Leaderboard

Hello, I am posting this in the hopes that I can save someone major headaches and frustration in the future when it comes to bleeding the brakes; specifically, the copilot side brakes. From what I understand, not many of our birds have these installed, and mine happens to be one of the rarer ones that does. I've spend 8+ hours in the past few days trying to get it right so here is my writeup so hopefully it may help someone in the future. So, annual time on my Mooney. I removed the leaking parking brake for cleanup and rebuild, as well as replace one of the brake lines. Before removing these components, I decided to simply open the bleeders at the calipers to let the system completely drain. Figured I'd give it all new, fresh fluid while I was at it. After completing my work I bled the brakes as per normal procedure, ie pushing fluid from the caliper up through the system to the reservoir. My friend reported no more bubbles, cool, switch sides and complete procedure again. Afterwards I climb into the cabin to test the brakes. Pilot side feels great while copilot side goes straight to the floor. I won't bore you with all the details of the troubleshooting but it was several head-scratching hours of frustration. Rebuilt the copilot master cylinders thinking that maybe they were letting in a small amount of air (I got this idea from someone else's past post here on Mooneyspace), which did not fix it. Eventually I removed the belly panel I'd previously installed, thinking I was nearly done with my annual and didn't need access above it anymore, and traced the brake lines back to find two shuttle valves that I had previously not known existed. Apparently, part of the installation of the copilot brakes is to put these shuttle valves in; with these valves, whichever set of brakes is depressed will push the valve over and allow fluid to go to the calipers. This, of course, means that both sets of brakes cannot be used at the same time, which really doesn't make much sense to me. Maybe its purpose is to protect the calipers from too much pressure from both pedals depressed at the same time...? I don't know. But anyway... I removed the shuttle valves and made sure they were not seized/frozen. Replaced the O-rings while I had them out. Reinstalled. So here's when all the pieces came together on why the pilot brakes were bleeding fine but copilot's were not; in order for the shuttle valve to move, the pressure has to come from the pedals to push it over. Pushing fluid up from the caliper is putting pressure on the wrong side, so the fluid all goes to whatever side the shuttle valve happens to have open at the time; in my case, the pilot side. So we bled the pilot side like normal, then I took an air nozzle and shot a quick blast of air into the shuttle valve where the line to the copilot brakes should be connected. This air pushed the shuttle valve over. So then I reconnected that line and we bled the brake again, this time the fluid was directed to the copilot side. Repeat entire procedure on the other caliper. Now the brakes all work great. In my searches for solutions to copilot brake bleeding problems on Mooneys, I was not able to find anything that helped, so I really hope that someone who needs it finds this writeup someday.

Don, basic gist is that GAMI has been actively advertising using the phrase "commercially available" to spring board off of the 2014 Consent Judgement which would be an attempt to ban 100LL in California. The use of this terminology was well before G100UL was available for purchase by aircraft. Mr. Braly has also submitted testimony to the House against PAFI and against leaded Avgas testifying that G100UL is a "complete drop-in replacement for the existing 100LL Avgas."

That Pizza Hut was one of the best sources of morale in Afghanistan! That and the Thai restaurant in Kabul on the Nato base. Surprisingly good!

