IvanP

Flying over a large body of water on a moonless night is one example of IFR flying even in CAVU weather.

The peeling paint at the edge in right upper corner that we see in these images did not appear to be present in the early stages of the test. At 1:14 of the video there does not appear to be any damage to the the edge, again 2:17 - 2:38 - no visible damage to the edge, at 2:40 some damage is visible, and the fnal images show paint peeling from the edge. Maybe I am missing something here as there was no clear shot of the whole panel before the test.

Absolutely agree with your conclusion. Unfortunately, we may soon be faced with the scenario that this will become the only fuel available by govt mandate.

PM sent

I recently noticed that the MPG in my Bravo has a bit of haze on the inside of the glass. The IPC lists the gauge as part No. 880044-517, but I could not find it anywhere (Lasar, etc). The gauge works, but the appearance annoys me a bit. I am using it as a back-up only now. EDM-900 is my primary engine instrumentation, but I still like to have the mechanical gauge for cross reference. Any thoughts on overhaul/replacement options would be appreciated.

Thinking about the STC process for being able to use UL fuel in our current planes, regardless of who makes it. We now have the option to purchase STC for G100UL. If, hypothetically, other companies put out UL fuels that will become "commerically available" for use by GA fleet, will we have to purchase STC from each of the respective vendors? I have no issue paying for STC that involves parts and/or actual modification of the aircraft, e.g., Monroy tanks, GAMI injectors, etc., but I have an issue with paying hundreds of dollars for couple of stickers to the compay that also charging us for their fuel which is more expensive than other available fuel. It seems that making the STC free would be a smart move from marketing standpoint. I know that few pilots got "free" STC at KRHV when they purchased enough G100UL. In the grand scheme of things, the company will make much more money from fuel sales than from the on-time STC sale and it would probably be received well by pilots.

Neither. I would like to be able to purchase fuel that does not damage my aicraft as is without requirimg me to spend tens of thousands of dollars.

I had S-Tec 30 coupled to GNS 430 with GPSS in my prior plane and it was working fine both in GPS or VOR/ILS modes. I was using TRK HI setting for ILS approaches as it provided greater sensitivity. If I recall corectly, GPSS was in HDG mode for VOR/ILS guidance. Couple times when it did not work well occurred due to operator error - I forgot to switch the autopilot to the correct input (NAV 1/NAV switch). VOR/LOC INtercepts were usually ok if less than 45 deg.

Whille wee may be free to not use G100LL for now, that "freedom" will be short lived and, unless there will be another alternative on the market soon, this fuel may be the only fuel available. Absent some seismic shift in the political landscape, 100LL will be banned sooner than later. My home state of CA probably being the frontrunner, as with many other misguided and wasteful mandates.

Same thing happened to one of my gauges. LASAR has a wait list for these. No ETA, though. Maybe they are waiting for enough people to be in the list to place an order for a batch of indicators.

Do we know how does fluorosilicone behave when exposed to G100UL?

I suggest looking at the cable and the brake box on the affected side. The vacuum speedbrakes are both activated by a single vacuum actuator that pulls on cables connected to the brakes. If the issue would be with the vacuum actuator or pump, it would affect both sides and generally would affect the deployment of the brakes, rarther than retraction. When you disengage the brakes, vacuum is released and springs retract the blades. If your deployment is OK but retraction is slow, it is likely either cable or spring. If the spring is broken, the blades will still retract by gravity, but slower. I had similar issue occur few months ago on 1990 Bravo with vacuum speed brakes. Squirt of TriFlow in the cables fixed it.

Wow, that is quite substantial staining, considering that you just recently started using this fuel. Did you, by chance have the opportunty to borescope your cylinders since you started using G100UL? Any visible changes on the exhaust valves? I have heard that turbocharged engines do not like this fuel much (detonation and exhaus valves burning), but that is merely anecdotal report from unverified source. It would be nice to have first hand expeirence from a Bravo owner.

Yes, they "addressed" the issue in similar fashion that big tobacco "addressed" the concerns about nicotine being addictive by saying that it is OK for it to happen. Did they publish any objective and verified data to support this statement?

Yes, it would arguably be unreasonable for a manufacturer to conceal a known problem. However, history is replete with instances where companies had active knowlege of various flaws with their products, yet decided to market the products anyway. In fact, some companuies went to great lengths to hide these flaws. Not saying that GAMI is one of those companies, just that it would not be the first time.

It could just be the lens getting darker. Mine was delaminated and pretty dark (1990 Bravo). I was able to get replacement from LASAR few months ago for my Bravo - part No. 880058-001 for about $100 (probably the same indicator part for Ovation, but check the IPC for your plane). The change made a difference in visibility of teh indicator on my plane. I did both the flap/trim and rudder trim lense replacement. Took about 15 min. 4 screws on the panel and the lens can be replaced from the front - no need to disconnect and remove the boxes from behind the panel to do this. Replacing the LED elements would be a different story, but probably not too difficult either.

That was for parts only, no tax, no labor. This was part of larger project on the plane so I do not know exaclty how much labor was for the shocks alone. I have the Mooney gear tools and if I recall correctly, it took us about 6 hours or so to replace and rig the gear.

August 2023 11 new Lord discs $2,178

You would think that anyone working on a plane would avoid such mistake. Well, s&%# happens and some fool managed to do it on my plane. Helicoil was an easy fix, though.

Is there a reason you want to remove them for flight? I do not think that they affect the flight characteristics of the plane in any appreciable way. As far as I know, the main purpose of the LASAR jack point/tiedown combo design is to eliminate the need for removing the factory tiedowns and replacing them with jack points when you need to jack up the plane. I had the LASAR combo installed on my E model for all 15 years I owned it did not remove them once. Just make sure you have narrow jacks to avoid bending the tiedowns when lifting the plane. Meyer's jacks are too wide on top, Alpha jacks work fine. Replacing the factory tiedowns with LASAR combo was one of the first things I did when I bought my current plane. Someone managed to crossthread one of the factory tiedowns and I had to helicoil the hole to corectly install the new combo. I would not be remowing the tiedowns unless absolutely necessary. Hand-tight only without using Allen wrench may not be a good idea. I can see someone forgetting to remove them before take-off and if they are not tight enough they could depart the plane in flight. Probably would not cause any damage, but they are not free to replace.

You are absolutely right - GAMI is not forcing anyone to do anyting. It is the government that is forcig us to use UL fuel. While we may have a choice for now not to use it, that choice is going away soon. I have no issue with using UL fuel, GAMI or otherwise, just want it not to damage my plane.

The story is getting better. the passenger who posted teh video also talked to local news and, of course, they loved the story. This kind of stuff puts GA in really bad light. From the passenger's account, the total extent of the Grum's "emergency" appeared to be the electrical issue. I really loved the bit about having to jumpstart the plane before the flight. The FAA is probably going to show this pilot some tough love in the near future.

May be worth obtaining a sample directly from the pump and get analyzed by couple of different labs. However, the questions is how would some mysterious compounds find their way to the fuel truck or storage tank?

I woud love to hear from the pilot what was going through his head when he decided to land on an occupied runway. It is easy for us to pass judgment from our keyboards, but none of us were there. Not trying to defend the poor airmanship here, just curious about the pilot;s thought process and cause for this mishap. Glad nobody got seriously hurt. This could have been lot uglier.

From the sound of the recording, it does not seem that the prop was only windmilling. I think the engine was running at or close to idle on final. The sound changed just before he touched down and the pilot appears to be pulling the throttle on touchdown. I have experienced loss of engine in flight and it sounded much different from the video.