ragedracer1977

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?

Sims are fun. You get to do stuff you can’t go in your airplane. here’s me spinning (VMC roll) a 310. Not a maneuver I hope to ever try in my actual airplane.

I think you have to be a paying member to sell stuff

Besides canceling IFR, I don’t know. I can’t even guess.

Same. Just interesting. I, right now, have airline captains arguing with me that it’s a departure planning requirement and not an in flight requirement.

Right. I just had no idea it was actually illegal. I was taught it was like VFR flight planning. As long as you planned to have that much when you departed, it was A-OK to land with 5 minutes of fuel.

I thought I did. I want to know if I’m an outlier or not. I was taught that, on an instrument plan, you have to plan to depart with enough fuel to fly to your destination, then your alternate, and then for 45 more minutes. Like VFR, as long as you planned it, but flight conditions were different than forecast, you were legal. I learned that is not true. If you plan for 45 minutes reserve, but the winds are worse than forecast or you’re giving holding instructions, a reroute, etc that cut into that 45 minutes, it’s illegal to continue to your intended destination if the conditions are 2000/3 or worse. Did you know that?

I’m going to make a post later. Preview.

Well, this kinda stuff doesn't bode well for reducing/removing TEL and increasing aromatics.... https://www.casa.gov.au/file/203356/download?token=5kUK1-c3 https://austhia.com/PDfs/AHIA-piston-engine-durability-report.pdf

Eyewitness account matches the video perfectly. I'm not sure why people think the wings folded between frames one and 2. They were already folded. For them to fold between frame one and 2 is a physical impossibility.

You're fooling yourself. Somehow the camera distorted ONLY the wings? The fuselage isn't distorted at all, even though it was moving in the same direction, but it somehow stretched the wings to exactly the length and shape they would be if they folded up? Listen to yourself.

I changed that on YouTube to 1/4 speed. I'm even more convinced the wings were folded. Both of them. You can see them both tilt forward in the next frame.

Looks very folded up to me. I can see way more of the underside than I should be able to

Here's an overhead from a news video. First grab you can see the trailer to the left that is in the crash video. Second grab, both wings are all that's left. They were clearly broken off the airframe. When? That's the debate.

Zoomed in a bit. That's both wings. No way a video artifact. Given the structure involved, I can't imagine how such a thing is even possible.

I guess there's video of the crash, I haven't seen it, but here's some screen capture. Is the left wing broken????

He said .60-.80c at the producer level. Based on current oil prices. That translates to at least double that increase at the pump. From reading the patent, it sounds like the fuel is about 20% xylene or toluene. Theyre running about $2.50-$3 a gallon right now. You can do the math

Just to point out, I think the 60-90 cents is at the manufacturing level. I think it's going to be more like $2 to us...

Perhaps Larry can add this to his presentation. Are you aware that the thunderbirds had a mid air collision during a show, hard enough to knock parts off, and didn't even know it? Are they lying too? https://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1440.html

I was at the forum at OSH. I thought the incident was described as well as could be. No one intended to have a midair. The mistake was wing getting in front of lead. Shit happens. The discussion was never intended to be a break down of the incident, but rather to address the things that led up to it, and what can be done better to prevent it. I think there was a purposefully confrontational nature presented by the poster above. You can't call someone a liar and expect not to get pushback. You also admittedly are biased. You said you were anti caravan and were not interested in changing your mind. As a somewhat experienced formation flyer in multiple airframes, I can 100% believe neither pilot knew there had been a collision. I know your partner thinks hitting an eagle at 300 knots is equivalent to hitting a rudder at 3 knots, but it isn't. Not only was I at the forum, but I was in the flight where the collision took place. A few elements ahead. One thing I can tell you is that it was bumpy. Very bumpy. I was flying wing on the right side of my lead. Not only did I never see the ground, I never saw my daughter sitting in the right seat. My eyes were on my lead 100% of the time. My right wing could have fallen off, and as long as the plane was flying normally, I never would have noticed. I thought the presentation was well done, addressed issues that may have led up to it, and ways to do it better. Formation flying is riskier than flying alone. Flying is riskier than driving. Driving is riskier than walking. We all have a level of risk we're willing to accept. Those of us that fly formation have accepted that risk, just as you have accepted the risk of flying instead of driving.

I have lots of good ideas, I just suck at implementation.

14:30-15:45 - Ruminations of a Midair Survivor by Larry "Joker" Brennan at EAA Forum Stage 11 - Deltahawk Engines Monday July 26

Departing early Thursday morning, stopping for fuel likely at WWR (Woodward Oklahoma). Plan on arriving MSN about 1430 Thursday