A64Pilot

I’ve never heard of an insurance difference between a repaired and Overhauled engine, the actual difference is for it to be an Overhaul, the Overhaul manual has to be followed as in if there is a list of parts to be replaced, they have to be replaced, where a repaired engine they don’t have to. I’ve even heard that some mechanics may even put on the beer googles and only replace what failed and not measure the other parts to ensure they meet serviceability requirements. I do know that when it’s time to sell that an aircraft with a recently overhauled engine vs one that past TBO and has been repaired will sell for a lot more.

I’m not sure what the triplicate form tango is, but you did get a DAR to reissue you a new Airworthiness Certificate didn’t you?

Attached article is the Deny and make Counteraccusations part of “being caught” Issue is as I see it is that unlike automobiles for example the average GA aircraft was built 50 years ago, https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/05/27/aging-pilots-aging-airplanes/ that’s the AVERAGE. So whatever solution is adopted it needs to be applicable to a 50 yr old aircraft. Requiring the entire fuel system to be replaced is unrealistic, and I maintain that the more “aggressive” fuel will significantly shorten even new components life, replacement / reseals every 7 years isn't viable from an economics perspective.

Most probably as there is a min climb grade requirement that must be met, and that’s one of several things that can determine gross weight. It’s sort of self correcting of course because altitude reduces MP. Perhaps the charts for 5,000 DA might be close enough to be acceptable to keep from having to do a complete performance test profile. ‘I’m using 25MP from the ADI number, but think it’s very conservative, 94UL would I assume allow higher than 25 MP. Not sure what would happen with the Cyl head temp limit though because it’s probably at least as important as MP. War birds if we are talking real Warbirds anyway have by Civilian standards an excessive power to weight ratio that combined with the fact that they were never Certified means I’m sure that they easily have enough power, but as they weren’t Certified that requirement doesn’t exist. AH-64 could climb at sea level in excess of 5,000 FPM, but I bet P-47’s, P-51’s etc without ordnance would beat that even with 100 LL. 94UL just might require engine modification maybe? I keep using 94UL as Auto fuel has all kinds of other issues like vapor pressure, phase separation etc that 94UL shouldn’t, and I’d prefer a fit for purpose Aviation fuel myself.

I just read that Shell will be shipping 100VLL in Europe soon, I assume it’s even lower lead than LL, is an ASTM fuel apparently. I know nothing about it. I’ve come to believe that it’s not achievable either, or it would have been done by now. I’d bet lunch that this G100UL fuels health risks are greater than the lead in 100LL, but that’s just a belief. Way I see it is there is only two paths forward if lead must go, either a yet to exist new engine, or ADI for those that must have 100 Aviation Octane. Well three I guess we could just scrap our airplanes. I can’t afford a yet to exist engine and don’t want ADI, but if lead must go, ADI is all I could afford My bet is a new water cooled four valve engine could meet the HP requirements on Premium car gas, but it’s vaporware at this point and I don’t expect to see one either

If the FAA has any sense and I believe they do, then they know how many aircraft have used it, and face it only people with problems will report, so no report? No problem is a safe assumption. That is why I think anyone with problems should report, because if they don’t then the assumption is they didn’t have problems. But sure report no problems if you want to, can’t hurt. Data is data. My belief is this fuel aggressively attacks “rubber” paint etc., that’s in my opinion been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I believe given enough time it will cause many more failures of those components, it’s getting the weakest first is a pretty safe bet, but given enough time the percentage of problems will increase. Even if it “only” reduces the average life expectancy of new tank seal job by half, is that to be considered acceptable? How much degradation is acceptable? We know it swells common O-rings well beyond the FAA acceptable limit already, that should have been enough to not issue an STC in my opinion. Then the paint issues are apparently real too, and no level of refueling hygiene is going to keep it from staining and apparently destroying paint around the vents etc. Maybe it would be acceptable to only fill tanks half way if you’re burning the G100UL? That ought to prevent vent staining / deterioration? But the real Damning thing in my opinion is Cirrus saying that they are concerned that this fuel destroys their wings structural integrity, now to be fair I don’t think that’s what they said, they only said they had concerns about the airworthiness of their aircraft that had used this fuel. For Cirrus to come out and say that is huge in my opinion, because they are no Dummy’s, they know that any statement like that they had better be prepared to defend it in a court of law. Of course this is my opinion, and we all know what our individual opinions are worth.

