Marc_B

TLDR: Per Braly, no fuel is perfect and all the issues seen with G100UL have been seen with 100LL. He reports 120-130 aircraft using G100UL and reports <10 with issues. He encourages replacing 100LL with G100UL to end lead use and not jeopardize FAA government grant assurances. Per Luvara, of the limited aircraft using the fuel there have been at least 25 aircraft with issues; previous compatibility issues noted in his videos; no compatibility testing data published from GAMI to review; states Mr. Braly misrepresents aromatic content of 100LL and the mean aromatic content in 100LL is nationally 7.25%. Showed data regarding elastomer and o-ring swell; raised questions about materials compatibility with fabric aircraft, fuel lube, and sealant. My impression from the peanut gallery: I feel that Mr. Braly's presentation was more in line with advertising rather than data delivery, and I don't think he adequately explained the issues seen in the aircraft of note. Rather the explanation given was that "all the issues seen already occur with 100LL." I also find it interesting that his suggestion was that airports can eliminate leaded fuel legally if they offer G100UL in its place without jeopardizing government grants. Mr. Braly's presentation also wasn't up to date and had multiple typos. ("G00UL" I guess is the new G1000UL.). I also find it interesting that national 100LL aromatic content is MUCH lower than the 29% that is frequently quoted by Mr. Braly. This appeared to be an information session only; no questions were fielded from anyone either presenting or commenting. Mr. Braly's and Mr. Luvara's presentations were then followed by a presentation on lead data in the area and showed interesting view of if aviation lead is actually driving any increase in lead exposure to the region. I've included several of the slides from this presentation. Certainly interesting to see some of the data surrounding RHV lead levels. I'm not going to summarize this, but it was interesting presentation.

@hazek I can't tell you what RPM it should drop off, but according to the service manual if appropriately set it should extinguish at 26.5 V. (This is from service manual for a M20K, but the annunciators are all IAI and the logic should be similar).

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/jpt_13-21885.php @skykrawler I've heard that these have a sticky back and aren't really made to use repeatedly. They're also sticky enough it might pull off paint if not careful.

Wouldn't filling up mains, then aux allow pretty much the same? Or better yet, mains then aux on one side, same on the other, then come back and top off the aux again on the first side then do the same for the other side...

I'm scratching my head with most of the posts that come out of Ada. Does anyone know the background with the Cessna 421 fuel selector? I gather that likely -14 o-rings used originally?/commonly?, but at least one shop says it's better to use -13 to have less issues? Of course Mr. Braly "cooks" the results. It sounded like he used increasing amounts of added toluene until he could reliably reproduce failure...yet even with this, G100UL has higher aromatic concentration than his "100LL + 20% toluene". Interesting that he commented that with -14 viton o-rings that he didn't see failure. I take this to imply that -14 o-rings actually work in the application, but the failure is seen with induced elastomer swell. Certainly it's no surprise that G100UL would fail with this, as xylene contributes to o-ring swell more than toluene. I've never gotten an answer to the question of aromatic content of G100UL...although I know that Mr. Braly knows each of the DHA in order to "stamp" as conforming. SDS shows xylene 40% and toluene 5%. It was clear in Mr. Luvara's videos that even "uncooked" o-rings markedly swell with G100UL. Certainly fits with the higher aromatic content of the fuel and the use of xylene rather than toluene. It's been a strange story of G100UL, CEH lawsuits, strange/misguided "advertising", and a weird blame on "high aromatic 100LL". Truth is truly stranger than fiction.

FWIW, I have Monroy long range tanks (installed/signed off by Jose Monroy according to the log), and the necks are installed under the skin with the cap flush with the skin. I've not seen any applications where it was mounted above the skin.

@Justin Schmidt Call Dan Riesland at LASAR; 707-263-0412. I'm sure he'd know and be able to send you want you needed.

FWIW, I have a Concorde battery installed in 2019 and still going strong. But there IS a process if you have a failed capacity check on a battery that you can do a conditioning charge and retest. I wonder if your shop just decided that a single fail = new battery every time? Here is the link for the Concorde RG CMM that describes capacity test (page 19) and conditioning (page 20-21): https://batterymanagement.concordebattery.com/BatteryDocs/5-0171.pdf Here is a good video describing the capacity testing and Concorde recommendations: PS. This is definitely a video that you NEED to watch in at least 1.5x speed!!! SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SLLLLLLLOOOOOOWWWWWW.

Last time it was $420 for me.

Follow-up. Interestingly enough my shop said when they swapped the GTX (with a loaner unit) output was still low. But swapping antenna fixed it. So evidently antennas do go bad… Funny that the three things mentioned in the manual are antenna, ground and coax for intermittent or weak transmission. Duh! Ha ha ha

Gravity applied...