It's such a fascinating, multi-player game of chess we have these days... Santa Clara County wants to close KRHV, but FAA says no because you have grants that preclude closing. So instead Santa Clara bans sale of 100LL, has threshold displaced to shorten runway/limit noise/adjust traffic, is set to close in 2031 and has county resolution to pursue "any and all available paths to early closure prior to 2031 ." (edit: was confusing with KSMO who shortened runway by 1500' and will close 2028)... Plane crashes from RHV due to fuel exhaustion and unable to fuel with 100LL on the field. Santa Clara County invited to join FAA to help establish best practices for transition to unleaded fuel. GAMI moves in and begins sale of G100UL at KRHV and advertises G100UL "commercially available" so lead threshold for Avgas would be now zero for all of California based on a Consent Judgement that was originally started to get California airports to put up Prop65 warning signs that fuel is dangerous. But push against lead was never really about lead...it's about airport closures. According to CalTrans, "In the 1960s there were 275 public-use airports, and by 2019 there were 242. In the last decade, eight general aviation airports were either revoked, suspended, or closed to the public." Fortunately for those political interests, they don't care if an alternative fuel is damaging to aircraft (and probably figure that's a good thing for them). I've always heard an estimation that 80% of the 100LL fleet can run on lower octane fuel. 20% of the 100LL fleet can't. The 20% that can't, are responsible for 80% of the use of 100LL. It's a wild and twisted road we're on these days. In my mind, the "safe bet" is move to aircraft that can burn Mogas/UL94 (to go slow/stay local) or move up to Jet A (to go fast/travel far). BUT we may have 5 years left for a PAFI fuel, GAMI could work out the kinks and have a successful product, and/or technology could be adapted to allow use of lower octane fuel in high compression, turbocharged, high octane engines. ...but GA airports are still at risk of closure at an alarming rate and this all has nothing to do with fuel. ...and I keep having thoughts of KRHV as the canary in the coal mine. "What happens here changes the world."

we get 124J hoses from Aero hose shop in granite city IL. They are OC, no stated life limit. Some are 15 years old here, still in service.

I haven’t made much progress so far this Winter as I’ve been doing hangar shuffles to keep the airplanes I’m working on currently in the heated hangar. The 56 M20 is currently in a cold hangar and hopefully I’ll move it to some heat soon. David

You are referring to this:

@Tim VanDenHoek, are you an A&P? If not, you probably can’t afford to do this unless you have a retired A&P friend to do this with you as a hobby. Recommend you follow up by searching for the thread posted by @Sabremech. Best pics I’ve ever seen of dismantling a Mooney for truck transport. Finally, a young/new A&P who works on my field bought a Mooney that had been sitting outside for about 10 years. He paid almost nothing for it. He got lucky and got her flying over a couple months of after-hours work. He did find some minor frame tube corrosion and a cracked stub spar. Also replaced all 4 cylinders with overhauled units. So, yes, it can be worth it, but part is luck and no matter what, significant skills are needed.

Plane is FIXED. And the winner is? Culprit # 3 - left mag! We replaced the switch with a new one. No dice. At least I have a new switch now. Next least invasive was pulling the mag, I talked to the owner at Shrike Aero (stellar guy) and he promised me he'd have me turned around in 3 days. Fun fact, getting the left mag off takes a bit of patience (and removing the oil filter and a few other parts). Mag was overhauled 4 years ago and only had 100 hours on it. Shrike called, said the internal timing was way off and the retard points had some kind of film on them preventing firing. No rebuild needed. VERY affordable repair and 1 day shipping. Mounted it up today (faster than removing). Triple checked timing. I turned the key pretty much expecting no joy and it kicked on the 4th or 5th blade. Did a nice thorough runup and drove around the ground movement area since I could touch the cloud bases. Let it sit for 15 mins while we wrapped up some loose ends and then tried the dreaded "refuel start". Again, 4th or 5th blade and purring. Amen. FWIW, he mentioned the egap being way off is pretty common. I'm going off memory, but the internal timing is set to 10 degrees +/- 4 degrees. Mine was more like 6 degrees off. He said he always gets them to +/- 1. My educated guess is that they were not even firing and I was only getting starts after releasing my key and catching a start on the right mag as it ungrounded.

They don’t give out awards for who can save the most money not upgrading small aircraft. They also don’t give out awards for who can spend the most money upgrading small aircraft. For most of us, flying a Mooney around is a hobby, not a competition. For my latest personal aircraft, I wanted something with a panel closer to my current work plane, than one I was driving around 30+ years ago. Life is short, it’s only money.

