Marc_B

@donkaye, MCFI sorry to miss you so close to my neck of the woods. Unfortunately dropped off for annual May 22. Hope the class was fun!

Just to be clear. G100UL comingled with 100LL is still “conforming G100UL.” 100LL mixed with any amount of G100UL is no longer 100LL.

"ASTM's petroleum standards are instrumental in the evaluation and assessment of the physical, mechanical, rheological, thermal, and chemical properties of crude oils, lubricating grease, automobile and aviation gasoline, hydrocarbons, and other naturally occurring energy resources used for various industrial applications. These fuels are tested for their composition, purity, density, miscibility and compatibility with other fluids and materials, toxicity, and thermal stability among others. These petroleum standards allow petroleum refineries, automotive and aviation companies, and other geological and chemical processing plants to appropriately examine and process these fuel oils ensure their quality towards safe and efficient use." In fact, GAMI DOES use some ASTM standards, they just don't want to define their fuel to ASTM (or anyone else). Having an OPEN standard that can be tested by others I think is VERY important. Who can confirm conformance of the product outside of GAMI? Vitol can only compare field and distribution use to their original mix...but they cannot say if it is conforming or not unless it's identical to the product they sold. Per GAMI documentation, the detailed hydrocarbon analysis is shared only with GAMI. @Pinecone Additionally, G100UL isn't a specific blend like you mentioned because by it's nature it's marketed as completely fungible with any percentage of 100LL and still be listed as "conforming G100UL." So it IS actually a range of potential blends even if the original recipe is exact (which it likely isn't which is why each DHA is a blueprint for origination).

Simply because it's not going to be a single FBO, single distributor, single transport, etc. GAMI isn't a part of the AVGAS fuel pathway and never intended to touch a single component of it. Coca-Cola controls all the supply and distribution lines of their product. GAMI isn't Coca-Cola.

@Pinecone I think you're looking at it though the eyes of GAMI who says "our spec is better than ASTM." The issue is having an open industry standard for fuel, a means of testing, and a QA process from blend, distribution, and sale. Every step in the pathway has method to verify fuel. Unfortunately with G100UL there is only one company that can do that and it's GAMI. So from their standpoint they say "our spec is similar to ASTM, looks like ASTM," but we're the only one who can test, verify, and certify conformance. So with all the fuel issues in California, who has the ability to test/certify that the G100UL was conforming? Only GAMI. Not the FBO, not Vitol, not the end-users, certainly not anyone in the aviation industry. They don't have a fuel spec, it's proprietary trade secret. Mr. Braly won't even divulge the aromatic content. A DHA is performed on each batch, but isn't included with the certification by design. There needs to be an industry standard, that is field validated and testable by the industry. The ironic thing is that GAMI built their "spec" around ASTM, using ASTM tests, to look like an ASTM certification, but don't want to use ASTM certification? What third party is able validate fuel if GAMI is unwilling or unable to do so? Who establishes the standards, quality, and safety of G100UL through each step of the process from blending through distribution to sale?

It’s obvious this guy was shooting an approach. Looks like he was right on the centerline!

@MikeOH I've always been told that the 100/130 wasn't specifying a category of fuel meeting that octane but rather was specifying a specific version of leaded fuel that was 100/130 green AVGAS. Do you know if that's the case with the TCDS? i.e. one of the questions I originally posed to Mr. Braly when he presented to the Colorado Pilot's Association was why did GAMI need a different fuel placard when my aircraft already has a placard that says 100LL or 100 octane min fuel? His answer was that they felt that specified a particular fuel and wasn't applicable. Although I always thought that this was the way that the FAA could apply a fuel going though PAFI/EAGLE with fleet authorization by including said fuel under the "100 octane min aviation fuel" approval. Of course moving into the era of potentially selling fuels that aren't fungible (i.e. 100R prohibits use of G100UL), the specifics of what fuels you are approved for and using will probably be more important.

There is plenty of information that GAMI presents in a very open fashion...i.e. detonation data for Swift UL94. But there are lots of data that GAMi intentionally doesn't release. I don't think that we'll ever see the data that the FAA used to validate a blanket inclusion of every airframe on the STC AML. It's easier for me to extrapolate what "boundary" testing looks like for engine data for the engine STC AML as there aren't many manufacturers that are reflected in those engines and there are more similarities than differences. But for the airframes...that's an entirely different story. I suspect GAMI didn't know what they didn't know. Meaning I don't think they anticipated having escalated issues with roll out that they've wound up having. Even with the Cirrus that had issues, they're baffled that they have one Cirrus using the fuel for "15 years" and can't imagine other aircraft having any issues. Personally I think this is because the "boundaries" tested for the airframes did not actually identify all of the boundaries. But this points to the flaw in the STC system for use of blanket fleet fuel approval...a manufacturer creates the data, creates the testing protocols, performs all the testing, and submits data to the FAA for them to stamp. In my mind, if you are applying a STC to an airframe/engine...why should that not have required testing for that equipment?? ...imagine how our pharmaceutical and medical industry would look if that's the case with medicine??? ...oh wait, it's called an emergency use authorization. i.e. government feels this is important enough that we shortcut validation testing and streamline approval. The idea is that the FAA accepts the risks, and hopes that the details finally come out in the wash to see if this should be continued or not.

Yikes! I remember a few years ago this happened to Steveo Kinevo...

Out of anything that threatens to diminish GA, for me it seems the maintenance issues. It's getting harder and harder to get on the schedule for even simple issues. A simple xpndr antenna issue took a month to just switch to another antenna that was inactive but left in place. I've had my aircraft at annual for 2 weeks and they haven't even started. It took 5 months for paint shop to finally finish. Avionics projects take months, not weeks. Engine backlog for either overhaul or replacement can be anywhere from 6-12 months. Something as simple as a V-band clamp could leave you grounded indefinitely. At some point the cost + downtime just isn't worth it anymore. Factor in the idea that in the next 5 years alternative unleaded fuel may require updates, replacement, or modification of parts...the "system" isn't geared to the demand for those kinds of situations, let alone "steady state." Driving 45 minutes to get to the only hangar I could find in my area is paltry in comparison.

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.