Leaderboard

Had a gfc500 in a F model. Worked outstanding. Not sure what you need to run it though. I had a g3x and a 275 and the 650. Not sure which one “runs” it though.

Lot of holes in that cheese.

She is a civilian contractor, so you do not salute her - but you’d better listen to her, because the Pentagon listens to her about your proficiency.

Swift said 94UL was an ASTM approved "drop-in" fuel. Except it wasn't in the real world. Now they say 100R is an ASTM approved "drop in" fuel. Except it may not work in 25% of the fleet..... "and that's a fact". "The remaining 25% are more complicated. About 60% of that slice of the pie chart are what he calls “the 550s,” six-cylinder engines in singles and light twins that fill the gap between the engines that are quite happy on 94 UL and the ultra-high-performance boosted sixes that will be the toughest to fuel with unleaded. Testing will begin later this year on a Continental 550 and d’Acosta said it will take about 18 months." What good is ASTM if they don't even know if it will work reliably in the Continental and big Lycoming engines? - I mean Seriously?

The problem with UND was not "full power (rich climb)", it was their "leaning technique (cruise)". In UND, they were running Archers at 70%-80% power on peak EGT with CTH > 450F as "normal business", I get that Lycoming engines are certified by FAA to cope with continuous max power and max CHT = 500F on 100LL, however, only a monkey flies like that (most of us tend to babysit the engine). I have operate the Archer that UND flew, albeit on less hours (450h over 5 years), I flew it using SP98 (87 Octane) on Mogas STC, takeoff were never a problem and I never let CHT > 390F in climbs or cruise: * Patterson STC, prohibited peak EGT operation on Mogas EN228. * Lycoming advise against peak EGT operations at 75% on Avgas 100LL. Basically, they were "red-boxing" even with 100LL, it's not advisable and it's false fuel economy. Most schools tend to have various SOP to keep CHT under 400F, use 55%-65% power? keep full rich? I think on gently engine management, I am sure one can make sacrifices but for airframe, fuel tanks, paint...there is not much one can do... If 100R is fine for airframe, I am fine using it even with bunch of placards on leaning or CHT

I think what bothers me about this case, beyond the egregious forfeiture, is the conviction based the pilot's 'knowledge' of the six-pack, which was based on him seeing through a plastic bag. Yes, I understand the jury 'fact found' that he did, but it seems 'fishy' as @M20F said. To me the key bit of information that you provided is, "The troopers were there to execute a search warrant for the airplane (a warrant that had been issued in connection with another investigation)." My 'spidey sense' is they were after him for something bigger and settled for 'getting' him on a lousy six-pack! They searched based on their warrant and that was all they could find!

Agreed. All the AI searches are very good so long as we understand they are mostly Cliff Notes whose author may not have read the whole book, and may have been looking at someone else's Cliff Notes as a source.

The problem of disproportional civil forfeiture has been a significant issue for a long time. Civil rights advocates point out that since these are civil cases, there’s no right to appointed counsel, so most go undefended. Basically a cheap way for states to raise revenue. (The Feds do it too but most of the ones I’ve seen personally have been big drug cases where drug proceeds funded the forfeited homes, cars, bank accounts, etc.) In 2019, SCOTUS said the Excessive Fines clause applied to civil forfeiture, and that the forfeiture can’t be “grossly disproportionate.” In that case, Timbs v Indiana, a guy had sold a few hundred dollars of heroin The state brought forfeiture proceedings against his car(*) in addition to criminal proceedings. Couple of things made it a good case for review. The car was not purchased with drug proceeds. The maximum criminal fine for the offense was $10,000. The car was a $42,000 Range Rover. And the trial court already found it to be excessive Many states have modified their forfeiture procedures. Some, including Alaska, have not, coming up with ways they claim theirs is not excessive. (Simplistically, the harm addressed by the statute rather than harm caused by this defendant.) One of the goals of seeking SCOTUS review is to get some guidelines on what are the elements to look at in deciding whether a forfeiture is disproportionate, which wasn’t done in the Indiana case. No predictions on how this SCOTUS will handle it or whether they will handle it at all, although I will mention the Indiana case was a unanimous decision. (*) yes, “against his car.” Technically, forfeiture proceedings are what the law refers to as “in rem” - “against the thing,” not the person who owns or has a legal interest in it.

That is an excellent question. If yes, then the question becomes are you willing to live with a reduced margin of safety on CHT that prevents your engine from self destructing?