I applaud the honest effort that was put into pursuing legal and proper methods to provide new gear sets for our birds. The "drawings" that I saw were simply sketches. They could have been sketches of anything. They did NOT have drawing numbers, revisions or approvals in the title block. Until "engineering drawings" are approved through some method, they are not truly engineering drawings. The author of those sketches could also not be held liable for what someone might try to do with that information. He did not suggest nor condone any action. He was simply providing sketches of his efforts to understand the problem. I appreciate his efforts to help all us Mooney drivers. There is no harm in knowledge. I do not fear the self righteousness, self appointed internet police. For now, it's still a free country. I am re-posting below, some sketches I found on the internet. -mark VIEWS OF 3D FILES WORM SET 7-10-24.pdf WORM GEAR DWG 7-10-24.pdf WORM SHAFT DWG 7-10-24.pdf

. . . well, not quite. Here's my thought: Just like you guys, I've been reading just about everything I can find on the boiling EAGLE/100LL/unleaded debate/debacle/call-it-what-you-will issue. And I apologize if this specific idea has been thrown around in here and I just can't find it, but I've been wondering a lot if we're simply missing the point altogether here. Instead of wringing our hands over unleaded fuel options du jour and all of the worries with supply chain, distribution, pricing, loyalties between suppliers, does-it-play-well-with-others, etc?, should we get to pondering a larger opportunity? With credit to the latest article on the topic in this month's "EAA Sport Aviation" magazine, I think the solution might be in not trying to proffer the best "fuel" alternative and instead proffer the best reciprocating engine alternatives. What do I mean by this? Well, for starters, we have to wonder if on the fuel/engine side we're sitting on an upcoming sea-change in technology, not on the fuel side, but on the engine side. And in support of this (possibly) exciting change, should we look no further than what has happened with avionics since the day the GNS430 was born? Cue the logical coffee spewing over computer screens at this point, and I'm not trying to stir a long-tormented hornet's nest, but since the certification process is what it is (anything but cheap), should we as the marketplace look for a cheaper/viable engine replacement program instead of just pushing the rope further uphill on fuel alternatives? The real answer lies in the cert process and the example shown us from those who dared to tread the shark-filled void of avionics upgrades, circa late 1990s. It was said then, as it is being said now for engines in legacy types such as our beloved Mooneys, that "uprooting the legacy steam-gauges will never catch on" in the legacy piston fleet. We see now how short-sighted that viewpoint was then and just how great it has been since. I agree that there are legion reasons a recip engine replacement wouldn't be viable or feasible for most, if not all legacy piston fleets. But, long term, a viable SAF-burning alternative recip engine for IO-320/360/IO-470/520/550 fleets out there seems to me to be money far better spent toward certification than a yet-to-be-determined acceptance rate of unleaded fuel replacements. It is less than ironic to me that in the time you have to wait for a FOH we'll likely have the debate over the very unleaded fuel we'll be forced to use in that FOH solved--this is not a sustainable logic. Let's put that effort in to gaining the best engine replacement for a longer term, instead of wasting this decade-plus over a fuel to be burned in engines that aren't sustainable themselves. We now have streaming and digital music. Is this entire debate about unleaded avgas replacement going to end up being the VHS/Betamax debate? Fast forward 5 or 10 years from now and will this fuel debate end up on the academic editing room floor, when we really should be debating not if, but which recip alternatives should be out there?

Going to look at a free Mooney, been in a wooden hanger for the past 20 years. any advise on whether it worth the time?

Are there enough of us with the G3X installed (or about to be installed) to warrant a separate G3X Touch forum to compile and build a consolidated knowledge base? There's lots of good practical information here about installation, operation and issues/troubleshooting but it can be hard to find, especially if you're looking for something specific. Anyone else interested? Poll to follow. EDIT: ok, so the system put the poll first

Simple round dials such as these?:

Good idea, Rick!!

