So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

Stubby,

Once enough time has elaspsed, the
neurotic fears about nuclear energy is go away.


Are you familiar with the term "half-life"? Assuming you are, compare
the half-life of nuclear waste with that of human cultures you expect
to safe-keep it. Then, think again about those fears.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[This followup was posted to rec.aviation.piloting and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

In article ,
says...

"Repo Man" wrote in message
WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Diesel fuel costs much less than gasoline in Europe.

The reason American gasoline is cheap is because Congree is too
chicken**** to raise fuel taxes to fix the hemorraging budget deficit.
Seems odd for a war over oil. Or was it WMDs or freedom? I forget...

Stick to engines - your knowledge of the economic record is abysmal (or
you've been listening to Paul Krugman).


Euro diesels are light years beyond US diesels as a result of low sulfur
fuels and advanced fuel injection (common rail) systems.

The fuel makes the engine? Ummm....wanna explain that?

Operating at
pressures that would explode the American-style dielsel fuel pump, these
engines are nearly free of diesel clatter and typically perform better
in terms of fuel economy and acceleration than their gasoline
counterparts.

Could you show just some basic links that show some sort of comparison?
(you don't have to delineate the data...just the links)

Low sulfur diesel fuel is a requirement as the sulfuric
acid is quite corrosive to the pump and injector and any catalysts
needed to clean up the exhaust.

How much of the world crude is "sweet" crude, rather than sulfurphic?





And you think the pointy headed suburbanite crowd has a plan to fix the
budget deficit? BWA HA HA HA HA! Nothing more than: Let the Democrats
raise taxes after we put up a brave (looking) fight. Maybe they can
again trot out their man-bitch Arthur Laffer who will explain how not
taxing the over-priviledged is a good thing? Put him on SNL for the
gales of derisive laughter generated...

Here is the remedial Econ 101 course for you. We didn't pay for the
Vietnam war with any tax increases. The rest of the world noticed this
important omission and stopped lending us money. Consequently interest
rates rose. The result was simultaneous lack of economic growth and
dramatic increase in borrowing costs (interest rates) aka 'stagflation'.
Economists were agog at the phenomena. The problem was exacerbated by
the deficit ballooning tendencies of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and
Reagan. There were truly 'deficit queens' with Reagan topping the charts
handily. Consult the record if Rush the reactionary windbag tells you
otherwise. Economic growth of the USA and resulting larger tax revenues
during the Bush I and Clinton regimes offset their profligate spending
habits sufficiently to reduce interest rates to historically low levels.
The world was willing to lend us money again. Bush II launches war (or
crusade or vulgar oil-grab) while neglecting to find a way to pay for
it. He makes Reagan look like a moderate spender by comparison. The war
does not appear to be good idea. We are not paying to run the war. We
are stuck in a quagmire. The rest of the world notices this. History
repeats self. Grab your ankles and wait for increased interest rates to
kill USA real estate bubble quite soon.

I hope I didn't go too fast for you.

Here is the Diesel 101 section. First many people in Europe drive diesel
autos. They are smooth, sophisticated, and powerful. In comparison, USA
diesels are noisy, rough, and anemic. In the case of General Motors
automobile diesels they were also unreliable and successfully killed the
market. The important part of the reason why is money. In Europe diesel
fuel costs about 3/4 as much as gasoline. There is little difference in
the cost of production. Fuel taxes make the difference. In London UK
diesel runs about $5.61/gallon while unleaded gasoline is about
$5.39/gallon and premium is $5.82/gallon. See
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...30/024010.html for an
overview of the diesel engine situation. Diesel engines typically offer
superior fuel economy and comparable power in comparison to similarly
sized gasoline engines. In the USA, Congress obviously does not want
citizens to switch to diesel fuel as the price is typically higher than
for gasoline. USA diesel is also relatively dirty. Sulfur corrodes fuel
injectors and catalysts of modern diesel engines so they stay out of
USA. The good news is the USA EPA has mandated lower sulfur fuels, see
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/diesel/diesel.htm for the news. In
2006 we will finally catch up. Another benefit of low sulfur fuels is
fewer oil changes will be needed for ALL diesel engines.

Historically Saudi and Pennsylvanian oil has been low in sulfur content.
It is not necessary that the oil be low sulfur in nature. The oil
refining process can be modified to remove many types of impurities.
Sulfur is no exception. It will cost a few cents per gallon more so the
trucking lobby will be agog. Despite their bleating, the world as we
know it will not end for this reason.

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:50:28 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
dhenriques@noware .net wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix. Anyone
read anything more about the coming end of avgas?

Don't know about the small airplane folks, but the warbird guys are going
to be mad as hell. We have the power back on a P51 now to 45 inches on
takeoff because of the fuel restriction. Any lower and the damn airplane
will be taking off at cruise power!! :-)
Dudley henriques

Pretty soon you'll be carrying as much water as fuel, or are you
already using water injection?

That is about the only thing I can think of, at present, that would
allow going more boost.

Actually, Ethyl Alcohol, which has a poor octane rating will raise the
rating a few percent when mixed up to 10% with gas. Unfortunately it
has a lot of side effects like disolving gaskets and removing
protective coatings that make it an undesirable.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:14:37 +0200, Martin Hotze
wrote:

wrote:

That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
the aircraft?


well, the best time to get rid of those 20-something year old planes with a
50 year old design and 100 year old steam gauges.

why don't you still drive your car you had in your 60's?

