1980Mooney

It requires that Airplane Owners acquire a STC certified by the STC Holder for a simple reason - Because George Braly and Tim Roehl of GAMI CHOSE to do it that way. They chose to use the established FAA Supplemental Type Certificate process protect their intellectual property and trade secrets. Your Cessna 310 TCDS states Fuel: Grade 100 or 100LL aviation gasoline. As @Pinecone just said, that is an ASTM Grade. When you say generically "100 octane" do you mean octane determined by RON (Research Octane Number) or MON (Motor Octane Number) or (RON+MON)/2 (like at your gas station pump) or by the ASTM D910 procedure? ASTM Grade 100 is a Specification for Leaded Aviation Gasoline ONLY - It has a Rich Octane Rating of 130 and a Lean Octane Rating of 100 per the ASTM testing procedure. GAMI did not use the ASTM approach and therefore did not petition ASTM to change D910 to accommodate unleaded fuel.

The only thing that the FAA has done is approve GAMI's STC. Period. GAMI, not the FAA, has announced that GAMI has been granted approval. Show me an announcement from the FAA that the FAA has announced that airplanes and owners can utilize a STC from anyone for anything without acquiring documented approval from the STC Holder.

Perhaps I am not communicating. The benefits of unleaded gasoline and synthetic detergent oils have been demonstrated in automobile engines over the past 40 years (improved corrosion control and lubrication, extended oil change intervals, reduced internal deposits in heads (reduces sources of detonation points), valves, and exhaust, extended spark plug life and overall extended engine life, etc - not just environmental benefit). There is no reason that aviation internal combustion engines cannot also benefit. And the regs need to change accordingly. Our engines are stuck in the 1930's. There is no reason that they can't begin to enter the 21st century. I am blaming lead itself and because it precludes the use of superior modern synthetic detergent oils. The lead deposits as well as the lead byproduct buildup in the inferior oil we are forced to use causes most of the wear and tear. https://generalaviationnews.com/2005/04/08/synthetic-oils-and-leaded-fuel-not-a-good-combination/ "Synthetic oils and leaded fuel: Not a good combination"

The introduction of unleaded automobile fuel with modern synthetic detergent oils has, in automobile engines, doubled oil change intervals, allowed spark plugs to last practically forever without maintenance and effectively doubled the lives of automobile engines. In your plane, imagine only one oil change per year, spark plugs that last the life of your engine virtually without maintenance and 3000 hour TBOs. That is huge. And it offsets the price of the fuel.

Others working on other versions? "Distributors and refiners that don't need it, especially if they're working on their own blend or have been working a deal or financing somebody else to come up with one? Swift already has a 100UL product in the works? Are we on the same planet? It's all talk and no product. Back in 2013 Shell announced that they produced Unleaded 100 Avgas and that they had been working on it for 10 years at that point. The only problem is that it doesn't work. 19 years of development and it doesn't work. I bet you that Shell has given up. Phillips doesn't have anything that works. Swift doesn't have anything that works. It is completely "crickets" from these companies. If any were close they would be announcing it now while GAMI is the approved solution so that everyone doesn't sign exclusive deals with GAMI. This aviation gasoline market is in constant decline since 1980. It is too small for the logistics and economics to be split with multiple suppliers. Now that G100UL is approved there is low and diminishing incentive for Shell and others to continue to pour endless R&D spending into a replacement fuel. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/december/03/shell-unleaded "Shell Aviation, a subsidiary of the multinational oil giant Royal Dutch Shell, announced Dec. 3, 2013 that a 10-year effort in the laboratory has produced a fuel that may put a long-sought goal—once thought to be unattainable—within reach: a lead-free “performance drop-in” replacement for 100LL that could power any aircraft in the piston fleet."

