$6 avgas letter

[Seerjfly]

$6 avgas, I love it.

[Hangar10]

I hope it's not over... heck, I'm just getting started. I recently (2009) hung up my remote control airplanes in order to start on my first project... a Pietenpol Air Camper. While I do enjoy R/C, and hope to make time for it again in the future (mostly for my son's benefit), I hope it isn't because I can't afford to fly my Piet. It is hard enough to stay motivated at times, especially during the cold months... I'd hate to think that my years of work will just make for a nice static display because of govt. and environmentalist regulations/expense.

[Seerjfly]

.

[Hangar10]

I'm not giving up... just seems that fuel cost is the primary variable in our sport, and regardless of the type of aircraft a 50% increase is a 50% increase. I may only burn 5-6gph, but I will notice as we go from $5gal towards $7.50gal, or whatever it ends up being during my flying lifetime. Not much I can do about it (except vote)... I will continue to work on my project, but this is one of the reasons that people can't (or won't) afford to learn to fly or continue to fly, and it also makes it hard to recruit those that may be interested in flying to EAA. I know several people my age (late 30s) that are licensed who just don't participate in aviation anymore... cost is the primary factor. I'm sure that we all know people like that, but as a younger member and chapter leader/organizer, I'm finding it difficult to figure out how to encourage people to get involved. No matter how we approach the subject, we eventually get to the topic of cost, which is normally more than most are willing to budget in.

[LJM]

Please don't give up. Everyone has an opinion - ignore the ones you don't like, as it may not come to be anyway. While he may be a great mechanic, $900 fill up are not the norm for most, nor is the $1500. engine instruments. My gosh what did the piston airlines do for years before we had such technology? Nice yes, but really necessary....? The "fixed" cost of ownership is a far greater % of total cost for most of us, and definately for me. Between insurance (manditory- my wife said so), and hagar rent far exceeds my fuel budget. Fortunately, maintenance has been cheap for me.

As they say "cheer up things could be worse" I know it worked for me - I did, and sure enough, things did get worse!

Have a great new year!
larry

[Mike Switzer]

I am hanging on, just barely, if it wasn't for the club & the fact I am a maintenance officer I might not be flying at these prices. As it is I only did 3 trips of any length this last year, one family trip 1.9 hours, one for business 1.9 hours, and one 1.4 hr cross country flight as part of getting checked out in our Arrow (which I'm still not done with). Other than that most of my flying this year has been for club maintenance. I budget some money for flying, hoping to stay somewhat current, but if any unexpected expense comes along that is the part of the budget that I get the money from. I'm not IFR or night current right now & I don't know when I will be.

[hydroguy2]

I fly, therefore I am.

I'm just a regular working stiff and probably shouldn't own an airplane. But I do. Fuel while is expensive at any cost doesn't keep me grounded, I just throttle back a little when puttering around. Burning 5-6gph vs 9-10gph. On trips I go high and lean as appropriate. Most of my expenses need paid whether I start the engine or not.

some people believe the sky is falling and aviation is dead. I chose to fire up the plane, go skyward and see if that's true....not dead here.

I committed acts of aviation twice this week.

[steveinindy]

The rising cost of AvGas and it's impending altogether demise another reason why I am staying away from an engine powered by it for my design. The only valid option otherwise was to look at something powered by Jet-A which is almost always considerably cheaper (thank you airline lobbyists for a change) and more widely available.


some people believe the sky is falling and aviation is dead. I chose to fire up the plane, go skyward and see if that's true....not dead here.

Same here. A lot of folks on this forum seem to be here simply to share their fatalistic views of aviation. It's one of the major reasons why I think this place is not nearly as busy as most of the other aviation forums even the others geared towards experimental aviation. No one wants to spend most of their time around folks who are pessimistic and just want to grouse about any little thing that catches their attention.

[MickYoumans]

I am fortunate that I can burn super unleaded auto fuel in my Cherokee. In my area super unleaded has been oscillating between 3.40 to 3.90 a gallon while AvGas is between 5.80 to 6.00. That helps me so much. Since my Cherokee will hold 50 gallons I fill up before heading out on cross country flights to save as much as possible. Most of my cross country flights are less than 400 miles round trip and I can make the complete trip and stilll have more than an hours fuel reserve.

