A64Pilot

Are you sure? There usually is, it’s tough now days to get above 90 without it. It’s easy to test, fill up a jar about 3/4 the way full of gas, put a significant amount of water in it, but leave room so you can vigorously shake it, mark the water level top when you out it in, shake the snot out of it and let it rest a minute, do it a couple of times, if the level of water rises it’s because the alcohol is combining with it, no alcohol = no rise in water level. In Florida there is Rec 90 fuel available nearly everywhere, it’s 90 Octane alcohol free fuel. I assume it’s 93 Octane premium, without the alcohol. However it’s significantly more expensive, I guess because they can charge more so they do. E85 is I believe 107 Octane, IF it’s 85% Ethanol, but E85 is allowed to be as low as 51% Ethanol

So what do you do when your policies leave your municipality broke beyond belief? Well you could become fiscally responsible, or you could just do this https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/new-york-fine-fossil-fuel-companies-75-billion-under-new-climate-law-2024-12-26/

Lead is a naturally occurring substance of course, there are areas where it’s mined for instance where people always have had higher lead levels than average. I believe that still the source of lead in peoples bodies is by an overwhelming margin old paint, but going after rich men’s toys is much easier and a pretty easy sell to the masses. It’s similar say to fluoride, in West Tx in particular average well waters fluoride levels are orders of magnitude higher than any treated water, it’s so high it causes their teeth to be stained. I’m sure there are areas where lead occurs naturally that are similar. It drives environmentalists nuts but the truth is the old adage “The solution to pollution is dilution” What I continue to not understand though is we don’t need Diesels, nor do we need some witches brew of chemicals to get rid of lead. So when will “they” realize that we don’t have any kind of emission controls on our aircraft? Will that be next?

We built our Spars with the layers wet, but didn’t shoot the skins etc wet, the Spars aren’t riveted but Huck bolted and the spars are about a foot wide. I don’t think you could shoot solids with wet sealant, so the Thrush is sealed after the wings are built too. It’s a pain too, there are often leaks, we tested our wings with a big homemade manometer, 5 ft or so tall U of clear vinyl tubing filled with food colored water, once they get fuel the difficulty of fixing leaks got a lot worse.

I can give you an idea about Thrush Crop Dusters, which have been built since 1965 and I believe there are more of them than Mooney’s. All are wet wing, a great many were Radials so therefore Avgas mostly, newer ones are turbines so Jet-A mostly, but just about everything from home heating oil to Diesel has been burned in them, so lots of different fuels. A difference between Thrush wet wings and Mooney’s is Thrush wings are sealed only with sealant that isn’t top coated with anything, if I had to put a number of years before significant leakage I’d guess 20, but honestly it’s all over the place, there seems to be a correlation between being under a shade and tied out in the Sun, majority of Thrushes are yellow and I think that color gets hotter than white. I’ve not seen any fuel that had any effect over long periods of time that degraded sealant, I think it’s mostly just time and maybe heat, but is it heat or metal expansion and contraction? I have no idea. We used the same fuel tank sealant inside of the hopper sealing the interior stainless steel braces, in the hopper some of the chemicals used eat sealant up and it’s very common to have to replace the sealant every year or so. I do not know which ones eat sealant and which ones don’t, just know some do, so sealant isn’t impervious to all chemicals. There is nothing that I know of that makes a Mooney wet wing novel, except maybe most wet wings are on larger aircraft? Small aircraft usually have metal tanks, maybe because their pedigree is from fabric covered wings? Many aircraft have bladders, bladders do seem to outlast wet wings.

They have deep pockets and could, a smaller company couldn’t. But that wasn’t my point, my point is that it took seven years for the issues to play out to the point that the product was pulled. We hope / expect for timelines much shorter than that, think “testing” can be done quickly, but sometimes especially materials compatibility effects take a lot longer to show up, we may not know for sure for a long time.

Most aircraft out there approach flaps come first as they are allowed at a significantly higher airspeed than gear. There are always exceptions, J model Mooney’s being one. What did you fly that gear came first? I was taught in a school that had an FAA approved syllabus part number I forget, it was 36 years ago, anyway as their purpose was to teach upcoming airline pilots and not Mooney drivers they wouldn’t allow speed brakes to be used and flaps had to come first, which meant you had to slow to 110 kts before glide spoke intercept or you would not make the approach. Everyone learned, that’s why I say it’s not all that hard to get a Mooney slowed down, you just have to plan it is all, start earlier than say a Cessna 172. Just looked it up part 141. https://www.ctcd.edu/academics/instructional-departments/aviation/ I went to this school Central Texas College in Killeen Tx to get my degree so that I could get promoted and stay in the Army until Retirement, and if I had to get a degree, why not in something I wanted. Anyway slowing to flap speed first and not being allowed to use the speed brakes was annoying, but you got used to it pretty quick