He is not saying the price will "be $0.65-$0.85 extra per gallon". In 2021 at AirVenture GAMI released a Q&A for G100UL . They made a statement regarding "COST"...not price: https://oac.ok.gov/sites/g/files/gmc221/f/GAMI Q and A 7 27 21 2 15 PM release.pdf "How much more than 100LL isG100UL avgas going to cost? Current best estimates are that G100UL avgas will cost 60-85 cents/gallon more than 100LL as the fuel leaves the producer’s facility and begins to enter the stream of commerce. Estimates are based on crude oil pricing at 40-60 dollars/barrel, and will vary with the price of crude oil." Note that his estimate is very dated and based upon $40-60/bbl crude oil prices. Crude has been and will be closer to $85-100/bbl. His estimate was based on a median of $50 crude. The current median is more like $92 crude. That means the increased COST to produce G100UL will be more like $1.10 - $1.56 more than the cost to produce 100LL The PRICE that G100UL sells for is a whole different thing Producers/Blenders will set a price to sell to the designated primary distributor, AvFuel Wholesale price will be set by AvFuel first as they distribute to FBO's Retail price to pilots/owners will be set by the FBO's I am betting that G100UL will be priced about $2.00 above 100LL. Some on Beechtalk think it will be $3.00 above.

I think you are asking what is the risk of not paying for an STC and trying to fill your tanks with G100UL and fly. Technically flying "unairworthy" intentionally without a valid STC can't be a good mark in your favor. Your defense to the FAA/NTSB and insurance company (in the event of an incident/accident/ramp check) will be that you are a Mooney "cheap bastard". Maybe the insurance companies won't deny a claim but I bet they really hammer you on future rates if you keep flying. And the FAA will reprimand you with some sort of pain. I bet you that GAMI (that is Braly and Roehl - you keep saying just Braly) will work hard to force distributors and FBO's only sell G100UL to planes with valid STC. Braly is an aeronautical engineer and a lawyer - he is not going to let this slip - and there are easy technological solutions today to electronically validate planes have proper paid for STC since all fuel sales are electronic. I bet it will be in the terms of his license. He is the only game in town so he has all the (monopoly) negotiating leverage Just like the seat belt fiasco in 2015-2017 (vendors without STC replacing seat belts) there will be FAA Ramp Checks. It is so simple - take a sample - if it is yellow or green without an STC then the plane is grounded. Same thing happened with seat belts. I saw a C421B at my A&P on the last day of its Annual. There was a ramp check of planes in the shop. The 8 sets of seatbelts were almost new replacements but from a vendor without STC. The plane was grounded for weeks while seat belts were ordered - many shops were shut down and there were few valid suppliers - and I think it cost the owner about $5K. I also bet since Braly is a lawyer that he puts A&P AI's on notice that they cannot sign off an Annual as airworthy if it has yellow or green (comingled) G100UL in the tanks or fuel lines without a valid STC. Also those A&P's can't refill tanks on planes they are working on with G100UL unless the plane has the STC.

This has been a sleeping dog for a long time that no one was kicking very hard (except a few in California). It was easy for oil and refineing execs to just look the other way and let it run. Now everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and kick it. As a result demand will come fast - faster than supply - driving price up in bidding wars. Like Lysol, alcohol, face masks etc during Covid.

Spot on. And that would be music to the ears of their heirs. I bet private equity is swirling right now dangling no question asked cash offers so that they can get control of the licensing terms. I e higher and annual

I’m sure it is before you add in the cost of endless lawsuits Related to the well documented detrimental long term health affects of lead on the environment and people. Just like opioids, cigarettes, asbestos, etc. appeared profitable to those business execs ... until they werent.

