Avgas price and the light plane ownership

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/mo...rticle&knid=16
It seems that in addition to his wealth of other shortcomings Mr. Barrow is
also a plagiarist.
--
-Elliott Drucker