Even 1600hp on Jeskos with E85 on Octane < MON91 https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a27029039/koenigsegg-jesko-engine-explained/ Clever and innovative stuff (these words unheard of in aviation context) Then you have the problem of alcohol in fuel system, airframe…but again sports cars don’t have much of these issues (ahem, regulatory limitation or lack of imagination). On limitations, I think all non-turbos Mooneys should be able to run UL94 (assuming they can have variable timing) as long as one sacrifies some power and plan for extra more runway length on takeoff. We flew uncertified with IO360 using UL91 (MON91) and SP98(MON88), these have less octane than UL94 and 100LL, the temperatures were slightly hot on takeoff but other than that “it works”, yet they are not approved by Lycoming !

At least DVT is nice and dry about 99% of the year!

I would make sure your baffle seal is in good shape and not leaking air past the fins. As most above state, setting the fuel flows correctly is a must for our 231 engines. If your CHTs are getting to 460dF you will be doing(paying) top overhauls every 300-600 hours, so rethink that part of the POH. Crazy part on PoH is there are written when our aircraft was new, but they have zero updates on a better way to run your engine. This is where MS can help save you and your engine. We have learned an incredible amount over the years on proper fuel flow set up and heat control to extend cylinder life. High heat & high pressure kills our cylinders. Thank you, Mike Bush, and Paul Kortopates (he is here on MS) for helping get the word out. My GB(no intercooler/no waste gate) fuel flows are set to 25.7gpm at 2700RPM, 40inMP. I takeoff and climb at 100% power to altitude (normally 16K-17K). That gets me a TIT of ~1425dF, and CHTs 300dF - 330dF This max fuel flow is 1gpm higher than the TC SID97-3G calls out (24.7gpm) but is an accepted change first pushed by RAM aircraft and everyone that knows our engines. If my CHTs in the climb are approaching 380dF on a hot day I increase air speed. If its 110dF OAT I am climbing at ~500ft min. My engine is at 1950hrs and two jugs were changed before I bought it(@1200hr) and I have changed one jug for a crack in the exhaust (due to a casting void). Jim

What is happening at KRHV really gets my blood boiling. I started my aviation career there as did many of my contemporaries. I suspect well into the 4 figures are the number of airline pilots who started there. Having dealt with many of the politicos in SJC and SC County in the past years who were lukewarm at best to GA I am not surprised at what is transpiring. I even stopped my donations to SJSU because they rolled over on the demolition of the aviation department building at KSJC. For me, I moved in 1990, the divorce was complete when I sold the last of my real estate partnerships in 2015 and walked away forever. Until CA as a whole has a viable political opposition party, nothing of anything will happen to change the trajectory of grift that is destroying GA and that continues unabated and without end.

The redline in the POH is 460 and that is the limit that the aircraft was certified to. JPI is required to set the redline limits to what is in the POH in a JPI unit that is STCd primary. That is why the JPI has that limit and they cannot change it. As mentioned, 460 is not good. That will hurt your engine pretty fast. The conventional thinking is that CHT's should be kept at or under 380 dF for best cylinder life. That said, it can be pretty hard to keep all cylinders in a 231 under that number under all conditions. I have recently replaced my engine, but with the old engine I had one cylinder that liked 400 and all the rest were around 380 in cruise. The 400 dF cylinder was the one that had low compressions first as the engine aged. I should say that, running LOP a great deal and with 380 as the goal, the engine was a few hundred hours over TBO when I replaced it. During a high hot climb - meaning out west in the summer and a climb to the teens or higher - I would occasionally see up to 420 until I was able to level off. As we have discussed in this forum many times, you need full power full rich for such a climb and the fuel flow per the POH should be 22.5-24 GPH. From experience it is difficult to get A&Ps to set it right, they are usually on the low side, which causes high temps in those climbs. Some of us try to get the A&P to set to 25 GPH. You can always dial it down as the pilot, but once set on the ground you can't dial it above where it was set. I found that cooling was part of the problem. I had some places where the baffling did not seal to the cowling because it went around a curve and was dimpled. When the new engine was put it I had new baffling installed and all those things corrected, and it really helped with the one or two cylinders that always ran hot.