Yes it is fully compatible for plane owners to mix it in their planes. But this change is being driven by environmental legislation - you are seeing it in California. Now that "the unleaded solution" is here (and it will be the headline "success" in all Aviation publications) municipalities will mandate change like a tidal wave through regulations and laws. Due to legal liability, distributors and FBO's, will want a clear line of demarcation. Proof of decontamination. This will probably be the next "ambulance chasing" target of lawyers - Lead exposure at airports. They will want it gone and will show proof that they cleaned it up. Large refiners couldn't give a crap about AvGas 100LL. It is just a nuisance and a liability. It is an environmental headache and source of lawsuits. If an ambulance chaser is going to create a class action lead (TEL) lawsuit who do you think they will go after? - Municipal FBO's or big refiners? From a volume/sales standpoint it isn't even a flea on the back of a dog. They will dump it in a second - they will abandon it as fast as they can. Their Board Rooms will be saying "why are we in this business of 100LL? - GET OUT" Refiners and distributors of Aviation Gasoline sell in the US about 413,000 gallons/day Refiners and distributors of Automobile Gasoline sell in the US about 369,000,000/day That is 893 times more Automobile Gasoline sold than AvGas. AvGas is 0.11% of Automobile Gasoline sales. - In less than 10 hours on January 1 of any year (only one day), refiners sell more Automobile gasoline than they will sell AvGas during the entire year

Peterson sold the MoGas STC for $1.50 per HP. In 2020 Swift "slashed the price of its UL94 Avgas Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) by more than 75% – to $100 for each piston aircraft" according to their press release. Apparently, it started out at $400 in 2015 but of course it could only be used in low compression engines and was not very popular. Since GAMI is the only game in town for "high performance" engines I would expect them to price it higher. Consider a few things: Now that everyone in the aviation community is heralding GAMI G100UL as the "breakthrough unleaded solution to all aviation piston engines", communities will start mandating it (i.e. banning 100LL) faster than G100UL can make it to market. Most airports have only one FBO and most only sell one brand/grade of AvGas. They are not going to comingle inventory. And they are not going to invest in duplicate/parallel tanks, dispensers, trucks that will be temporary regardless. It will be one or the other. Once the decision is made they will decontaminate the tanks, pumps and trucks of lead ((TEL) and switch with no going back. I suspect 100LL will completely disappear by 2024 due to declining demand, rising cost, limited/shrinking distribution, probably new fines by cities, etc. In the eyes of the FAA this is an STC like all STC's. Without proof of purchase/license of the STC, your plane is not Airworthy to fly with G100UL. In this day and age it will be easy to require electronic proof of the STC before purchasing fuel. On Beechtalk there is a suggestion that G100UL will be about $3 more than 100LL currently Also suggestion that you will see a further demand erosion due to price, further consolidation of FBO AvGas availability - Self serve will all need to convert to smart pumps that can confirm that you have the STC. Braly and Roehl are in their 70's - I suspect that they (AND THEIR HEIRS) want to see a significant return up front after 12 years of development rather than waiting for licensing royalties to dribble in. Like most partnerships, once the founders heirs start getting involved in the business expectations of profit rise and as well as what is considered to be "fair pricing" And once the founders step out, most times the heirs can't agree so the easiest way to please everyone is to monetize the business by selling it to Private Equity Either the heirs or Private Equity will find ways to squeeze more money out of the business I bet the heirs or PE will switch to subscription (yearly) non-transferrable STC payments for everyone the drags their feet and initially resists buying an initial perpetual license to the STC.

The FAA approved a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) that allows GAMI G100UL to be used in all piston engine applications. That STC is owned by GAMI. The FAA did not confer airplane owners the industrywide right to use G100UL. In order to have that right, an airplane owner has to buy a license from GAMI to use the STC,

In the AOPA article GA moves closer to unleaded future - AOPA they quote Braly: "“It’s not going to be unreasonable,” he said. “Pilots in America will not be paying what they’re paying for avgas in Europe today.” A quick look at Avgas 100LL prices in Europe show 2.15 - 3.35 euro/liter. That is $8.10 - $12.22/gallon. EDDB - Berlin-Schoenefeld | Aviation Fuel Prices AV-FUEL.COM (this is an interactive map of Europe showing all airports) Also AOPA Pres. Mark Baker said "AOPA continues to encourage all fuel manufacturers to follow through with their own formulations, Baker said. “We’d like to see several fuels available that all work together and blend together. Competition is always a good thing for the markets.” There is no competition. And if it yields savings from reduced maintenance costs and long engine life since it may allow the use of modern synthetic detergent oils then the fuel producers and distributors will work to value price the fuel, extract some of the plane owner savings and cream off higher margins.

