A64Pilot

60” MP really isn’t that much boost, it’s only 15 PSI roughly, if I do the Math correctly, still drinking morning Coffee and brain hasn’t engaged fully yet. My Motorhome for example pulls 30 lbs of boost, but automotive boost is PSIG so need to add the 15 PSI atmospheric to get to PSIA that aircraft indicate. So my Motorhome pulls 90” boost, yes it’s a Diesel and therefore not constrained by detonation margins because detonation in a properly operating Diesel isn’t possible. But it’s a Motorhome not any kind of performance motor. Tractor pull motors can run as high as 300 lbs of boost, what’s that, something over 9,000” MP? I wonder what the Reno racers pull? I would assume at least three times what the Military P-51’s saw? No idea really

You could have just said page 24. I saw no mention of ADI. It’s my understanding that ADI in US Military aircraft didn’t become a “thing” until they had motors capable of pulling enough boost to require it even with the higher Octane fuel available, ref the below link on the 4360 engine ops. Before then engine design was driven by available fuel. Look under wet or dry T/O and climb, ADI reduced fuel flow by 500 lbs an hour yet increased HP by 250 HP. They didn’t have to have ADI with I think 115/145 Octane fuel but it saved fuel and increased power. Assuming they had the torque available, the big motors had gear box limits like turboprops do. I’ve read but do not know of course that the engine in the early model BF-109’s wouldn’t benefit from 100 Octane, it just didn’t make enough boost that it could, like the R-1340 for instance, being an old design engine, designed before there was 100 Octane you can run one at the same boost on 87 Octane car gas as you can with 100 Octane. In short the Military use of ADI wasn’t to enable lower Octane fuel, but to enable increased power, on engines that could handle more power, which is honestly the same thing said differently but that took Turbo’s, Superchargers or sometimes TurboSuperchargers capable of pulling boost in excess of what even high Octane fuel could handle, and gearboxes etc that could take higher power. https://enginehistory.org/Operations/R-4360Ops/r-4360ops1.shtml Our use would be to keep current power on fuel that’s only 6 Octane lower, that’s a very mild and very safe use of ADI

So, what’s the plan for you California guys when they outlaw 100LL then? Hope isn’t a plan. FAA says G100UL is perfectly safe and viable for ALL piston aircraft?, George says it’s readily available. What do you think some Judge that has zero knowledge of GA is going to rule? Do they have a choice? Just asking as I’m no Lawyer but if I understand they may be only one way this could go, unless the FAA steps in and temporarily blocks the sale or similar. I believe the number of States that follow California CARB wise is 17? Think they will follow California in banning 100LL? Is that enough market share for the refining of 100LL to no longer be viable? I have no idea but think this could get ugly, I hope not, but hope isn’t a plan

Mind telling me which of the 106 pages cover it?

Longest flight I’ve ever had was about 14 hours, in a crop duster without an autopilot. You learn to deal with it.

A few points. Max range would be most likely in a piston at min drag, which is best glide. Turbines have unusual fuel burn profiles so can be at much higher throttle due to terrible part throttle efficiency. There is one one best mixture for best BSFC and that’s not lean as much as it can stand, just as you can be too rich, you can be too lean, I have read that -25F LOP is the sweet spot but I don’t have any way to verify that. Disregarding ground effect which is at or less than one wingspan high, higher is better, reason is thinner air = less drag, but you burn fuel to get there so unless long legs going higher can burn more fuel. The pumping losses from a slightly closed throttle is small, but it is real, just don’t think you could measure it. Likely the best would be very high, WOT largely because even that is very low MP and RPM at the bottom of the green and an indicated airspeed close to best glide. Just for a point my J LOP at 23 squared, 8 GPH gives about 135 kts true. 64 gls is 8 hours to exhaustion which is 1080 NM. That’s without optimizing anything and as she gets lighter burning fuel she should speed up, so if someone is truly trying for Max range above all else usually altitude and or airspeed and % power change along the route due to decreased weight. It gets complicated, the only time I made a science project out of it was planning to self deploy AH-64’s to Europe, we could snap on four 230 gl of Aux tanks fuel on the wing weapon pylons giving us 1295 gls of fuel. We never self deployed to Europe, but we needed a plan just in case.

