
>>
>> Richard
>
> Just imagine what a gallon of gas would cost if the oil companies had
> not found so many uses for hydrocarbons beyond burning them up as
> fuel. If the only product derived from a $100 barrel of oil was
> gasoline a gallon of gas would cost $5 just based on the crude price
> alone. A 42 gallon barrel of the best grade of crude, which is the
> basis for reporting oil prices, will yield less than 20 gallons of
> gasoline. When you add in transportation, refining, more
> transportation, distribution and a minimum profit for each step along
> the way, the prices are surprisingly low.

While I tend to agree with you, there is another issue that seems to have
escaped any commentary--what is the price of domestic crude oil and where
does the money actually go?

Domestic crude oil comes from several US states including Texas, California,
Oklahoma, Loiusiana, and Mississippi. All of those states have considerable
power to tax what is produced there, just as much of the cost of imported
oil is tax money paid to the governments where it is obtained. So, how much
are we currently paying in state and local taxes on the crude oil--which is
in addition to the taxes on finished products of which we are already well
aware?

This same question might be of considerable interest in some other places
where crude oil is produced; such as Norway and the UK.

Peter

[Harry K]

On Apr 29, 1:23*pm, Darrel Toepfer > wrote:
> Jumpin Jahosaphat > wrote:
> > The problem Lars is the price is artificially inflated to a big degree.
> > As proof, in the US companies must annually report their profits. Last
> > year Exxon reported a profit of $4Billion US. Which is the largest profit
> > of ANY company of ANY product anywhere in the world, including all these
> > Cartel countries. The problem is one of gouging on the part of certain
> > companies.
>
> Exxon Mobil said its net income for 2007 was $40.6 billion, a record for an
> American company.
>
> Royal Dutch Shell made a profit of $27.6 billion last year ($114 billion in
> sales sofar this year), the biggest ever for a European company, 1st
> quarter profit was $9.08 billion this year.
>
> $89.2 billion in sales for BP, 1st quarter profit of $7.6 billion.
>
> ConocoPhillips $4.14 billion net income for the 1st quarter. Exxon Mobil
> and Chevron are both due to report 1st quarter earnings later this week.
>
> They don't call it "black gold" for nut'n...

89.2 billion in sales, profit of 7.6 billion - sounds like about a
normal profit for any business. When discussing how much profict a
company makes it should be expressed in percent of gross, not jus the
total amount. Total is meaningless without the underlying gross to
compute the percentage.

Harry K

[Sliker]

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
> wrote:

All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
$120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
killing us, not the oil companies. The price of crude oil per barrel
is what needs to come down for any relief at the gas station. I think
the figure of 20 gallons of gasoline from 42 gallons of crude is way
off. With modern refineries, they get just as much gasoline from just
as many gallons of crude. Do some reseach on that, and you'll find
your 20 gallon figure came from some drunk talk in a bar one night.

>
>Just imagine what a gallon of gas would cost if the oil companies had
>not found so many uses for hydrocarbons beyond burning them up as
>fuel. If the only product derived from a $100 barrel of oil was
>gasoline a gallon of gas would cost $5 just based on the crude price
>alone. A 42 gallon barrel of the best grade of crude, which is the
>basis for reporting oil prices, will yield less than 20 gallons of
>gasoline. When you add in transportation, refining, more
>transportation, distribution and a minimum profit for each step along
>the way, the prices are surprisingly low.

[Matt Whiting]

Sliker wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
> > wrote:
>
> All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
> $120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
> regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
> refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
> station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
> killing us, not the oil companies.

Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil companies
of late?

Matt

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Sliker wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
> > > wrote:
> >
> > All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
> > $120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
> > regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
> > refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
> > station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
> > killing us, not the oil companies.
>
> Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil companies
> of late?

The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.

Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.

They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
companies in other fields.

[Dan[_2_]]

Steve Hix wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Sliker wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
>>> $120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
>>> regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
>>> refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
>>> station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
>>> killing us, not the oil companies.
>> Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil companies
>> of late?
>
> The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
> from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.
>
> Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.
>
> They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
> companies in other fields.

And a lot lower than many other companies.

The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[dave]

Dan wrote:
> Steve Hix wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>
>>> Sliker wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
>>>> $120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
>>>> regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
>>>> refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
>>>> station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
>>>> killing us, not the oil companies.
>>> Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil
>>> companies of late?
>>
>> The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
>> from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.
>>
>> Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.
>>
>> They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
>> companies in other fields.
>
> And a lot lower than many other companies.
>
> The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
> think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The oil companies don't own oil wells?