I understand, but to be clear this IA I know installed the engine, the bolts were intentionally left very loose. This seemed to be a very odd thing to do, still does

Just to confirm, four turns did give me 100 RPM

One way I see it could happen is we get 94UL, that I know could go into widespread distribution almost overnight, you just keep making the same Avgas you have for decades, just don’t put lead in it, shipping, distribution etc all remain the same. Those that don’t have high compression engines just burn it, those with high compression / turbo’s run ADI. That way you get honest Avgas that meets specs, the aircraft should require no mods to prevent vapor lock, it has the same storage life of 100LL, shouldn’t be any more expensive than 100LL, plus it will go into the same trucks and tanks etc that 100LL did as it’s just 100LL, without the lead I think? And we know it won’t cause any issues, except maybe valve recession, but I think any unleaded fuel may cause that, unless we leave a little lead in or add an additive, they exist. An issue with car gas as I see it is getting it, it’s one thing to be able to burn it and another to get it.

I don’t know, but I think either a Mooney was too hard to get to run on Mogas, or more likely in my opinion the interest for people who wanted to run car gas in their Mooney’s just wasn’t there. I don’t see why a Mooney would be harder than a Piper? Carbureted low compression 180 HP Mooney’s that is. Interest in auto fuel STC’s and ADI just went away, largely I think because Mogas is rare at airports and who wants to schlep gas in 5 gl cans. I had a 100 gl tank in my truck that I used for my boat and C-140, but most don’t and I think some airports won’t let you self fuel. Where I kept mine was a little town and they didn’t care. A LOT of interest in car gas is from people who live in places like Alaska say where Avgas is tough to get, but car gas is easier to get and if you have to have your Avgas flown in a Beaver it’s way cheaper too. I don’t know of any maintenance requirement of ADI except replace that cheap auto electric fuel pump if or when it fails. Looked like a facet pump to me on the video.

Any STC by definition is a Major mod. ADI is way simpler than adding say an engine monitor. I believe I could do it in a half a day, maybe a full day depending on what’s required panel wise. You wouldn’t need the fluid available every where as one tank of ADI fluid should last several tanks of fuel. Think like DEF for Diesels, if you think you would need it, carry some extra. But honestly don’t believe me, I’m just some guy on the internet, read these four articles and pay attention to the date they were written. Most pretty much say the same thing of course, I read somewhere some European manufacturer is building a twin with TSIO 540’s that will come from the factory with ADI, Tecnam maybe? Not sure. https://www.avweb.com/features/the-return-of-anti-detonation-water-injection-adi/ https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/22/adi-bridging-the-octane-gap/ https://www.avweb.com/ownership/video-airplains-inpulse-anti-detonation-injection/ https://www.aviationconsumer.com/uncategorized/airplains-inpulse-adi-mogas-for-big-engines/

That’s California, you do have I believe a “beef” with them, but my belief doesn’t count for anything. My point is that it took it seems years for the oil issue to play out, it didn’t happen in weeks

Apparently Mobil sold their AV-1 oil for seven years before they stopped selling it? 1987-1994?

His point is valid, the cell was 50 years old, well beyond I’m sure it’s expected life span. It didn’t “owe” anyone anything. But it does bring up another point, does G100UL have a different effect on aged “rubber” components that have been soaked in leaded fuel for years? In truth there are just too many possible combinations to test, Africa hot, Arctic cold, Arizona dry, Florida humid? Different aged products etc, etc. Who knows how many different materials fuel cells have been made out of? All you can do is a reasonable amount of testing, then you have to field it and sit back and wait, it could even take years before problems pop up, but of course as time goes on the probabilities decline rapidly.

I went out and looked at the can I have, it’s does have BN in a green symbol on the can with the words ceramic technology, but the ingredients aren’t anywhere on the can. It’s logical of course to assume this BN is Boron Nitride. You learn something every day, apparently in 2021 Dupont no longer sells Teflon (PTFE) and replaced it with Boron Nitride. The following is I guess a gun site and for some reason you have to be 18 to view it. So I guess it is NOT Teflon, but Boron Nitride, it seems to work the same anyway. https://blog.roninsgrips.com/use-dupont-ceramic-dry-film-lubricant-in-your-steel-and-aluminum-pistol-rifle-and-shotgun-magazines-to-smooth-their-operation/

That tube would surely be an easy OPP part?

If I understand the system, if one of the limit switches failed and the actuator continued to run until the tube bent, two things. First the tube can only be bent by being pushed, so whatever direction pushes the tube is the direction that bent it. You can’t bend it by pulling on it? Second if the tube got bent from a failed limit switch, then the tab that actuates the switch would also be bent?

