Honda Car Forum

Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay wrote:
> On Feb 21, 3:34 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
> wrote:
>> Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 10:30 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> iwhtcimtlfmwmaom...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 20, 3:02?am, Joe LaVigne <jlavi...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
>>>>>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
>>>>>>> want to?
>>>>>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible, and have the
>>>>>> outcome of the races be based on the talent of the driver and crew...
>>>>>> Not that it is always the case, but it is the intention...
>>>>> I don't see what the big deal is...unless the jet fuel is dangerous.
>>>>> Everyone would just start using jet fuel.
>>>> Another motivation behind these kinds of rules is to keep the technology
>>>> from running wild, to maximize the importance of driver skill and keep
>>>> things interesting. Given then massive popularity of NASCAR here in the
>>>> States, they may be on to something. (IIRC they don't even allow
>>>> overhead-cam engines!)
>>> "Professional" wrestling is popular in the US too, what does that say?
>> That they know how to make money, too?
>>
>> Are you from some other country? Do you mean to tell me you don't have
>> some ridiculous sport or pastime where you're from, that someone from
>> another country would find positively silly?
>
> Let me put it this way, I don't see any Jenson Button stickers
> plastered on vehicles that are in trailer-parks or public housing.

Way to step around the point, there. Always easier to point out the
silly things in someone *else's* culture, ain't it?

--
Mike Smith

On Feb 21, 11:27 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
wrote:
> Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 3:34 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
> > wrote:
> >> Sees-koo-wee-hah-nay wrote:
> >>> On Feb 20, 10:30 pm, Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_sm...@acm.DOT.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> iwhtcimtlfmwmaom...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Feb 20, 3:02?am, Joe LaVigne <jlavi...@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 23:50:30 -0800, iwhtcimtlfmwmaomopw wrote:
> >>>>>>> I know...but why not just let people use whatever kind of fuel they
> >>>>>>> want to?
> >>>>>> NASCAR's goal is to make every car as equal as possible, and have the
> >>>>>> outcome of the races be based on the talent of the driver and crew...
> >>>>>> Not that it is always the case, but it is the intention...
> >>>>> I don't see what the big deal is...unless the jet fuel is dangerous.
> >>>>> Everyone would just start using jet fuel.
> >>>> Another motivation behind these kinds of rules is to keep the technology
> >>>> from running wild, to maximize the importance of driver skill and keep
> >>>> things interesting. Given then massive popularity of NASCAR here in the
> >>>> States, they may be on to something. (IIRC they don't even allow
> >>>> overhead-cam engines!)
> >>> "Professional" wrestling is popular in the US too, what does that say?
> >> That they know how to make money, too?
>
> >> Are you from some other country? Do you mean to tell me you don't have
> >> some ridiculous sport or pastime where you're from, that someone from
> >> another country would find positively silly?
>
> > Let me put it this way, I don't see any Jenson Button stickers
> > plastered on vehicles that are in trailer-parks or public housing.
>
> Way to step around the point, there. Always easier to point out the
> silly things in someone *else's* culture, ain't it?
>
> --
> Mike Smith-

And what other culture would that be?

Mike Smith wrote:
>
> Are you from some other country? Do you mean to tell me you don't have
> some ridiculous sport or pastime where you're from, that someone from
> another country would find positively silly?
>
Does ferret-legging count?

http://www.wesjones.com/ferret.htm

Gordon McGrew <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:63tgt2dieafgdrl4i9oi4ttoc555jpgttt@4ax.com:

> On 17 Feb 2007 19:11:38 -0800, jmattis@attglobal.net wrote:
>
>>On Feb 17, 11:31 am, motsco_ <mots...@interbaun.com> wrote:
>>> ass wrote:
>>> > where?
>>>
>>> Let's narrow it down a bit:
>>>
>>> What continent are you on?
>>
>>I just wanna know WHAT you want it for.
>
> Jet fuel is essentially kerosene.
>
>

Correct..."aviation kerosene"...

"rick505" <lott1954@aol.com> wrote in
news:ab4771ca236b8a027ec1f37fff581c3c@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com:

> it is not jet fuel (kerosene) it is aviation fuel high octaine
> unleaded gas i usto use it in my pulling truck 110-120 octaine truck
> ran great now you cant get it any more you hafto have pilot license
> and they only pump it into planes no more empty cans they said too
> much liability
>
>

110-120?