While the cost of gas is a problem, what is really killing me is the cost of annuals, maintenance and parts. My annual in October was $3600. I did get a new carburetor ~ $1000, oil cooler hoses ~ $500, oil change ~ $100, stabilizer counter balance inspection ~ $400 and the rest was just small miscellaneous items. In the process the mechanic broke one of the spinner back plate "L" brackets. I'm still flying with my spinner in the back seat of my plane waiting for a new bracket to come in. It just blows my mind when I look at the difference in cost between a certified part versus what you can use on an experimental. The sad thing is I doubt there is any real difference in the parts other than the pedigree paperwork. I know parts companies have to spend a good deal of money getting their parts through the certification process. I am wanting to change out the throttle, mixture, and carb heat controls on my plane. A certified throttle cable is more than double what an RV throttle cable cost. I really think the FAA is way over regulating small planes like mine and the mechanics are certainly not going to let me use anything on my plane but certified parts. I would love to see them deregulate a lot of the miscellaneous parts on the smaller simple commercial planes. I don't think you would see a decline in safety and it would help more people be able to afford to own a plane. I actually think it might improve the material condition of many planes because the owners could afford to update/upgrade more of the old parts on their plane. Just like my throttle cable, there are newer designs that are better and have vernier fine tuning that is less than half the price of the only one that is certified for my plane. The one for my plane has a locking mechanism but no vernier adjustment.

Sorry I got on such a soap box, but I think plane maintenance is just as big, if not a bigger killer of GA than the cost of gas. I'm just grateful my children are finished with college and I have the extra funds available for flying.

[stinsoner]

The Franklin 165 in my Stinson burns 10 gal/hr, around $50/hr in fuel costs alone. I tell people its not for the faint of heart. But as Larry has pointed out, the fixed costs are the lion's share of costs. Hangar rent, $4100/yr; insurance, $1000/yr; annual inspection, $500/yr; upgrades, variable, say $400; That's $6000/yr whether I fly or not. My annual fuel costs run $2000 for 40 hours of flying, which is typical for me. EGADS! OMG! I never added these costs up before! Anybody want to buy a Stinson?? Seriously, though, the airport is my social club; and aviation is my way of life. I'm fairly frugal in my lifestyle, so my airplane is my one indulgence. I am concerned for the high costs though because they are slowly killing the pastime. Light Sport has done nothing to lower costs. Somehow saving 3 gallons/hr fuel burn while you're renting a $150,000 light sport versus renting an old Cessna 152 valued at $30,000 doesn't compute in my brain. The Technams at my local airport are $175/hr dual. Who can afford that? I have found a C152 in the area that is $150/hr dual, still not cheap.

Dennis C.

[Mike Switzer]

while AvGas is between 5.80 to 6.00.

It is close to $7 here

[martymayes]

I believe we'll be seeing $6 auto fuel in the near future. I can only guess what avgas will do. I'll just keep downsizing to ultralight if necessary and maybe by then I'll be able to power one with batteries.

[Seerjfly]

.

[Jim Hann]

Um guys... The place I'm working at the moment is charging $8.14/gallon for 100LL. I do work at an airline airport, but I'm embarassed by the price.

Jim
(with bag over head while saying this)

[MickYoumans]

Yikes! And I thought $6.00 was really high. The 100ll website is showing five airports in my area with 100LL between $4.80 to $4.90.

I have noticed that a lot of the towered airports seem to always have higher gas prices, but $8.14 is just crazy!

Bush Field, our towered airport in Augusta, is $5.68 full service. I guess that is not so bad considering what you guys have been posting.

[Mike Switzer]

Ours is so high because the park district owns the airport, and the lease states that they gets some % cut off the gross sales at the FBO. The nearby grass strip is around $1 cheaper for 100LL.

[Mike Berg]

I don't remember posting Sport Aviation regarding fuel prices so it must have been some other "Mike Berg" but having said that high fuel prices was one of the reasons I sold my Cherokee (8.5 gallons per hour) even though I could burn auto fuel legally in it. I just finished a L16 project with an 0200 engine and hoping to be in the 5.5 gallon per hour range once I get the engine broke in on 100LL and can go back to auto fuel. With my 'flying budget' and the price of fuel I do think more about going out and boring holes in the sky just for fun. Push comes to shove, I guess I can 'reactivate' my A65 Champ at 4 gallons per hour. As we (the Flying Club) own our grass strip generally the fixes costs are down anyway. No way I could justify $200++ per month hangar rent.

[steveinindy]

As we (the Flying Club) own our grass strip generally the fixes costs are down anyway.

...and my fiancee wonders why I want to live in the country. LOL

[David Darnell]

Well, with the continued saga of high fuel costs, perhaps its time to revisit some of the other "alternate" fuels- something along the lines of the original EAA Mogas tests back years ago.