Get ready to pay for your STC....

Actually our landing gear are stuck in the 40's....The M20 gear are just a larger version of the Mooney Mite landing gear which was developed in the 1940's and on the market in 1947. It was a great solution at the time but that was 75 years ago. I don't think I follow. The 1940's Mooney Mite which our landing gear originated from had wooden wings. Since then we have seen the Mooney go to aluminum wings, steel tubing fuselage mated to aluminum semi-monocoque rear. The competition went to planes entirely aluminum semi-monocoque. More recently we see the domination of composite construction. The Epic E1000 is now all carbon fiber and sets a new higher standard in composite GA design and manufacturing. Somehow the FAA has let GA manufacturing advance... https://epicaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Epic_Innovation_PR_FINAL.pdf

Not exactly. He started with disks from a Mack Truck engine mount. But they were not robust enough for the M20 so he had special ones made. This is a great KNR article from 2009. https://www.knr-inc.com/25-shoptalk/23-200904-does-your-mooney-need-a-chiropractor “Al Mooney designed the landing gear shock system on his airplanes differently than did Clyde Cessna, Walter Beach, Pug Piper or Lloyd Steerman. Al wanted something simple yet strong and relatively maintenance free; thus the multi-rubber disc articulating landing gear became part of the Mooney heritage with the certification of the Mooney Mite in 1948. This concept has been used in all subsequent production models.” According to Mooney historian and all-around good guy, Bill Wheat, Al Mooney discovered that Mac Truck engine mounts worked perfectly for the rubber discs on the Mooney Mite. When the M20 series was developed these discs where too small and a special disc had to be made. This landing gear shock absorption systems has evolved over the years as Mooney aircraft have become heavier, but its still basically the same system Al Mooney came up with over sixty years ago.” Also he points out the limitations of shock disks compared to oleo struts. “The active shock absorbing components of this system are the tires and the rubber shock discs…..Too high tire pressure will not absorb enough energy thus transmitting the loads onto the rest of the system. The shock discs can’t absorb it all so the wing spar (meaning your fuel tanks) absorbs the energy.” Besides making our wet wings more leak prone, the shock discs don’t dampen as much as oleo struts and this contributes to greater tendency to bounce and porpoising. Our landing gear are stuck in the 50’s.

Are you working with an A&P? Do you or he have the Service Manual and Parts Manuals? The electrical schematics start on page 527. All the electrical parts are listed in the Service Manual (not in the Parts Catalog). The parts catalog used to be online but I can't find it now. Based on your earlier switch number it sounds like you have a 12V model. There are 17 different schematics depending upon the serial number You should be able to test the switch and other items with a VOM before replacing. It sounds like your original switch may be good. Also on the landing gear, you need to test the Airspeed Safety Switch - it may not be the wiring. Here is the same problem currently on a K.

The gear interlock system is comprised of the switch with the "wheel" handle on the panel. That switch is a solenoid. In order for it work it needs the Airspeed Safety Switch needs to open and provide 12 V to the gear interlock system (I think the diagram calls it a Gear Safety Switch - the Service Manual calls it an Airspeed Safety Switch). The Airspeed Safety Switch is a diaphragm switch mounted on the back of your ASI - the pitot pressure engages it at about 65 kts. Without the Pitot pressure you need to press the Gear Over-ride Swith (see video at 55 seconds mark). This bypasses the Airspeed Safety Switch and provides 12v to the gear interlock system. Since your breaker does not pop when the gear swings without the gear horn connected that means there is not a problem with your gear motor or any binding in the gear. Since it only pops when the gear horn is connected to the gear interlock, it does appear to be a short in the wire to the gear horn. That gear horn is also connected to a micro switch on the throttle - when you pull the throttle almost all the way to idle with the gear up you hear the alarm. However that is on a separate wire. I think you never experienced the breaker pop because you never tried to raise the gear below 65 kts (or whatever speed your Airspeed Safety Switch is calibrated - the shop manual says +/- 5). Lastly, if the pitot cleaning had over-pressured your ASI and destroyed the diaphragm in the Airspeed Safety Switch, the result would be that there would be no power to your Gear Interlock. The Gear would not lower without you pressing the red Over-ride even while in the air. But it would not cause the breaker to pop. I think your shop is right. The diagrams below apply to your model and serial number. But I am no expert. However I have replaced my Airspeed Safety Switch before and have traced this out. Also read the KNR article below. Good luck. 201901 Electric gear safety system (knr-inc.com) Airspeed Safety Switch in your model and year.