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
Dave > wrote:

> Dan wrote:
> > Steve Hix wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sliker wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
> >>>> $120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
> >>>> regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
> >>>> refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
> >>>> station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
> >>>> killing us, not the oil companies.
> >>> Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil
> >>> companies of late?
> >>
> >> The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
> >> from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.
> >>
> >> Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.
> >>
> >> They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
> >> companies in other fields.
> >
> > And a lot lower than many other companies.
> >
> > The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
> > think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.
> >
> > Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> The oil companies don't own oil wells?

The oil companies don't set the taxes paid by customers, for one thing.

And in some countries, no, they don't own the wells.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Dave wrote:
>
>
> Dan wrote:
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sliker wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
>>>>> $120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
>>>>> regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
>>>>> refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
>>>>> station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
>>>>> killing us, not the oil companies.
>>>> Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil
>>>> companies of late?
>>>
>>> The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
>>> from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.
>>>
>>> Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.
>>>
>>> They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
>>> companies in other fields.
>>
>> And a lot lower than many other companies.
>>
>> The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
>> think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> The oil companies don't own oil wells?

No many, many of them don't.

[Dan[_2_]]

Dave wrote:
>
>
> Dan wrote:
>> Steve Hix wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sliker wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
>>>>> $120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
>>>>> regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
>>>>> refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
>>>>> station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
>>>>> killing us, not the oil companies.
>>>> Really? Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil
>>>> companies of late?
>>>
>>> The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
>>> from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.
>>>
>>> Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.
>>>
>>> They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
>>> companies in other fields.
>>
>> And a lot lower than many other companies.
>>
>> The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
>> think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> The oil companies don't own oil wells?

I didn't say one way or the other, did I?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

On May 2, 10:25*pm, Dan > wrote:
> Steve Hix wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> >> Sliker wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:26:24 -0700 (PDT), BobR
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>> All the complainers have to do is just do the math. At todays price of
> >>> $120 a barrel, divided by 42 gallons = 2.86 a gallon. In my area,
> >>> regular is selling for 3:50 a gallon. That leaves 64 cents a gallon to
> >>> refine it, transport it, leave some profit for the oil company and gas
> >>> station, and includes the taxes. It's the price of crude that's
> >>> killing us, not the oil companies.
> >> Really? *Have you noticed the profits of many of the large oil companies
> >> of late?
>
> > The large absolute values of major energy companies' profits results
> > from the much larger values of their costs of doing business.
>
> > Try looking at the profits as a percentage of total operational costs.
>
> > They're down around 10% or so, which is pretty typical for healthy
> > companies in other fields.
>
> * *And a lot lower than many other companies.
>
> * *The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
> think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And in Venezuala gasoline costs $0.15 a gallon...

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

wrote:

> And in Venezuala gasoline costs $0.15 a gallon...

Which is exactly the opposite of a tax the government refining it
themselves and selling it cheap. Probably worse for their economy in the
long run than what happens in Europe.

Think about what will happen when that idiot they have running the
country finally get ousted and the price goes back to market norms.

[Sliker[_3_]]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:52:18 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> And in Venezuala gasoline costs $0.15 a gallon...
>
>Which is exactly the opposite of a tax the government refining it
>themselves and selling it cheap. Probably worse for their economy in the
>long run than what happens in Europe.
>
>Think about what will happen when that idiot they have running the
>country finally get ousted and the price goes back to market norms.

That'll never happen. The only way to get back to cheap oil is if we
took over the oil wells. And the fallout from doing that would be
major. Although there are a few countries that have a lot of oil that
need their asses kicked big time. That jerk down in Venezuala for one,
and those camel riding rag headed idiots in the middle east. The USA
is probably the most powerful nation in earth's history that doesn't
use it's power to the fullest by it's own choice. The British could
fall into that catagory in their past also. You think if someone in
this planet's past like Hitler, or fill in the blank, that had our
miltary, and nuclear arsenal would be putting up with todays oil
prices? Not on your life, and they'd probably control just about all
the oil on the planet. But we are the nice guys, so we pay through the
nose.