If you practice the maneuver be sure to “freeze” the controls for say 2 sec after pulling the power as even Superman has a reaction time. Secondly if you just barely make it, it’s unlikely you really would due to a real windmilling prop sucks a lot of energy where an idling engine won’t or sucks a lot less anyway, it may even provide a bit of thrust, reason so many have the idle set so low to help prevent float. Problem with climbing at best glide is that if the engine quits, you will be below best glide by the time you react you have lost speed. Personally I have a field in mind just to the left of a house on one end and just a field on the other end. Years ago the house had a V tail crash in their front yard and the two inside burned, so I’m sure they don’t want another crashed airplane, so I don’t overfly their house. Very often if an engine quits soon after take off the pilot stalls and of course lose control often being severely injured or worse. I just accept that the impossible turn is just that and hang my hat on that most forced landings in fields etc the people walk away.

I suspect there will be Lawsuits, but also strongly suspect that there are no assets to get, that the principals are well covered. A few Mooney’s may have to get reseals, but a Cirrus may need new wings? I hope there will be no AD of it there is it will be limited to inspections

They will have to, the longer they wait the worse it will get, then when they take action it’s always to overreact as in unlikely I think that we will see any more fuel approval STC’s. If G100UL is a problem and I believe it is, but I don’t have any hard data, but if it is the longer it’s sold the worse the problem will get. Sure it will “eat” the sealant in the old tanks first, those that may have been close to leaking anyway. There have been examinations of wet wing tanks that have had G100UL in them and the sealant was noticeable softened so much so that moderate pressure from the borescope left depressions. I believe given enough time that it would fail even newer sealant. They as in Gami know this I think and are hanging their hat on the theory that the components that are not in contact with the fuel will retain integrity, that was their explanation on O-rings anyway. The fact that there have been so many leaks so fast seems in my opinion to indicate that there is a problem that will get worse. But it does make one wonder why the Embry Riddle fleet didn’t have problems? How long as in months did they burn the fuel? My 2C was the whole interest was on the engines, nobody looked at the airframe, they were too absorbed on engines. I was in the middle of Certification of an aircraft when Gulfstream crashed their G-650. You want find this anywhere I don't think but FAA headquarters blamed Atl ACO for inadequate supervision, (internally). https://flightsafety.org/asw-article/fatal-flight-test/ Slowed us way down, we had to repeat some tests and others added to the Cert program just to make sure all blocks were checked. So when the FAA reacts. I expect them to over react. Oh, and another thing you wont see in writing is that the FAA was given a date by Political leaders that the G-650 WILL be certified by. Gulfstream had serious Political pull.

I had a similar experience with the Prototype S2R-H80 coming back from Oshkosh at 9500 ft when the Gas Generator let go, as in blew apart. The Avia 106” three blade is a dual acting prop, which means it takes oil pressure to both increase and decrease pitch, unlike a Hartzell that a spring drives it to feather, so if oil pressure is lost it goes to feather. It had a Walter E-11 engine as the GE was in Certification and the Walter was identical in form, fit and function. So as the oil pump is driven off of the compressor section my prop stuck at cruise pitch. I called Grand Strand approach I think it was and declared an Emergency and asked where the nearest airport was, he said you just over flew it. I was able to do a 180 from 9,500 ft, fly one mile, enter downwind and land, even made the turn off at mid field. So rate of descent of I guess over 3,000 FPM? Anyone who has flown turbines knows if you pull one to idle the prop goes so flat it’s a hard decel, and a Crop Duster with a 106” prop is worse. Disassembled it, put it on a truck and shipped it home.

I had a whole response typed but decided to delete it. It’s pretty simple really, if the average Mooney is flying around with decades old wings that don’t leak, but upon putting in a new fuel they start leaking, it’s a pretty tough case to try to make that the fuel isn’t at least a contributing factor. Fuel leaks are an airworthiness issue unquestionably. Several aircraft reporting fuel leaks after beginning use of the fuel is in anyone’s opinion logically enough reason to suspend the sale of the fuel, but the real serious issue in my little mind is Cirrus being concerned that it has affected wing structure. I can’t imagine a worse scenario for a fuel than that. Even if it were only Mooney’s that started leaking, I don’t have personal knowledge but have heard of Beech, Cessna, and Cirrus aircraft leaking. Oh, and an RV Homebuilt I’m astonished the FAA hasn’t pulled the plug because of safety concerns I can only think there are two possibilities. 1. G100UL is causing fuel leaks and in the Cirrus may have caused structural damage 2. The fuel is fine, nothing wrong and there is a Conspiracy to include Cirrus that is slandering the fuel. I can’t think of a third. Is there one?