Airport I worked at only had 103.

Nobody wrote:
> "rick505" <lott1954@aol.com> wrote in
> news:ab4771ca236b8a027ec1f37fff581c3c@localhost.ta lkaboutautos.com:
>
>
>>it is not jet fuel (kerosene) it is aviation fuel high octaine
>>unleaded gas i usto use it in my pulling truck 110-120 octaine truck
>>ran great now you cant get it any more you hafto have pilot license
>>and they only pump it into planes no more empty cans they said too
>>much liability
>>
>>
>
>
> 110-120?
>
> Airport I worked at only had 103.



"Green" avgas is 100-130, fairly common.

"Purple" avgas is 115-145, in very limited distribution for decades,
usually only found on MIL fields.

News <News@groups.com> wrote:

> "Green" avgas is 100-130, fairly common.
>
> "Purple" avgas is 115-145, in very limited distribution for decades,
> usually only found on MIL fields.

Pretty much the *only* piston aviation fuel available in the last decade
in the United States has been blue 100LL. The LL is for 'low lead' and
is only considered low lead in relation to the earlier aviation fuels.
When I started flying in the early '90s, 80 octane aviation fuel was
available but it is long since gone (and 80 octane was green).

The U.S. Air Force hasn't had a piston powered plane in decades (True for
the Army and Navy, AFAIK), so I doubt you would find 115-145 on any
military field.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

Frank Stutzman wrote:

> News <News@groups.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Green" avgas is 100-130, fairly common.
>>
>>"Purple" avgas is 115-145, in very limited distribution for decades,
>>usually only found on MIL fields.
>
>
> Pretty much the *only* piston aviation fuel available in the last decade
> in the United States has been blue 100LL. The LL is for 'low lead' and
> is only considered low lead in relation to the earlier aviation fuels.
> When I started flying in the early '90s, 80 octane aviation fuel was
> available but it is long since gone (and 80 octane was green).
>
> The U.S. Air Force hasn't had a piston powered plane in decades (True for
> the Army and Navy, AFAIK), so I doubt you would find 115-145 on any
> military field.
>

You'll find "purple" 115-145 where you find warbirds.

80/87 octane is "red".

See:

http://www.aviationfuel.org/avgas/avgas_specs.asp

and:

http://cawg.cap.gov/html/operations/...CourseVer1.pdf

News <News@groups.com> wrote:
In article <YNCdnUI_yJqEe43anZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@speakeasy.net> you wrote:

> You'll find "purple" 115-145 where you find warbirds.

Show me *any* active military base that has piston warbirds operating
on a regular enough basis to warrent storing 115-145.

BTW, the museums I have worked with (mostly Evergreen Aviation in
McMinnville, OR and the Warhawk Museum in Nampa, ID), fly their
warbirds on 100LL with a much reduced manifold pressure. 115-145 in
sufficient quanities to fuel four Wright R-1820s (B-17) for any
significant time is cost prohibitive.


> 80/87 octane is "red".

Oops, my mistake. I stand corrected.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Boise, ID

Frank Stutzman wrote:

> News <News@groups.com> wrote:
> In article <YNCdnUI_yJqEe43anZ2dnUVZ_t-gnZ2d@speakeasy.net> you wrote:
>
>
>>You'll find "purple" 115-145 where you find warbirds.
>
>
> Show me *any* active military base that has piston warbirds operating
> on a regular enough basis to warrent storing 115-145.
>
> BTW, the museums I have worked with (mostly Evergreen Aviation in
> McMinnville, OR and the Warhawk Museum in Nampa, ID), fly their
> warbirds on 100LL with a much reduced manifold pressure. 115-145 in
> sufficient quanities to fuel four Wright R-1820s (B-17) for any
> significant time is cost prohibitive.
>

Numerous military and civil airports in North America, Caribbean,
Central America and Europe carry NATO F-22 and EEFC "BA" spec gasolines
(same as MIL-L-5572F "purple").

Reno/Stead, for testing and for the air races, among others.

If it is 115/145 "racing gasoline" you want, Chevron, Valero, Sunoco,
Union and VP produce it (or similar, as well as oxygenated fuels) and
retail it by the jug and barrel.

>
>>80/87 octane is "red".
>
>
> Oops, my mistake. I stand corrected.


No problem. I should have also noted that the modern day "purple" is
the 82 octane ultra low lead avgas.