Talked to shop this morning. Said altitude is coming from the GTN to the xpdr so whatever source the GTN is using sends it to the transponder = altitude from the G500, but if that were to stop working the G5 would still be feeding the GTN and it would pass the altitude to the XPDR. “I do get all the A/C information at the test set however the power level is about half of what is acceptable to pass the test. I am thinking that most likely you have a bad GTX330ES, however, without another unit to swap out I cannot completely confirm that.” Sounds like repair vs exchange is most economical option. GTX335 would need to tap into HSDB, remote mount GTX345 could adopt GDL88 HSDB in tail. But both of these would be more install costs plus at least double equipment cost. Any difference between an exchange vs repair from Garmin? Any other potential causes of intermittent reception likely caused by low output signal besides faulty unit? Update: Garmin’s flat rate repair $1125, exchange $1350 for the GTX330ES. Still cheaper than 335/345 + install.

Gee Bee silicone seal https://www.csobeech.com/GeeBee-DoorSeal.html Brown T-9088 https://www.brownaircraft.com/T-9088-Sponge-Rubber-Bulb-Seal-p/t-9088.htm Bob Fields Inflatable seal https://aerocessories.aero/collections/mooney-collection/products/mooney-all-variants Aircraft Door Seals https://www.aircraftdoorseals.com/door-seal-entry-door-mooney-m20-series-ads-m1201/ Door Cotter pin AN380-2-2 (MS24665-132) Washer AN960-10 Washer AN960-10L PREVIOUS CLIPS FROM THE HALLS OF WISDOM: The thin plastic with the foam core was probably BA-189-139. It is softer than the T-9088. But the problem with it is that the foam deteriorates over time and the seal loses its resiliency. Brown Aircraft discontinued it (I called them) and Mooney switched to the T-9088. The T-9088 works but the positioning is critical. The bottom is the hardest to get right because there are no latches or pins to hold the door tightly closed, the door hold-open arm is located on the bottom edge, and the curvature of the door frame corners does not match the curvature of the door. I had to remove the right seat and lay inside with the door closed and use a flashlight and a Sharpie to mark the proper location for the seal on the bottom. Along the top and sides, the centerline of the bulb should be placed on the line of rivets fastening the inner and outer door panels together. A trick Don Maxwell uses if there is still an area (usually along the bottom) where the seal isn't tight enough even though it is positioned properly is to cut off a piece of the flat "tail" from a left over piece and glue that under the door seal to shim it a bit. I had to use that in one spot and it worked great. 3M yellow super weatherstrip adhesive works well and gives you a bit if working time to get the seal properly positioned. You need to get the old glue off with 3m general purpose adhesive remover. The problem with the 3M yellow adhesive is that many people use way too much of it. The instructions say to apply a thin coat. Also, applying more adhesive over old without removing the old causes buildups. You have to spray on the adhesive remover and then let it soak a while to soften the adhesive. 3M Stripe Off Wheel Adhesive Remover Eraser Wheel https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00063VT0G/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_Cbp2Ab6DE434H?th=1 https://mooneyspace.com/topic/48744-window-and-door-seals/ SKIP: It took me three tries to figure it out. In general, using the Brown T-9088 seal, I applied it so that the centerline of the bulb was on the rivet line where the inner and outer door skins are attached on the top and sides. The bottom is the hardest and the trick is to follow the contours of the door frame and not the door because they are not the same - especially the radii of the corners. When done, you can test the fit by closing the door on a piece of typing paper. The paper should be very difficult to pull out. If not, reposition the seal or shim it as required. (You can cut a piece off the tail of an unused piece of seal to use as a shim. The yellow 3M glue has enough open time to allow repositioning. And don’t use too much glue. A thin coat on each surface is all you need. Clean the seal off with denatured alcohol first to get a good bond. Then leave the door shut for a day or two. Initially it will be hard to close, but the seal will take a set and mold to the space between the door and the frame and eventually the door will be easy to close and won’t leak. Schllc: On the third door seal I installed, I figured out using painters tape to place the seal and a flashlight from the inside to see where it wasn’t touching, illustrates where to move the seal for the glue portion of the process. Any gaps after that I use the 1/4” weatherstripping from Home Depot to close them, and . it works really well. I am sure with enough time and patience you could get the seal placed perfectly, but after four days of trial and error I gave in and cheated with the weatherstripping. For what it’s worth, geebee’s seals are really nice but they do not compress much at all [using older profile] and I had an issue with the hinge side of my door barely fitting the factory seal. It would just not accommodate the silicone seal. It worked wonderfully on the baggage door. https://mooneyspace.com/topic/50322-pirep-gee-bee-aeroproducts-baggage-door-seal/ GeeBee Aeroproducts: Remove all old cement with toluene mask both edges of seal apply clear silicone cement, let dry apply clear silicone cement to seal in 3/5 inch increments and dry with hairdryer. cure 18/24 hours before closure. There are two ways to install the same seal : apply with no stretch apply with a little pull This will change the dimension of the seal . Ref Beechcraft large gap, bulb on edge of door close tolerance, bulb on inside edge I hope this helps you understand how the seal and tolerance fit together. You can thin the Mooney seal by pulling it taunt during installation. Cement a small section first and let cure before installing the rest of the seal. start at the bottom and buttthe ends together. Silicone will not shrink with temperature or age . https://www.csobeech.com/GeeBee-DoorSeal.html

