Marc_B

The problem is that according to GAMI there are NO issues. Everything seen was either "due to 100 low lead" or due to "inadequate construction and maintenance." Braly won't deny any of the findings in any of the Luvara videos, and admits that he doesn't feel they were tampered. Braly posts, "I do not accuse the sponsor of fabricating the results. I do dispute the significance of the results as applied to the real world." So we're at an impasse. You either feel that the aircraft having issues may be similar to your aircraft or you believe that "G100UL is a 100% drop in fuel without modification and invisible to the the pilot and the aircraft." The biggest problem with this, is that GAMI won't openly release what was tested or how they tested it. Their "hard data" released to the public/potential users is a series of garage YouTube videos that due to their methods are impossible to replicate even by them. The STC process is being left up to the owner and A&P/IA applying the STC to determine if this is safe and appropriate for your airframe IN ITS CURRENT STATE. GAMI denies any issue, but doesn't deny pointed testing showing detrimental effects and mirroring the issues currently being seen in the field... On one hand GAMI says "you don't need to change anything, it's 100% drop in" but when you run into issues GAMI says "oh you had substandard maintenance because the industry uses Viton materials and teflon lined hoses." Only the industry still has nitrile and Buna-N pervasive throughout the fleet and even in new products! So at the end of the day it's buyer beware. You might have issues and if you do it's going to be very costly to fix, and you're unlikely to get any support from GAMI (in the absence of legal action). My question for people with a view similar to @Pinecone, is how many problems should be required to admit there is an issue that needs to be addressed? Is the threshold a crash or fatality? Or would that still be due to "inadequate construction' and "poor maintenance"? This has devolved in a circular argument of talking past either other, and taking data points of field use and claiming these are all poorly maintained aircraft that are old and have had such a corrosive life with 100LL that's causing all the issues (despite not posting any proof that this was actually the case). With the comments from Braly online and with his Consent Decree Declaration, I don't think you're going to see any "hard data" coming from GAMI. But I suspect that you'll continue to hear that "it's all due to 100LL" and our "inadequate" Mooneys...and for me that just doesn't ring true. I'd really love to see G100UL go though the PAFI/EAGLE process.

Yes. 97 M20K.

For comparison for the mid-body (long body would have a further arm for the tail charlie weight so this would be even more accentuated)... 6 lbs in tail at station 197.5 = moment 1185 equivalent to: 10.7 lbs in avionics bay at 110.8 (78% increase) 12.4 lbs in baggage area at 95.5 (107% increase) 16.8 lbs in rear seat at 70.7 (179% increase)

I would definitely not use that descriptor. It's an incredibly small number of planes in the fleet that have used G100UL in total and it's yet to be determined if they've "not had any issues." Additionally, ~300-400 gallons per month is a tiny amount of the fuel sales in the area.

I find it interesting that an email of “interest” is suggested to speak more than the fact that only 2 FBOs in California carry G100UL with decreasing demand in the sales of 200-300 gal/month. I suspect the judge should see through this as well. “Interest” doesn’t equal demand.

Not a long body but my POH has instructions for calculating how much fixed ballast weight is recommended in the tail based on CG. Options for 6, 13, or 19 lbs. I suspect the long bodies are similar

Interesting! I haven’t heard this before and I’ve always treated the self test check as I would with any instruments especially on an IFR flight.

https://thunderbirdaircraft.com/ Or call Richard Simile at Thunderbird. In general I think he deals more with later model Mooneys.

I think the reason that wifi only vs cellular iPad doesn't matter for most of us, is that 1) we're talking about a very specific issue that overall is unlikely to happen, and 2) even if it did most have a phone that can be used as a hot spot vs just transition to the phone running ForeFlight/GP. But I've found that there are times when the wifi/bluetooth connectivity of my iPad is spotty and so I've lost the link at times with my iPad. I find my panel WAY more consistent with showing data overall. Sometimes my iPad goes in and out and you have to reset/unpair all connections, restart, and relink to get it squared away. When that happens the iPad usually is just turned off.

