Cost of gas is beginning to hurt

On Apr 26, 7:36 am, ktbr wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:

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

Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.

Just think of the margin of victory if EVERY voter got to vote and
counted.
Bushco----28% and falling..

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

Even turbo normalizing increases the temperature of the fuel/air mix
entering the cylinders, due to compression of the air to achieve
"normal" pressures. The increased temperature increases the octane
requirements, all by itself.

Correct. That's why I only mentioned inlet temps. I've lived in the
desert most of my life and I get a demonstration of this effect every summer.
I have two vehicles that are designed to run on regular grade fuel. In the
middle of summer, when the weather man says it's 115F, temperatures above a
hot layer of asphalt hover in the 130F - 140F range. Both my truck and
motorcycle will experience detonation under load if I use 87 octane in the
summer. The motorcycle being worse, as it is air-cooled and has less control
over cylinder temps. I have to run at least 89 octane to avoid detonation.
In the winter time, I can run 87 octane without a hint of detonation.

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

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

On 2007-04-30 11:58:32 -0700, said:

On Apr 26, 7:36 am, ktbr wrote:
C J Campbell wrote:

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

Well in the eyes of Democrats thats a landslide.

Just think of the margin of victory if EVERY voter got to vote and
counted.
Bushco----28% and falling..

We are talking about seats in state legislature here, not voting.

Polls are not votes. Never have been. If they were, Dewey would have
defeated Truman.

It is interesting that the vast majority of Bush critics couldn't be
bothered to show up at the polls.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

....always entertaining to follow these discussions on GA costs and
fuel prices. Here in Germany we already pay some $3.50 per Gallon of
mogas and more than five dollars per Gallon of avgas. Don't mention
landing fees and parking fees also on small airfields, briefing fees
for weather and navigation... And on average we earn less than
Americans.

virtuPIC
--
Airspace V - international hangar flying
http://www.airspace-v.com

Cost of gas just another reason to start flying Light-Sport Aircraft.
It is nice flying at only 4 to 5 gph.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/





" wrote ..
...always entertaining to follow these discussions on GA costs and
fuel prices. Here in Germany we already pay some $3.50 per Gallon of
mogas and more than five dollars per Gallon of avgas. Don't mention
landing fees and parking fees also on small airfields, briefing fees
for weather and navigation... And on average we earn less than
Americans.

virtuPIC
--
Airspace V - international hangar flying
http://www.airspace-v.com

Gilan wrote:
Cost of gas just another reason to start flying Light-Sport Aircraft.
It is nice flying at only 4 to 5 gph.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/

I think the solution lies more in adaptation of diesel technology within
GA, given the near universal availability of Jet A and also that most
diesel piston engines adapted for light aircraft can run Jet A, kerosene
or automotive diesel fuel.

I've also heard that Light Sport aircraft are more difficult to land in
a crosswind. Dick Collins writes that with regard to Light Sport,
"we've been here before" referencing the high death rate in general
aviation during the 1950s and 1960s and lower state of training for
newbie pilots during that era.

Yes, I know I can buy a new Light Sport aircraft for under a hundred
grand but I suspect I'm getting what I paid for.

As for myself, I'm going the Private route even if it takes longer to
complete.

"Larry Stimely" wrote

Yes, I know I can buy a new Light Sport aircraft for under a hundred grand
but I suspect I'm getting what I paid for.

As for myself, I'm going the Private route even if it takes longer to
complete.

If you feel you need the increased flexibility of the private vs. sport
ticket, go ahead.

As far as the light sport aircraft not being adequate, you need to talk to
some people who fly them, and get a flight in a couple different types.

There are a couple dozen that beat a 152 all to pieces, in every regard.
There are a few that beat a 172, except for the two extra seats.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Larry Stimely" wrote

Yes, I know I can buy a new Light Sport aircraft for under a hundred grand
but I suspect I'm getting what I paid for.

As for myself, I'm going the Private route even if it takes longer to
complete.

If you feel you need the increased flexibility of the private vs. sport
ticket, go ahead.

As far as the light sport aircraft not being adequate, you need to talk to
some people who fly them, and get a flight in a couple different types.

There are a couple dozen that beat a 152 all to pieces, in every regard.
There are a few that beat a 172, except for the two extra seats.

No argument, but what if I'm out somewhere on a weekend, it gets dark
and I can't get home?

Also, in California, there's always the issue of the mountains.

Maybe I don't need the increased flexibility of the Private ticket but I
suppose it only makes financial sense to find out.

I just may do that over the weekend.

"Larry Stimely" wrote

No argument, but what if I'm out somewhere on a weekend, it gets dark and
I can't get home?

Many of the new light sport aircraft have lights for night operation. Of
course, you would need a PP to fly past 30 minutes after sunset, but you can
still fly the equipped LSA.

Also, in California, there's always the issue of the mountains.

Yes, so you fly the passes. You can fly higher as necessary to get over and
though passes, if I remember correctly, and stay a thousand feet above
terrain. Many of the higher performance light sport planes have the
capability to fly pretty high, especially if equipped with the turbo Rotax
engine, as many are.

Maybe I don't need the increased flexibility of the Private ticket but I
suppose it only makes financial sense to find out.

I just may do that over the weekend.

Some do need the extra capability, but you can always get the light sport
pilot ticket, then upgrade later, if you find you need to.

I wouldn't want to talk you out of anything, but light sport flying is
better flying than no flying! g
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Larry Stimely" wrote

No argument, but what if I'm out somewhere on a weekend, it gets dark and
I can't get home?


Many of the new light sport aircraft have lights for night operation. Of
course, you would need a PP to fly past 30 minutes after sunset, but you can
still fly the equipped LSA.
This is where I think LSA will shine. I've got my PP (no instrument
rating) and Ron's got his PP with IA. We've got the Navion, nice, fly
fast, get there, comfy airplane. At 15 - 16 GPH it should be fast, etc.
But let's face it, it's not a putz around weekend plane. My fantasy
would be to ADD (ok, I am losing my mind now) an open, small, on floats
:-) LSA (not even a real LSA but what 2 years ago would have been a FAT
ultralight. I know the LSA can have repositionable gear, but not
retractable gear. Does anyone know if you are flying an LSA on a PP can
you reposition the gear in flight? Now, all I need is a plane, a
seaplane rating and probably a tail wheel endorsement. :-).

Margy