I suspect good starting points for such a experiment would be:

LPG/CPG/propane, etc.- probably the easiest, and least technically difficult to try on current aviation engines. Biggest problem IMO is fuel storage

Jet A/Diesel. Infrastructure already in place for fueling. Fuel readily available "off-site" Possibility of using "Biodiesel" or other non-petroleum based sources. Would require further engine development to make practical (IMO Thielert, etc haven't quite sold me). Biggest problem -Would require an expensive engine change, probably fuel system supply components.

[Hiperbiper]

Well, with the continued saga of high fuel costs, perhaps its time to revisit some of the other "alternate" fuels- something along the lines of the original EAA Mogas tests back years ago.

I suspect good starting points for such a experiment would be:

LPG/CPG/propane, etc.- probably the easiest, and least technically difficult to try on current aviation engines. Biggest problem IMO is fuel storage

Jet A/Diesel. Infrastructure already in place for fueling. Fuel readily available "off-site" Possibility of using "Biodiesel" or other non-petroleum based sources. Would require further engine development to make practical (IMO Thielert, etc haven't quite sold me). Biggest problem -Would require an expensive engine change, probably fuel system supply components.

The only thing I'm planning on to bring down the cost of avgas (and my blood pressure) is changing POTUS and some folks in the Senate in 2012...

Get rid of the Man-Made-Global-Warming BSArtists and Drill here, Drill now.

We DO have an untowered airport south of Shreveport that (due to Natural gas royalties) offer 100LL @ 3.60 (rack+delivery) as of last week. DTN is @ 4.90.

Chris

[Hangar10]

Nailed it Chris. Everyone always wants us to steer clear of political discourse, but when you're right, you're right! Got to face the facts at some point.

[steveinindy]

LPG/CPG/propane, etc.- probably the easiest, and least technically difficult to try on current aviation engines. Biggest problem IMO is fuel storage

...and people complain now about how much weight fuel eats up in their aircraft. Wait until they try to use something that has to be kept pressurized. Also, some folks seem really keen on the idea of running fuel lines through their cockpits. That's probably an even worse idea with a fuel that's also a documented displacement asphyxiant as well as an ignition risk than with 100LL or regular unleaded.

I'm actually quite fond of the work being done by Swift Fuels here in Indiana. They (at least the last time I checked) were making decent progress towards a 100LL alternative. Not to mention they are really nice folks who went well out of their way to help me at Oshkosh this year when I found myself stranded.

[Tom Downey]

When you consider that the drill here drill now train of thought will bring us gas at the pump in about 15 years from now. Watch this Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsq-uQSN-SE&feature=related tell me why we can't be energy independent in 3 years? The technology is here now, the land is here now, we have people willing to farm algae now, why aren't we doing it?

pay attention to the last 15 seconds of the Video.

[Bill Greenwood]

Hyper, as for "BS artists", a few years back the news reported a major oil spill in the Gulf that had a huge impact on the fishing and tourist economy from Texas to Florida? It has nothing to do with global warming, but was envirionmentally related as for as pollution. Was that just B S or did it really happen?
Your industry doesn't have a right to operate so carelessly that it ruins others livelhoods.
I own and profit from some oil stock myself, but they can't get away with stuff like that with no consequences.
And more important than the economic impact of the spill is that 10 people were killed.

As for more drilling, there is actually a surplus of crude oil now in the U S, we are exporting some oil. are we not?

[Bill Ladd]

Is this a forum about experimental aircraft or one about politics? If it's the former, I'll stay. If it's the latter, please let me know so that I may cancel my membership immediately.

[Hangar10]

The forum is about experimental aircraft... this particular thread is about an aspect of our hobby that can hardly be discussed without pointing out the facts or opinion.

Regardless of what side we fall on, politics unfortunately plays a big role in our ability to enjoy our hobby. You would cancel your subscription "immediately" because the government or government agency is referenced? Wow! Sounds pretty intolerant. How would you suggest that we discuss these matters and the factors that influence them?

[steveinindy]

It's about experimental aircraft at least in original intent. There's a lot of off topic posting in the forum of supposition, rumor, etc.


without pointing out the facts or opinion.

There seems to be a lot of the latter and something left to be desired with the former at least from the perspective of an innate skeptic. I'm a big believer in the old adage that was emblazoned on a sign in the office of one of my professors: "In G-d we trust...everybody else better bring ****ing data."


Regardless of what side we fall on, politics unfortunately plays a big role in our ability to enjoy our hobby. You would cancel your subscription "immediately" because the government or government agency is referenced? Wow! Sounds pretty intolerant. How would you suggest that we discuss these matters and the factors that influence them?