The one thing that always irked my feng shui is since they are a system, why on earth is the "scoreboard" on the top of a G5 a different order than the G3X? Why would you not have them the same? At least the G500TXi and the G5 show the same: lateral mode / AP / vertical mode.

I think what Terry was talking about was that Mooney is apprehensive of having paid orders/deposits taken while awaiting a "lot number" to be filled. But having MSCs put in orders for parts to reach a quota to turn out a lot "seems" to be happening. But the higher the minimum order number is, the less likely to have enough MSCs requesting that part and hence to meet that min. Previously it's been said that Mooney didn't want the liability of owners/shops prepaying for parts (i.e. no back springs) that might take an extended lead time to fill, as the uncertainty of long term plans/viability might be a concern. With outside vendor parts (i.e. no back spring), Mooney may finally be open to allowing other shops, such as LASAR, to take the deposit and become the middle man between the customer and the vendor. I suspect there are several parts that may fit this bill, including these fuel sight gauges from Rochester Sensors.

You have to use the HP of your engine as well as the proper coefficient for your compression ratio. Even then it’s probably not perfect but close. I scribbled these for a 252 buddy talking about FF on the LOP side. One is for 252 (210hp) and the other is for Encore (220hp).

Farming also uses Rochester Sensors for liquid level magnetic tank gauges for fuel, diesel, etc. Most of the gauges you can find retail for around $30, but they're typically labeled E, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, F. So a bulk order from Rochester would likely be relatively inexpensive per part, but certainly that would depend on your total order quantity.

Skip, do you happen to know the face number to part number matrix used for the various Mooneys? @flyboy0681 mentioned M20J showing back with "5404S02105 2822" ...is the front dial face 5-2105?? @NickG showed pic for 5-2100 face for Ovation corresponding to "5404S02100 4803" on back of dial face. On my M20K the face has dial number 5-1932. Seems like this "might" imply that part number could be "5404S01932"??? How many different dial face numbers are in use with the wing sight gauges across the fleet? M20K IPC has two part numbers for dial for this: 880024-001 and -003. I believe this corresponds to 5-2100 (-001) and 5-1932 (-003)... for reference this was in IPC section 57-30-01. EDIT: looking at Lasar website...here's Mooney's PN vs dial face number 880024-001 5-1215 880024-003 5-1932 880024-005 5-2105 880024-007 5-02512 880024-009 5-2100

I wonder if that's necessarily the case...i.e. I suspect it may be more accurate to say Rochester only sells in bulk. If you had the correct Rochester model number and called to order 1000 or so dials, I suspect you would be able to order them from Rochester or one of their vendors. I previously called Century Springs about the speed brake springs and they were all set to allow me to place an order but said minimum order $800. Therein lies the rub with Mooney. A MSC puts in an order for 10 dials, Mooney calls Rochester who says you're about 990 short (WAG number), so Mooney says "on backorder" until the magic number of parts orders received. GONE are the days where Mooney orders bulk from a vendor for an order of 2 from a MSC. I suspect a more logical pathway may be to convince a place like Aircraft Spruce, McFarlane, or Univair that a market for "part number xxx" exists so that they could buy the minimum number of parts and have available for special order. The RUB is that it wouldn't be a Mooney certified part as it didn't come from Mooney and get a rubber stamp. So you'd need the proper Rochester part number and would receive a Rochester part. Does anyone have contacts at aircraft parts warehouses like Spruce that could explore ordering a minimum purchase order from Rochester?

Makes me wonder...what happens to engines with catastrophic failures or that were involved in incidents such as this? Does this get returned as a "core" with a purchase of a new/reman engine and go back into the pool of parts? I'm not sure I completely understand the testing process for reman engine parts to begin with...

