MikeOH

Ok, the recent discussion, and 'bad news', in another thread prompts this poll. If gear sets (either 20:1 or 40:1) were available TODAY, and there was NOT any present issue with your Dukes actuator, you would order a spare TODAY if it was priced at what amount? I'm trying to establish a very rough idea of SAM.

The difficulty I see is that the 'newer' Mooneys that China was to manufacture did not have the Dukes actuators. Consequently, I doubt they would be a source for the gears even if they were willing to produce (unlikely they even have the necessary engineering data/drawings).

Does it 'come back'? I.e., have you cleaned it up, gone flying and found more upon return?

I'm thinking the same. If the OP pulled onto an active runway without a clearance and caused a go-around, I cannot fathom NOT getting a Brasher warning. That controller knew he screwed the pooch. Nevertheless, I'd be filing that ASRS post haste! (I'd also bet that 'tape' got 'reused' before his shift was over)

Nah, the new stuff just kills rich airplane pilots; the children are safe, so it's all good

There is an MSC at Cable (KCCB) https://www.foothillaircraft.com/ that I used over 7 years ago for my pre-buy. Not terrible but they did miss a leaking prop...no idea these days as I did not go back. AFAIK it is still run by Curtis Cable (grandson of the airport's founder). I've had good luck with GA out of KFUL, http://genaviationco.com/ but no idea about their pre-buy competence for Mooneys.

THIS is what G100UL is starting to feel like...

Thanks for your honest answer! I have no inherent animus towards George or Big Oil; they are BOTH out to make a PROFIT. I attempt to be objective regardless of who is providing a new product; either could be honest, or not, open with downsides, or not. All should be held to the same standards. I have no reason to believe one or the other is more likely to be 'less open'

EXACTLY! Blaming 'old' parts/paint or the aircraft design (e.g. o-ring material), which have worked fine for decades, to compensate for poor fuel design is a bit disingenuous, at best. If G100UL had been developed by Big Oil, would we be so 'accommodating' with these revelations?

I think that's a pretty decent summary of take-always. And, agree, best to know about the negative aspects. Which is why I maintain my position that we should not be forced to a single fuel solution until it is completely vetted in the field (years). In regards to your last paragraph, would you have those same "someone trying their best" comments had one of Big Oil developed G100UL and these issues were now coming to light?

I guess I must plead ignorance to this 'major health issue'. Yes, I'm fully aware that lead is bad but please provide some demonstrative evidence that airborne lead from aviation fuel is causing a 'major health issue'.

Fair point, but it seems improbable that if they show within 1 degree before startup (I.e. room temp) that they are going to be badly off at temp.

The most shocking aspect of that video was how little time was required for significant damage to occur. Actually, that may be a good thing; I'd rather the problems quickly manifest themselves versus more subtle, long term failures that could be falsely attributed to other causes.

@dkkim73 And, again, MS improves my vocabulary! Schumpeteresque and caltrops...had to look 'em both up.

I read his concern that high temps will force liquid fuel out of full tanks onto the paint...no one there to clean it up.

Ah, so we should 'give up' because we are being attacked by Mehmed II.

While this post is your best argument yet, my response is, "so, what hill is worth dying on"? Time after time, issue after issue, we hear that phrase..."taking the hill" is never easy, but to cave on some kind of Neville Chamberlain approach is just untenable to people like me. The foes will NOT stop trying to shut down GA regardless of how this 'lead ban' turns out. Rather than cave, I advocate pushing back. If the downsides shown in that video are widespread then I'd say that is pretty solid justification for pulling the blanket STC; would similar downsides be so ignored for any other modification? Having a 'commercially available' unleaded fuel is more than merely running an engine properly (which, IMHO, is also not proven as there are possible valve issues) damage to the rest of the airframe is critical, as well. I am NOT against unleaded fuel. I believe that demanding a truly 'drop in' substitute should not be an unreasonable pre-requisite before BANNING leaded fuel.

I will say, your ability to turn your eyes away from that video is quite impressive! As even @GeeBee said, "That is some disturbing results"... yet you soldier on with no concerns; amazing!

India would be the other. Somehow they are supplying 100LL to fuel aircraft in the ROW and planes aren't falling out of the sky due to poor quality. If you want to prove those factories don't exist (and, what 'your heard' or 'never heard') is not quite up to normal standards of proof I'm not going to give 'em a call and report back just to satisfy you...you'd just claim the recording was a fake, anyway

I've often wondered the following but never seen any data to provide answers: 1) How many gear ups have been because of failed Dukes gears? 2) How many gear failures have been due to failed Dukes motors but landed ok because of the manual extension. 3) How many gear ups have been because of failed no-back springs? My SWAGs: 1) Enough that Mooney wants NOTHING to do with potential liability! 2) We'll never know 3) One or two traced to a small defective batch. Hence, Mooney feels the real risk is pretty small.

Oh, I believe they'd love to get rid of us "hobby" pilots. The airlines, and the government, have certainly been trying get GA to pay more, but I seriously doubt they wish to ban GA. That covers emergency medical flights, AG flying, package/cargo, remote access/bush operations, corporate, should I go on?

You're not even making a cogent argument. Of course I "accept" what's coming...thanks to government overreach it will be crammed down my throat whether I like it, or not, and at a much higher cost. I'm pointing out that 100LL could continue to be supplied indefinitely and is not really at risk of TEL drying up. More to the point: 100LL should continue to be offered ALONGSIDE whatever unleaded fuel is/becomes approved UNTIL all the downsides are revealed, understood, and compensated for. With the further advantage that both 100LL and more than ONE unleaded fuel in the market will provide COMPETITION, rather than a de facto government supplied MONOPOLY! Saying this "Can't be done" because of made-up non-viability of multiple tanks, or trucks, or whatever is just deliberate impediment to a proper transition. Airports handle Jet-A, 100LL, 94UL and used to provide even more grades.

IMHO, the abuse of the STC system in the G100UL case is that of its UNIVERSAL issuance! I'd bet that such a blanket approval, without individual testing of ALL engine/airframe combinations is completely unprecedented by the FAA! Please provide another example if you know of one. IIRC, there are STCs for Mooneys that only apply to some (e.g. J, K, etc.) but are NOT available to earlier models (E, F) because the manufacturer did not see enough of a market to pay for the needed testing! Yet GAMI gets a BLANKET approval???

Again, the idea that SOMETIMES a flight needing an IFR clearance was unable to fly EXACTLY when they wanted is NOT any where close to an analogous situation with grounding the entire piston GA fleet! Do you really want to keep debating such a ridiculous comparison??

It's not about paying attention. It's what would happen, practically speaking, should the present single APPROVED TEL source suddenly dry up. Piston GA would be completely (all requiring 100LL, anyway) grounded; the government would quickly break its own rules! Bad analogy with the ATC strike in 1981...I was both old enough and a pilot when that happened. Piston GA was NOT grounded over it; equating getting an "IFR slot" with the catastrophe that would happen if 100LL suddenly 'went away' is silly.