T. Peterson

I live in Texas and most of my flying destinations are MO, AR, AL, KS and IN. I am currently paying less than 5.00 for most of my fuel.

That gives you quite a margin! Outstanding! My margin is a bit less. I’m not exactly sure where I would draw the line, but it would probably be somewhere around twice the price of auto fuel. Exceeding 7.00 a gallon on a routine basis would probably get me thinking real hard about selling out.

“And for those that think GA pilots pay their "fair" share of FAA and ATC costs through AVGAS fuel tax - it is laughable.” If this is indeed the case then what is the problem with user fees? If user fees will indeed make it fair for all concerned then that is how it ought to be. If the costs drive me out of aviation which I suspect it might, so be it. I don’t want to sell my airplane, but it is even less appealing for me to suck on the government teat as so many seem to think they are entitled. There may also be an aside that paying our own way would actually lower our costs. I am not hopeful, but per chance it would be an unforeseen consequence of doing the right thing.

It seems there might be a real “Tsunami” brewing against G100UL.

Outstanding! Well said!!

I don’t trust myself to wait till 80 kts. That would mean that I am on relatively short final. I can easily see a “gear up” in my future doing that. My gear comes down abeam the upwind numbers on a visual or FAF on an instrument approach. 100 to 120 knots depending. Maybe a little harder on the gear but not as hard as a gear up landing. I simply have a profound respect for my ability to forget a crucial step. I attempt to mitigate that with unwavering procedural compliance. This is totally personal. I understand that other folks may have completely different procedures that may be superior to mine.

All your good living has caught up with you!

What all was required practically and legally to allow using car gas?

Very interesting articles. Sounds like it may be an extensive rework of our airplanes and will eat into our already weak useful load, but at least it would be a real STC and not a government boondoggle masquerading as one. Also has a proven track record over years. In light of this other debacle maybe it will pick up momentum. I hope so. Thanks for your input. I always enjoy reading your posts.

Forgive me if I’m missing the obvious, but is this a new stain that was caused by G100, or an accumulative stain caused by fuel in general being trapped under the protective fueler mat?

I think we have come to an impasse and will just agree to disagree. No malice and no heartburn. I do have a question: Do you and @GeeBee have any imagination that G100UL might possibly be a greater health hazard than 100LL?

Wow! That is a well written piece! …..and compelling.

Much discussion of the effects of G100 on components. What about our bodies? Wasn’t the whole driver of replacing 100LL a search for something that would not kill the little chilren?? So the new stuff melts paint, swells rubber and not a word about the lil chilren?? I don’t want to touch the stuff, much less put it in my airplane!

That works too!

I don’t doubt you for a moment. If that’s the way the KRHV locals feel, than KRHV is a very good place for “all the G100UL action” to take place.

Maybe this is all true and I have just missed it. I watch very little news so I am probably uninformed. Outside of Mooneyspace I have not encountered anyone concerned about lead in Avgas. On the contrary, many are eager to go for an airplane ride. Some of my friends live very close to airports and not one as ever bemoaned the threat of lead in aviation fuel. Neither do I see families fleeing Airparks or hangar availability skyrocketing as airplane owners escape the dreaded Avgas plague. This is just my personal experience and yours may be different. I am certain there are studies pointing to certain disaster, but the longer I live the more skeptical I become. Folks with agendas are particularly astute at providing “studies”. It is also my personal observation that some are prone to surrender their own “sense making” when confronted with the claims of academia. I have also observed that the law of unintended consequences is very real, particularly when observed in the context of government policy. I have a gut feeling this law is going to raise its head once again in this fuel mandate. …….and it may go a lot deeper than peeling paint…..

No, I have not because I am afraid they will find a large deposit between my ears!

This is a very thoughtful and intelligent response. I am not as convinced as are you that lead poisoning from aviation gas has taken such a high priority in the public mind. It would not surprise me that certain folks in government push that narrative as a short cut to to their dubious agendas, but I have not seen any handwringing in the general public. Having said that, I am not advocating for leaded gas and I am most certainly not advocating against GAMI. Where it starts to stink is when one fuel manufacturer corners the market due to government mandate, yet not even that is satisfactory. That manufacturer is further anointed with the privilege of charging for an STC for what is supposedly a drop-in fuel. Maybe it’s not a hill to die on, but it is certainly government putting their thumb on the scale and little hills grow to big ones. I do very much appreciate your spirit and thoughtful opinion. I respect your view.

Come on, GeeBee, you are a really smart guy. You certainly have a philosophical disagreement with us, but you know perfectly well what is our point. I also think you know there is validity to it even though you completely disagree. I completely support you in disagreeing. Robust debate is the hallmark of the great American experiment. But neither @MikeOH@ragedracer1977, @redbaron1982or myself are wasting keyboard strokes. Philosophically defending our privilege of flying against the overreach of government may be just as important to protecting us as is understanding all the technical intricacies of flying machines. Some of us are not going to jump just because the FAA says “Frog”!

Very interesting! Thank you for sharing this story. Also good information on warming the engine properly when flying in the frigid north!

Exactly. Well said!!

That is apples to oranges. In the case of a gross weight increase you are physically allowing more weight on the airplane which affects every part of the airframe on every landing. Landing gear, brakes and tires are physically affected. Aerodynamically, take-off and landing numbers are affected. As far as the Cherokee, you are physically changing the airplane, though requiring an STC to take out one seat may very well be an appropriate definition of “silly”.

This is exactly right! The entire notion of an STC is that something is being done to the airplane. In this case nothing is being done to the airplane. It’s a drop in fuel that is abusing the STC system to allow GAMI to milk the cow from both ends. Utterly irrelevant that this may have happened with other products in the past. If it did, it was wrong. This is also why the semantics matter. It’s not silly, it’s dishonest.

Do those STC’s mandate any physical alteration of the engine or airframe?

@hubcapnoted on another thread that the Continental manual recommends no higher than 2400 rpm in cruise. ( forgive me Hubcap if I err in details, and please correct me where necessary) I questioned him further and he gave me his cruise numbers which I think were 28 inches of manifold pressure, 2400 rpm and lean to something or other without exceeding 1580 Tit or 380 cylinder temperature. In my airplane those numbers yielded 9.7 gph which was great for tooling around local, but not practical for traveling as it lowered my speed a lot. The numbers were not remarkable except for the 2400 rpm. Whether I fly slow or fast, my oil pressure and temperature are vastly improved at 2400 vs 2450 or 2500. My oil consumption has also improved, so Hubcap made a believer out of me. I will be very curious about how that works in the new engine following the break-in period.