bonal

I guess it wasn’t so crazy when I expressed my concerns about the new fuel in the Kalifornia thread. AOPA Barron had issues with the fuel which they passed off as the Bladders being old but I don’t recall the one containing the LL as having any problems. Since I have bladders in mine it makes me wonder.

Seems like a perfect opportunity for a new discussion about what is going on with these drones. So much speculation and no one is willing to provide any information based on facts or investigations. I’m sure there are some drone experts here on MS that might have some interesting thoughts on the subject. Perfect opportunity to make for some very entertaining comments. I heard that there have been some TFR’s created as a result of the unknown nature of these drones. Might as well have some fun.

A California Superior Court judge will hear arguments Jan. 28 that could result in 100LL becoming unavailable in California and replaced by GAMI's G100UL unleaded avgas. The court will also be asked to require the four major fuel distributors serving California airports to carry G100UL. The Center for Environmental Health says it's bringing the action because the distributors have not accepted the fuel in contravention to a consent agreement they and 26 FBOs signed to settle a lawsuit with CEH in 2014. Nine of the FBOs have since gone out of business or been bought out. Under that agreement, the defendants agreed to distribute and sell any new fuel that used less lead than 100LL when it became commercially available. In this latest action, the environmental group says G100UL meets all the requirements for the lower lead fuel described in the consent agreement in that it's approved (via STC) for use in "nearly all" aircraft and has a specification determined by the FAA to be as safe as 100LL for distribution and use. CEH also notes that G100UL is being distributed to and sold at two airports in California and the producer of the fuel, Vitol Aviation, has pledged to make the fuel reliably available to any and all aviation fuel sellers in the state. In the action, CEH claims the defendants have recently come up with numerous excuses to justify not handling the fuel, none of which are valid under the consent agreement. CEH has upped the ante by also asking the court to vary the consent agreement to compel the FBOs to sell only aviation gasoline that has the same negligible levels of lead or less than G100UL. That would effectively ban the sale of 100LL by any of the distributors or their FBOs and make G100UL the only saleable high-octane avgas available at those FBOs, at least until another one meets the consent agreement conditions. Posted on Avweb today looks like they are pushing the end game. I guess most will see this as a positive. since we mostly fly to smaller uncontrolled airports including home I just hope there isn’t any interruptions in av gas availability at our smaller fields. The company that supplies home is literally just down the road from the airport and as far as I know they make the LL blend themselves but most likely mistaken about that cause I usually get those kind of assumptions wrong (ha ha). I expect to get the STC at some point but would be nice if things would just settle down with the other brands developing their product. What would happen if I landed and the only fuel available was the G100 and I took on fuel without the STC. I’m not asking because I want to cheat GAMI out of deserving royalties but would there be any penalty for this action

It’s great to see my little contribution to the great space that is Mooney with the continuation of the today’s flight threads starting each year. I can’t remember what year I started this but still take time to read about all the great stories of Mooney flying. Here is my contribution to sunset and the Mooney wing. Merry Christmas to you all

Just want to say that is a beautiful F and looks like it’s going 150kph just sitting on the ramp. Noticed your improvement on latest update and thought that’s better until I saw 26/2600 at 3k. If I was flying my D at that power and altitude I would be over 150 or at least close. Unless I’m reading it wrong. Attached is at 2450 WOT something not adding up.

The beta tester was just a joke, jeez. So as i have never had to purchase an STC how does one go about it. As for the other concerns i guess time will tell as real world conditions may not be the same as has been found with the limited conditions and hours accumulated by GAMI and the AOPA Beech twin. Also i have bladders and im not convinced the fuel isn’t detrimental to their health based on what happened to the beech twins tank. There was definitely an issue with the 94UL was that because of the lower octane or the lack of cushioning on the seats. Those were real concerns when the unleaded gas rolled out years ago to keep the catalytic converters on our autos from failing. Again I'm not trying to argue I'm just trying to get the truth and facts. We spend countless hours discussing all things related to the safe operation and maintenance of all aviation so please don't miss understand my concern. As for GAMI testing how many hours how many years compared to the millions that are flown in real life aviation. I wish I shared your confidence call me skeptical I’m ok with that.

I was simply posing this as a question because I don’t know all the answers to this issue. I have been reading all that I can find about this as IMO it’s kind of important and can have a real impact on our ability to fly. If I am going to be required to obtain an STC to use UL is it poweplant or airframe, I don’t know. What I have read indicates that not all piston aircraft will be able to use the fuel. I think the o360 in my D will be ok but I don’t know that for certain. Granted, there has been and are still tests being done but the valve recession issue is still not resolved. I’m not looking forward to beta testing how my particular engine is going to handle the unleaded gas. How many different cylinder and valve manufacturers are there. Best case nothing negative happens medium case I have to replace my cylinders all four plus labor well that’s at least 10AMU’s worst case my engine fails in flight and am forced into an off field landing. I know the prospects for the fuel look good but I don’t think my concerns are unreasonable. How many actual flight hours using the UL have been logged. I hope the new fuels will be successful because it will take away one item that the anti aviation politics can use to restrict our ability to fly. As I am from California there are many that would love nothing more than to ban GA completely our Air resources board has an almost unchecked authority to make policy.

