bonal

Is @mluvara providing depositions in this case for the defendants. If not I think his research would be very helpful in slowing this shit show down until issues with the fuel are resolved

The question was if your CA based what will you do if this ruling goes against LL. Well fortunately for me my o360 can use 94ul so I will spend the hundred dollars an acquire the STC for 94ul. Right now the closest airport selling is about 40 minutes flight time which is not ideal. I will also petition as many retailers close to home to begin selling it. If I were a seller of avgas I would rather sell a product that can be used by 69% of the fleet than run the risk of selling an unsafe fuel that could potentially cause damage to or worse an accident of any customer planes. Personally I wouldn’t want to be the judge hearing this case because he literally could be liable should an accident occur that results in fatalities if it were determined to be the fault of the fuel. kind of like being struck between a rock and a hard place. In our litigation society anyone suffering damages for anything these days is quick to lawyer up and file suits. Could be against the judge the state the plaintiff or even the FAA and certainly the retailers providing the fuel. If it were me I would rule in favor of the defendants and let it play out until the real mandate of 2031 comes due. Basically this whole thing sucks. I have been trying to find the details of the consent decree and if memory serves there are only a limited number of airports something like 14 that have to follow the ruling initially and start selling the new fuel.

So are you PaulMillner or are you just posting a letter he signed. I’m pretty confident that most of us aren’t upset about the STC but rather that there may be real concerns about the fuel going into our aircraft. Not too excited about being forced into using a fuel that could ruin my airplane. Is there a list showing where UL94 is available. If the ban goes into effect I will petition as many suppliers to start providing the 94.

I looked up APBA’s website and it’s in my opinion very questionable if it’s a legitimate pilot association. They list their mission and provide an email address for joining and to receive information about events. It mentions other area fields that have members. These east bay airports have lots of planes based there and one would think that with so many people literally thousands if you add them up there would be a lot more information about this association. A few photos that don’t show much no list of administrators or photos of past events etc. we have all visited associations websites and you can clearly see a big difference. Now there is no requirement that a website has to be extensive and professional in appearance. I just wonder if this guy supporting the plaintiff is even a pilot. Of course it’s just an opinion based on a single observation and I could be mistaken. If I had to choose I would much rather use UL94 than this not thoroughly tested fuel. I have never seen UL94 don’t know where it’s being sold but my o360 is ok with it. I also read on Avweb that Piper has basically said the G100 is not approved for any of its fleet. I read all the depositions and based on Californias politics and how they love to regulate everything to death I would be shocked if the judgment would side with the defendant. This literally could be the end of GA piston aviation in our communist state. Unless G100UL works out.

And I don’t disagree. And it’s a shame that VOR’s are being decommissioned.

My point is, the formula for the fuel might have some complications as to how it reacts with our airplanes. Never claimed to be a chemical engineer. Being in California I might be forced to use it if I want to keep flying and I’m not comfortable with that. Personally I’d rather have the option to go with the 94UL if the environmentalists get their wish and ban LL before a real drop in replacement becomes available.

I think you kind of miss my point, I have read all the points in other threads as well as other sites. Some people think a reasonable solution is to just come up with a new engine design we know all the issues with that solution. Others suggested just de rating the engine performance to accommodate the lower octane. Light small high performance engines typically require higher Rpm to make needed power which as you know requires a gear reduction for the needed prop speed. Also water cooling is a requirement for the increase in temperatures adds more weight. To be honest our big air cooled engines are perfect for the job required. Simple light and produce needed power at just the right rpm to keep within propeller limits. As for updating avionics it’s great if you can afford it and I’m not saying it doesn’t enhance safety im just saying we may have to find an affordable solution to this government created problem if we want to keep flying. Direct injection may be that solution. I really don’t have any issue because my o360 would be fine on 94UL. Back in the day lots of my friends were using water injection on there hopped up V8’s when the lead was taken out of the auto gas. Usually very simple systems for a couple hundred dollars and worked quite well preventing detonation.

Seems the issue is there isn’t a way to get to 100 without the lead unless we use really volatile chems. Certainly no reason to stop development but as I’ve said in another thread we’re forced into a solution before the issues are truly resolved. UL94 works fine for a majority of the piston fleet and installation of an ADI for the high compression and turbo motors could be a reasonable STC and could cost less than 12k once the engineering was worked out. Nothing fancy about an ADI very old tech. The problem isn’t our old engines they work fine doing the job they were designed for. The problem is stupidity when it comes to government regulation. Folks don’t have a problem installing 50k worth of avionics that they don’t really need steam gauge and VOR has been getting us where we need to go for decades. Not saying glass and GPS isn’t great but it’s pretty useless if we don’t have a reliable fuel to run our engines. So maybe a few thousand dollars isn’t bad for a solution to the engines that can’t run on 94UL. I was given crap about my joke about not wanting to be a beta tester for the G100 but looks like that’s exactly what’s happening here in California.

For what it’s worth, the Smithsonian channel has a series called extreme airport Africa and in its newest episode they feature an M20R flying a mission to help with preserving rhinos. The episode is titled Flying Grandmas (not referring to the Mooney) anyway I just thought someone might be interested.

Some years ago we did a three heading gps and produced a 149knot tas that was at 8k with two on board. My recent 24 24 was solo so I can believe the 154k it produced fuel was also just under 50% overall fairly light load. At 5500 ft my 24 inch mp was with wide open throttle and full rich on a very cool morning but as I mentioned in my previous post the air was pretty bumpy. I’ve seen the pictures Alan posted and don’t doubt the speed he recorded I just wonder how 160 knots is possible in an unmodified C I don’t see how a power flow exhaust would make any difference 24/24 should be the same regardless of the pipe. Perhaps knowing what prop is on that C might explain the performance. speaking as a proud C owner I’m more than willing to accept his claim. Go Mooney.

Had to do a post annual flight today and thought it would be fun to see how it did at 24/24. Climbed leveled at 5500 and best I could do was 141 knots indicated which based on calculated trued at 154. The air was moderately choppy and when I checked winds after landing they were 25knots 90 degrees cross at 5500 feet. Usually fly at 2400/20 I think might have been a bit faster if the air was smooth. As for your example Alan, would like to see a couple pictures of that bad ass C to see if we can tell why it’s so bloody fast. Now if you were to tell us that it was flying on G100UL for the first time it might make a couple of other threads on Moony space settle down a bit.

Well it’s the new year and I thought I’d start the thread for this calendar year. Hope is for lots of flights throughout the year. 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