I still would be if it hadn't fallen apart back in the 60s. :-))
If it had over 50 to 60,000 miles it had made it well past the design
limits. Remember that was the time of planned obsolescence.
In the late 60s I had a Mustang that rusted out in less than 6 months.
Ford would go half, but I had to use their body shop. I could get it
done for less than that at the local body shop with no discount.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

#m

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:56:49 +0200, Martin Hotze
wrote:

"Morgans" wrote:

modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US

Why is that?

hm, maybe a uneducated guess: most (not all) Americans are not really into
innovation, and most are not into anything being not "made in America".

We purchase a high percentage of imported cars. Even our domestic cars
have so many imported parts they now say, "assembled in America":-)).

Most Americans don't have the need to travel outside of their country, so
their point of view is most likely very America-centered (this also backed
up with little to no information on what is going on on the other 70% of
the world)

The above it true from a social standpoint.

. So everything coming from abroad is seen as bad.

30 years ago I'd have said yes, but now most of the imports are
considered moving up to quality compared to US automobiles..

However, the car's name be it Honda, Toyota, or what ever does not
indicate where it's made/assembled. It pretty much depends on the
model. One might be assembled in Middle America and the other
overseas.

As to Diesel engines and fuel here in the states, the fuel, quite
often has high sulphur content and the engines put out a lot of
particulates. Between the two, this in general this has given diesel
engines a bad name for being environmentally unfriendly even though
examples exist that run clean.

Many things keep the precision engines with good economy from being
imported. Some run high compression and those develop nitrides from
the high combustion temperatures. Quite likely some just don't figure
it's worth the effort to go through the testing to be sold in the US.

You will find that many of our engines run rich to keep the combustion
temperature low and then have to pump air into the catalytic converter
so the excess can be burned.

At least a good portion of the reason for poorer mileage over here is
due to some specific anti-pollution measure.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

#m

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:26:10 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

Yes and it is not just deciding which evil to combat (CO2, NOX, HC or SO2)
but also how you decide to measure it. My understanding is that pollutants
are measured and regulated by ppm which makes little sense. If car A emits
10ppm of some pollutant and car B emits 8ppm but car A uses 30% less fuel,
then car A actually emits less pollutants than car B since the total amount
of exhaust is 30% less.

I've always wondered about the reasoning behind that as it just
doesn't make sense. In some cases when they first started this and
maybe even now, they reduced the ppm by actually increasing the total
amount produced.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Mike
MU-2
snip

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:45:56 -0600, Newps wrote:



Martin Hotze wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:53:28 GMT, Don Tuite wrote:


But you can't buy a new one in the state.


and what about Canada? are there any new diesels available? you still can
go up there and import one.

Maybe. The pollution laws are different and we have much stricter laws
than Canada. Any car/truck you import will have to meet the smog and
safety rules we have here. For American cars/trucks sold in Canada
probably not that big a deal. You'd want a new speedometer head as they
use that stupid metric system up there.

That's why they make felt marking pens.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 05:58:43 -0400, Cub Driver
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:50:09 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

the cars there seem to have both markings on their speedometer

So do those sold "here" -- in the U.S. It's been that way for twenty

They do? I drive a Toyota 4-Runner and it only has MPH.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

years, it seems to me, though it may be because for twenty years I've
only bought Hondas.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:24:41 +0200, Thomas Borchert
wrote:

Morgans,

modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US

Why is that?


The market is different. Nobody cares about gas consumption in the US.
Everbody wants ridiculously BIG cars in the US, whereas European cars

What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.

The big problem here is people who drive into town 3 and 4 times a
day taking their kids to soccer, hockey, baseball, foot ball, or some
kind of practice. People are too independent to car pool.

are mostly way smaller. And you guys have this obsession about "buying
American". So you don't always get the best ;-)

I drive an SUV, because it was the closest I could get to a
combination car and pick up truck. The thing is half full, or more,
most of the time. OTOH I only make a few trips into town a week and
those are generally to the airport. I combine those trips into stops
at the hardware store, computer store, Lowe's, Home Depot, etc... I
may even pick up a sub on the way home.

BTW the SUV is imported and gets as good a mileage as any car I've
driven so far. It's a long ways from my wife's Chrysler Mini, mini
van though. She gets close to 40 in all around driving. OTOH with
nigh onto 200,000 miles it's almost time to bury the thing.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

"Roger" wrote in message
...
[...] If car A emits
10ppm of some pollutant and car B emits 8ppm but car A uses 30% less fuel,
then car A actually emits less pollutants than car B since the total
amount
of exhaust is 30% less.

I've always wondered about the reasoning behind that as it just
doesn't make sense. In some cases when they first started this and
maybe even now, they reduced the ppm by actually increasing the total
amount produced.

I assume the laws are the way they are because the auto manufacturers want
them that way.

A test that measures absolute emissions would effectively be measuring the
fuel efficiency of the car, along with the usual emissions control hardware.
Instead, we have rules that require manufacturers to have a certain average
fuel efficiency across their sold product, with each one having to meet
specific relative emissions requirements.

Putting a limit on absolute emissions would either mess up the way motor
vehicles are sold in the US (since many vehicles just would never qualify),
or it would allow high mpg vehicles to have unreasonably high emissions
(along with every other kind of vehicle). The latter clearly doesn't make
much sense if you're trying to improve air quality, while the former go
against some very powerful lobbying.

IMHO, the current system is actually pretty reasonable, and would be made
much more reasonable with the use of high gas taxes. That is, measuring
relative emissions ensures that all vehicles sold are playing at the same
level (ignoring for a moment that different limits are applied to different
vehicles ), while taxing gas consumption would directly relate to
emissions of pollutants.

In other words, testing emissions is not directly related to trying to limit
emissions. Rather, it's to ensure that all vehicles are producing about the
same amount of pollutants for a given amount of fuel consumed. Now if we
could just change the way fuel is consumed, we'd be in business.

Pete