I think ForeFlight only shows a Weight vs CG chart and when you set up the aircraft profile you define the envelope by specifying weight/CG points for each of the fore, aft, and Max gross weight points. Foreflight is calculating all the individual moments of your load out and the total CG in the background. That's how you can enter fuel burn and it will give you start fuel weight/cg, landing fuel weight/cg, and empty fuel weight/cg points within the envelope. If you had to do this all by hand, sometimes using a weight vs total moment chart is faster. i.e. you just multiply weight x station and add or subtract that out from the total moment, rather than having to figure out how it changes the CG with your change and plotting it on the chart.

Read up on CG and MOMENT. Moment is force x distance. With regards to aircraft, the distances/stations are defined by a reference datum (i.e. distance in inches from the firewall...but not all reference datums are the same from manufacturer to manufacturer...)The CG (Center of Gravity) is the balance point of the aircraft or where the Center of Mass is located. I think some manufacturers use weight vs CG chart and some use weight vs Moment charts. Different ways of showing related data. Both have total weight on the Y axis, and the difference is the CG vs total Moment (CG*weight) on the X-axis. The first chart (ITEM WEIGHT CHART) is just an easy way to calculate individual Moments (weight x station) for certain key loads (i.e pilot/pax weight, fuel weight, baggage, etc.) using the FIXED stations. Each line corresponds to a specific station...pilot seat, rear pax seat, fuel, baggage, etc. Basically go up y-axis to total weight of what you're calculating, trace horizontally to the load line, then trace down to x-axis to see what the Moment would be for that load at that station. Going though the idea of how to define CG limits, what happens out of limits and the risk, how your G-loads translates into magnified forces on structures that affects this...can all get rather complicated as deep in the weeds as you want to get.

The last time I renewed it was 18.61/month for Pilot Express (paid up front for 6 months) and “music showcase” at $5/month (for 12 months paid up front). XM is so finicky about their subscriptions. I wish it was easier to get a good rate and keep it….without the calls to international customer service.

You may be stuck having to buy the entire assembly, but you could give them a call and see if they'd break it down and sell individual parts... I don't have a M20C parts catalog, but this listing below looks like hit had expanded parts number for individual components. But before using those, I'd recommend confirming with a proper parts catalog. https://www.texasairsalvage.com/main_view.php?editid1=268036 P/N: 640206-011 Alt P/N: 640206-11 MFR/Title: Mooney - Duct-Cabin Air Interior (See Details) Item from a 1967 Mooney M20G Details: Knob missing that attaches to shutter. 3 mounting holes cracked (See Photos). Alts: S6844-605 KNOB BUSHING QTY 2 640213-000 BRACKET 640210-000 PIN 640210-501 PIN 640208-009 SHUTTER 640208-015 SHUTTER QTY 2 640208-003 ARM QTY 3 640208-000 VALVE CABIN AIR 640208-007 CASE ASSEMBLY 40208-005 LEVER 640226-005 BUTTERFLY QTY 2 640226-003 DUCT LH 640226-004 DUCT RH

@WheelPantsOff I sent you a message. Sounds like the lead tech at IAI was severely injured over the summer and still hasn’t returned to work. So they’re working to get some coverage and get caught up. Sounds like he was responsible for all the repair station work and it’s really put a wrench in things. That’s too bad as I worked closely with Kenneth on my annunciator as well as voltage regulators. But hopefully they’ll get things back up in the near future.

I think if no one contested the ruling then it would become final. Of course the plaintiff contested... tentatively scheduled 3/12/2025 at 2:30PM...

The saga continues...sigh https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/judge-defers-ceh-g100ul-ruling/

If you care to read the entire tentative ruling. The movement for unleaded fuel isn't gone, and I'm sure this will be actively pushed and revisited by the plaintiff. But perhaps this gives a little pause to start working on a viable and safe unleaded fuel option. "The Court is concerned that the Consent Judgment turned a case about warnings into a case about forcing a fundamental industry shift through the means of a consent decree, particularly here where regulatory bodies and industry groups are currently addressing the same issue— transitioning to the broad-based use of Avgas with lower levels of lead." 59955118_03_04_2025_Tentative_Ruling.pdf

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/court-decision-on-g100ul-use-expected-wednesday/ https://gama.aero/ceh-docs/