A reasonable person would suppose that it's likely due to the perceived attitudes of the person(s) referencing said government and/or government agencies. As soon as someone brings up politics, their blinders are on and we see the same person who is cheering the advances in electric or hybrid aircraft (which is largely based on research driven by the environmental movement and funded by politicians who support that sort of thing) turn around and blast those same politicians who are giving money to programs aimed at developing lighter batteries with increased capacity and lauding their opponents who want to "drill baby drill" and cut the aforementioned funding that is indirectly helping move forward their own interest in electric or hybrid aircraft. Neither side is without fault in this issue and neither side has all the answers which is why I suggest we all try to stay on topics more germane to this forum. If we feel the need to have such discussion involving politics, maybe the moderators could start a "Politics of Aviation" subforum where people can go discuss, debate and bemoan the direction of the country until their hearts content.

Negative attitudes, intolerance for differing opinions and that sort of thing are what makes this one of the less active aviation forums on internet despite it being sponsored by one of the largest aviation organizations in the world. The lack of input to a lot of the technical threads (or turning them into political squabbles) certainly does not help. We have hundred plus post threads about the direction of a magazine but threads about real homebuilding questions get left with only a handful of posts and often questions unanswered.

Contrary to what the media seems to have planted in our heads, not everything needs to be turned into a reason for political grandstanding by either side. Now, let's please get back to talking about airplanes.

By the way, no offense is intended and any hurt feelings or twisted underwear are hereby apologized for in advance.

[Seerjfly]

.

[hydroguy2]

...... Sunshine and lollipops for everyone ! :D

My motto is: Will fly for food...weather permitting.:D

[David Darnell]

One other option that I hadn't considered (as it's not truly a "alternate" fuel) Hjelmco Oil (Sweden) makes a 91/96 octane unleaded thats already approved by Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax. Would think that would probably cause the least problems

BTW- As far as politics go, figure it really makes no difference who the politicians are, the problem has been around for quite some time. Have read of the surplus aircraft sales after WW2- the first thing the guy did after buying the planes was to drain the gas tanks and sell the fuel......paid for the entire lot

[Jim Clark]

On a beautiful June evening at the National Biplane Fly In last year a group was sitting next to a biplane as the sun was going down. The conversation quieted and just as the sun set someone said, "Boys, put this one in the memory bank, you're going to need it someday when all you can do is dream of being here.". At that moment no one thought about what it cost to get there, but everyone knew it was worth it.

[Jalsup]

Hyper, as for "BS artists", a few years back the news reported a major oil spill in the Gulf that had a huge impact on the fishing and tourist economy from Texas to Florida? It has nothing to do with global warming, but was envirionmentally related as for as pollution. Was that just B S or did it really happen?
Your industry doesn't have a right to operate so carelessly that it ruins others livelhoods.
I own and profit from some oil stock myself, but they can't get away with stuff like that with no consequences.
And more important than the economic impact of the spill is that 10 people were killed.

As for more drilling, there is actually a surplus of crude oil now in the U S, we are exporting some oil. are we not?

I would caution you to not apply the standards of BP to the entire oil industry. How many ExxonMobile deep-water rigs have blown-up? How many Chevron? PhillipsConnoco?

And lest you say "BP was simply the one that got caught" - that is like saying that because of the Colgan crash, all regional airline pilots can't recover from a stall.

The BP spill was an interesting result of BP's safety culture, and really a result in what happens when you focus a safety culture on certain items...and those items turn out to be exactly the wrong items to focus on. There was an incredibly interesting write-up in Fortune about this some time last year. Bottom line - don't assume just because BP had this happen that it is imminent across all companies drilling. Now, is there a risk? Sure. Is that risk more than offset by the rewards? Sure. Did Obama's moratorium (stupid, ill-conceived and purely political) cause more joblessness and economic damage along the Gulf coast than the actual spill - most assuredly.

EDIT: here is a link to the Fortune piece. It is good reading and interesting. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/24/bp-an-accident-waiting-to-happen/

[Bill Greenwood]

Jalsup, do you work for Exxon or another oil co?
BP may be the only one with a massive spill in the Gulf, but did not Exxon have a large spill from a tanker a few years back in Alaska? Can you blame that one on someone else?
It is not just the likelihood of an oil spill, which fortunetly are not too often. But is is also the magnitude of the damage if the blowout/and or spill occurs.
Once the blowout happened, BP seemed helpless, the couldn't or wouldn't stop the oil spewing out.
As the news says just today on the internet, the moratorium on Gulf drilling has ended, premits have been issued and drilling is resumed; AND THIS TIME EVEN DEEPER, AT 2 MILES DOWN.
Let's hope they don't make another big mistake.
I have not read the Fortune article, but it is a big business mag and might be a little biased. I haven't read the greenpeace version of the accident either.
It think what happened with BP is the same thing that happened with Colgan. People have human fralities, and when money is at stake, there is always pressure to cut corners, to shorten the safety procedure on the rig, or fly when tired or to employ the lower paid and lesser qualified pilot.
A few years back there was a fatal crash of a charter jet here in Aspen. Why? Because the experienced pilots and the experienced company dispatcher could not say no to the demanding customer, and watch him take his $25,000 Amex payment to a competing company. So they said yes, sure, we can do it,and left L A for a night flight into Aspen in IMC conditions and with wind gusts and blowing snow at times making visablity almost nil. The pilots also did not divert to Rifle, with better conditions and about an hour limo or cab ride away. They could not say not to all that money. they were not first of all in the safety business, they were in the money business.
Had they waited till the next morning, the weather was CAVU. I know, because I had my biennial flight review already scheduled, so I kept it and we flew right over the accident scene about 1/4 mile from the end of the runway.