You did. GAMI is involved and pushing for the declaration of G100UL being "Commercially available," in the State of California in accordance with the settlement decree that was agreed to under Case No. RG-11-600721, which may outlaw 100LL in California. Here is an older AvWeb article https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/nata-challenges-gamis-assertion-of-commercial-availability-of-g100ul/. Attached is the revised complaint from Center for Environmental Health to enforce the settlement. I believe it has been delayed to later this month. 2024-12-04-Notice-Motion-to-Enforce-Avgasfs.pdf

At the IA refresher the guy from Continental said that optimal CHT temperature range is 360-380. The fuel pressures on that engine are supposed to be checked every annual (best case). You didn't really say what temperatures you were seeing, when during the flight, or what power settings were at the time.

The pretty screens are nice to look at, and can display a dizzying amount of information. But even the basic display takes more than a glance to interpret. A round altimeter should point straight up when IFR and straight down when VFR, but with that fancy digital display, you can't give a quick glance because it doesnt point at anything, and even when changing it doesn't ever move--you have to look, recognize the number and decide if it's correct. The VSI appears and disappears, but I like seeing it point at "0" rather than reminding myself "if it's not visible, then I'm between +50 fpm and -50 fpm," so my altitude will only change slowly--watch the number and see if it changes to stay level." My plane easily goes 500 nm with factory fuel gages and the wind-up yoke clock. I've recently made three round-trips, KALX to T41, 505 nm each way; longest flight with unfortunate headwinds was 4:40, the shortest with great tailwinds was 3:00. Easy easy, no mental stress about running out of fuel, and no need for a 10K instrument upgrade first. I had high hopes for Dynon, and was planning to install Skyview and AP to replace my aging Brittain AccuTrak and AccuFlight, and enjoy some time with the pretty TVs. But they shot themselves down by canceling the Vintage Mooney fleet, so now I'll just see how much longer I can nurse the Brittain along. New boots all around should get at least another decade. And I won't have to worry about relearning to fly with a standard VSI after almost 18 years with my lovely IVSI, which has really spoiled me. To each their own. The beauty of owning your airplane is that you can truly make it your own, in ways that were never possible with ground vehicles in the past, and are certainly not available now. And I'll put my steam gage C up against anyone's glass C, and the difference in flight time and operational workload will be minimal. I'm not worried about selling, as a freshly retired engineer, I'm in for the long run, looking forward to UFO status in a couple of decades. Yes, I do now use my tablet, because it's so difficult now to get (real, paper) sectionals and approach plates . . . I'm on my second "flying" tablet since replacing my first-and-last overpriced iPad mini with quality Samsung tablets and no-cost EFB.

I don't see how this stuff is a drop in replacement if all these issues are suddenly appearing. GAMI complained for years that the government was out to get them, now they are actively working to have the government ban 100LL in California. I'd be very worried if I were suddenly forced to use this fuel.

Just did a tour of my airport outside tie down and half of the planes tied down are derelicts that will never fly again. Flat tires, cloudy windows, fabric hanging, etc.

He has done the last few mags I have had done. They came back in good shape for a very fair price.

All FARs are written in blood. I expect some new regs to come down from this.