Maybe not, I hate to say it depends but it does. This may sound dumb but I open the cowl flaps on final and if it’s Summer I leave the oil filler door open after shut down, both seem to help and if I had to go around having the cowl flaps open before hand is one less thing to remember to do. 1. Don’t do what I hear so many Bonanza and Cirrus driver do for some reason, and that’s start immediately at a high RPM, sure use full throttle but pull it as soon as she starts. I don’t know why those guys do that, the IO-520 in my C-210 was easy to start when hot or cold. Must be different in them. 2. Boost if she is running rough right after starting seems to help, I believe as has been stated it helps prevent vapor lock / pump cavitation, so once running if she starts surging turn the boost on and see, why not give it a try and see. What happens of course is due to there being vapor and not liquid fuel in the system she goes lean almost immediately after starting eventhough the mixture is at full rich and eventually if it keeps running that vapor will clear and she will run smooth, but your right after firing is not good for the muffler. Excessively lean mixtures may cause after firing. Excessively rich may cause back firing. I haven’t watched any video, but add cold starts to your statement about the normal state for starting is flooded, priming when cold slightly floods the engine unless you get lucky and hit that sweet spot, most don’t. It’s just like the old cars with carburetors, pumping the gas pedal caused the accelerator pump to spray, slightly flooding the engine.

I put mine full rich, throttle to idle and just start the thing. it does take a few seconds but not many. I do this every Sun after we fly to breakfast, often in the Summer when I go to lunch she is still hot and needs the hot start procedure. Done correctly the “hot start” procedure will work at any temp, because it’s simply intentionally flood the thing, crank with zero fuel flow then push mixture in. It will work because turning a flooded engine over at any temp will clear the flooding if you spin it long enough, hot or cold. 95% or more of hard starting problems assuming a good battery are weak ignition, can be as simple as the plugs need cleaning.

Assuming people reply, but honestly I’d expect the STC to be withdrawn first.

ALL of the kids in the paint shop around 1983 or so at Hunter Army Airfield failed their Liver function tests, because they had been painting Imron on landing gear for Army fixed wing aircraft with only dust masks and eye protection. I say kids because they were in their 20’s.

No, if there is rust under powder coat it will bubble up just like it does paint, I think your thinking of primer when you say it shows through. Thats why it’s important to bead blast just before you paint or powder coat. Ideally you go from one directly to the other. Now I’ve never lived in the rust belt, but bet money people that do know exactly what rust under paint looks like.

I think it IS something, for example they didn’t issue one for 20W50XC. PLEASE, anyone who has had difficulty with this fuel fill out the forms, they NEED complaints, that’s what drives the FAA, without complaints or accidents there is no problem

Remember I was a helicopter mechanic for 4 years and a helicopter maintenance officer for 15. EVERYTHING on a helicopter vibrates, the trick is to minimize it as much as possible if you do everything lasts longer even the electronics

@TangoTango I was afraid someone would ask that, I’ll come up with his name eventually. He’s in North Ga and I believe was a Nascar engine builder, he does do overhauls to very exacting specs, he does offer a performance engine where he has the heads ported and polished, a 7 angle valve job and the guides are honed not reamed to size. Pretty sure he CC’s the heads etc like you do in a well build car hot rod motor. I think he balances all his engines to less than 1 gram, but maybe that’s just the performance overhauls, not sure. You know his engines right off because lots of bits are powder coated red, but I’ve heard he will do other colors, or I’m sure leave them stock. Finally came to me, his Name is Carlus Gann, if your interested call about a performance engine. https://www.gannaviation.com/engine-overhauls

My Lyc all rotating components are balanced to 1 gram or less, it’s the only smooth 4 cyl I’ve ever flown behind, I believe being smooth means it and everything else will last longer, of course the prop needs to be balanced too.