Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.37; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Returnless fuel systems
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:41:24 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20050318184124.DDXO4787.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>

I'm not trying to be unkind, but ... well, DOH!
Oxygenated fuels contain 8 - 15% alcohol (or, in some 
locales, MTBF).  Alcohol has less energy per gallon than 
gasoline; so, it takes more alcohol to go the same distance.

Dale R.

> From: WRJJRS@aol.com
> Date: 2005/03/18 Fri AM 01:58:46 EST
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Returnless fuel systems
> 
>  
> In a message dated 3/17/2005 7:37:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
> echristley@nc.rr.com writes:
> 
> Alcohol  in the gas is not a technical solution; it is a political 
> solution.   Several local news stations have tested the effectiveness of 
> the alcohol  gas by filling up average cars and taking them to an 
> inspection  station.  The 'oxygenated' gas always performs worse.  Which   
> makes complete sense.  If you carefully tune an engine to burn a  
> specific type of gas, it will be slightly out of tune for any  other.
> 
> 
> 
> Ernest this is EXACTLY what I would believe about the process. My car, EFI  
> and O2 sensor type ALWAYS gets better mileage on non-california fuels. This is  
> not a conjecture but rather carefully tested results on 3 different trips.
> Bill Jepson
> 
>