MikeOH

EXACTLY! And, absent an 'incident', they can maintain plausible deniability. When something happens later then they can 'swing into action', issue an emergency AD, and say, "See, we're responsive" to a safety problem.

Same for my F.

Here ya go: 3) FAA 'broke the mold' with a fleet-wide STC approval WITHOUT demanding sufficient testing. And the only thing worse than a safety issue is egg on their face...they're 'looking the other way' at the moment.

Not sure if it matters to you, but I don't think the replacement displays are technically legal. Something to check if that's a concern (I could be wrong).

@Slick Nick How did you clean up the knobs/buttons? Or, is there a source for new ones?

I've got the identical setup: 430W, STEC-30 w/GPSS/Alt, and a KX-155. Mine is still 'ok' but when it's a warm day I'll get a weird buzzing that comes and goes. Sometimes I can get it to go away be reseating the radio. So far, not too bad but one day I'm going to be faced with the same replacement issue. The kx-155.com guy used to be $1500...woulda, coulda, shoulda! $2500 is starting to get painful enough to look at other options. Looks like a brand new King KX-200 (slide-in replacement) is $5,000. Twice as painful, but brand new. It's going to be a tough call.

I fly with a full sized iPad in my lap, just like I used to with paper charts. No mount at all.

I have received several DMs indicating that Paul Millner is a petroleum engineer that helped Braly develop G100UL. I have NO idea if this is true; I have not verified that in any way. If true, however, it would explain his court declaration. I would hope the court (i.e. the judge) is aware of his position, but maybe not

200 HP, same as my F.

I'm having trouble understanding the enormous difference between the F and J. What's the horsepower on your J?

Better write that letter in Chinese.

What the heck is this Aircraft Pilots of the Bay Area (APBA), and who is their president, Paul Millner??? Reading his last 'Declaration' makes my blood boil. The dude went out to the airport looked at planes leaking and basically supports Braly and enforcing the consent decree! Good grief! Pilots out actively trying to ban 100LL??

Agreed. My hope is that the FAA's investigation of the evidence at RHV will prompt them to be concerned enough with a potential safely issue that they will take at least enough action that courts will be forced to postpone any 100LL ban.

Say what??? I can't speak to a "J", but Vx is 94 mph and clean stall is 68 mph for my "F". That's a lot more than 6 kts!

My fear is that his comments in this brief will prove very effective in allowing the judge in this case, possibly with Kalifornia environmental bias, to rationalize upholding the enforcement of the decree. The defendants will then be faced with a protracted and expensive appeals process. Likely without being able to get an injunction to stay the enforcement decree while the appeal winds its way through the courts. As bold as George is with these claims I have to believe he feels that he can avoid future product liability by claiming the FAA approved the fuel in combination with shifting responsibility for any issues to improper/poor maintenance by owners.

His comment, especially as an 'expert', seems to border on libelous to Mooney Corp.

Braly weighed in on airplane manufacturers NOT approving his fuel in his brief:

I suspect AOPA is in SUPPORT of G100UL; the 'get the lead out' politics override everything else

You are correct, now that I reread what he said. Just like a lawyer; words matter. Stupid me for not seeing through to his real answer.

In hindsight, I was pretty naive to believe him.

WOW! Well, that would explain why Braly hasn't shown up around here, lately. If, in fact, he declared support for enforcing the consent judgement, then I feel he outright LIED to me. Previously in this thread I asked him if he supported banning 100LL and responded that he did not!

Nope. And I sure don't intend to learn how in my Mooney

I swore I wouldn't let myself get sucked into this type of thread, but here I am, sigh! This is just a silly discussion of semantics; "downwash" vs. "forcing air downward" where some try to show how 'smart' they are. IMHO, for a PILOT, sticking your hand out the window of a moving car teaches you everything you need to know about lift and drag (admittedly not ground effect) You can have the last word telling me how "it's NOT semantics, but an absolutely vital distinction that we all must understand or we're not real pilots." The fact remains that air molecules are being displaced downward. I'm done.

So, SAME physics. Thus, to @Utah20Gflyer's question, the 'wind' he feels IS the same thing from the wing as the propeller

For those that believe lift is NOT caused by air being forced downward, consider this: An aircraft moves through an arbitrary volume of undisturbed air in level flight. Level flight DEMANDS that the lift provided by the wing EQUALS the weight of the aircraft (plus any downforce from the tail). I think we all would agree that lift is being provided by the wing. The ONLY objects the wing acts against are the stationary air molecules that the wing encounters. To generate an upward force, i.e. LIFT, the ONLY possible explanation is that the air molecules are ACCELERATED downward in accordance with Newton's 2nd law. Their simultaneous acceleration forward results in DRAG.