This is, in my opinion, one of the weaknesses of the 252, or likely any Mooney with long range tanks. It's very difficult to know with precision how much fuel you have on board unless you always do the fueling yourself, which I have not found to be practical. I usually fly around knowing within 10 gallons +/- what is in the tanks. I compensate by planning to land with 2+ hours of fuel on board, which is easy to do because of the plane's efficiency. The problem is - you ask the FBO to "top the inboard tanks" which should be 75 gallons on board. In reality, they sometimes short you by as much as 5 gallons per side, depending on how patient the line guy is in topping you up. And you can't tell how much you were shorted by looking in the tanks, because by the time you get back to the plane, the fuel has flowed out into the outboard tanks and you can see those are 1/3 full and the mains are 2/3 full. You get in the plane, and set the fuel totalizer to 75 gallons, because that's a pretty good guess, but often you're really at 65-75. Sometimes I adjust the totalizer setting based on the fuel receipt or by what I see on the visual check. Then you fly for 3 hours, or about 36 gallons, land, and ask the FBO to "top the mains" again. Same problem repeats. You will rarely fully top both the inboards and outboards, because if you do, most planes are over gross or near it with just the pilot and a small bag. So you're always doing the dance between fuel orders, looking in the tank, fuel totalizer, and looking at the fuel receipts. Looking at the wing gauges can kind of help but not really. It's not really a problem because 75 gallons in the inboards is about 5.5 hours of endurance which is way longer than I like to fly. But on one or two occasions, I've ended up fighting headwinds, extending my planned flight to 4.25 hours, and worrying about the fuel levels because the FBO only filled me with 30 gallons when it should have been more like 40. If I know I'm doing a 4-hour leg, I will put 10 gallons or so into the long range tanks if possible and try to take off with 85 gallons on board. Even better yet, if I fuel myself at a self-serve pump, I can make sure I get a good top off and it's much less of an issue, but the way I fly that's not always an option. The only other solution is to do like @Pinecone has done and create a custom spreadsheet with dipstick measurements for each tank. To truly maximize your range I think that's required. But I don't like pushing range or staring at empty fuel gauges, so I just land with 25+ gallons on board. If I ever have to have 4 adults on board, which is rare, I try to take off with 50 gallons and limit my flight to 2.5 hours max.

I bought the BlackMax before going on deployment in 2023. Installed the the output into the oil drip stick tube, the humidity reader installed in the breather fitting at the top of the engine (Lyc IO-360). Came back after 7 months to see 60% humidity reading. The device didn't function right due to dead cooling fan. Sent it back to manufacturer in November. The fan had quit and allowed the block to overheat. Manufacturer replaced the thermal element, temp ic and heatsink/fan assy. Received it back and checked the proper flow level according to the manufacturer. The standard is air bubbles forming a "string of pearls" at the 3" depth of 2L water bottle. I was still getting between 50%-60% humidity. In December, I sent it back again to Ohio, but it passed the manufacturer test and maintained sub-20% humidity on their test bench. I installed it back, but still was getting 60% RH in the crankcase. I decided that the culprit is my engine. So I pressurized crankcase with the mattress pump and used soapy water to find any significant leak areas on my IO-360, but none were found. So I figured that the flow was not enough to keep up with humidity inside of my IO-360. I opened the Black Max and increased to max flow on the aquarium pump-looking pump. The RH was finally at 20-30%. A week later I discovered that the pump had quit and no longer pushed the air in my crankcase. I showed it to manufacturer and received the replacement BlackMax (still in the box). Overall, the manufacturer was pretty responsive, but I just don't have any confidence in the Black Max technology. I decided to do an experiment. I took the 27 gal plastic tote. Ran the drying line from BlackMax inside there and installed the probe from the humidity reader. After 24 hours of operation, the humidity was at 60%. In despair, I installed basic make shift desiccant bead dryer (much simpler than one in my original post). To my surprise, within 15 minutes the humidity inside the tote became 15%. Honestly, best you can do is build your own engine dryer where everything is clear and simple. I'm now getting 10-24% humidity in the crankcase. How is that for 10 seconds?

Are you sure you are talking about ACF-50 and not BoeShield? ACF-50 is like water and wicks. And wicks out of seams for a LONG time. Boeshield leaves a waxy protective coating with little wicking.

Many businesses these days merge their "available inventory" lists with other outlets or even other cooperating companies. Anybody in the network can make the sale and whoever has it drop ships it. Since nobody fully controls the displayed inventory, mistakes seem to be common. Sometimes they'll show where the part is before you order it, but not always. It can definitely be frustrating when there are mistakes.