[701der]

1353The way I've dealt with the high price of fuel was to build a Zenith 701 with a Rotax 912ULS in it. It burns about 4 gallons per hour of Sam's Club premium unleaded. It's slow, like a Cub is slow, but it takes me and my wife and full fuel into some unbelieveably beautiful back country spots. My last annual cost me about $72. There's a lot to be said for building and maintaining your own.

[Jalsup]

Jalsup, do you work for Exxon or another oil co?
BP may be the only one with a massive spill in the Gulf, but did not Exxon have a large spill from a tanker a few years back in Alaska? Can you blame that one on someone else?
It is not just the likelihood of an oil spill, which fortunetly are not too often. But is is also the magnitude of the damage if the blowout/and or spill occurs.
Once the blowout happened, BP seemed helpless, the couldn't or wouldn't stop the oil spewing out.
As the news says just today on the internet, the moratorium on Gulf drilling has ended, premits have been issued and drilling is resumed; AND THIS TIME EVEN DEEPER, AT 2 MILES DOWN.
Let's hope they don't make another big mistake.
I have not read the Fortune article, but it is a big business mag and might be a little biased. I haven't read the greenpeace version of the accident either.
It think what happened with BP is the same thing that happened with Colgan. People have human fralities, and when money is at stake, there is always pressure to cut corners, to shorten the safety procedure on the rig, or fly when tired or to employ the lower paid and lesser qualified pilot.
A few years back there was a fatal crash of a charter jet here in Aspen. Why? Because the experienced pilots and the experienced company dispatcher could not say no to the demanding customer, and watch him take his $25,000 Amex payment to a competing company. So they said yes, sure, we can do it,and left L A for a night flight into Aspen in IMC conditions and with wind gusts and blowing snow at times making visablity almost nil. The pilots also did not divert to Rifle, with better conditions and about an hour limo or cab ride away. They could not say not to all that money. they were not first of all in the safety business, they were in the money business.
Had they waited till the next morning, the weather was CAVU. I know, because I had my biennial flight review already scheduled, so I kept it and we flew right over the accident scene about 1/4 mile from the end of the runway.

The Fortune article actually has a neat graph showing the Valdez accident vs other large oil spills. Also note the time elapsed between the large oil spills - that is interesting and it would seem that, at least anecdotally, the business has become much safer - kind of like the airlines.

No, I do not work for an oil company - but I did grow up in Houston and everything in that town, be it selling hamburgers or whatever, is dependent upon the oil industry so I'm biased. As for the Fortune article, read or do not read - your choice, but I actually consider Fortune to be a highly left-leaning business magazine (as compared to say Forbes) and they are always into new-age types of things like management trends to keep employees happy, articles about silly concepts like "work/life balance" and other such nonsense - it is kind of the "Occupy" business publication in my view. The article is really critical of BP, their safety culture (or lack of one), etc. It is an entertaining article and reads like a NTSB report mixed with a thriller.

[steveinindy]

that is like saying that because of the Colgan crash, all regional airline pilots can't recover from a stall.

Judging by Air France 447, I'd say that problem goes well beyond the regionals. ;) Sorry, couldn't resist.

[Hiperbiper]

I DO believe this is directly related to ALL aviation (unless someone still flys sling-shot launched gliders). We need affordable AV fuel today while we work on a better solution for tomorrow. BTW; BP never acted in a "helpless manner"; they secured the rig, got the survivors off and to safety before it sank and set about finding out how bad it was and got stuff moving into the area. The true story of what really transpired can be found elsewhere so I won't go into it here.
What I find biased is the way no one marvels at the accomplishment of robotically cementing a blown out pressure well stand in water over a mile deep in the Gulf in such a short period of time! Remember; this was the first time in 50 years of drilling this happened. 20 minutes after the blowout BP, Haliburton and others must have turned to the Emergency Handbook to the page "Blowout Preventer Failure 1 mile under the Ocean" only to find it wasn't there!

