MikeOH

So, let me get this straight: Airfoils moving through the air operate on different physics? Sorry, not buying it.

Not sure what the point of this thread really is....starts out with "it's not as hard as we make it" and the next thing you know we've got the triple-integral of Biot-Savart! @Utah20Gflyer get's it, IMHO

No bueno if you are not instrument rated and current. Just ask for a VFR practice approach.

Very happy. High quality and a made-exactly-for-the-job tool. No messing with trying to get a torque wrench and socket behind the filter with no room. Pre-set torque and works to remove the filter, too. I paid $85 from Spruce when I bought it 6 years ago. I'd pay $100 now, no question.

I broke my CB mold and sprung for this, $50 more: https://www.aircraft-tool.com/search?qid=4427&keyword=oil+filter+torque+wrench

YOWZER!!! Did you call the owner back and relate how his CFI behaved? Based on his original apology he might be interested in applying a little 'corrective action'.

Yuup! BTDT, twice. Oh, and plan on new rotor housings...don't remind me why I know that!

You could be right. I'm basing the products' liability cost on being a financial controller in a past life. We were a manufacturer of consumer and commercial products and our premiums were based on the manufacturing category of our product and the volume of sales of those products. Adding a new product made only a small incremental difference in our premium. Admittedly, our products were pretty low risk compared with aviation...so the pricing model could be completely different.

Oh, I absolutely believe in free market capitalism. I'm just pointing out that what we have, likely due to such a small market, is a de-facto monopoly. As such, free market pricing is NOT at work. We are experiencing price gouging, plain and simple; there is no competition. I just don't believe the cost to add, say these Duke's gears, is as oppressive as being assumed. It's not like an existing aviation parts vendor/distributor has start-up costs; they're already in the biz! They are just adding another part to their offerings. Their aviation products' liability insurance premiums are not suddenly going to jump enormously just because they added another part. As far as profit, sure they couldn't 'live on' the profit of one part even at blackmail pricing at the low volumes we are discussing. But that's not the situation. Again, it's an existing vendor of aviation parts and adding parts helps spread overhead. Total guess, but I suspect the pricing is designed to cover ALL of their up-front costs (e.g. tooling and min order $) with the sale of only a few parts to a few initial "price be damned, I'm a rich airplane owner that accepts being screwed 'cause that's the way it is". After that, they make a fortune on subsequent sales (pure profit less inventory carrying costs) regardless if it takes years to sell off the remaining inventory.

The 'relevant fact' is that we, the customer, are going to pay for what is, ultimately, the fault of the vendor to follow the rules; regardless of how lame and cumbersome they may or may not be. Pretty true of any regulated industry; not unique to aviation.

@PT20J Yes, I got your point. I just think your response to @Echo failed to recognize his point! I note you did not actually answer my question...I'll phrase it a bit differently: if your plane needed these gears (I realize you only have the low-cost $2500 no-back spring) at what price point would you sell your plane? People spend 1/2 the value on an engine OH, but if that no-back spring was 50% the value of your plane would you sell or scrap vs. 'bend over' and take it 'just because?' Your arguments seem designed to justify these ridiculous prices. Just the fact that our planes are old/antiques is insufficient explanation for $2500 no-back springs, $5,000 gears, or whatever. I don't buy the idea that they are inherently any more expensive to maintain than newer aircraft. The usurious prices result in LACK of maintenance which a subsequent owner has to 'catch-up' with in many cases. The frustration (and anger, frankly) is that part pricing is NOT being based on cost plus a fair markup (50%-100%), but just what a monopolistic vendor can get away with. Yeah, I realize 'it is what it is' but I lose patience when I hear 'justifications' for this practice.

So, Skip, at what price would you 'cry foul' for these gears? Obviously, you're okay with $5K...how about $10K...how about $20K, after all the plane's grounded without them, right? I'm all for capitalism, but I accept the need for anti-trust laws to curb monopolistic price gouging. Or, do you think that just doesn't apply when it comes to 'rich airplane owners'?

And, sadly, my bet is $3K is going to be way less than what Lasar is going to charge

^^^ THIS 1000%. ^^^ GAMI should be free to sell G100UL...and I should be free to NOT buy it!

What, no disclaimer for the geriatric brain injuries??

Regardless of what you buy, for the price range being discussed it's going to be USED airplane (25 - 50 years!). As such, I offer my standard advice: Make sure the plane has been recently and continuously flown; ideally, 100 hours/year, but at least 50. What you'd like is a plane that is being sold because the owner is trading up, not the guy that lost his medical 5 years ago and the plane has been sitting since! Accept that a pre-buy is NOT going to find everything; even an annual. Consistent and recent use is the best sign the plane is in decent shape. It sounds like you want to FLY a plane, not WAIT around and spend money to get it fixed or upgraded to a reliable 'what you want' aircraft. Choose wisely.

Why? I own a Mooney that does NOT need to be repainted.

I have 20:1 gears. Can I simply swap in 40:1 gears, or are there additional mods required to the Duke's assembly?

Just registered for Henderson, April 4-6. Does anyone know if I'll get an email confirmation? I only got a generic acknowledgement of registration online.

^^^. THIS. ^^^ I figure both back pockets are going to be touching each other if I have an engine failure...No way I'm risking any more of a helmet fire by trying to optimize glide speed based on exact weight and trying to figure out wind speed and direction at several altitudes below me. I've got Foreflight set to 10:1. My biggest fear is going for an airport close to the edge of the glide ring vs. accepting a for-certain makeable off-field site.

According to the FAA or your checkbook?

If I had a plane with TKS, I would find that comment VERY disturbing

We seem to be in a lull...George hasn't posted recently and we await the outcome of both the FAA investigation and the court ruling in the California CEH fuel distributor consent decree. I'm also curious about whether those that I have tried G100UL are continuing to use it. We know at least one MS member here that tried it and didn't like it. Is the AOPA Baron still running G100UL in one tank, or have they gone back to 100LL?

I don't know about others' aircraft but the 337s for mine indicate not only the new equipment being installed, but what is being removed. It's not like separate 337s are being filed for the removal of old stuff.

My $0.02 as an armchair (recliner couch, actually) lawyer regarding the legality of BUYING G100UL: ANYONE can buy the fuel from a vendor without a GAMI STC and there is nothing GAMI can do to the buyer about it. Your contract is with the fuel vendor, NOT GAMI. No way for GAMI to sue you, the buyer. If GAMI wants to stop the practice they will need to sue the fuel distributor/vendor and make THEM police the purchase of G100UL. Seems like a pretty poor marketing strategy to me. The whole STC thing is a red-herring with regard to the PURCHASE of the fuel itself. The STC is required by the FAA, NOT GAMI. GAMI holds the rights to the STC and can, therefore, charge for the STC. The STC is required by the FAA for CERTIFICATED aircraft, but NOT EAB. Therefore, fueling a CERTIFICATED aircraft WITHOUT the STC is going to invoke the wrath of the FAA, not GAMI. Unapproved modification. Period. EAB is on their own although if 'bad things happen' the FAA will go after them for failing to adequately test the fuel. All IMHO