IvanP

No need to remove the G5. The battery can be easily removed without disturbing installation of the intrument.

The new fuels do not contribute one iota to flight safety. To the contrary, they arguably make it less safe if airworthiness of planes will be adversely affected. The UL fuel effort merely appeases the vocal environuts who have nothing better to do.

If the battery is charged and the device is off, the battery should last 6 months. I do not think that G5 draws any current when off. I had two G-5s in my old plane that had to sit for a while and the batteries survived without any issues. You could also take the battery out and rig a charger to keep it charged while in storage and then reinstall it before resuming flight activity. I do not have G5 any more and do not remember the deatils, but I think it is a Li-Ion battery pack that could be charged by a modified phone charger or similar device.

It will save our children from horrible death by lead poisoning. The minuscule amount of lead that 100LL puts into the air poses an existential threat to the entire world and, therefore, we must push for elimination of 10LL any cost and sacrifice our freedoms at the altar of environuts . Or so they would like you to belive.

My primary instructor pounded into my head to always offset if going around because of conflcting traffic on the runway. I still remember my first solo XC flight when I got to practice this maneuver. Turning final to KUKI I saw a plane holding short of the runway. Did not think much about it as I was announcing my positions in the pattern. When I was on short final the plane suddenly pulled onto the runway without even a beep on the radio. Did the offset and go around while muttering some expletives and ended the flight with a great landing by my then applicable standards, i.e., walked away from it and the plane could be used again .

Crap, yet another reason for the masses and hysterical media to scream that GA should be banned.

For those folks who CHOSE to spend their money on improvement in safety by installing new avionics, I bet that nobody was forcing these inprovements on them (except for the ADS-B mandate). Based on the stady efforts to decommission VORs, they may not get you safely anywhere in the not so distant future. Pushing a new fuel that casues damage to the aircraft or requires major expense to be safe onto the entire piston fleet is a dfferent story. UL fuel does not improve safety of flight one bit and it appears that G100UL may cause airworthiness issues (see other thread on topic in General forum). The rush to mandate UL fuel is nothing but appeasement of vocal enviro groups without even marginal improvement in safety of flight operations.

My Bravo climbs well at 34" MAP all the way to FL250. Not sure what the climb rate of a fully loaded plane would be at 25" MAP, but my guess is that it would be pretty pathetic. Cruising at 25"MAP is OK, but most folks who buy turbocharged planes did not buy them to go slow.

In other words, take well runnig high compression high performance engines and hobble them to perfom like C-172 at the altar of the environmetalist gods

Certification of new engines with 21st century technology would be great and I hope that it will happen soon. However, even it it does happen tomorrow, it is unlikely to be a practical solution to the UL fuel compatibility issues we are facing now as most owners of piston aircraft would probably not be able to write a six figure check for a new engine when their current engines and fuel are operating as designed, nor should they be forced to do so. Given the current lead times for new or overhauled engines and engine components, we are talking about years of lead time even if the FAA certifies new engines.

I like the simplicity of the older vacuum driven speedbrakes. Simple actuator and couple of cables and springs. Of course, the main drawback is the need for vacuum pump and the inability to find replacement parts.

The damage to the Cirrus looks like it could affect the plane's airworthiness. Just curious about the product liability issues that may be involved in this scenario. If a "drop-in" replacement fuel approved by the FAA renders planes unairworthy what will the agency's response be? Who is liable for the damage? I can see some lawsuits coming up in the near future. Let's just hope that we can stop the govt mandate to use this fuel. So long as we have a choice whether or not to experiment with G100UL or other UL fuels in our planes, it is up to the owners to evaluate the risk and decide. Once it becomes the only option available, we are in some deep $%^&.

That must have been a lot of rubbing to cause this level of damage. Was the fairing installed right?

It could also be a stuck limit switch or relay. Put the plane on jacks and check the ops on the ground. The airspeed switch is probably not the cause here unless you are retracting the gear at higher speed as well. If the gear retracted at your ususal take off airspeed, the airspeed switch is probably fine.

Probably something related to "climate change" . Just about everything is blamed on cliemate change these days. At least you will be able to get your plane back in the air. I am still wating for reimbursement for warranty claim from Lycoming on a failed cylinder after factory OH. While I did not get the "environmental conditions" excuse, I am not holding my breath on it.

49 USC § 40102(a)(8) (8)“airman” means an individual— (A) in command, or as pilot, mechanic, or member of the crew, who navigates aircraft when under way; It seems that the definition in the Code is pretty neutral and all inclusive, regardless of what the person operating aircraft may be identifying as.

Could not care less what they are called, so long as the info is relevant and accurate.

I can attest to that from personal experience. Had a gear collapse and prop strike on a 70 E model almost 3 years ago. Plane was insured for 75k hull value, mid life engine with somewhat decent avionics (nothing to brag about). Insurance totalled it and sold at auction to salvage company who then sold it on e-Bay after stripping it of all avionics. It was fixable - the gentleman who bought it (A&P) did some initial repairs in my hangar and then flew it to his home field to finsh. Took him few months to finish and get her back in the air as he was doing the work himself in spare time. I think he got a good deal from the salvage company. The upside of this was that I got to go and buy another plane after adding siginficant amount to the insurance proceeds. Of course, my insurance premium trippled form what it was before, accounting for the claim and higher hull value of the new plane.

Check the General Mooney Talk forum. Very long thread on G100UL

I had those on my previous plane and was very happy with them. May install on the current one as well in due time.

Yes, there are some concerns about G100UL and Iguess that ther emay be some merit to them. I will not use this fuel because of the concerns brought up by other MS members and other aviators. Nevertheless, I love other GAMI products and wish them well in their endeavors to advance ganeral aviation.

Yes, many agencies tend to respond to FOIA requests with a blanket denial. However, not all proprietary information is necessarily protected from FOIA disclosures. There is a process for adminstrative and judicial review of the initial denial. When potenetial risk to public safety is involved or credible suspicion that the information provided to the agency may have been misleading, the disclosure may be compelled by the court. Long and costly process, to say the least. Nevertheless, it could be worth a try to see if the company is as transparent about the process as it claims to be.

I hope that GAMI will get the approval for their clamp. The product looks much more robust than what we currently have in our planes.

The data presented to FAA by GAMI could probably be obtained by filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act. Federal agencies are required to respond to FOIA reuests and disclose information in their possesion that is not classified or otherwise protected from public discloure. It may take a while, though to get anyting from them. Federal agencies are generally not known for their willingness and cooperation with such requests.

If you cannot find replacement for reasonable price, the switch can be rebuilt. There are 3 microswitches tied together in the contraption. These can be sourced from Mouser and other places relatively cheap. The wiring is somewhat confusing, but with a bit of patience and some soldering skill, you can do it yourself. I did it couple of years ago, but cannot recall the price of the individual switches. At that time, new switch was listed at Textron for about $1,200 if I recall correctly. The images are of switch installed in Bravo with KFC 150 A/P, but I believe that the yoke trim switch is identical to that used by KAP.