IvanP

Here is your mandate, albeit in its inverse form, i.e., a ban on the only currently widely available aviation fuel for pistion engines. California SB 1193 adds provision to Public Utilities code banning sale of leaded aviation fuel as of 2031. You may notice that any requirement for safe replacement fuel is conspicuously absent from the bill. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB1193&showamends=false Other states, and possibly feds will likely jump on this bandwagon. I believe that the ban is being challenged, but it is probably a losing fight.

Nothing is perfect, including the free market competition. The VHS v. BetaMax battle was decided by marketing strategies and not by a government mandate, though. I cannot judge which of the two techmologies you mentionwed was better, but I am willing to bet that neither forced their respective users to pay tens of thousands of dollars in repairs. Contrast that with madating a fleet-wide use of fuel that could potentially adversely affect airworthiness of many aricraft without having sufficient data. Again., I am not saying that G100UL is causing the problems described by some users, but I woud like to see some transparency about the testing process and results. Maybe the FAA has the data, maybe GAMI had tests done by independent agent. Transparency will help to address the concerns. I agree that it woudl be impractical to have two piston fuels. Your point about price is valid. If most pilots do make their decision based only on price as you aserted, we can test this theory by making UL fuel cheaper than LL and see how it goes . I sincerely believe that UL fuels should and will be the future, I just do not want to have this to cause problems for us by mandating something that has not been sufficiently tested and proven safe.

I think it is a good kit. It was a bit of work, but worth it. Someone managed to make some pretty substantial marks on the inside of my windshied, probably when doing avionics work before I bought the plane. I polished all the windows in less than a day (both sides on winsheild and outside only on the rest (overspray from painting, etc.). I used small Proxxon angle polisher and that made it a bit easier to work on the inside. If you plan on using rotary tool, I suggest slow speeds and apply compounds sparingly, otherwise you will have the polishing compunds all over the place (ask how I know ). They are pretty thin liquids. It can be done by hand, but that would involve a lot of elbow grease. I did not take and before and after pics, but I am satisified with the results, despite being quite picky when it comes to maintenace of my plane.

I used the polish kit from Spruce on mine and it worked quite well. https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/scratchoff.php

Perhaps the forum moderator could shed some light on who and why deleted the original thread.

Most of the data that we have appears to be from a single source - the purveyor of the fuel. Don't interpret my concerns as a resistance to adoption of new fuel. I am all for improvement, but I also want some reasonable assurances, other than those made by the manufcaturer or government, that the change will not have signifcant adverse impact on safety and utility of my aircaft. In the ideal world, the market forces would determine the outcome, i.e, if the new fuel is better and safer than what we have, pilots will cheerfully adopt it and 100LL will go the way of the rotary telephone. I do not recall that the old phones were banned or that the govt would madate adoption of smartphones (by Apple or othewise). The market forces simply worked in favor of better products and consumer safety was not affected in any way (not getting into the theories of cellphones causing brain cancer here ). When it comes to fuel, the logistical issues with adoption of new products are much more complicated and thus it is more than likely that some form of government mandate will replace the current fuel and there will be little, if any, choice the consumer can make. Hence, I believe that the safety of the replacement product in such crcumstances needs to be tested with much greater scrutiny before it is unilaterally forced upon the public. While I aplaud George Braly and his team for developing the new fuel and I do not mean to imply in any way that his claims are false or unfounded, I am somewhat reluctant to blindly accept the claims without independent verification. The old proverb "Trust, but verify" comes to mind here.

Products look nice. Too bad they only have one Mooney product for J-model. Even though Hector did a good job on fixing the glareshield for my Bravo, I would not mind spending 1 AMU for a brand new one that would be less prone to heat damage.

Hector at Aero Comfort fixed mine very nicely. Just curious if there could be a market for aftermarket glareshields for GA planes that would be made from material less prone to warping. This issue does not appear to be limited to Mooneys.

Well, it seems that the decision will be made for us by the government(s). The bureaucrats do not give a s^%$ about what it will cost us. They are only interested in checking the box that satisfied the environuts mandate. There have been more than few "new and improved" things that were forced onto the public that would not survive on the open market if it were not for government mandates or subsidies.

I just voiced my opinion that it was not OK under any circumstances for a "safe drop-in" replacement fuel to cause damage to fuel tanks and paint that would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair. While the damage can arguably be mitigated by new sealants and paints, I do not want to be the one paying for it. I am all for developing new, cleaner and better fuel, but it needs to be safe. Fuesl that causes deterioration of tank sealant is arguably not safe in my book. Of course, this is merely hypothetical as we do not have sufficent data to conclude with any reasonable degree of certainty tha the new fuel does, in fact, adversely affect the sealant and paint. George's post (now also missing) was very information and had some good points in it. Nevertheless, I am of teh pinion that indepenent testing done by somene else than the inventor/supplier fo teh fule is warranted here before the new fuel becomes teh only available optino for the piston fleet.

