MikeOH

I'm saying a new fuel product needs to be the responsibility of the new fuel supplier; NOT that of the users (engine, airframe, and owners). That seems pretty rational. I can't name a product where I'm responsible for the defects in a product I buy because I didn't fully test it! Can you? What's disingenuous? Being given a sample for testing does NOT suddenly make me guilty of some nefarious act if I don't test it!

Interesting that, per this table, fluorosilicone is rated 'fair'; only Viton (and Kalrez) is 'satisfactory' for toluene:

So, should airframe manufacturers be forced to test any fuel that a potential unleaded fuel supplier sends them, for FREE? And, if not, then they can't complain? Is that your point?

YUCK! If I understand your post correctly, he spent 640 hours (16 weeks as a full-time employee)? I hope you didn't pay hourly for that! Frankly, it's hard to imagine the shop even covered his DL cost (640 x $30/hr = $19,200)...unless techs make minimum wage. I guess my real question is if that is a typical amount of labor for a job like yours, or was the tech just slow?

Well, let's hope GAMI doesn't set pricing based on your criteria

Fascinating. Amazing how you know my testing requirements! Let me spell it out so you don't have to assume what I want: 1) An unleaded fuel that has equal or better characteristics than 100LL. Causing damage in excess of 100LL, in any regard, is not acceptable. 2) Priced the same...LOL! I know that is unrealistic. Question is, what is an acceptable premium, 'for the children, and all'? We really haven't been discussing #2 but I am curious where the price is going to end up if 100LL is banned in, initially, Kalifornia. It seems $6.99 at RHV is bearable; that's about a 20% premium over PAO. It's also curious that $6.99 is the introductory price in a southern state (can't remember which one). Seems more a 'try it out price' than market based. Makes me wonder what the price will be when 100LL is banned and there is NO OTHER option. So, I ask you (rather than assuming), at what premium are you going to cry, 'foul'?

Five stages of grief: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. I'm not in denial; I agree that unleaded fuel is coming. As I've stated multiple times, it should AFTER a fully vetted alternative is field PROVEN. I'm more in the anger and bargaining stages (with HOPE that if enough issues with G100UL arise we wont' be FORCED to use it). If you are not accepting, then the conclusion is you're just stuck in the depression stage Please be careful as flying while depressed isn't recommended

EXACTLY! You wouldn't be hearing anything out of me, either.

It's NOT on us to prove or disprove these 'items of conjecture'; nor should we have to go to GAMI for the answers; they are hardly an unbiased observer. This should be proven, publicly, by GAMI and confirmed by independent testing. It's shocking to me that you are so tacitly accepting, and actually vehemently defending GAMI. It is NOT scientific. ANY new product introduction should be carefully scrutinized and tested, preferably by multiple, independent labs/organizations. Repetition of experimental data by multiple, independent, testers is the hallmark of good science. Not reliance upon "I am the science" bluster. The animus you express towards those of those who are rightfully skeptical continues to amaze me. I have NO problem with the introduction of unleaded avgas. My issue, consistently, has been the idea this product, G100UL, will be FORCED upon us before being fully vetted, by the banishment of 100LL with NO OTHER alternative. Fully vetted is MORE than the manufacturer, GAMI, and the FAA (which has not been without credibility issues; e.g. Boeing). It requires long-term field testing in the real world. Only then should 100LL be removed from the marketplace. This should NOT be an issue of what the masses of parents with pitchforks and torches thinks. That is why we are a republic and not a democracy; our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that mob rule is not a good idea.

Can you please point to where that is discussed in that document? And, do they define 'some' swelling? IIRC, the video from the A&P showed the swelling exceeded the parts' tolerance by a significant amount; like 10%. Is that acceptable as 'some swelling'? Maybe it's just me, but having a part dimensionally change by over its design limits is NOT acceptable. Look at this way, if you bought a new O-ring and it was 10% out of tolerance would you go ahead and install it, or return it? You'd be correct if you guess I'd return it!