@Schllc and @PT20J...we need a sticky with all of your pearls of wisdom like this! or at least a way to "earmark" posts! edit: I think we need door seal sticky thread since this has confounded and perplexed almost all who have ventured into this gooey unknown! pics, words of wisdom, what works/doesn't, pros and cons.

G500TXi with integrated AHRS/ADC.

I have it linked to GTN 750Xi; no flags on GTN or on LRU page. Software 8.04 in the GTX330ES, and 3.42 in the GDL88.

@donkaye, MCFI It’s interesting that the shop in Greeley said it should have single out (1090ES) and dual in. So when they did the upgrade they turned off UAT out.

Have GTX330ES and GDL88, and I’ve recently been getting notified that my Mode C is intermittent. The GTX is the oldest avionics piece in my panel but I’ve never had an issue and all the cockpit checks are good. Software most recent, LRU page on GTN shows all green. No errors logged. I've checked antennas, connections and having trouble getting into my avionics shop as they’re backed up. Went to another shop and went through basics and nothing obvious. Garmin said it’s rare to have the CL105 antennas go bad and the intermittent faults are usually software, terrain/antenna masking, or potentially frequency drift. Shop was going to use another GTX330ES off the shelf to switch out as a step but unit needed to be sent to Garmin due to malfunction. Anything I can or should check? Can GTX units be bench checked? Send to Garmin for repair vs change out equipment with newer model…seems more involved than just change unit as a change would likely be trade GDL/GTX for a 345 which would need wiring and install time. What’s the typical lifespan of a GTX 330ES? PAPR usually has shown SDA fail and reports similar to below.

I guess the song is right...maybe you can always go around...even after a gear up!

I've had issues with the threaded rod within the static wick being "welded" in place over time and then making it difficult to remove, break off and then require an entirely new static wick base to be riveted. Any recommendations or benefit for using some type of corrosion preventative when installing wicks? i.e. ACF50 or Super Lube or some other grease/corrosion preventative?

It's a catch 22...if you're just after ability to log & count towards currency, the existing FAA BATDs work fine. But my thought was from the standpoint of using simulation to do the things that you wouldn't or couldn't do in real life (or couldn't do as easily/rapidly. i.e. equipment failures, partial panel, GPS outages, quirky approaches, planned malfunctions, etc. You could set up scenarios to get multiple repetitions and alter minor changes in a way that wouldn't be as easily done in the cockpit. The more realistic training scenarios I'm referring to may not count towards "log time" but would absolutely contribute to building proficiency. Here is where I feel that there is a HUGE opportunity for aviation training that could be filled with existing technology, but leveraged towards more than just a single pilot purchasing $5-7k of equipment and only using self guided practice.

