Last one out of California turn off the lights.

Might be a blessing in disguise. One of lead's functions in gasoline is to inhibit detonation. However, ethanol (like that found in mogas) also inhibits detonation.

Lead is also said to protect exhaust valve seats. However, as someone who restores and rides old motorcycles from the sixties, I can well remember the howls of protest which arose when lead was first removed from mogas. "Our engines are all going to blow up. We'll need replace all our valve seats with harder seats." Etc. Guess what happened. Nothing. The old bikes run fine on lead-free. (Even my high-compression 750 Triumph hot-rod runs fine on it.) Still, upgrading the engines with harder valve seats, if needed, is not a big deal

Which leaves us with the water absorbing qualities of ethanol. Cars deal with it, no reason airplane engines can't be made to do so. New fuel pumps, new rubber compounds, etc.
And unlike gasoline, which cannot absorb water, ethanol can hold water in suspension, allowing the engine to burn it.

Rather than complaining, why not make the planes run on mogas and cut our fuel bills by 25%?

In other words, if engines and their supporting systems are modified to run on mogas the price of 'avgas' will drop by 25%! Might be a good idea.

Most typical GA engines are a product of 50's and 60's era technology. Magnetos with fixed and very primitive ignition curves, carburetors instead of injection. It's time to bring GA engines into the present. The Rotax engines used in todays' light sport planes are loaded with the modern technologies which could be easily applied to larger GA engines. The Rotax is designed to run on mogas and pumps out way more horsepower per cubic inch of displacement than the old clunkers in most of our planes.

Mogas — change you can believe in.
 
darrenf said:
This is an odd position to me. I haven't seen anything that would suggest the world is overpopulated. What lead you to that conclusion?
Click to expand...

Over-population was really prominent in the 1970's as the next great environmental catastrophe. John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, was a big proponent of this and collaborated on a book about it...that suggested forced abortions and mass-sterilizations as well as a common World governmental body to combat the devastating effects. I believe that Global Warming or Climate Change or whatever they're calling it suffers in comparison to the over-population theories of the 70's...Global Cooling (another big catastrophe in the making) and other things that VERY prominent scientists have wet their pants over that have proved to not be accurate. Seemingly smart people have suggested drastic changes for these imminent catastrophes that haven't occured...so it desensitizes a person to immediately get all hooched up just because some chicken-little with a doctorate says "Doooom!!!".
 
WacoFan said:
You're clearly a leftist and a tree-hugging hippy.

I have taken to wearing a cup and jockstrap as part of my daily attire. Nad kick away comrade.
Click to expand...

Nah, i just live in a gorgeous area and I don't think the god's of Ayn Rand need to tear down the McDowell Mountain in order to build a MegaLoMart for the mantra of "Business Shall Save Us! Bow down and pray to our new lords!"
 
You know, they're all alone and stuff... no witnesses...

HAY YOOO WUNNAH GO FEEESHIN'? :) ha!
 
New flash- WacoFan just bought a Prius:
pearls.gif
 
Mike H said:
Sounds more like these are sacrifices you're willing to force everyone else to make.
Click to expand...

What part of this statement leads you to believe that?

The factors are personal - based on the type of flying I was doing, which was more or less just putting around the pattern to stay current. I pass no judgement on anyone else, and would never think to suggest someone alter their flying in any way. Back when I was making more business trips I could justify it to myself a bit more. Now that I'm just doing the $100 hamburger rides, it's gotten more difficult to justify flying at all - particularly in light of some family circumstances that could afford more revenue.

I've never once told someone to change their ways in any manner regarding the environment. The closest I've come is telling people at work about non-toxic permanent bottle options that would keep them from having to use so many disposable water bottles. In fact, this is the first time I've ever even told anyone that I was questioning the necessity of the flying I do in part because of the environmental implications. Your comment (as per usual) is completely without merit.
 
Maurus said:
The biggest reason Liberals are associated with environmentalists is that they try and make their changes through more government regulation. More regulation means bigger government. Small government is a bigger conservative principle than environmentalism. Here is my question. Are some liberals only environmentalists because of the ability to grow government through the laws and regulations that can be imposed? Environmental legislation has an impact on everyone and that is what control is about.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you trying to say here? Not saying that I agree with the way either side goes about doing things, but large corporations have shown an incredible lack of being able to regulate themselves when it comes to environmental destruction/damage. This is probably the reason liberals push for more environmental legislation and larger government.

I've never really understood why people are so anti-responsibility when it comes to the environment. I guess breathing clean air, or drinking clean water doesn't matter as long as you have a nice cushy job and make plenty of money. Of course, you can't eat or drink or breathe your money; many seem to forget this.

Not all aviation engines can run on auto gas. My aircraft has the auto-fuel STC in it, but I almost never use auto-gas due to the difficulty in finding fuel without ethanol in it. I'm pretty sure that there is no STC for auto-fuel available for the engines that most cabin class twins or similar aircraft have. Higher compression turbocharged engines need some sort of anti-knock agent to prevent detonation.

The auto industry engineered many solutions once leaded automotive fuel went away, why can't the aviation industry do the same thing?
 
Apophis said:
What exactly are you trying to say here? Not saying that I agree with the way either side goes about doing things, but large corporations have shown an incredible lack of being able to regulate themselves when it comes to environmental destruction/damage. This is probably the reason liberals push for more environmental legislation and larger government.

