redbaron1982

Yeah, I should do some tests pulling the throttle to idle, and with either RPM full forward or in the low rpm setting.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to do that with my J with 3 blades MT Prop. The engine seems to have failed at around 2:35:28, 30s after takeoff. How high AGL that would be? 500ft at best. My J has a sink rate of ~800fpm at best glide, which would put me back on the ground in 20s. Somehow the guy in the video glide for 1 minute after engine failure.

Someone already mentioned this: it's a waste of time to keep replying here. There are two different points of views, and none of the positions will change their opinion. All that had to be said was said. I'm not saying that continuing the "fight" for each part's different interests doesn't make sense. I'm just saying that maybe it would be better to call your house rep and ask them not to ban 100LL, talk with fellow pilots to make them aware of your experience or make more / better tests to convince customers that your fuel is safe.

Is it safe to pull the mixture to ICO? Several months ago I was doing a GAMI spread test and pull the mixture too lean and the engine started to die and the RPMs surge like to 2900 for 1 sec before I push the mixture back in. I don't know if it is an issue with my airplane or the if after 1 additional second the rpms would have gone down to windmilling... but it did scare the sh**t out of me.

Do you have any doubts that GAMI is lobbying to get 100LL banned? With this story of "the infrastructure can handle only one fuel type at any given airport" the only way for G100UL has a chance to succeed is by banning 100LL.

It looks like PN 660199-001 or 660235-001, depending on which engine you have (dual or single mags). https://lasar.com/control-cables/prop-governor-control-cable-bracket-660199-001 https://baspartsales.com/660199-001-mooney-m20j-propeller-governor-support-bracket As @EricJ is a good idea to have the IPC and get familiar on how to search through it.

4 out of 100, that's not small... It means that G100UL is not a drop in replacement for at least 4% of the fleet. I wonder what's is the threshold required to consider that there is an alternative to 100LL. Is it 80% of the fleet? 90%? 95%?

I haven't had a hole through the cowling, but the stiffener around the cowl flaps was getting some damage. It turned out to be the muffler shroud. Completely removing the cowling could also help identify what is rubbing. Just look for some shine metal. I would bet that is related to the exhaust system/muffler shroud.

I think it would be wise for GAMI to remove this from their website: It is clear at this point that G100UL is not transparent to the engine, aircraft, and pilot. Hard data is pointing out that: Paint staining has been reported by many, in none of the cases buffing or polishing was able to remove the stains. Paint damage (as in paint peeling off) has been reported. Fuel tank seal damage has been reported. Some o-ring materials swell significantly more than with 100LL. If that generates any issue, it is still not clear. I'm not saying that G100UL is good or bad. I'm saying that it should be clearly stated in which aspects it is different than 100LL and in which scenarios (certain o-ring materials, wet wing aircraft with old sealants, paint that is not in mint condition, etc) there is an elevated risk of having issues during the transition.

You're are right, my bad. Just edited my message.

How about changing the offer to visit your experiment to also including discussing other possible experiments that could be better aligned to real life scenarios. Such us a panel subject to wet/dry cycles? That could help dissipate any "gossiping".

How come that this is hard data and the AP that did the YouTube video is not? Also, the YouTube video already showed this, but also showed that letting the fuel dry and then reapply several times did the most damage.

I know an STC is a looooot of work, but I wonder why we are not seeing more Diesel engines in general aviation. Delta Hawk seems to have a pretty nice line up of engines: https://www.deltahawk.com/engines/ The weight is about 40lb heavier than an IO360. And there is a version that goes up to 235HP. How cool would it be to have a J model with a 235HP turbocharged diesel engine?! No more lead, better fuel economy, no sparkplugs. There is definitely the water cooling system, which is another thing to look after, but when it comes to road motors, diesel are usually way more reliable than gasoline.

I have relatively little experience with 100LL (2 years / always same airport), but I haven't seen any permanent deterioration of my J paint by exposing it to LL. My J paint is quite bitten up and it's original (1985). My LH wing wipes LL from the sump drain, and after two years it really got stained with the blue dye, but it quickly came off rubbing it with some fresh LL. So, at least in my airport, LL formulation is not harsh to paint at all.

Are these the stains you cannot remove with polishing?

I'm not sure how the supply chain works with GA avgas, but I'm quite sure that most, as in 99.9% of airports, don't have the infrastructure to dispense two different fuel types. So the key would be to have multiple formulations that can be mixed together so airports can switch from one to the other without major issues. I don´t know how this works with 100LL, is there a free (as in beer) spec that any fuel manufacturer can follow? Or each fuel manufacturer have their own proprietary formulation that meets certain specs?

Yeah, right, I also read that GAMI recommends G100UL right before a paint job, as it is going to give you a head start on stripping the paint. I can´t find now the link to that...

Can you provide the link to such information?

It looks like GAMI is acknowledging now that nitrile o-ring may swell if soaked in G100UL. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/gami-says-all-high-aromatic-gasolines-are-hard-on-paint/

How do you know they haven´t changed o-rings?

And I want to reiterate: there is no chance, not in a million years, that GAMI was not aware of this. They have been experimenting with this stuff for more than 10 years, I'm sure they have all the information, but they decide which to share and which to keep for themselves.

enough for G100UL not to be a drop-in replacement. If (that's a big if) the FAA is responsible enough, they should amend the STC to indicate that it requires replacing all nitrile o-rings before using G100UL and generate an AD for all aircraft that already have the STC.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/california-mechanics-tests-show-g100ul-paint-nitrile-o-ring-damage-under-some-circumstances/ What a hot mess! I'm sure George will come up with some justification for this, such as unusually high solar activity or improper fuel dispensing techniques that resulted in an abnormally high concentration of some paint stripper.

Yeah, amazing right? I am sure it's all part of the same conspiracy that sells paint stripper in plastic containers.

There is absolutely no chance that GAMI was not aware of this. They have been working with this nasty stuff for more than a decade. It makes sense now why they insisted so much with "fueling hygiene". Maybe they were dreaming about everyone following their procedures without error and that all airplanes would have perfectly sealed tanks and no one would notice this.