Having worked directly with the FAA ACO, MIDO etc. I can attest that organizations like AOPA really do have their ear and they do pay attention to them. What surprised me s little is that Type clubs , like the Bonanza Assn etc have a strong voice as well. So sure call or write your Congressman etc., but my take was you may get more traction with voicing your concerns with AOPA, with I think the emphasis being airworthiness concerns over paint staining. Just my opinion, but the FAA reacts to complaints, I’ve seen it and had to respond to the FAA ref them on occasion.

Most bladders, Mooney ones anyway are made out of Nitrile, that’s the stuff the O-rings that the G100UL swells up. Mine are. Biggest issue I see is that I bet Lunch that anything that eats up fuel tank sealer in a week or two, will eat up pretty much anything given enough time, Bladders, fuel lines, pump seals etc. Fuel tank sealer once cured is impervious to almost anything, that’s why it can hold different kinds of fuel and fuel additives etc. What has not been addressed so far as I know is what’s the health effects of exposure to the components of G100UL? I know what Acetone, MEK and several other petroleum based solvents is, but what about what’s in G100UL? I’d bet Lunch that some of those chemicals have health effects that are worse than the lead in 100LL, but apparently as long as it gets rid of lead, brews of Carcinogens is OK?

I have been flying a long time and with the exception of when I flew in Canada I have never paid any kind of airport or other use fee, beyond taxes of course. I have paid fees in Central and S America too now that I think about it. Why do NY airports need to collect fees if every other State I’ve flown in doesn’t? But besides that what shouldn’t happen and I can’t understand why it is, but why is ADSB data publicly available? How does that increase safety? For those that don’t understand basically that’s the FAA mantra if you will, increase safety, and it should be, but if something they do doesn’t increase safety, then there is a logical question of why are they doing it? Or another point if ADSB data is, why isn’t all the toll roads etc data not? Why am I allowed to look up an N number and get all the owners information, but not for an automobile tag? Why is our privacy in our automobiles protected but we are not in our aircraft?

It could be done relatively easily, essentially your just reducing power, but implementation would be a Bitch, beside Certification of the hardware and God forbid if there is Software involved, but every different Model of Aircraft woukd have to be throughly Test Flown and most every chart rewritten in the POH and likely pretty significant reductions in gross weight due to not meeting required climb gradients at lower power etc. Be BIG bucks by the time it was done, Then there is a more sophisticated system possible involving knock sensors etc that would only reduce power as necessary, but as you would have to worst case power reductions with charts and Gross Weight etc I don’t know what you would gain, but I’m sure it would cost even more $$$, and as power output would vary with conditions I’m not sure the FAA would buy off on it. Certification has a way of making easy and simple HARD, but when done correctly you don’t get surprises I think your question is very related myself, any way to get us an unleaded fuel is I think worth looking into, maybe we couldn’t Certify it, but someone could.

You flip the manual switch on or reduce power, but I wouldn’t be surprised knowing Rob Roberts that the pump switch over wouldn’t be automatic, with an annunciation that the primary has failed. Arguing what if is non sensical, there are literally several components that if they failed result in immediate engine failure. The safest response is always don’t fly. But your missing the point, assuming the pronoun people take away our lead, what’s your answer? From what I can tell ADI is pretty much the only answer, unless you have one?

Starts like a Garrett, so I guess it’s single spool?

If you have to ask

If you get to fly heavy as in very performance limited aircraft for awhile you learn that maneuvering especially is an exercise in energy management. Altitude and airspeed are interchangeable. Bob Hoover had it down in his Rockwell flight demos, he even did them in the single engine 114 which wasn’t a good performing airplane. Having said that my preference is airspeed, reason is if an engine quits, first thing that happens is the prop governor trying to maintain RPM flattens the prop to min pitch, that’s a big speed brake, and or instinct is to maintain altitude, the two rapidly reduce airspeed. Go out and try it, just pull power in a hard climb at altitude and see how rapidly speed decays. The best decision Sully made in my opinion was to not try the impossible turn, the FAA tried to hammer him on it, “proving” it was possible in the Sim, but by the time he diagnosed the problem, then went through the mental process of accepting it he probably couldn’t have made it. That was in my opinion the one good thing in the movie, it showed that well. If Sully couldn’t react instantly, well I doubt I will either. In the belief that nobody, myself included will react instantly and will find themselves close or into a stall if climbing at Vx I like to carry a little extra speed hoping that by the time I recognize the problem and react I’ll find myself close to best glide speed, which i’d nothing else gives me enough speed for a flare to reduce vertical speed to close to zero before the forced landing, if your close to stall, there is no flare and you will hit hard. Besides it the only way I can keep cyl head temps down, Cyl head temps are what limit my climb gradient, I’m talking above the first 1000 ft or so, but once they get higher than I like they won’t come down until cruise, but climbing faster keeps them from ever getting up to begin with. I’m a firm believer that Cyl head temps directly correspond the cylinder stress. Now ALL this is opinion of course and well we are all allowed our opinions, but I like a little extra airspeed up to final of course, on short final I fly slower than recommended to prevent float as I’m often flying into and out of short grass fields. A little extra speed gives me time to think.