The issue stems around the fact that a significant number of aircraft fueled at the G100UL roll out (at only 2 locations) have had apparent issues resulting in damage to paint and sealant in SHORT term field use. The implication is that there may be many more with LONG term use of G100UL. The allegation from GAMI has been that this was due to high toluene 100LL, nitrile fuel components, and PTE wet wing sealant coupled with assumptions that if it leaks then it must have been poor application. "it's not me, it's you." Given Braly's recommendation for use of Viton, teflon lined hoses, and negative comments towards wet wings...one is left to assume that they likely did know there might be issues with some of the fleet. Given Braly's comment that paint wasn't a requirement of the PAFI process and his comment "fuel belongs in the tank"...I assume that this implied that GAMI wasn't required to do widespread paint surface testing for their STC approval and so their testing may have been limited here. They openly list very specific "fueling hygiene" and acknowledge that their fuel damages paint to some extent. Their rollout G100UL in California was shown with towels, mats, and adsorbent material that is MUCH different from standard 100LL fueling practices in use. But each time G100UL is shown to have issues in the field (including with an airframe manufacturer) they release a YouTube video that poorly replicates the case study and their video is called "hard data." This makes me nervous...it is certainly possible that the only testing that was done may have been the one in the video. The methods shown in the videos are not of the caliber I'd expect from an engineer or a company that expects to supply 100% of the Avgas in the country/worldwide. Certainly not the quality and caliber of the testing that was mandatory for fuels going though the PAFI process. Unfortunately this is the only "data" that the public is left with from GAMI as any of the other data (whatever that is) is not open source or available. Questioning this only gets a comment suggesting the "FAA is watching you and takes offense that you'd question their approval." Not really confidence inspiring. However, the thing that gives me the most pause is that GAMI/Mr. Braly have repeatedly been very vocal about the term "commercially available" and this is likely very intentionally done to springboard off of the Consent Judgement in California in an attempt to outright ban 100LL in the state. And their comments came well before G100UL was actually widely field tested and shown to be safe and truly a "drop in fuel" like they claimed. What's been "proven" is that G100UL is likely NOT a "drop in" fuel. And if some of the comments coming from PAFI are accurate, there may not ever be a truly drop in fuel. Knowing this, the most important part of the "discovery" of field use and wider testing of ANY unleaded fuel is going to be our own transparency of where the alternate fuel's weakness lie so that we can all learn from this and effectively adapt our aircraft to the new era of unleaded fuel. The issue I see with G100UL is that so far, their comments suggest that there is no problem with G100UL and the issues are all in poor maintenance and substandard equipment and old materials...but the problem is that they are referring to many materials, processes, and equipment that are standard use and have been effective until now...

I certainly don’t think anything intentionally nefarious is being done. That said, GAMI has been opaque on information. When anything is questioned “don’t worry, we tested it is fine” but you can’t get answer as to what was tested. The other line is “it’s because your airplane is a pile of junk.” When we are shown testing, it’s glaringly obvious that they tested one thing and one thing only. Reference the paint thing. They tested a bunch of identical pieces from identical airplanes. Or their claim that with G100UL you will have 40-60% less wear in your engine. Based on one single oil sample. No, I’m not kidding. Or continually referencing an article from a decade ago saying it proves 100LL damages paint. However- that article never once mentions paint. It just contains one pixelated photo of a blue stain on a wing. And then taking photos from PAFI UL testing and trying to pass them off as damage from LL - as one of countless such examples found on line. That no one else seems able to find. The belief apparently held at GAMI that service bulletins are mandatory. And every single one has been complied with - and if you didn’t - there would be long paragraphs of documentation from a mechanic describing why you refused. Or the attempted use of government power to ban their “competition”. This, after years of telling anyone who would listen that there was a vast conspiracy including the government, to keep their product off the market. “We gave everybody barrels of fuel to test. We have no idea why they never did.” Only for us to find out that no one would touch it because GAMI required them to sign an NDA prohibiting them from disclosing any adverse safety findings to any one - including the FAA. It’s not that there’s teething issues. We all knew there would be. The problem is the handling of those issues, such that it makes me very very unlikely to try the fuel unless I’m forced to use it.