[Sliker[_3_]]

On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:25:14 -0500, Dan > wrote:
> The U.S. pays a lot less for gasoline than may other countries. I
>think it's over $18.00 (U.S.) per gallon in Aruba.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It would be painful filling up your moped down there. Fortunately,
that's about all you need to get around in that place.

[Bill Daniels]

The imeadiate issue is AVGAS for those engines requiring 100 octane. This
stuff may not be available much longer at any price since its prodiction
depends on a single producer of TEL. The EPA has also issued a proposed
rule making requiring removal of lead. The immeadiate future of 100LL is
looking grimmer by the day.

Lead free 100 octane is possible but not with crude oil as the feedstock.
Iso-Octane is the laboratory reference for the octane scale as it exhibits
exactly '100 octane'. What if you could produce large quantities of
Iso-Octane from biomass? There are some small groups trying to do exactly
that by genetically engineering microbes to either directly produce
Iso-Octane or a convienient precursor that can be refined into lead free 100
octane AVGAS.

This is economically reasonable since the total comsumption of 100 octane
AVGAS by those high-performance engines that require it a fraction of one
percent of all motor fuels. A small biofuel production facility might be
able to meet all of North America's 100 octane AVGAS needs. Those engines
not needing 100 octane can run aviation grade 92 octane which is essentially
100LL minus the lead.

None of this will bring back $1/gal AVGAS but it would be a 100% domestic
source not at the mercy of global oil prices. I hope these guys get a move
on since I've read predictions of 100LL's demise within 12 months.

Bill D



"Sliker" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 May 2008 16:52:18 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>> And in Venezuala gasoline costs $0.15 a gallon...
>>
>>Which is exactly the opposite of a tax the government refining it
>>themselves and selling it cheap. Probably worse for their economy in the
>>long run than what happens in Europe.
>>
>>Think about what will happen when that idiot they have running the
>>country finally get ousted and the price goes back to market norms.
>
> That'll never happen. The only way to get back to cheap oil is if we
> took over the oil wells. And the fallout from doing that would be
> major. Although there are a few countries that have a lot of oil that
> need their asses kicked big time. That jerk down in Venezuala for one,
> and those camel riding rag headed idiots in the middle east. The USA
> is probably the most powerful nation in earth's history that doesn't
> use it's power to the fullest by it's own choice. The British could
> fall into that catagory in their past also. You think if someone in
> this planet's past like Hitler, or fill in the blank, that had our
> miltary, and nuclear arsenal would be putting up with todays oil
> prices? Not on your life, and they'd probably control just about all
> the oil on the planet. But we are the nice guys, so we pay through the
> nose.

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

"Sliker" > wrote in message
...
> I've got the same engine in my plane, it's an O-320 D2C, but there are
> other number series with the same compression ratio in the 160hp
> class. That engine is listed on Peterson's mogas STC site as one that
> is approved for premium unleaded autofuel. So you shouldn't run into
> any problems as far as detonation goes, vapor lock is another issue,
> and is different in each aircraft type. Just the other day a pilot at
> my local airport said that if the gas has the common 10% ethanol
> added, it's vapor lock potential goes up a lot. I'm not sure about
> those facts, but I think it has more to do with fuel system design.
> Gravity flow systems seem almost immuned to that problem. With wing
> tanks below the carb, the best setup is to have fuel pumps at the tank
> "pushing" the fuel to the carb. Rather than the more common setup of
> the fuel pump in the engine compartment sucking the fuel from the
> tank. Peterson's website has a good dissertation about homebuilts
> worth reading, in regards to fuel system design to help prevent vapor
> lock.
>
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> > wrote:
>
>>Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
>>decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming
>>0320
>>with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
>>any?
>>
>>thanks
>>Stu Fields
>>
Sliker: Thanks for the answer. Most of the rest of the responses ignored
my question but assumed that I needed either a course in accounting or
fossel fuel economics, or some barroom counseling in an attempt to reduce my
grief over the increased fuel prices.
I looked into the Peterson site and got a bunch of useful info. I've also
found several University studies that have looked into alternative fuels to
and including 100% ethanol. More studying is required.
Somewhere in my excellent memory that I have limited access to, is an
anecdote of some guy who has been using MoGas in his Lycoming equipped
Stinson for quite a few years. The ethanol aspect was not discussed and his
history certainly started before the ethanol additive.
For the very near future I will be mixing Supreme with 100LL until the LL
runs out. When I switch to 100% Supreme, I will be hovering my helicopter
for a few hours and keeping track of the CHT, EGT, MP etc.

