redbaron1982

Everyone talks about VFR into IMC, but I agree, the real killer is VFR into VMC!

I know nothing about lawsuits or laws, I'm an Engineer and I want to stay away from courts as much as possible. My question is, reading at the claims made by the plaintiff, it looks like that is *very* easy to win for the defendant, I wouldn't even hire a lawyer. I would reply, item by item, with my own knowledge. For instance, the plaintiff claims that the defendant, on purpose, flew circles over his home but looking at the ADSB data is clear that it's just regular traffic patterns. The same goes for flying at an altitude lower than 1000ft, it's clear that the pilot was in the landing or taking off part, which allows for altitudes lower than 1000ft AGL. You can make the same statements for using lead fuel. G100LL is only available at a very reduced of airports, it has an ongoing investigation from the FAA regarding material compatibility, and requires a major modification to the aircraft (STC). I know, the STC is just placards, but technically, and STC implies major modification. And I can keep going, some of the claims are merely opinions, such as "the pilot and operator doesn't care about people", that you can easily make your case that those are opinions and not facts. Am I completely wrong?

Yeah, this only makes sense if you have a C/B shared by multiple loads, and then each load has its own fuse. I don't get why we have a C/B for Elev Trim and then a fuse as well for Elev Trim. That seems to be a bus with only one load, why two protections?

It seems that Mr Scott Iceberg is addicted to lawsuits: https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-brookstone-landscape-design-llc, https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-whole-foods-mkt-grp-inc?q=scott iceberg&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case, https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-martin?q=scott iceberg&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case, and many more...

Something that I don't like about US justice system is that the person that losses a suit doesn't have to automatically pay for the winner reasonable defense expenses. That's why you have completely illogical lawsuit like this one.

I've updated Wikipedia's AvGas article to mention the concerns around material compatibility

Are the drawings available to fabricate them? It doesn't look too hard to make with laser cutting.

You nailed it here. GAMI's future is at stake.

I get what you're saying, but from a practical point of view, does it matter much? I see this because we have something that works well (100LL) with our current fleet. It doesn't matter if the paint is not in perfect shape or if the paint job was not correctly done, 100LL seems to have no significant effect on it. The same applies to sealants, bladders, o-rings, EZ Turn, etc. It could be that all these things are worn out, or they are not the best, or they were not applied as they were supposed. But at the end of the day, what matters is that the fleet is safely flying using 100LL. If changing 100LL for G100UL makes 10% of the fleet have issues with paint, seals, bladders, etc. I don't care if the main culprit is a job poor done, what I care is that G100UL is the variable that changed. I'm not saying we shouldn't move to G100UL (given that it is safe), but I think GAMI has to be transparent stating it is not a drop-in replacement. Maybe something like: "Hey, if your airplane is new and everything has been done according to best practices, your are safe, G100UL will not affect you. But, if your airplane is old, your sealants are not in the best shape or you have a poorly done paint job, G100UL could have these effects: fuel leaks, paint peel off, etc."

It reminds me of one of the finding from AOPA G100UL test: heavy dark deposits on the exhaust and spark plug. GAMI dismissed that as "they go away if blown, so nothing important", but what about the environment?

It would be great if a renowned and requested third party could do some tests. But all this mess is such a hot potato that nobody wants to get involved.

You're are absolutely right! I was going to share my own analysis of G100UL taste: on the nose, G100UL makes an unforgettable entrance with bold, industrial undertones reminiscent of freshly cracked refinery vats, balanced by an edgy zing that might just remind you of the kind of paint stripper that could strip memories. The palate is daringly complex: it opens with a smooth, almost buttery ignition, followed by a volatile crescendo that dances between high-octane ambition and a faintly caustic whisper of "am I supposed to inhale this?" The finish? Crisp, clean-burning, and surprisingly engine-friendly, leaving behind only the faintest tingle of existential questioning.

I'm starting to have issues telling sarcasm from true believers.

Looks like GAMI is already aware of RV issues too:

Not sure if this was already shared here: https://www.lycoming.com/fuels "To ensure the safety of the flying public and to meet its obligations as a TC holder, Lycoming has refused this “gag-restriction.” If we determine that any candidate fuel creates a safety issue when used in our engines, we must be able to appropriately warn the public and the FAA."

It's unbelievable the gag restriction to report any negative findings. It's truly amazing. It's really hard for me to trust GAMI or anyone supporting this way of doing business. It doesn't surprise me though, because it kind of aligns with the denial and elusive answers in this forum to the sealant compatibility and the paint peeling issues reported.

Probably, still, not a drop-in replacement.... It looks like latex is not affected by 100LL but G100UL is.

That guy is mentioning leaks and peeling, same as you.

Everyone affected by G100UL should get in touch and share experiences, maybe it would be a good idea to share their experience with the judge who is going to analyze this matter.

Can't hot spots within the cyl cause detonation? Like a carbon deposit that gets too hot? I don't know if this has been posted here before:

The idea that GAMI is not charging a royalty per gallon was mentioned here, but George didn't confirm nor deny it. I would guess that they are getting a cut from the STC and also from each gallon sold.

If that would be the case (GAMI not charging a fee for each gallon of G100UL sold or blended) it would change how I perceive all this.

Good call on going around! Don't forget to retract the landing gear! Remember: power, right rudder, trim down, gear up, take off flaps

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.