A64Pilot

Assuming as you say that they have deep pockets, then it’s likely that they have legal teams on retainer. Not saying that makes them invulnerable, but does make it real tough. Remember the Ford Pinto? The lawsuit? As I understand it the Jury awarded over 100 million, but Ford Lawyers had it reduced to 3 Mil and a new trial etc. Now I wasn’t there of course but I was told by someone who knew this kind of stuff that years later the Plaintiffs still hadn’t gotten much, Lawyers fees etc pretty much ate up what they had received and Ford had tied it up in courts etc for years. If you read about how complicit Ford was in the Pinto design, it was criminal, then later along came the Explorer, read about that too and you may not be pleased.

Many years ago there were auto fuel STC’s granted and I think that set a precedent, that and the Political pressure to get rid of the lead pressured the FAA. What is different in my opinion is the Auto fuel STC’s approved an existing fuel, but the Gami stuff is a mixture of chemicals, that was never a fuel. Who is going to pay I think that @MikeOH has it pretty correct, if I understand George Braly was first a Laywer, so one would expect that he is pretty well protected from Lawsuits. I suspect that the individual aircraft owner is who will pay, as it may be that there are no deep pockets on the other side no Lawyer will take this on commission and even if someone were to take it upon themselves to fund it, it would likely take years to get a judgement, and about all I suspect you could do with that is frame it and hang it on the wall, because I think George may be “judgement proof”

The purpose of pushing in is to increase the friction of the ball so that the flapper will move otherwise of course the ball just spins and you accomplish nothing. Newer ones the ball seems to be a tighter fit

I hear you and understand what your saying. But inadequate materials and or design if it exists is a fact of the GA fleet, one that has been operating for decades with minimal issue. So it is pretty apparent that these materials and design are in fact adequate with existing fuels. This new fuel was supposed to be completely transparent in its use, no significant changes. Nothing about except for certain makes etc. The fact that people have investigated wing fuel tanks with the Gami fuel in it and found that the sealant had been softened to the point that a borescope camera would leave indentations in the sealant and the fact that when they went back to 100 LL the sealant hardened up seems at least to me that it’s the fuel, not inadequate material or design that’s the issue, unless you accept that fuel tank sealant is inadequate? We had a joke in the Army, if you were caught doing something you shouldn't the course of action was to Lie, Deny, and make Counter Accusations., until the hammer falls. Seems that is what Gami is doing, all I can think of is that they believe there is a conspiracy against them and or maybe these issues will just go away, both of which just don’t make sense, bad news doesn’t get better with time, the more aircraft that use this fuel and accumulate damage, the more likely there will be lawsuits. The hammer falling. I just don’t see the logic in continuing? I mean Cirrus, a major manufacturer of new aircraft has come out and said don’t use it, but the real damning thing is their concern of one that has that has been brought to their attention isn’t airworthy now. What ever happened about that anyway?

Why would anybody in Tx want the stuff?

Krfg is Texas?

Link doesn’t work for me, too many redirects. What was it saying?

It was fairly obvious to me that this fuel was a safety concern from just what it did to O-rings, that was enough for me, the paint issues came along and that again screamed it was an aggressive solvent, I’m not talking about staining I’m talking about dissolving Jet-Glo. I wasn’t surprised at all when it ate fuel tank sealer, I expected that after the paint problems. Paint I see as the canary in the coal mine. I think in time we will see fuel pump leaks, maybe fuel servo problems and or fuel spider problems, anything in the fuel system that has “rubber” components. Maybe even fuel hoses. Then as it became apparent that “fresh” fuel wasn’t as big a problem as was what was left behind when the more volatile fluids flashed off made sense as assumption that only the fresh fuel was tested during the STC process. I can accept that as an honest mistake. But you need to own up to your mistakes, mistakes don’t get better with time. 1 in 1000 problems is unacceptable, 7 out of 100 is crazy, especially how quick the problems popped up, I’m used to mistakes only showing up months or years later, not within days. Over time that 7 out of 100 will increase I’m sure. I’m amazed it hasn’t been voluntarily withdrawn, will it take a fatality for that to happen? Do they think these issues are made up, that they don’t exist, or do they think they will just go away on their own? I guess I expect that in time the FAA will pull the STC

Crosswind capability depends on gross weight, speed, power applied and even on which side the wind is coming from, obviously if your carrying power as surely most all of us are in a cross wind landing then you need a little right rudder and that cuts into what’s available, wind from the left does just the opposite. Additionally most every aircraft I’ve been around has a range of allowable rudder travel, if yours is at the min then you have less rudder authority than one that’s at the max So we end up in most of GA aircraft rather conservative cross wind numbers, there are some exceptions to this of course, Gulfstream killed a couple of test pilots and crew with a rather ridiculously difficult short field takeoff procedure because they wanted to advertise that the G650 could get into and out of very short fields, so they had no “fudge” at all. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1202.pdf Long and short of this is that crosswind capability is very variable, oh and I forgot grass runways too, grass is much more forgiving if you don’t touch down perfectly straight so cross wind landings are easier on grass, so add that to the list.

I believe a primer has two check valves, one opens when you pull it back and allows it to fill with fuel, then as you push the primer it closers and the other opens allowing fuel to go to the engine, the way they are they both will open and allow fuel to be sucked through the primer by gravity or engine vacuum. I think when the primer is closed it blocks these valve openings so fuel can’t flow. I think maybe on the 140 in question a swelled O-ring was keeping the primer from fully closing, maybe. Just a guess actually but I can see it happening, and we know the Gami fuel swells Buna-N O rings.

They do as of course Viton didn’t exist back then. Almost certainly due to its resistence to wear Cessna I believe recommended the switch to Viton in primers some time ago, not sure how long ago Viton is tougher, has I believe a higher durometer. Years ago when I was cave diving I switched to Viton on all my tanks because it’s an unlikely but possible point of failure. I don’t believe Viton is a direct replacement for Buna-N in all uses as it’s tougher to compress, at least the Viton I’ve used is. Anyway it’s one thing for Gami to recommend it, but a completely different thing for average guy to know this, and a third thing for them to understand the importance. Average person is sure it’s safe or the FAA wouldn’t have approved it, right?

I pay $120 a month (residential), my neighborhood is full of them as it’s Starlink or phone line internet nothing else. So much for the Billions spent on Rural high speed internet. Musk applied to participate years ago and yiu wont believe why the Government turned SpaceX down. Speed is all over the place, I’ve seen as high as 300 and as low as 30. I think it switches Satellites ever 2.5 min I’ve read. Although speed is up and down it has plenty of bandwidth for me to stream 4K and us both to be online.

$7 bucks on Amazon, cheaper if you don’t want the hose, my hose was dry rotted

They are metal tanks held into the wing by metal straps, very much like an old car. The fuel lines to the strainer are steel, I don’t think there is any rubber in the fuel selector, but there may be one under the cap where the lever is attached. The original carb float was brass and the original needle and seat are steel, but I think modern floats are plastic of some kind and some needles have neoprene tips as the original steel on steel could leak slowly. Primers can be a source of engine failure / low power as if not closed they can make an engine run stupid rich. Normally the O-ring wears and I think the primer leaks slightly when used. Real easy to change but can be a significant airworthiness issue.