Now, that a thread dealing with a very relevant topic for all Mooney owners sudenly disappeared, the conspiracy theories can start....

One or more comments must have hit a nerve somewhere.

I would beg to differ. It is most definitely not fine if fuel that is billed as a safe drop-in replacement of the existing fuel would cause damage to tanks and paint, potentially forcing unsuspecting owwners to pay tens of thousands of dollars for repairs. While we arguably do not have enough data to reach any definitive conclusions on this issue, the concern I have is that we may not have a choice if the govt will force the switch to G100UL before these issues can be conclusively resolved. Yes, the damage can arguably be mitigated if you throw enough money at it, but I would prefer it not to be my money, i.e, having to pay for resealing of tanks and repainting of plane because I am forced to use a fuel that is too aggressive on sealant and paint.

The days when I could do 5+ hours are long gone. My bladder is not what it used to be and there are certain things that I refuse to do in my plane, e..g, using Travel John or similar contraptions, unless I am over water or hostile terrain w/o airports.

Based on Larry's pictures, it seems that the new fuel can double as an effective paint stripper . Small seeps around the fuel drains appear to be fairly common. In fact, I noticed one last week on my plane. That does not make me feel very good putting G100UL in my recently painted plane.

I can see the FBO line guys carrying bottles of Windex and carefully dabbing away thier spills with a clean towel to avoid staining of our planes . Dream on! I learned long time ago not to let anyone fuel my plane even before the concenrs about new fuel eating the paint came.

Good to hear that it is working well for you, Don. Nevertheless, given the propensitiy of the new fuel to damage paint, it would appear that even a minor leak may quickly necessitate reseal of tanks and possibly a paint job.

My guess is that the only foolproof way to prevent a gear-up landing is to fly a fixed gear plane Modify the pre-laning check list - Gear down and welded. I do not belive that gear-ups are caused by insufficient warning systems in our planes. We just get distracted and ignore the audio and visual warnings. A good freind of mine with decades of experinece as an instructor and many thousands of hours managed to land gear up while doing a refresher training with a commercial pilot. Both commercial pilots were so focused on whatever they were doing at the time that they ignored the sonalert and missed the absence of gear down indicator light. My vote is for more training rather than more gizmos.

While there are several thousand Mooneys currently registered, I doubt that there are "thousands of Mooneys flying G100UL". The fuel is curently distributed at handful of airports so my guess is that there may be less than 100 Mooneys currently using this fuel. The number of STCs sold would be agood indication. "Big leak" is not acceptable with any fuel.

So let's say, hypothetically, that G100UL does, in fact, eat through Mooney tank sealant in one week or even a month or so. What action do you see more likely to take place: 1. G100UL will not be deemed a "safe" replacement for 100LL and more research and development will have to be done before it will become the only fuel availabe for piston fleet, or 2. G100UL will be crammed down our throats to appease the environuts and the FAA will issue an AD requiring either full strip and reseal of ALL Mooney tanks with some magical sealant that can withstand the new fuel or bladders. Of course, we do not know the price, availability, or longevity of this magic potion yet. Given the current price of full strip and reseal, option 2 would be really scary. The last time I inquired, it was close to $30k for full strip and reseal on a long body with Monroy extended range tanks and the good shops doing this tend to be booked far in advance. Such AD could potentially ground most of Mooney fleet for quite some time. Making this procedure mandatory would probably drive the price even higher. Sort of like the AD on V-band turbo clamps that came out last year. Before the AD, the clamps were pricey already (around $500 by my recollection), but after the AD the list price shot up to almost $3k and they seem to be made of unobtainium.

Disassembly, thorough cleaning, and reassembly without any lube is, in my opinion, better than using any kind of lubricant on these. I had to do this recently on my plane and found quite a bit of gunk that was accumulated there over the years.

The terms "Low cost" and "San Franciso Bay Area" should probably not be in the same sentence. Everything is ^$#@&*^ expensive there. Look at the bright side of the price you are getting - it is less than parking a car in most places in SF Bay area

Could be the switch or the relay. Cleaning both with contact cleaner and checking operation with plane on jacks may be a good start. My guess would be that the relay is more likely to fail than the switch.

Beautiful! Enjoy it in good health.

I am not second guessing the pilot;s decisions, just curious about opinions and/or experiences of others who may have been in similar situation.