Thanks again for useful response.

stu

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

> I looked into the Peterson site and got a bunch of useful info.

Stu, did you look at this page on the Peterson site?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

And now with the link...

http://www.autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/ethanol.html

[Stuart & Kathryn Fields]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> And now with the link...
>
> http://www.autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/ethanol.html

Thanks Gig. I missed that page. The problem that I have with some of the
reporting is that there isn't much supportive data. To wit: Corrosion of
aircraft fuel systems. Specifically what systems and what are the
differences in auto that allow them to use the E-10 with apparent immunity?
I've heard that the gravity fed fuel systems don't seem to experience the
vapor locking and I've never experienced carb ice in any vehicle but my VW.
The CAT gage on my Lycoming never gets within a large margin of the yellow
zone and even in Canada along side the lakes with temps in all ranges from
20 F to 80 F have I ever encountered any hint of carb ice in my
installation. Now with the metal floats in the carburetors, I can't see how
alcohol would affect that. Some of the O rings in the gascolators and fuel
shut off valves might need changing. I fully expect to lose some power
using Supreme with 10% ethanol, but at price differentials exceeding $1.00/
gal?
I'm going to get some 10% Ethanol Supreme and put one of my A/C quality
fuel lines in it and let it soak.

Thanks again for the link. BTW are you going to Oshkosh this year? We will
be covering the helicopters down at the Ultralite runway again.
Stu

[Drew Dalgleish]

>>
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
>>>decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming
>>>0320
>>>with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
>>>any?
>>>
>>>thanks
>>>Stu Fields

I have an 0-320 clone from ECI 160hp with an Emag Pmag electronic
ignition. The ignition has a feature that allows me to switch between
maximum advance depending on the fuel being used. I believe it's a 4
degree difference but that's just from memory you might find some
usefull information poking around the emagair site. I haven't used any
mogas yet cuz I'm in a fuel co-op and right now 100LL is 7 cents a
litre cheaper than regular unleaded.

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
> "Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
> m...
>> And now with the link...
>>
>> http://www.autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/ethanol.html
>
> Thanks Gig. I missed that page. The problem that I have with some of the
> reporting is that there isn't much supportive data. To wit: Corrosion of
> aircraft fuel systems. Specifically what systems and what are the
> differences in auto that allow them to use the E-10 with apparent immunity?
> I've heard that the gravity fed fuel systems don't seem to experience the
> vapor locking and I've never experienced carb ice in any vehicle but my VW.
> The CAT gage on my Lycoming never gets within a large margin of the yellow
> zone and even in Canada along side the lakes with temps in all ranges from
> 20 F to 80 F have I ever encountered any hint of carb ice in my
> installation. Now with the metal floats in the carburetors, I can't see how
> alcohol would affect that. Some of the O rings in the gascolators and fuel
> shut off valves might need changing. I fully expect to lose some power
> using Supreme with 10% ethanol, but at price differentials exceeding $1.00/
> gal?
> I'm going to get some 10% Ethanol Supreme and put one of my A/C quality
> fuel lines in it and let it soak.
>
> Thanks again for the link. BTW are you going to Oshkosh this year? We will
> be covering the helicopters down at the Ultralite runway again.
> Stu
>
>

The biggest problem IMHO is that it holds water. All the other issues
such as it eating the rubber can be dealt with but you can't make
Ethanol not hold water.

As for OSH this year I don't know. Hopefully about that time I will be
finishing up the engine install on my 601XL and since I have waited a
while to get the engine (technically I still am waiting)I'm going to be
hard pressed to make myself break away from building to make it. But
Hell or high water I will be there in 2009 and will be spending quite a
bit of time down with the helos because I really want to build a Mosquito.

And speaking of the Mosquito. Will those floats on the UL version really
float the helo and would the deployable floats from say a Bell 206
qualify the Mosquito to still be flown as a UL?

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>
>>
>
> The biggest problem IMHO is that it holds water. All the other issues
> such as it eating the rubber can be dealt with but you can't make
> Ethanol not hold water.
>


Turn it around, Gig.

Look at it as a safety feature.

Ethanol in the fuel might absorb any water in the tanks
avoiding an engine failure.