I've never really understood why people are so anti-responsibility when it comes to the environment. I guess breathing clean air, or drinking clean water doesn't matter as long as you have a nice cushy job and make plenty of money. Of course, you can't eat or drink or breathe your money; many seem to forget this.

Not all aviation engines can run on auto gas. My aircraft has the auto-fuel STC in it, but I almost never use auto-gas due to the difficulty in finding fuel without ethanol in it. I'm pretty sure that there is no STC for auto-fuel available for the engines that most cabin class twins or similar aircraft have. Higher compression turbocharged engines need some sort of anti-knock agent to prevent detonation.

The auto industry engineered many solutions once leaded automotive fuel went away, why can't the aviation industry do the same thing?
Click to expand...

I'm just making a point as to why liberals are associated with environmentalism instead of conservatives. In the end, all this "green" talk comes down to is another type of green. If it saves money for the consumer they will buy just about anything.

Same goes for aircraft. Like you mentioned, putting mogas in a high performance piston aircraft wont work. New engines would be required. Who wants to pay ~$50k per engine (high performance turbocharged engine) so they don't burn any lead? The fuel savings would take a seriously long time to outweigh the price of a new engine.
 
Auto fuel varies from the standard too much to be of reliable use in aircraft engines.

I like the swiftfuel thing, I just wish it was cheaper.
 
Murdoughnut said:
What part of this statement leads you to believe that?

The factors are personal - based on the type of flying I was doing, which was more or less just putting around the pattern to stay current. I pass no judgement on anyone else, and would never think to suggest someone alter their flying in any way. Back when I was making more business trips I could justify it to myself a bit more. Now that I'm just doing the $100 hamburger rides, it's gotten more difficult to justify flying at all - particularly in light of some family circumstances that could afford more revenue.
Click to expand...

Well, which is it then, family issues, or environmental ones? You only just now bring up family issues, yet earlier you said the environmental impact is a contributing factor.

I've never once told someone to change their ways in any manner regarding the environment. The closest I've come is telling people at work about non-toxic permanent bottle options that would keep them from having to use so many disposable water bottles.
Click to expand...

Oh my...:laff::laff::laff:... now we're back to some of those sacrifices you're willing for others to make. If your coworkers did not laugh at you for that, they're beneath contempt.
 
Mike H said:
Well, which is it then, family issues, or environmental ones? You only just now bring up family issues, yet earlier you said the environmental impact is a contributing factor.



Oh my...:laff::laff::laff:... now we're back to some of those sacrifices you're willing for others to make. If your coworkers did not laugh at you for that, they're beneath contempt.
Click to expand...

I said both contributed in part. Not sure why it's so hard to get your mind around the fact that more than one variable might have a role in a decision.

I wish I could say I was the least bit interested in the reasons behind the giant stick you have up your love hole for me, but alas, I care not. To the ignore list you go.
 
WacoFan said:
No, I haven't.
Click to expand...

There's really no different between this planet and a space station. Put simply, we're a pale blue dot that's floating around in nowheresville as far as the university is concerned, and we've got limited resources here, and only one planet to live on. Would you bring a Corvette up to the ISS just because you think it's awesome? No, you'd kill yourself trying to run it, you'd be a cowboy on a space station.

That's all we are, or at least all you are. Eventually you'll leave Kansas City and realize how small this place is and how easy it is to screw it up beyond repair.
 
mshunter said:
Well, then we are all *explative deleted.* It more than likely won't go anywhere though. The levels they are complaining about are within the EPS's set standards. I don't have the time right now (got to get Jr ready for pre-school), but I remember a study that the EPA did, or I think it was the EPA, where the lead content in the run up area at SMO was about 300% less than the lead content in down town Santa Monica. The bottom line, is this is a Grand Stand tactic to force the lead out of the fuel we use. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not the proper way to do it. And we could remove the lead from the fuel, but the problem is there, and has been there for a long time, and will be there for a very very long time. What these people don't realize is that the Van Nuys area, and the Santa Monica area was not only a huge manufacturing facility for aircraft when lead was thought to be safe (SMO/BUR), but it was also a military operations area (VNY) for a number of years when the military used lead in everything they had (paint just to name one thing).

Just another reason why I want to GTFO of Kalifornia. To many happy hippie tree huggers here driving Priu'i (I think thats right), thinking they are doing the world good by driving a Hybrid. I personally don't think a Judge in his right mind would do anything with this, not yet atleast.
Click to expand...

Sounds like alot of the wack jobs that reside in Santa Fe, NM. California is way worse though.
 
jtrain609 said:
There's really no different between this planet and a space station. Put simply, we're a pale blue dot that's floating around in nowheresville as far as the university is concerned, and we've got limited resources here, and only one planet to live on. Would you bring a Corvette up to the ISS just because you think it's awesome? No, you'd kill yourself trying to run it, you'd be a cowboy on a space station.

That's all we are, or at least all you are. Eventually you'll leave Kansas City and realize how small this place is and how easy it is to screw it up beyond repair.
Click to expand...


Yeah, well all I care about is money and jobs! I don't give a crud if I leave this place worse for the people who come after me! :sarcasm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top