toto

As @hubcap mentioned, they were ruled unconstitutional in Missouri. I haven’t seen new legislation yet, but they’ll need to do something to address the constitutional problems with taking pictures of a license plate. No idea whether there is a public/private partnership involved. Ref: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=90869

The video definitely made it seem like the issue was differences in evaporation behavior between 100LL and G100UL, where some component of the G100UL evaporated very slowly and pooled at the edges of the paint. It may be that fully submerging a painted inspection panel and then cleaning and drying it on removal will result in no visible damage, but allowing it to dry on its own causes the peeling and flaking.

OT: I think they may be coming back, at least in KC. I still drive through intersections on 71 and 152 with old signage about stoplight cameras, but I believe the KC city council approved the reintroduction this fall.

Yeah, the key thing is to force the conversation to the one thread. It becomes really nuts when each thread continues on its own and people keep repeating the same discussion points separately.

What I took from the video was that the fuel evaporated much differently than 100LL does, and the slow evaporation and pooling at the edges caused the G100UL to stay in contact with the edge paint for an extended period of time. So the effect was more pronounced at the edges only because the edges were in contact with the fuel longer.

I’m sure this is a bit premature, but has anyone seen any commentary from 172 operators who are running Swift 100R? Maybe this is just the one flight school in San Carlos? If 100R turns out to be a viable fleetwide replacement, we’ll have to invest in a lot more popcorn.

Yeah, sorry - already edited with my incorrect assumption

From the video, it seems like they have already stopped selling it (due to an issue with the truck or something) ETA: I guess you meant stop selling it altogether - the video mentioned they had stopped selling at Reid Hillview

No idea what aircraft we’re talking about, but I wouldn’t schedule a tank reseal based on some underwing blue stains. There are lots of different ways to get fuel stains under your wings (leaky fuel sender gasket, leaky fuel sump gasket, etc). If the PPI shows fuel stains, it’s definitely something I would keep an eye on, but I wouldn’t schedule a $10k service based on that. You’ll have plenty of unexpected expenses in your first couple years of ownership.

I didn’t mean to suggest this as an alternative to the “Alternative Fuels Forum” suggestion. I think it would be good to have a G100UL megathread even if it’s in a separate forum. I’m subscribed to all of the G100UL threads and it’s getting kind of crazy.

This is being discussed in G100UL thread #3 over here https://mooneyspace.com/topic/50230-based-on-the-g100ul-fuel-leak-thread-whats-your-position/

I don’t think it’s possible to do this in Invision, but I’m not sure. It would be great to merge the three active G100UL threads into one megathread - it’s the same topic, with mostly the same contributors, but it’s getting a little bit hard to follow.

Just ignore me then Carry on …

Just to be obnoxiously pedantic, if you mean the gross weight increase for the J model Mooney, that’s not an STC. It’s part of the original type certificate for the relevant serial numbers.

Someone was looking for one a while back. You might PM to see if successful https://mooneyspace.com/topic/21335-m22-mustang/page/2/#findComment-439991 As mentioned in that thread, esso seems to have one for purchase.