I think we can all agree that single pilot IFR in IMC is a challenge, and it takes more than a casual approach to be actually proficient. Given the equipment can vary from one aircraft to another, proficiency definitely isn't universal either. I know that the CFII's on the forum have their typical flow, and an IPC has criteria. But curious to see everyone's "list" of the tasks and proficiency items they routinely train... Hand flying: if you're not good at handflying, then IFR (especially without an autopilot) will be difficult even on a good day. Exercising your ability to hold heading and altitudes with precision is a foundation of flight and basic requirement of IFR. Automation: knobology and fluid use of the equipment in your aircraft using GPS with autopilot; understanding "gotchas" and quick recognition of issues; understanding failure points and what those do/look like. Navigation: knobology and fluid use of the GPS to load approaches, sequence flight director, and ensure your GPS is directing what you think it should. Communication: frequent flights utilizing ATC efficiently; filing IFR routinely, getting flight following; following ATC direction quickly and efficiently, and developing the language/vocabulary to communicate effectively. Approaches: not all approaches are the same and it's easy to be lulled into a common flow that doesn't reflect approaches seen IRL. HILPT, procedure turns, short FAF segments, high angles of descent required, TAAs...lots of "quirks" that may not be found at your 'home drome'. Weather: HUGE aspect of IFR is the potential for icing, convection, unforecast deterioration, delays, etc. all the way to the big "Go-No Go" question at the beginning of the flight; how to effectively use inflight resources for weather, ABS-b, XM, ATC input; formulating contingency plans and strategies for success. Emergency procedures: having a firm grasp of what systems can fail, what that effects, and how it appears to the pilot; having effective contingency plans when equipment fails or issues arise. Safety practices: learning from the mistakes of others; rehearsing procedures (both routine and emergency) frequently to minimize hesitation, maximize outcome, and work effectively. Deliberate practice: excellence in aviation isn't a mistake and doesn't occur casually. Flight "muscles" atrophy with disuse, whether this is a maintenance downtime vs you've flown enough you don't "train" with the same intent and intensity that you once did... I don't think you can even come close to "working" all of these with just a simple IPC, and we all could probably benefit from working the groups that we don't work routinely. It also makes me realize the HUGE potential for working these through SIMULATION that emulates real world flying. ESPECIALLY when it comes to emergency procedures. There are many failures that you shouldn't perform in a real aircraft that would be super helpful to perform with simulation! I'd love to see a simulation center for GA that could be set up to mirror different aircraft both in flight profile as well as equipment, that would allow a more realistic experience for sim training. I'm surprised that some of the companies like Real Sim Gear don't have a demo center where they can set up modular examples of your aircraft, sell you training and sim time, and offer a discount to encourage you to take their equipment home with you. Garmin has their own OnSite training as well as online modules. For me, this is one of the "fun" aspects of flying...training the mental just as much as the tactile.

We had the Colorado Springs Caravan Clinic 2 weeks ago and wound up with more experienced pilots than newbies. Plus we had Lu and Dusty as our visiting photographers that got to capture a lot of the cool flights we had over the weekend. Regardless if you would never fly formation, you have to agree that Mooneys in flight are just amazing! Figured I'd post a few cool photos from the weekend. Thanks to Lu Chandler, luchandler097@gmail.com for the photo session!! Great clinic and thanks to SAR for organizing it!

I've had this happen a couple of times and I've never have seen a drop of water at any point in the sumped fuel. I always make an attempt to soak up as much as I can with a paper towel before opening the cap. Makes me wonder how much water, specifically, does it take to first begin to see water when you sump. vs. what concentration of water is "tolerable" and won't show engine issues. The second value likely has a temperature component as freezing water to clog screens/filters probably has a lower threshold than warm fuel in summer rains.

I don't think the answer is binary and I don't think there is "one" right way to solve this problem and so the FAR/AIM have guidelines that suggest standard solutions so that you have more PREDICTABLE responses for traffic "see and avoid" practices. Certainly there are some clearly "wrong" approaches. But few absolutes here, hence the variety and discussion. Flying home yesterday it was a gusty day with crosswinds and not the best weather. A Comanche in the pattern working on touch and goes. I had him on ADS-b, I had him on the radio, and as I got closer I had him visually. Approaching from the SE and planning to land Rwy 10. Initially I was planning a midfield crossover to a left downwind to join the pattern. But as I got closer it looked clear that the easiest and safest way was just to enter a crosswind behind him, keep him in sight, announce my intentions and that I had visual of "aircraft currently on crosswind" and following behind. I was flying faster and could have "cut in front" and not be a hazard...but I'd give up visual contact just to shave a minute or two off my flight time. Many times the safest way of deconfliction is to minimize your time in the area, not maximize it. But also important is the ability to SEE. So I think that the idea of a 45 to downwind just puts you enough outside the pattern to be able to SEE and hear traffic, gives you the most options if your spacing won't work, and gives you an easy "out" if things don't look good to just give it some time and try again later. The cross midfield at pattern altitude and turn downwind has similar ability to "see" the traffic in the pattern and plan your entry, it's on the opposite side of the pattern and can give you an "out" with a turn away if needed. BUT there are plenty of fields where it's not smart to cross midfield (i.e. parachute areas), and sometimes other runways in use make this "opposite pattern side" still an active flight area. But from a pure visual standpoint, flying over midfield likely gives the best "overview" of the field, the windsock, the traffic in the pattern. Even with a 2 mile long runway, glancing 1 mile each direction is likely better than 2 miles out on the 45 and perhaps you can't see the traffic on base/final (at 3-4 miles away) or just touching down. I think it's one thing to say "I chose this entry to landing because...it allowed me best visibility, allowed me to follow traffic I had visual on, allowed me to clear the area more quickly, was necessary for spacing, etc." It's completely different to have no reason and just tuck your head and barrel in because that's "how I've always done it." There are pilots/aircraft out there who don't have ADS-b, who don't have radios, who aren't paying attention, and who may be training/distracted/dealing with in flight issue. That's why it will ALWAYS be EVERYONE'S job to see and avoid.