Richard
--
(remove the X to email)

Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English?
John Wayne

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

cavelamb himself wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The biggest problem IMHO is that it holds water. All the other issues
>> such as it eating the rubber can be dealt with but you can't make
>> Ethanol not hold water.
>>
>
>
> Turn it around, Gig.
>
> Look at it as a safety feature.
>
> Ethanol in the fuel might absorb any water in the tanks
> avoiding an engine failure.
>
>
>
> Richard


That's what all those drains are for. My little 601 will have three
places designed to get water out of the fuel before it gets sucked in to
the engine.

[Peter Dohm]

"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
> cavelamb himself wrote:
>> Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The biggest problem IMHO is that it holds water. All the other issues
>>> such as it eating the rubber can be dealt with but you can't make
>>> Ethanol not hold water.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Turn it around, Gig.
>>
>> Look at it as a safety feature.
>>
>> Ethanol in the fuel might absorb any water in the tanks
>> avoiding an engine failure.
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard
>
>
> That's what all those drains are for. My little 601 will have three places
> designed to get water out of the fuel before it gets sucked in to the
> engine.

Richard's poiint was well worth noting. AFAIK, in automobiles, wich
generally have no drains, when a problem of water in the fuel tank is
encountered, it is normally resolved by adding alcohol. One of the other
alcohols is normally used, because of the beverage tax applied to pure
ethanol; but, according to my local mechanic, that gets the car running so
that the fuel can be successfully consumed in the normal way. At least in
theory, that would result in a slight and temporary reduction in horsepower;
but it is hard to imagine a situation where the loss would exceed 5 of 10
percent--even on a carbureted engine.

Peter

[Peter Dohm]

"Sliker" > wrote in message
...
> I've got the same engine in my plane, it's an O-320 D2C, but there are
> other number series with the same compression ratio in the 160hp
> class. That engine is listed on Peterson's mogas STC site as one that
> is approved for premium unleaded autofuel. So you shouldn't run into
> any problems as far as detonation goes, vapor lock is another issue,
> and is different in each aircraft type. Just the other day a pilot at
> my local airport said that if the gas has the common 10% ethanol
> added, it's vapor lock potential goes up a lot. I'm not sure about
> those facts, but I think it has more to do with fuel system design.
> Gravity flow systems seem almost immuned to that problem. With wing
> tanks below the carb, the best setup is to have fuel pumps at the tank
> "pushing" the fuel to the carb. Rather than the more common setup of
> the fuel pump in the engine compartment sucking the fuel from the
> tank. Peterson's website has a good dissertation about homebuilts
> worth reading, in regards to fuel system design to help prevent vapor
> lock.
>
Back when the Mogas STCs, or "Autogas STC" as they were then called, were
being proposed, tested, and certified; all of these issues and more were
quite hotly debated in "Sport Aviation", "AOPA Pilot", "Flying", and I
believe "Aviation Maintenance" and "Aviation Consumer", to name just a few.

At that time, some of the original researchers were still in good
health--who were present when the Av-Gas Mil Spec was first written. At
least one of them asserted that there was considerable doubt that the very
low vapor presure spec was usefull, and that it was the result of an error
at the time; but that there had simply never been a strong enough motivation
to change it, since the engines ran well on the fuel as specified.

So the bottom line is probably that the REAL problem with adding 10% ethanol
to the STCs might be that the automotive fuel formula would subsequently be
changed to a greater percentage, or possibly to some other additive or
dilutant. Then the entire tedious and costly process would need to be
duplicated yet again.

Also, just as a reminder, the original motivation was to allow Mogas to be
sold by FBOs as a replacement for 80-87 Avgas. The cost it was mainly
intended to reduce was the expense and downtime that occurred due to fouled
valves and spark plugs--especially in trainers which were commonly operated
with full-rich mixture much of the time.

Peter

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 14:27:06 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> wrote:

>
>"Sliker" > wrote in message
...
>> I've got the same engine in my plane, it's an O-320 D2C, but there are
>> other number series with the same compression ratio in the 160hp
>> class. That engine is listed on Peterson's mogas STC site as one that
>> is approved for premium unleaded autofuel. So you shouldn't run into
>> any problems as far as detonation goes, vapor lock is another issue,
>> and is different in each aircraft type. Just the other day a pilot at
>> my local airport said that if the gas has the common 10% ethanol
>> added, it's vapor lock potential goes up a lot. I'm not sure about
>> those facts, but I think it has more to do with fuel system design.
>> Gravity flow systems seem almost immuned to that problem. With wing
>> tanks below the carb, the best setup is to have fuel pumps at the tank
>> "pushing" the fuel to the carb. Rather than the more common setup of
>> the fuel pump in the engine compartment sucking the fuel from the
>> tank. Peterson's website has a good dissertation about homebuilts
>> worth reading, in regards to fuel system design to help prevent vapor
>> lock.
>>
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:13:16 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Well it has happened. Local 100LL is $5.60/ gal and is not expected to
>>>decrease. Is there anyone out there using Supreme MoGas in a Lycoming
>>>0320
>>>with 8.5:1 compression? If so what ignition timing changes were needed if
>>>any?
>>>
>>>thanks
>>>Stu Fields
>>>
>Sliker: Thanks for the answer. Most of the rest of the responses ignored
>my question but assumed that I needed either a course in accounting or
>fossel fuel economics, or some barroom counseling in an attempt to reduce my
>grief over the increased fuel prices.
> I looked into the Peterson site and got a bunch of useful info. I've also
>found several University studies that have looked into alternative fuels to
>and including 100% ethanol. More studying is required.
>Somewhere in my excellent memory that I have limited access to, is an
>anecdote of some guy who has been using MoGas in his Lycoming equipped
>Stinson for quite a few years. The ethanol aspect was not discussed and his
>history certainly started before the ethanol additive.
>For the very near future I will be mixing Supreme with 100LL until the LL
>runs out. When I switch to 100% Supreme, I will be hovering my helicopter
>for a few hours and keeping track of the CHT, EGT, MP etc.

Not a safe thing to do.
You must have not read the petersen page about not using gas with
alcohol added.


>
>Thanks again for useful response.
>
>stu
>
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 14 May 2008 17:03:17 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
> wrote:

>
>"Gig 601Xl Builder" > wrote in message
m...
>> And now with the link...
>>
>> http://www.autofuelstc.com/autofuelstc/pa/ethanol.html
>
>Thanks Gig. I missed that page. The problem that I have with some of the
>reporting is that there isn't much supportive data. To wit: Corrosion of
>aircraft fuel systems. Specifically what systems and what are the

The problem is Alcohol and bare unprotected aluminum don't mix. IOW,
Alcohol his highly hygroscopic.(IT not only absorbs water - A little
will dissolve liquid water into gas preventing gas line freeze -
"DryGas", but is corrosive to Aluminum

>differences in auto that allow them to use the E-10 with apparent immunity?

Automotive fuel systems use steel fuel lines although for E85 they
should be using SS lines and tanks, but I doubt any do. Those fuel
systems are also living on borrowed time.

>I've heard that the gravity fed fuel systems don't seem to experience the
>vapor locking and I've never experienced carb ice in any vehicle but my VW.

I'd think a pressure system would be more immune than gravity fed.

>The CAT gage on my Lycoming never gets within a large margin of the yellow
>zone and even in Canada along side the lakes with temps in all ranges from
>20 F to 80 F have I ever encountered any hint of carb ice in my
>installation. Now with the metal floats in the carburetors, I can't see how
>alcohol would affect that. Some of the O rings in the gascolators and fuel
>shut off valves might need changing. I fully expect to lose some power
>using Supreme with 10% ethanol, but at price differentials exceeding $1.00/
>gal?

Some parts in the carb are aluminum or soldered such as the float
which is two brass shells soldered together.

>I'm going to get some 10% Ethanol Supreme and put one of my A/C quality
>fuel lines in it and let it soak.
>
It takes time. You might run several years without problems. My Deb
has bladder tanks (Neoprene impregnated canvas I believe) they would
not stand up. The tip tanks are bare fiberglass and resin. They too
dislike Alcohol.

However the big Continental needs 100 octane.

>Thanks again for the link. BTW are you going to Oshkosh this year? We will
>be covering the helicopters down at the Ultralite runway again.
>Stu
>
Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Drew Dalgleish]

>
>>I've heard that the gravity fed fuel systems don't seem to experience the
>>vapor locking and I've never experienced carb ice in any vehicle but my VW.
>
>I'd think a pressure system would be more immune than gravity fed.
>

>Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
>N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com

I think If it sucks it's more immune but if it blows it's less.
That's why new cars have the pump in the tank. Unfortunately most
planes don't.