The low compression Mooney’s should do fine on 87 Octane car gas, but none of the high compression fuel injected or I’m sure Turbo ones could. They would need ADI. I bet as we are all low wing that it’s likely that airframe modifications would likely have to be made, but even some high wing aircraft need them too, Maule does. It’s because car gas is much more likely to vapor lock. I’m sure our fuel injected but not turbo would burn car gas just fine with ADI, the turbo ones are said to be able to, but I’m guessing that if you don’t want the ADI on all of the time it might mean reduced boost in cruise. Current use of ADI is if cyl head temp is above 400F OR MP at or above 25 MP, below both of those and ADI is off, from what I read those are very conservative settings very much on the safe side, but as the fluid is cheap why not be extra safe?

I made a couple of calls, first I called Griggs who has the Mooney fuel cells now, they have no idea at all whether the Gami fuel will have any effect on their cells or not. Secondly I called Eagle fuel cells who I’ve had past experience with and respect, unfortunately the person who could speak to that issue is out and will return my call. Mooney fuel cells are made from Neoprene and Nylon, assumption mostly neoprene with nylon reinforcement where necessary. http://griggsaircraft.com/fabrication/mooney_bladders I did some looking at what the difference is between nitrile and neoprene, it seems nitrile is much more chemical resistant especially oils and solvents than neoprene If nitrile is reacting, then it seems neoprene may be worse? Maybe, time will tell. https://www.casertainc.com/blog/nitrile-vs-neoprene/

Yes, IF there is a problem, more will pop up, if not then they won’t. I hate to say it but I believe the early adopters are the true testers. My concern would be with fuel cells, if this stuff softens and swells O-rings, what’s it going to do to bladders? OK, so it doesn’t short term, what about long term as in years? I’ve seen swollen O-rings, every one I saw was also softened, so I assume the same here? I know your not supposed to reuse O-rings, but sometimes you have no choice, those that had swelled up slightly we would put in the freezer, then you could get them to fit the groove and reassemble, but I’m talking only slight swelling, not what I saw in the video.

I’ve patched several tanks, every time I patched the materials used were identical to the original sealant. A patch therefore shouldn’t be any weaker or more susceptible to solvent attack than the rest of the tank, if anything as it’s new sealant it ought to be better? If a patch worked for a significant time with any fuel, it should work for any fuel if you change fuels? Every issue with patches I’ve seen were basically from inadequate prep, whether from not digging out enough of the old, or making sure the old was completely clean (I was patching turbine tanks and Jet is oily), or old out of date sealant. If your sealant is old it may not ever cure correctly, cold temps can cause the same thing, if your mixing from cans it may be prudent to mix a test batch the day before, and keep some from your patch so you can be sure it cures completely.

I’m assuming of course that the recent issues aren’t real. If they are I’d assume the fuel will be voluntarily withdrawn, prior to the FAA taking action. That’s a LOT of assuming, from admittedly a non expert, heck my total knowledge of the GAMI fuel is second hand, I’ve never even seen it.

I suspect that if it’s $1 more than 100LL that very few will buy it if they can buy 100LL. Only way it will be a success is if 100 LL isn’t available. I would hope that before 100 LL is banned overall, that ADI will become widespread in STC’s, I would also suspect that on a Mooney to burn car gas that it might take an electric fuel pump running continuously, possibly not our current boost pump, but if 94 UL becomes widely available that it wouldn’t. Only the high compression or turbo motors need 100, the rest of the fleet doesn’t, pretty much anything with a Carburetor doesn’t need 100, not 100% but most. There used to be three grades of Avgas, then two, then for some reason only one. I assume the reason 80 Octane went away was profit motive as it was significantly cheaper. ‘I hope and think that the incoming Fed administration isn’t as Green as the outgoing, so I hope from a Fed perspective that 100 LL may stay for four years, much of that I think may be whatever AOPA’s position is, they have more pull with the FAA than you might think.

I have no idea how widespread this fuel is or how many aircraft use it, but I’d suspect that before long in California it will become very widespread as other Jurisdictions jump onto the ban lead bandwagon, but never having lived there that’s just my guess. What I’m getting at is that there are several independent third party testers, the users of the fuel, if in fact the fuel is causing issues this early after it’s adoption, then the number of aircraft that are having problems will increase with the number of users. Plus and this is just from my own experience with chemicals reacting with fuel tank sealant and paint, the longer the paint and sealant is exposed if there is a problem, it will get worse. I’m thinking that if in fact there is a problem, it will become pretty apparent with the passage of time and increase in users. Mooney’s aren’t the only aircraft with wet wings. In truth I think the only real test, or arguably the true acid test is to put it out there and see what happens, hopefully nothing. By the way, what’s this selling for per gl?