Schllc

The “substandard methods” appear to have been adequate to resist all factors prior to now, which would seem to at a minimum diminish your assessment of what is adequate. if it withstood all chemical and environmental conditions before g100ul, why is it now substandard?

It’s also a function of how fast the tanks are filled. im pretty sure you can actually get more than 102 gallons if you are patient. I have found my fuel gauges on all my planes to be pretty inaccurate until they are really low, and that has varied great.y from plane to plane. however, all of the totalizers to be really accurate. I was intent on finding out how much fuel I could actually run out of tank, and flew with my hand on the selector for 20 minutes well after I got into the red. my anxiousness got the best of me and I switched tanks. When I landed and fueled up, that tank took more than 49 gallons.

You will not find anyone more honest or knowledgeable. he is an all around solid guy and doesn’t mind if you get your hands dirty with him.

I’ve been there as well. Best option is to chalk it up to experience and move on to someone more compatible. There are good shops out there as well, take care of them and they will take care of you.

This x100. This is just shakedown, it’s normal, even if it’s frustrating. at the end you will know your airplane better, and you may be able to help someone else later experiencing the same problems. Don’t give up!

I’ve never done the ferry setup, but I have flown an ovation with a ferry tank and it was close to 500# over gross on take off and it was not a factor. I did not land it over gross though, but that wouldn’t concern me either. our mooneys are easier to land heavy, than they are light. may take a little more room but climb and cruise speed were relatively unaffected.

Here is the service instruction required for the ferry tank. Over gross numbers acclaim SIM20-133.pdf

This usage chart seems extremely conservative. That being said, I have no experience with the mountain high system. All i have ever used was the precise flite conservers. the advantage of these is that they do not require batteries, and each user can adjust their flow to meet their own individual demands. I can tell you conclusively that you would have a LOT more that 15 hours out of a small bottle with the precise flite system. This is not anecdotal, it is from five years of actual experience. Perhaps someone else with that system can give a review.

@Farolone we are all anxiously waiting to hear how you got this accomplished. many here would love to replicate your success.

@dkkim73 sorry, I don’t really have enough extreme cold weather experience to be helpful. my winters seldom get to 45deg

Why the 275 for the eis? It is easily displayed on the txi. Even less real estate used when it’s a single. The txi can actually split into three panels as well. I suppose a backup eis display would be nice though

My uncle, in the early 80’s, participated in a synthetic oil change study where he sent samples of his oil every 1000 miles for analysis. He did this for three years. As a result of this, he told me changing a cars oil every 15-20k was more than adequate. Since then I have had at least a dozen trucks go past 300k, two past 500k, and at least a dozen more past 200k, using these intervals with full synthetic. None of these engines failed either, I just traded or sold them and they were all running strong. I currently have two Toyota land cruisers with north of 200k using these same intervals, and I have no intention of changing them for newer cars any time soon. I have never had to do any engine work besides plugs, alternators, coils, and a front or rear main seal here and there. The average Americans vehicles do not drive in water, sand, or conditions daily that would require these more frequent intervals, and while there is no downside to changing more frequently, it is in my opinion unnecessary. my airplanes engine is obviously very different. I can see the speed in which the oil is filled with contaminants, with a turbo air cooled airplane engine, I change the oil every 20-30 hours.

@George Braly are you able to detail the specifics about the “sample” fleet of aircraft used for testing? I know embry riddle was one source, but if it was tested on 10 identical 172’s, that result will likely be different than 10 random planes of different ages and manufacturers. at this juncture, I think it would be unrealistic to say the results would be the same. Once this fuel is being used by a broad range of aircraft, over time, we will see if there are any real issues. I suspect any that arise will be manageable, but knowing what to expect is both fair and safe. Paint damage, while certainly not cheap, is not likely an airworthy issue, but bladders, tank sealant, and engine/fuel hoses, seals and o-rings, most certainly are, and I assumed that this is an issue your company would want to fully vet. It would appear that it’s time for more extensive testing, instead of a fleet wide mandate, and to be fair, you have said many times you are not asking for the abolition of 100LL immediately. Its obvious there are many people more than willing to use your fuel exclusively, that seems to be a ripe crop of volunteers with a broad range of conditions and aircraft to follow and monitor. I personally would be more than happy to use the fuel if your company helps identify the proper paint spec, and determines it will not affect my tank sealant.