What followed was the same "can do" spirit that has followed every challenge and disaster we have faced in the USA; we threw away the rulebook, designed new parts and systems, took counsel and assistance form our our friends (though nothing from our own Goverment this time) and found a way to solve a problem that we has never had to contend with before! What came out ot this is a new way to cope with a pipe leak under the water, new skimmers (thanks to Kevin's help) that can clean oil from seawater like never before and the fact that if a "news" crew b*itchs that there's not enough oily dead pelicans to film for their spot they WILL get their butts kicked and ridden out of town.

We have always done the same in Aviation; when we design a machine, we assume it's perfect. From the AD notes on the Piper Cub to the Space Shuttle we find ourselves wrong. As Americans (and flyers) we fix it, vow to have learned something and go on with our pursiuts.

Any industry from Aviation to Zoo's will have it's setbacks. The trick is to not destroy the endevor while attempting to fix it...

No affordable fuel=NO AVAITION. At least as we know it. I have friends in Europe that have told what will happen but no one here seems to take them seriously..."This is the USA...it won't happen here" is the refrain they most often hear.

Chris (size 13EEE Carbon Footprint. Get over it...)

BTW 11 were killed.

[martymayes]

Great photo !!!

1353the way i've dealt with the high price of fuel was to build a zenith 701 with a rotax 912uls in it. It burns about 4 gallons per hour of sam's club premium unleaded. It's slow, like a cub is slow, but it takes me and my wife and full fuel into some unbelieveably beautiful back country spots. My last annual cost me about $72. There's a lot to be said for building and maintaining your own.

[rosiejerryrosie]

I find it interesting that all the recorded and reported oil spills have been contained and there have been no lasting dire consequencs (much to the chagrin of the 'environmentalists'). Recent reports have even indicated that the tourist industry on the Gulf has rebounded, and that last year was the best they have ever had.... Oh horrors, doom and gloom... the sky is falling!!! Buy solar panels - rescue Solindra.....

[Bill Greenwood]

Jerry, the 10 people killed in the BP disaster are still dead and that is a pretty long lasting impact to them and their families.And for them that was about at much "horrors, doom, and gloom" as a family can have.

That is only the direct emotional impact, but there were and are economic impacts like bankrupticies that are long lasting. I strongly doubt that that fishing or tourist industry on the gulf has fully rebounded.
How exactly do you find the BP oil spill to be "contained", I guess you could say it stayed on earth, did not go into space. It sure went over large areas of the gulf, even to Florida and even slightly inland wetland areas.

As for "rescue Solindra"," I am pretty sure that no one was killed in that business failure, nor was there any huge impact on neighbors from an toxic spill. It is bankrupt, like many other such firms here and abroad, and like Lehman Bros. and Countywide which had nothing to do with any environmentalists.

[Bill Greenwood]

As for oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, there was a moratorium in place after the BP explosion and oil spill, but it was lifted.

Just yesterday, 12-31, the newspaper reports that there are now More drilling permits for that area than there were just before the BP explosion. It also says some of this new drilling is already underway and in water 2 miles deep.

Reports are also that the US is actually not short of gasoline or jet fuel, and for the first time in 60 years is Exporting both of these.
It is a matter of where and who is willing and able to pay the highest prices, it is not just a question of domestic supply. Refiners were running at about 89% capacity.

We still have 100 LL avgas, thankfully, because even though it is a small part of the market, it is a profitable one for the refiners with a good markup margin.
And I know some people will say we don't need 100 octane and tout some electric or low powered airplane that can run on less, but many of the best planes, the B-17s, P-51s etc. need that fuel to run, and it would be sad when they no longer flew. Watching an electric plane to me is about as thrilling as watching a mime ,sp?, perform.

Maybe we should all take a refiner for a good airplane ride, sort of "Young Eagles" for refiners.

[Jalsup]

Jerry, the 10 people killed in the BP disaster are still dead and that is a pretty long lasting impact to them and their families.And for them that was about at much "horrors, doom, and gloom" as a family can have.

That is only the direct emotional impact, but there were and are economic impacts like bankrupticies that are long lasting. I strongly doubt that that fishing or tourist industry on the gulf has fully rebounded.
How exactly do you find the BP oil spill to be "contained", I guess you could say it stayed on earth, did not go into space. It sure went over large areas of the gulf, even to Florida and even slightly inland wetland areas.

As for "rescue Solindra"," I am pretty sure that no one was killed in that business failure, nor was there any huge impact on neighbors from an toxic spill. It is bankrupt, like many other such firms here and abroad, and like Lehman Bros. and Countywide which had nothing to do with any environmentalists.