This is really the only sensible approach. There’s no way that GAMI expected the fuel to eat through tank sealant and ruin paint within weeks of the event at RHV. I’ve got to think that they expected happy customers. I’m super appreciative of the time and effort that @mluvara has put into his evaluation, and I hope that it helps identify areas of concern that can be addressed by GAMI moving forward. We all benefit hugely from unleaded avgas availability, and we all ultimately want the UL effort to succeed in one way or another.

I would assume that they have a significant investment in developing this fuel. I also assume that it’s taken a lot longer for them to begin to generate any revenue from it than they planned for. I don’t think anything nefarious is going on, he’s I’m sure no dummy and smart enough to know that if the fuel caused problems that he would be worse off than he was before, so I have to believe he was confident that it wouldn’t cause problems. Lots of assuming, just I think until there is actual data we should give him the benefit of the doubt

I don’t feel the need to get in a back and forth of who’s more experienced. Like I stated, you get to choose what you like or what you think is best for you. Thankfully, I get to do the same. I have ACF-50 in stock and use it as needed. My Mooney isn’t based on a carrier or getting a saltwater bath any time soon.

I'm glad we have people like @mluvara that take the time to do this analysis and videos. I wish we would have a few more to dissipate concerns about "it's just one person. The results were not replicated by anyone else" I wish I would have the time to do some tests myself.

Here is how everything plugs to my engine.

When it rains in the caldera, where can it go?

The whole Diesel thing just doesn’t make sense to me, it’s actually pretty easy to build a gasoline engine burning auto fuel that makes WAY more power than 200 HP. The secret is in a Modern four valve head and combustion chamber, sure that takes liquid cooled heads, but even Rotax can do that, it’s not hard. Dodge has an engine that makes over 1,000 HP on E-85, and it even passes emissions. I bet lunch you could easily make our 200 HP Lycomings run just fine on E-85, Lycoming has an IO-540 Certified and running in Brazil on pure Ethanol, has for years. Fuel burn would go up with E-85, how much? Maybe not a whole lot who knows? My guess is the way to go might be build an Experimental engine that once well proven etc then you Certify it.

Seriously, do people still do that? In the 17-1/2 years I've been flying my Mooney, I push everything forward for takeoff and leave it there until I level off and accelerate; sometimes I lean a little in the climb, above 5-6 K. Reduce throttle or RPM? Never! Must be a turbo thing.

I picked up the free ( old dirty hangar) barn find Mooney last year about this time. A 1956 M20. A neat machine and currently making its way back to airworthy. My intent is not to keep it, but get it flying again and sell it. My thoughts going ahead with this project were that I could always part it if I found something beyond economical to making it airworthy. David

There seems to be different attitudes in different parts of the country about airplane work. There are quite a few mechanics and IA willing to work with people around here. A lot of airline people who moonlight out at the hangars.

Only you can answer that. You didn't even tell us what it is.... a rotten wooden wing model, or a 2000 Ovation that someone parked? What are your goals and skills to resurrect it? There are many very similar topics already beat to death here. Good luck in any case.

Some fancy themselves as influencers on this site. To the point that Ioften wonder if they are receiving some sort of payment or kickback from mfers. It is loud and it is a consistent drmbeat sirening to install latest and greatest. No thanks. I am good.

I’ve been testing an idea put forward by an innovative engineer- strategic placement of two neodymium (powerful, small rare earth) magnets. One inside the fuselage & another inside the power door, both epoxied in. See picture below for the door magnet placement in the finger tab. 50 hours flight time & still in place.

Woow!!!! for $900,000 you can get 200 first class round trips to Europe and no need to worry about tie downs and pee bottles. José