Our Tesla won’t at least with FSD engaged, I haven’t tried to run a light manually driving, I think it won’t, but haven’t tried. If a sign isn’t where it’s supposed to be it won’t recognize it though, for instance being a fly-in neighborhood our roads are taxiways, as such the stop signs are well off to the side and real close to the ground for wing clearance, the Tesla ignores them. Most outside drivers, Fedex and the like also don’t see them Just very recently FSD has gotten VERY good, I still don’t trust it, but it’s light years better than it was just a year ago. Cyber cab is supposed to go live in Austin this Summer. I don’t think it’s good enough myself yet, but we will see. It’s real close though, maybe Cybercab will get special software?

My aircraft is Registered in Montanna under an LLC just because I don’t like flying around broadcasting my identity. Montanna has a lot going for it, just too cold for me or I would live there. When I was playing bush flying I was a member of their Recreational Aircraft Foundation. Worth looking into for those so inclined, I like their mission https://theraf.org

Fl uses Flightaware to enforce tax, my problem with that is Flight aware gets a lot of their data from people who build Rasberry Pi receivers and upload it. Is that a credible source for a Government identity to use? They should not use a Commercial entity that gets its data from questionable sources, should only use FAA sources in my opinion.

I bought my airplane with the inflatable seal. I notice no noise, can’t tell any difference with it inflated or not, so maybe it just seals great as is I guess. When I bought mine the squeeze bulb was dry rotted, but it’s cheap and many are on Amazon, thankfully the coiled hose wasn’t deteriorated at all and neither is the seal. It does hold pressure, it’s not leaking down, and I’m not deaf

Some people like to have very precise numbers, but I can tell you that in truth that “close is good enough” Actually when you go out and fly an instrumented airplane you won’t get good solid repeatable numbers even though your certain CG and weight are identical. Then if you do a representable sample of aircraft like you should but the FAA will not allow, your scatter factor is even larger. CG in particular for glide ratio affects the numbers more than you might affect. I think Mooney was smart for picking a number and sticking with it, because we need one number to remember in case of need we obviously can’t pull out a chart and determine an exact number and I doubt many can fly a precise exact speed anyway, not without concentrating on just that one parameter. I can’t anyway. Over 20 years ago when the D model Apache came out one of its pages on the MFD was a performance page that constantly calculated all performance numbers and updated them for density altitude, gross weight etc. I’d suspect modern airliners do the same? Do any of the glass cockpits in our aircraft do that yet? When you were flying right at the edge it was nice to have.

Heres my 2c, never climb at vx, except to transition directly to vy, and vy should be avoided as too slow, why? Nobody I don’t care how slick you are if the engine quits at vy your going to find yourself either in or very close to stall, at that point your have to do the thing your brain is screaming not to, to point the nose at the ground to break a stall, but you don’t have the altitude for that so at best you crash flat in a “mush” close to stall with high rate of descent. Vx to stall is only 6 kts with flaps up. Why do I say Vy is too slow too? because a 60 degree angle of bank takes from memory a min of 1.4 times stall speed, and any normal human will lose some speed if one quits, you might want some maneuverability if it does quit and that means as a min 1.4 times stall. That’s somewhere around 88 kts, you do climb flaps up right? so use flaps up stall speed, my J I think at max gross thats 63 kts 88 kts is all over Vy, so you need to be a little faster if you accept that your not Super Pilot and you will freeze for a very few seconds before you accept that it has quit. So if your climbing at mid 90’s kts and it quits you may have a decent chance of maneuvering to make either the impossible turn or that field off your left or fight shoulder after losing five kts or so before you get your act together. Personally I use 100 kts, I like even numbers and a little extra fudge on my cake. Oh and the engine doesn’t get hot as fast too.