The men who were killed were a tragedy for sure, but I liken it to anyone involved in a hazardous occupation like say...flying.

As for Solyndra - no, probably nobody was killed because of the bankruptcy but what about the profligate waste involved? As for Lehman Brothers - no, there weren't any direct deaths, but the ripple-effects from that bankruptcy are far more corrosive than tar-balls on the beach and will be much more detrimental to the earth than BP.

[Bill Greenwood]

Hyper, I am not surprised that you say BP "threw away the rulebook" after the explosion. I am not surprised at all since they did not seem to be following the rules beforehand and that led to the tragedy.
And they didn't seem to have a realistic and workable plan to deal with the oil that gushed out for days, weeks, I think even months into the gulf.
If I am wrong, how long was it before the well was plugged and all the oil flow stopped?
And this is not just my opinion, recent news says some execs of BP are facing Criminal prosecution, not just saying sorry we made a mistake and here is some money to fix it.

And as for cheap avgas, what was the price and trend just before the Bp explosion and moratorium? Seems to me gas prices had already gone up.

[Hiperbiper]

Hyper, I am not surprised that you say BP "threw away the rulebook" after the explosion. I am not surprised at all since they did not seem to be following the rules beforehand and that led to the tragedy.

I don't find BP blameless nor do I put all the blame on them. One of their contractors who knew it was a "Hell Well" (a stem that is subject to heavy pulses or "kicking") and did not follow all the safety procedures for the contracted work.

And they didn't seem to have a realistic and workable plan to deal with the oil that gushed out for days, weeks, I think even months into the gulf.
If I am wrong, how long was it before the well was plugged and all the oil flow stopped?

The blowout preventor on the sea bed is the part that failed. It IS the safety device to keep oil from flowing out in case of a break in the line to the surface. They never break. Well; never happened and new procedures had to be developed. And they were.
And all the oil that gushed out into the GOM? Less than what the Earth seeps from the sea floor in 6 months. BTW; There are still 4 or 5 EPA funded groups down there trying to find all the damn oil and dead Pelicans that are supposed to be there! There is even a group using taxpayers money to (and the locals LOVE this one...) take dead pelicans (do they get 'em off of Ebay?) coat them with crude and shove a GPS somewhere and set them adrift to see where all the birds that refused to be filmed dead or dying on the beachs went...they refuse to believe Mother Nature is smarter than they are. As to your other questions: 87 days from the rip-up to to the full cap. 5 million barrels of oil (reports of much more contamination fail to note the flow was 70% gas/30% oil).

And this is not just my opinion, recent news says some execs of BP are facing Criminal prosecution, not just saying sorry we made a mistake and here is some money to fix it.

WOW! You mean lawyers are lining up to get their cut? Shocking! At least BP gave the Coastal States assistance...what do we get from Solindra and all the other Green money pits? Our current DO (in)J picks those who they wish to rape and those they wish to ignore. Coal and Petro? Get 'em. Everyone else? Pass.
The Gulf States had a GREAT year for tourisim in 2011. Thanks to American Can-Do attitudes, lots of hard work and money from those evil oil companies.

In 87 days Oil companies, Engineers and just plain people foreign and domestic did what has never been contemplated prior; plugging a well more than one mile down using remote buggies. At that depth your Coors light can would assume the shape of a .25 cent piece...
And as for cheap avgas, what was the price and trend just before the Bp explosion and moratorium? Seems to me gas prices had already gone up.

A refinery going down for re-fit, Wall Street speculators or simply someone in the Mideast passing gas can cause our fuel prices to rise. The problem is when the Government steps in to "fix" the private sector.



Should this post give the Mods heartburn feel free to delete it but this is what we in the South engage in during our "Hanger Talk" sessions...

Happy New Year Ya'll!

Hiperbiper

[Hangar10]

this is what we in the South engage in during our "Hanger Talk" sessions.





Sounds about right for us a little further north too. Ha!