That could be good news provided the airplane you need to fuel is permitted to do so. Engine and airframe manufacturers have stated warranty will be voided and of course the STC issues will have to be resolved. I guess it’s better than no fuel available but as I have stated before, our government is forcing a solution before it’s ready for general consumption. Personally I don’t think our current fuel is a problem but that’s just my opinion. When it becomes readily available and I think my o360 is an engine that can run it then that will be that. But there is going to be a period of uncertainty about how it affects our engines long term that we still don’t know.

So proud of the GA community for all that is being done. I have seen some mention of this on the news but not nearly enough. My former employer has sent over 400 line workers from nor cal plus support trucks for aiding in the restoration of electrical services. Stay safe everyone

So SB 1193 was signed into law I looked for any revisions and did not see any changes nor did I see the accelerated timeline starting in 2026 for disadvantaged communities what ever the f that will mean so I’m not sure of the actual timeline. In my search I discovered SB1505 which establishes a state aircraft registration fee which will have an initiation and subsequent annual fee to be established by the CA DMV. the fee will be to pay for setting up the program so we will have to pay the state for the privilege of being charged a new fee plus, and get this a fee to be used to combat detrimental environmental impacts of aircraft emissions. Remember in November how California leads the rest of the country especially as it pertains to environmental issues. Government is such a wonderful thing. just saying

Oops sorry it’s 136 dollars

Just looked on aircraft spruce and they have an ACS yoke machined from 6061 T6 billet for 139 dollars. Certified requirements prevent us from using a perfectly suitable part as a replacement for something that isn’t as good.

My 64D yoke looks a lot different than the one pictured. Will be discussing this with my IA as I recall him mentioning that I don’t have inspection requirement. Of course could just be wishful thinking on my part (no pun intended). Since there is still a Mooney corporation making parts would this issue be sufficient for them to begin manufacturing a replacement yoke as there would be hundreds if not thousands needed. Using a newer model design and if needed a sleeve for proper fitting. Sadly from a motorcycle or automotive aftermarket perspective this should be a big nothing burger. I guess we will all have to see how this plays out.

SB 1193 states that the ban will begin Jan first 2026 for “disadvantaged” communities and 2028 for “urban growth” communities. And these definitions can be very subjective. Once again we are forcing with mandates before the solution is completely ready for prime time. 2026 that’s less than two years from now. I have spent my entire life in California and have seen so many regulations forced upon us by the air resources board. It started many years ago with spare the air days making it illegal to have a fire in your fire place when they decided it was a bad day and not just in the summer but on winter days when the air was just fine. Recommend no BBQ no operation of gas tools and as of last year many gas powered tools are now banned. New homes for the most part must be all electric and if any of you haven’t experienced the cost of E service in CA you would be floored. Be VERY careful what you wish for because these restrictions will be coming soon to your state especially if a certain former Cali senator becomes our next president. Don’t believe a word she says. I have lived it. I can remember when the California summer blends came out for auto gas and quite a few retailers just stopped selling in the state. Can’t remember the last time I saw a Texaco or union 76 or BP chevron is checking out and moving to Texas. If the unleaded is still not ready we might not have any suppliers willing to sell in this state. Yes unleaded worked well for auto and other vehicles but not until manufacturers updated their engines. Just think of the log jam if all our cylinders have to be modified or replaced with hardened seats. Just saying be careful what you wish for.

Nice to know I’m in the right performance range for my model/year. I have owned it for eleven and a half years and it’s amazing how reliable it has been since getting it sorted out after a couple brutal annuals fixing things that had been neglected it has had a 100 percent dispatch rate. Usually my performance is based on OAT and management of temperature to the cylinders and oil. In the cold of winter I can really push it but usually I fly between 2350 and 2400rpm and 20 inches which gives between 125 and 130 knots leaning as much as my tractor carburetor will permit and just sip fuel under 8gph. Often times when I’m parked on a ramp with many different types like Cirrus or Bonanzas or pipers even other mooneys I look at our Plane and feel not one ounce of envy because that’s my airplane sitting there ready to take to the sky. And what I really enjoy is it’s just a real fun airplane to fly. How cool is it to be parked at a busy class D with boings, airbuses and Citations gulf streams and others walking out from the FBO knowing that our little Mooney is respected by all who see it. No doubt everyone feels that way about there airplane. What a privilege we all share.