ragedracer1977

Technically ASTM D910 requires lead.

ASTM has more than one certification.

I think you’re wrong, at least right now. I wouldn’t. If I had the option to buy a known product that has served aviation well for decades at a lower price than a competitive unproven product, I’d buy the known quantity every time. In fact, I’d probably be more likely to pay a premium for the known product. I’ve been around aviation my entire life and I’ve seen too many wonder products end up to be anything but. Lead isn’t great, but it works. We know it works. G100UL might be great. But we don’t really know if it works yet. i appreciate your hard labor and I think you deserve to be awarded, but I’ve been around the block enough times to be leery of being an early adopter of anything. i was actually going to buy the STC, but I couldn’t justify it right now. The pricing model doesn’t make sense. The people who will contribute the most to your long term profits, have to pay 3-4x the cost for privilege. And, if bought now, there’s no guarantee I won’t have to buy it again, at least once, but maybe multiple times, before I can even use it. I’m concerned that GAMI has chosen not to have their fuel certified (a la ASTM) at all. It begs 2 questions. #1- are they concerned it has issues that preclude certification? #2- did they choose not to certify it because, if certified, they would be unable to sell an STC? There might be, and probably is, a 3rd question/answer that would explain it however from the outside looking in, that’s what I see.

Like you said, the pricing structure seems so inverted. I’m sure GAMI is going to make something per gallon of fuel. my old C would have cost like $400 for the STC. 3 times less than the 310. yet, on average, my 310 burns about 4 times the fuel. So I have to pay more to pay more? i don’t really understand their pricing model, much less requiring everyone to buy ANOTHER STC if they get a new engine. Since my engines have less life in front of them than behind them, I’ll definitely wait until at least it’s time for overhaul.

Nope. GAMI said over on beechtalk that you’d have you buy a new STC . The only way I’ll pay over an AMU for the privilege to buy more expensive fuel is if I absolutely have to to continue flying. I’ve never seen anyone dipping tanks at the self serve.

I think I’ll hold off. They want $1200 for mine

Santa told me you should keep an eye out for an Amazon package on Wednesday.

You’re correct. First dot is present position, then predicted position in 20,40, and 60 minutes

I haven’t turned mine off since July of 2020. Mounted it to the panel, turned it on, and haven’t touched it since. speaking of, it’s about time to send it off and have it calibrated and the batt replaced.

Infer was the wrong word. What I meant was “incorrectly state”. Knowing exactly how the process went, I can’t understand how it could be done any better to meet the documented method of OPP. I wonder if they know how it actually went. The only thing the owners didn’t do was press start on the machine or supply the raw aluminum. this whole thing meets OPP a whole lot closer than ordering a pre-fab cable from a vendor… Also, as I understand it, it’s the owner that determines the eligibility to install and the mechanic that confirms and signs it off. So hasn’t the eligibility been determined for those already installed and logged as OPP? I do not have any of these on any airplane I own, but I do have parts on my plane that have a letter just like this floating around. No one, including the FAA, has required removing them

They did infer that they don’t meet OPP, but as the whole thing was done, in my opinion it meets both the letter and spirit of the law. They were never offered for sale to individual owners. They were ordered by owners, to a spec provided by the owner.

I wonder when McFarland is gonna get a notice.. I remember ordering a throttle cable from them. I had to provide them the length etc of my old cable so they could “produce” it. The new one arrived in a bag with a manufacture date from before mine had even broken…

n. Owner/Operator Produced Part. Parts that were produced by an owner/operator for installation on their own aircraft (i.e., by a certificated air carrier). An owner/operator is considered a producer of a part, if the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. Participating in the design of the part can include supervising the manufacture of the part or providing the manufacturer with the following: the design data, the materials with which to make the part, the fabrication processes, assembly methods, or the quality control (QC) procedures. this is from the AC on approving parts. Since everyone who got one of these parts participated in providing design data and QC at a minimum, I can’t see how they don’t meet the standard. Now, it’s possible the company offered these for sale to others who didn’t participate at a later date, and that’s where the problem lies.

I’ve read the SB forwards and backwards. I can’t find where Mooney said you can’t use the tail tie down. It says it’s not recommended to use it to pull the nose off the ground during the jacking process. there’s 2 things there. #1 it’s a recommendation. Compare and contrast that to the other instructions in the SB that say DO NOT. #2, I believe they’re saying please don’t do what the OP is asking. Don’t jack the mains and then use a come along to pull the tail down. since it’s a recommendation, they’re actually saying it’s ok to do, but use caution. Further, if you’re doing it, secure the tail first. Don’t pull on it after the fact…. If they didn’t want you using it, they would have said DO NOT. Further, your method 100% does not comply with the SB. show me where it says to use an engine hoist with a strap on stuff they didn’t even mention…

It was. But there was a whole lot of other stuff wrong. How do you get plugs looking like this in 26 hours (and less than a month) with brand new cylinders?

Anyone else received this yet? A while back several of us experienced fine wire failures. I guess somebody crashed their plane and they found a broken center electrode and are interested in pinning the blame on tempest. Having read the entire accident report, I’m not sure I agree.

I didn’t say it didn’t happen, ever. I asked if it ever happened in mass numbers. when America talks about a problem, we always focus on the edge cases.

I don’t know if buy the “eating lead paint” thing. I’ve heard it my whole life. Now, with 3 grown kids, I can’t see how that’s a realistic vector. Kids are weird, but not pick paint off a house and eat it weird. did that really ever happen in mass numbers?

https://ibb.co/N3MY9XR Have a look at this chart. I believe this data was collected for the entire year of 2011 or 2012. look at the airports. how is it that a tiny airport with a 2600’ runway has nearly ten times the airborne lead as an airport with parallel runways, and about 5 times as many operations? How is it that the airports with the highest concentrations are all relatively closely located in CA? And no where near the busiest. If you know airports and operations, this chart alone heavily suggests to me that aircraft are NOT the cause of elevated lead.

None of the studies really say that the increase in lead levels has anything to do with airports. One I read (can’t remember the state, but maybe Tennessee or one of the Carolinas) studied an entire state. They found that kids living near airports had elevated lead levels. Unless you’re a pilot, or familiar with airports, you wouldnt even notice that kids living within 1/2 mile of the big class B had nearly identical elevated levels as the kid that lived within 1/2 mile of a grass strip in the middle of nowhere that has zero based aircraft and probably doesn’t see more than 20 operations a year. For some reason, the study authors left out how many operations there were and let a reader who doesn’t know a thing about airplanes believe an airport is an airport.

You can’t see the forest for the trees.

AC 20-24E. Add paragraph Z: G100UL is recognized to meet the requirements of TCDS requiring grade 100 and 100LL aviation gasoline. Done.

The question is “does it even require an STC? And if so, why?” The TCDS for every plane and engine I looked at includes 100 octane aviation gasoline. What is G100UL if not 100 octane aviation gasoline?

Question. Is an STC even necessary at this point? The FAA said It’s approved fleet wide. This makes it a de facto aviation gasoline that is grade 100. every TCDS I’ve perused, both airframe and engine, are certified to use grade 100 and 100LL aviation gasoline. So?