Depends on your definition of captive. Lead has around a 1 month half-life in blood, 2 months in soft tissue, 2-3 years in the brain, and 20-30 years in bone. Other interesting info: 1) OSHA PEL 8-hour shift atmospheric workplace limits are <50 ug/cubic meter. 2) SoCal AQMD ran a study at Whiteman airport (KWHP) with the following results (note these data are in nano-grams/m^3, 1000 less than micro-grams/m^3!):

Exactly why I created this poll. My gut told me the market is REALLY small. I don't have a clue how many gear sets get inspected and fail inspection every year. Whether that's because they aren't getting inspected, or that they all pass...don't have a clue on that, either. I'd think the same, or even less, would be true for the no-back spring issue but the fact LASAR is offering them...???

EXACTLY! The new owners of LASAR don't have the same sense of 'community' as Paul Lowen, that's for sure.

It looks like 6016X has, at the least, fallen out of registration. Not sure how that is going to work even after a 'successful' annual. I'm going to be very blunt: For a first time owner there are way too many red flags on this. You should RUN. Could you get lucky? Very unlikely, IMHO. Much more probable you are going to be spending lots of time and money before flying it. FREE could be too high a price. Seriously.

@Shiroyuki That part is NOT the one WE are talking about. That is the actuator for later models that suffer from the no-back spring. I know those are hard to find, too. The Dukes actuator we are discussing has a worm gear set that wears to a condition that it has to be replaced. There is a service bulletin that describes the inspection procedures: one every 100 hours (not to invasive) and another every 200 hours (requires removal and disassembly). Problem is, if the these gears are bad there are NO replacements available. Basically, you are forced to buy a used actuator. Or, supposedly, you can spend a bunch to convert the plane to manual gear (after you find all of those parts somewhere!)

I assume, since you are a new pilot, that you will be a first time owner. You need to be very careful with any purchase but especially a wood wing. It is risky to trust the A&P that has been maintaining the plane for the current owner. Next, 1200 SMOH seems good on the surface, but how long ago was the overhaul? When I was shopping, the most important factor was recent and continuous use; I was looking for at least 50 hours a year for the last several years; sitting is BAD. Is this the first plane you've looked at? Personally, I looked at lot before I became 'calibrated' as to condition and price. Don't rush into the purchase! Don't be swayed by a low price; as much as any purchase, airplanes are particularly adept at taking your money now or later. If you are buying to fly it may be better to pay a premium now.

@1980Mooney "Everyone wonders why Jonny can do a deal with Lasar on the Eaton "no back spring" but can't do anything with the Dukes actuator w/Mooney designed gears. It is likely because he cannot trade away the "Dukes IP" because it is secured by loans from Meijing and he cannot do anything without their approval." Most of that makes a lot of sense. What makes you say that Mooney designed the gears? As in, why does Mooney holds some kind of IP over what I would have assumed is a Dukes' product and their IP.

@N201MKTurbo Do you know what quality system standard is required? Is an AS9100 approval satisfactory?

I think you are correct WRT VARMA. I was thinking PMA to just the worm gear set. As you say, that's the easy part. Those are also the parts that wear and, supposedly, fail. I spent some time searching for OTS sets that match without success. Nevertheless, there are several manufacturers that could produce these in low volume at pretty low cost (a few hundred dollars); they advertise they can customize shafts as the Duke's one does appear to be unique based on their catalog items. Going to need a DER, but not sure what else is involved in getting a PMA for something like this.

BWAAHAHAHAHA! So, you just take any manufacturer's word when they say, in effect, 'nothing to see here'??? I thought you to be a bit more objective. And, now swollen seals are a feature/benefit!! What a revelation...we've all been living in ignorant bliss, I guess.

Ah, so they are honest and upfront about it. And, 85% of the fleet is going to lower atmospheric lead emissions by a significant amount.

Which is probably a pretty good idea, anyway. If someone takes on this project and goes all the way to a PMA you sure wouldn't want to expose yourself to liability!

WOW! Now you're resorting to vulgarity rather than logic? The validity of these 'studies' needs to be challenged in court. Bizarre analogy with 'drone scare' but, maybe, the same outcome...the drone scare is already fading and will be in the news cycle rear-view mirror shortly. If G100UL doesn't work out, and there are no other alternatives, then this, too, will fade until another contender appears. GA isn't going to get 'shut down' over this.

Please vote in the poll so I can track. Thanks

I admire your tenacity! But, as you said, these were comments made when he FIRST took over. The recent secrecy from Avon Gear, pushback, and loss of comms just doesn't bode well for Mooney to be the path of success, sadly. I hope I'm wrong.