[Boeing B-17G 42-231465]

I believe that to lower gas prices and make it better for pilots and boaters is this: Unlike the politicians say, there is no magic juice, no holy energy source, nope, oil is the best form of power we have, for the scale we use it at (nuclear power doesn't work in cars). It can't happen overnight, but we need to slowly move this country towards cars that use natural gas; that keystone pipeline would jumpstart that, and create 30,000 real jobs too. The conversion to natural gas should start with fleet vehicles, like taxis, buses, motorcades, etc. See, these fleet vehicles leave ad return to the same depot every day, and fuel at that depot every day too. If the fleets were converted to natural gas power, the depots would simply convert to serving natural gas, unlike the problem existing for the consumer; along with that, the fleet vehicles would be more effecient, and cleaner (making everybody happy). Later, we would slowly begin converting to natural gas for the consumer, turning gas stations into natural gas stations, and automakers can make CNG cars, and soon all cars would be CNG. Then, gasoline as we know it would be saved for old classic cars, sports cars (nobody wants a CNG-powered Ferrari), boats, and of course, our beloved airplanes. Fuel cell vehicles are still viable in the future, but only if we improve our power grid. To make the necessary hydrogen for a fuel cell, you need a massive amount of power, and it can't be coal. When we begin switching to nuclear power, and start dumping coal, we'll have the energy to run more plug-in hybrids, fuel cell cars, and dorky electric cars. If this happened, our fuel prices would plunge dramatically; diesel fuel (not the vehicles) would be phased out by new natural gas sources (perhaps LNG), and prices would be cheaper for everybody. With my plan, since gasoline would be a low-volume product for the oil companies, airplane gas price would plunge too, because the cost of transporting small amounts of leaded Avgas seperate from massive amounts of petrol would disappear.

[martymayes]

ExxonMobil Corp recently announced they are shutting down the general aviation fuel section of their business and eventually closing Avitat branded FBO's. What effect will this have on fuel availablity and prices?

Can't be good.

[Frank Giger]

Champ is four gallons an hour; at six bucks a gallon that's twenty four bucks.

Cheap for the value given.

However, my little Nieuport 11 will burn just over a gallon an hour of mogas....

We pilots are such a weird bunch. We'll gripe over a hundred dollars of gas while holding a thousand dollar headset....which we will defend as a reasonable purchase.

[rwanttaja]

Champ is four gallons an hour; at six bucks a gallon that's twenty four bucks.Cheap for the value given.However, my little Nieuport 11 will burn just over a gallon an hour of mogas....We pilots are such a weird bunch. We'll gripe over a hundred dollars of gas while holding a thousand dollar headset....which we will defend as a reasonable purchase.One GALLON an hour? What are you installing, a Cox .049? :-)

[Frank Giger]

40 HP V-Twin with redrive.....250 massive pounds of thrust rocketing my biplane at speeds exceeding fifty miles per hour.

[rosiejerryrosie]

Good luck, Frank. I couldn't get that good a fuel burn with my 20Hp Rotax 277....

[Hiperbiper]

ExxonMobil Corp recently announced they are shutting down the general aviation fuel section of their business and eventually closing Avitat branded FBO's. What effect will this have on fuel availablity and prices?

Can't be good.

None;
Actually; less players in the market will allow others a larger piece of the shrinking pie...

Chris

[martymayes]

None;
Actually; less players in the market will allow others a larger piece of the shrinking pie...

Chris



Well, I wish I shared your optimism. However, fewer players and less availability translates to higher prices. Then there's the whole alternative fuel issue.....

[Thomas Stute]

Guys, when reading through all of your contributions, one could become a little of depressed. All the pilots here in Europe are looking onto the states as being the aviators paradise! Why? You have much more freedom than we have, even under consideration of the regulations imposed by your FAA. Your fuel prices are moderate when compared to European conditions. For example in Germany 100LL cost between 2.5 and 3 Euro/liter. Multiply this with 3.7 and you get the price of a gallon, Multiply by another 1.3 (depending on the exchange rate)and you have the cost in US$/gallon. This done you end up with 100LL-prices of about 12 to 14.5 USD per gallon. We pay for car fuel (98 octane unleaded) between 7 USD and 8.5 USD per gallon.
Of course these high fuel prices (and all the other raising expenses in aviation for hangars, insurance, parts, annuals, landing fees,...) have an impact. People fly less.
My solution is to share the costs of my Klemm 107C with a friend. We do all the maintence and repairs ourself and the fuel burn of our old O-320-A2A with 6.5 gph auto fuel at 100 kts is not too bad.
So guys, don't get the blues, you are far better of than we are and we still enjoy flying!
Our motto still must be: Keep them (and us) flying!!!

[Wilfred]

I am happy I can use 91-octane auto fuel at $3.30/gallon. However, even when I was flying my RV6A and using 100LL I came to realize that fuel costs are not the most expensive thing about flying, its just the most obvious because you see it so often. The costs of insurance, maintenance costs, hangar rental or ownership, etc, all really cost more than the fuel cost for a year. Unless you fly LOT, the fuel costs are really not that important.

[Bill Greenwood]

Worrying about a $2 increase in the price of avgas when you fly a Pitenpol, seems like worrying about an increase in the price of toothpaste re one's medical/dental costs.