[Wayne Paul]

"Drew Dalgleish" > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>>>I've heard that the gravity fed fuel systems don't seem to experience the
>>>vapor locking and I've never experienced carb ice in any vehicle but my
>>>VW.
>>
>>I'd think a pressure system would be more immune than gravity fed.
>>
>
>>Roger (K8RI) ARRL Life Member
>>N833R (World's oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> I think If it sucks it's more immune but if it blows it's less.
> That's why new cars have the pump in the tank. Unfortunately most
> planes don't.

My Model A Ford's gravity flow system never had problems. I have had two
fuel tank pump failures in "modern" cars.

I agree with Ronger, a gravity fuel system seems to work well in high wing
airplanes.

Wayne
HP14 "Six Foxtrot"
(All fuel system problems are solved if you don't carry any fuel)
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder

[cavelamb himself[_4_]]

Ernest Christley wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>> I'm going to get some 10% Ethanol Supreme and put one of my A/C
>>> quality fuel lines in it and let it soak.
>>>
>> It takes time. You might run several years without problems. My Deb
>> has bladder tanks (Neoprene impregnated canvas I believe) they would
>> not stand up. The tip tanks are bare fiberglass and resin. They too
>> dislike Alcohol.
>>
>> However the big Continental needs 100 octane.
>
>
> Jim Maher ran auto-gas in his rotary powered Dyke Delta. Cranked the
> engine once a month in the years that he was finishing the rest of the
> plane. First flight went without a hitch. First few hours with no
> problem. The he lost partial power in flight. Luckily near his home
> airport. He couldn't maintain altitude, but he had time. Took it home
> safely.
>
> On inspection, the fiberglass fuel tank flaked apart and crumpled like
> paper. I wasn't there. I haven't seen it. But Jim isn't the sort to
> lie about these sort of things.
>
> I believe he said he used Aeropoxy (though, don't hold me to that one).
>
>


Most epoxies will do that.

That's why vinyl ester is recommended for fuel tanks.

Some chemical resistance info here:
http://www.epoxy.com/vester.htm

Lots more here:
http://www.derakane.com/derakaneControllerAction.do?method.goToCorrosionRe commendationsPage.ash.nes.tierMenuNavID.cReccomend ations

WHere to get some:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cmpages/vinylester.php

[Blueskies]

"cavelamb himself" > wrote in message ...
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm going to get some 10% Ethanol Supreme and put one of my A/C quality fuel lines in it and let it soak.
>>>>
>>> It takes time. You might run several years without problems. My Deb
>>> has bladder tanks (Neoprene impregnated canvas I believe) they would
>>> not stand up. The tip tanks are bare fiberglass and resin. They too
>>> dislike Alcohol.
>>>
>>> However the big Continental needs 100 octane.
>>
>>
>> Jim Maher ran auto-gas in his rotary powered Dyke Delta. Cranked the engine once a month in the years that he was
>> finishing the rest of the plane. First flight went without a hitch. First few hours with no problem. The he lost
>> partial power in flight. Luckily near his home airport. He couldn't maintain altitude, but he had time. Took it
>> home safely.
>>
>> On inspection, the fiberglass fuel tank flaked apart and crumpled like paper. I wasn't there. I haven't seen it.
>> But Jim isn't the sort to lie about these sort of things.
>>
>> I believe he said he used Aeropoxy (though, don't hold me to that one).
>>
>>
>
>
> Most epoxies will do that.
>
> That's why vinyl ester is recommended for fuel tanks.
>
> Some chemical resistance info here:
> http://www.epoxy.com/vester.htm
>
> Lots more here:
> http://www.derakane.com/derakaneControllerAction.do?method.goToCorrosionRe commendationsPage.ash.nes.tierMenuNavID.cReccomend ations
>



100°F is the max temperature recommended for the Derakane 470 with 'gasohol' 10-100% alcohol. Don't want to be sitting
out on the ramp in Arizona with thqat stuff in the tanks...although the 470 stuff seems to be the best in there product
line for this application.


> WHere to get some:
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cmpages/vinylester.php

[Wayne Paul]

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> 100°F is the max temperature recommended for the Derakane 470 with
> 'gasohol' 10-100% alcohol. Don't want to be sitting out on the ramp in
> Arizona with thqat stuff in the tanks...although the 470 stuff seems to be
> the best in there product line for this application.
>

You don't have to be in Arizona to have internal wing temps above 100°F.
http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/Construction/Color_Temp.html

Wayne
HP-14 "Six Foxtrot"
http://www.soaridaho.com/