I will second this for sure. My plane had really bad quality paint job. I cannot say if it was poor workmanship or pool quality materials. If the previous owner had any influence it would have been put on with a roller. It’s aging strangely, lots of failures at places it’s obviously difficult to prep properly. I intend to have a written specification from the paint manufacturer, and I hope Gami will opine on their thoughts to which would tolerate the fuel best. good-fast-cheap, pick two

I read the link you posted. They OP said “some cirrus parts”. im heading to Brian on the 9th for my prop, surefly, and healthy list. If this is an easy install that will be awesome. Happy to blaze that trail.

No secret that it’s been done. I think it’s also possible in Cessna or maybe a bonanza, and obviously the cirrus. When I found out it had been done with a g1000, I had a conversation with both garmin and Mooney years ago after I sold my first ultra. Garmin said Mooney had to approve it to make it happen. I dropped it then knowing Mooney wouldn’t do anything. If there is a way for us to do it, I will absolutely get it done.

I had the keypad. It is grossly overrated and actually an impediment in the cockpit of the Mooney. Furthermore it is rendered almost useless when you have a phone with garmin pilot or ForeFlight. the biggest issue I have with the g1000 is airways. ATC never provides transitions and without that you often don’t have the option for the airway. On the ground it’s just a minor inconvenience but on reroutes in the air it’s a pia. typing the clearance in your phone and sending to the NXI was flawless and the one thing I really miss from the ultra.

Well, i can tell you this, i filled my 77cf tank and flew from Florida to Oregon and back with nearly the entire trip at mask or cannulas altitudes. There were only two of us, but when I returned with over 30 hours in the air, i had used less than 1/4 of the o2. I have the small bottle in my acclaim and have no interest in changing it. The conservers are a game changer for comfort as well as o2 usage.

If you were to get an o2 conserver you would have no need to upsize the tank.

is there any way the shop can document what they did to replicate here? I cant speak for the other guys but i would pay something for the effort. btw, i didn't mean to imply you did the work illegally, i mean legal for those of us in the US

I did know that it was mooney that was the holdup on the flightstream communication with garmin. it sucks but some of these problems would go away completely if mooney went out of business

Well, actually throwing "everything in a bowl, and see what happens", is pretty much what has to happen, but obviously in a more controlled fashion. Testing the fuel in a sample as small as they used, with relative homogenous configurations, is too small a sample set to be conclusive either. There are entirely too many permutations of components and materials for either test to be considered "conclusive". But what is evident is that there is potential for damage predicated on a varied history of repairs and materials. Some may not be approved, but some likely are and the only way to find out is to test more widely. It is safe to say that IF (I stress the if because I do not want to impugn GAMI in any way) there are any dangerous interactions with the formulation of G100UL, this is not a disqualifier, merely and indicator of what needs to be inspected, qualified and or changed on an airframe to make it safe. While the proper way to get to the point where this is an actual drop in replacement may be broad and varied, we can say rather conclusively, for the sake of safety, that the one wrong method we have identified, is to force it on the entire fleet at this point in time.

BOOM!!!! Sign me up! this is one of the only substantial changes the NXI brought to the g1000. IF they can make this work with a legacy g1000 that is huge!!! Who did this install? its registered in germany, i didn't think the acclaim was certified in europe, thats why all of them kept the us tails... this is awesome but not sure if it is legal. I sure hope it is!

The reality is that limited testing is great, and helps to establish a baseline, but more expansive testing with aircraft is definitely prudent prior to making this a mandate anywhere. Whether it is testing by Gami, or by allowing the market willing to put the fuel in their planes and see what happens, but one way or another there needs to be broader use to observe the effects over the myriad permutations of aircraft configurations. That is the scientific way to do this, but again, people should have the option to participate, not have it forced on them. In spite of the invective and hostility that peppers this thread, the root of the argument is not whether GAMI is bad or evil, but what methodology is appropriate to introduce this to the aviation market. It does not seem fair, safe or even realistic at this juncture, to say that it is ready to supplant 100LL across the fleet.

Do you mean the actual exhaust tubes have collapsed or is this delamination?