Cleaning the Pitot tube or tubing will not damage the VSI. The VSI is on the Static Line. For pressure to get from the Pitot line to the Static line would mean that they blew out the guts of your ASI. It would mean that your ASI would be dead which does not seem to be the case. The VSI may have gotten damaged separately. Is your VSI lighted or unlighted? Also

In June Jonny told owners at MooneyMax that it took 9,000 manhours to build a Mooney. Now that is the time required by a skilled, experienced team working in an environment with all the tools and jigs available and organized for maximum efficiency. So if a homebuilder tried to do it, even a skilled one, after you factor in all the starting and stopping, "rediscovering how the wheel was made", redoing mistakes, working in an inefficient space requiring extra moving of materials, etc. I bet it would take double the hours. If a homebuilder had a life and a family I don't think he would live long enough to build it part time. If a "professional builder" built it as an Experimental and resold it to you I bet it would take him 10,000 man-hours (about 5 man years) and he would want to be compensated about $50/hour (it's not just labor - someone has to pay for hangar, tools, etc.) - that's $500,000 in "labor" plus the cost of the kit. If Mooney were to get into Experimental it would have to be a way, way simplified design - definitely not a Mooney.

Lasar https://lasar.com/switches/rocker-switch-radio-master-circuit-breaker-930023-213a

Recently here on MS there was a topic "Interesting analysis on Mooney's final history" with a YouTube video. On July 25, (more than a month after the "MooneyMax comments" above) Jonny posted a response here on MS: "Some of what he said was speculation, but one premise is correct: Building Mooneys is very costly and inefficient. I like to say, "while we pour our hearts into every plane, the competition pours plastic into a mold." To move us to a completely composite airframe would cost many millions to certify and many, many years. But indeed, to your point, we are still in business. We are going to focus on maintaining the existing fleet and standing ourselves up with parts production. Then we'll start talking about entering the market again. In the meantime, the economy looks set to contract - building GA planes is about to become that much riskier. Maybe this isn't such a bad time to be on the sidelines. Jonny" The key words are "Building Mooneys is very costly and inefficient" and "on the sidelines" and " standing ourselves up with parts production". New designs, gross weight increase, G1000 upgrade all takes cash. It sounds like cash is something that the company is devoting to supporting parts and service for the foreseeable future.

You probably have the 22 cu ft "Jumbo D" tank. I get mine filled with pure O2 at a local scuba dive shop here in Houston. Technical divers use pure oxygen or some other blends for faster decompression. They only wanted me to show that I was a pilot and using it for aviation purposes. Last month they charged me $27 including tax to fill a completely empty tank. That is way, way less than any FBO will charge and they filled it more fully than the FBO ever did.

700 lbs for 4 typical American adults (real ones - not the FAA fantasy "standard adult" definition), luggage, crap on the hat rack, tow bar, extra quarts of oil, flight bag, water/drinks, etc? Is that realistic? And you mention a kid as a possible (occasional?) 5th. We tend to remember what our weight used to be....not what it is. Planes aren't much different. I tend to think of a Mooney as more of a 3 adult plane for trips. For day flights it can be 4.