GeeBee

Uh, no. Down in the E&E lots of fuses. Especially on hot bus DC systems. And if you want to see what fuses are on the main deck, just open the bulb kit. Lots of TR5 fuses in the avionics. You would not recognize them as fuses if you did not know what you were looking for.

That is true, but the thermal space is very limited. Thus it heats quickly, and the material is more heat sensitive. A C/B unless it is explosion proof has a lot of thermal space. Sometimes like on big jets, the C/B panel has air circulation behind it. All you have to do is look at the "trip" times for similar rated C/Bs and fuses.

Because fuses except for those with regulated blow times such as slo-blow have higher response times. Other reason is unless the C/B is trip free it can be mismanaged by the user (i.e. resetting it too many times or holding it in to prevent tripping) But the biggest reason is fast response. Most C/Bs are thermal and reaction time is often based upon ambient temps the C/B operates in. I am willing to bet the C/B for that trim is in the cabin where as the fuse is in an area of high variable temp, especially to the low side.

Noooo. It protects the plaintiff. To give a simple example, you have a crash with an engine failure. You sue the engine manufacturer only to find out after the statute has passed that it was a faulty fuel valve. Now it is too late to sue the airframe manufacturer or the valve manufacturer and your client comes up with bupkus because you failed to cover your bases. Can you say legal malpractice? That is why you sue everybody.

If you note, I said the results in the Lavara video was "disturbing". Go ahead, look it up. I'm not going to link to it because for once, you are going to do some actual research. I also said that aromatics are harmful to tank sealant. Again, look it up. What I have maintained is an open mind. I know that bothers you but I understand the meaning of cyber-libel, and more important, fairness to all involved.

Again you setting up predicates "Or, do you advocate censorship of these videos and opinions that you don't agree with?" that are neither in evidence or for that matter true. You need to be more disciplined than simply throwing bombs.

You can complain, impugn him. He is indeed a serial litigant. However, if you read those cites, he is sustaining some complaints even though he is a "per se" litigant and worse he is extracting concessions from the defendants. You can say, "without merit", "stupid" etc but what about the poor aircraft owners he named in this actions? Can they blow it off like you and say "without merit"? Nope. Unless they or you want a default judgement entered against them or you, they got to go pay a lawyer and answer and defend the suit to the point the judge says "without merit". "Without merit" comes with a hefty price tag for a defendant. With lead emissions, good luck on that. The filing of this suit should disturb all of us.

It points to the lack of discipline and detail these kind of "internet" accusation and "trials" have. Right now accusations and suppositions are many, but facts and disciplined arguments are precious.

That may be so, but he is scoring to some hits on brookstone landscape with his ADA claims. My point is it only takes one "Iceberg" to ruin your day. Ask Captain Edward John Smith.

But you asked "Please explain how this G100UL situation differs from the class action lawsuit claims paid when Mobil AV-1 synthetic aviation oil caused engine issues." You are changing predicates. You wanted me to compare the present situation with G100UL in which there are accusations on social media to a situation of litigation. If you want to compare how the G100UL situation now compares to the situation of AV-1 before litigation was filed please say so. Please don't change predicates to denigrate the answer you got.

All this points to the fact we need unleaded fuel pronto. Noise we can fight, lead would be an impossible slog.

Speaking of lawsuits. How would you like to be personally sued for lead emissions? Now you may say it is without merit, but.......you still have to hire a lawyer and answer the suit if you don't want a default judgement against you. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/airport-neighbour-cites-lead-pollution-in-suit/

A plaintiff's lawyer A filing A judge A courthouse A supoena for discovery of facts A whole bunch of depositions A bevy of expert witnesses A finding of fact by a judge or jury A settlement Right now, you don't have any of those elements, just accusations and opinions. When the facts come in, if they come in, from an authoritative and unbiased source I am sure most of us can form an informed opinion and those affected can choose a course of action.

Since there is a cherry, I'll supply the whipped cream. A new one is about 8000 dollars, last time I checked.

Actually you did have a problem. 40 year old tank sealant. Most people would say 40 years is at least 15 years beyond useful life. I don't have to go to KRHV or KWVI. G100UL is coming to Tupelo, MS. I may go over and get some once my eye surgery is cleared.

I am going to say this and it is not going to be a popular position, but it is what is going to happen. gabez, you seem to be under the assumption that someone is going to fix your airplane. Regardless of who is responsible, right now, you are the one who is going to pay for and repair your airplane. Sure you can litigate, you could file a claim with your insurer, but here are the cold hard facts. Tank sealant and paint, like the roof on your house are life limited items. Even if you are successful in your claim, you are not going to get a whole new tank job or a whole new paint job. You will get the funds that pro-rata the life of those items. Even with that you are looking at several years of claims and maybe litigation. You may get lucky and some party rolls over and says, "OK" they are not going to give you an entire tank and paint job. Unless you want to see your airplane sit a long, long time you need to be scheduling with a tank operation and a paint shop and breaking out the check book. As to the RV no one knows because no one has stepped up to tell us how and with what those tanks have been sealed, only speculation and assumptions.

I think with a homebuilt, it is important to know if it was PSD or Bazooka.

Lots of sealants are impervious to 100LL but not higher aromatics. If that is the case, it matters little what lead free 100 octane is used it will leak. For instance PTE will debond in the presence of high aromatics where as PSD will not. GAMI has been very transparent about that fact. No factory uses PTE except Cirrus did on a few experimental aircraft but production aircraft use PSD. We are talking about a home built here. It is no reflection on the build quality, but there may have been the use of PTE. Equally so, some repairs on production aircraft could have been done with PTE.

What did the builder use to seal the tanks?

The standard practice is to sue everybody and let the trial sort it out. You never know what will happen in discovery and thus you name anyone and everyone then let the chips fall.

I regularly run below 190 in my Ovation even in the summer.

Lycoming "morning sickness" on an engine just IRAN'd is just plain wrong. Especially on an engine that gets as much valve lubrication as a TIO-540. Something is not correct. Wrong timing or wrong parts.

If you want cylinder work, contact Carlus Gann at Gann Aviation in LaFayette, GA. He is the engine master for a lot of NASCAR teams and his cylinders breathe really nice. I had an O-320 B2B rated 160hp that turned 173 with his cylinders. The engine ran like a top.

I am not opposed to methanol injection IF it is the only way to get to where we need to be. I would strongly prefer as a cross country flyer, not to give up 50 pounds of payload and range if I don't have to do so.

My car is not aluminum. Any of us who have TKS systems know what a PIA it is to maintain a system like this. Pumps, tubing leaks not to mention the fluid is highly toxic. If the methanol in an injection system does not kill your dog, the glycol in TKS will.