Pinecone

I do. PM an email address.

In general, ground runs are not a good idea. You need to get the oil to full operating temperature for a hour.

ASTM does not certify anything. They write consensus standards. That is a group of people agree that there should be a standard for something and that this is what that standard is. It guarantees nothing. Also, many TDCS specify fuels meeting D910, which no unleaded fuel can meet, as it requires lead in the fuel. So those aircraft will need an STC.

Where?????? Website still says coming. No price, but a Contact Us button. ' Weren't they supposed to start shipping end of 2023????

Yes, but for street driving, long front pad life is indicative of a safer driver, who is looking further ahead to reacting to things well before they are an issue.

There is not enough data to determine that. We have one or two reports on Mooneys. How many have been flying on G100UL since RHV started pumping it?

Look at the sense loops. There is normally just one per lane, at the point a car would stop. I doubt they put in multiple sense loops to determine that there are more cars.

BIG difference between hammer drilling concrete (permanent change) and digging a hole in dirt.

The POH excerpt, mentions the LOWER gear doors. The picture shows an INNER gear door. Different doors.

The difference is that many engines CANNOT run MOGAS with or without an STC. G100UL can be used in ALL piston aircraft with an STC.

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SL270%20Extended%20Maintenance%20Intervals%20for%20%20Engines%20Operated%20on%20Unleaded%20Fuels_0.pdf

That is amazing. As I teach in safe driver training, if you can reduce your speed by 1/2 before applying the brakes, you cut pad wear by 4 fold.

I contacted Scott Dyer and am posting the following with his permission. " The Consent Decree states as initially put into effect in 2014, that the Settling Defendants (e.g., the distributors and the FBOs) could still sell avgas with lead content of not more than 0.56g/l. This is the maximum lead content of 100LL. The Consent Decree, at Section 2.3.1(d), specifically contemplates the Court, on motion, lowering the lead content allowed to be sold: --------------------------------- At any time after 100VLL or any other lower lead alternative to 100LL Avgas that is approved for aviation use becomes Commercially Available for the California market, any Party may file a motion to modify the terms of Section 2.3.1(a) on the basis that either: . . . (b) Avgas with a lead concentration at a level of 0.45 is more than 10 percent over the lead concentration level in fuel that is approved for aviation and that is Commercially Available such that the level should be adjusted downward. The Party seeking a modification pursuant to this Section shall provide written notice to all affected Parties and shall meet and confer with all interested parties for a period of not less than 30 days before filing any such motion. The Party bringing a motion to modify this consent judgment shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the concentration limit in Section 2.3.1(a) should be modified pursuant to this Section 2.3.1(d). ----------------------------------- G100UL as a maximum lead concentration of 0.013g/l (edited to proper value as per George Braly), and the 0.013g/l (edited) lead concentration of G100UL is more than 10% less than the 0.45g/l concentration specified in the Consent Decree. Thus, as a matter of contract given G100UL’s commercial availability, the court is empowered by all the settling parties to reduce the lead concentration of any avgas that may be sold by the settling distributors and the settling FBOs, and the court is giving effect to the parties’ settlement terms from 2014. It's the deal that the distributors and FBOs in the case made 10 years ago, assuming commercial availability. The court enforcing the terms of the Consent Decree will ultimately be a judgment, I think you are imbuing the term with a meaning it doesn’t have."

And we know that Swift would never say anything that was not true about G100UL. (sarcasm off)

I tried a cup holder like that, and it worked. But I ended up with a 3D printed version that will also hold my phone if needed. It was a thread here on MS.

I did donuts and coffee for the avionics shop a couple of times during my major project.

Any ideas of there serial number where they changed?

Monitor to see if it gets worse or stays the same.

That just means they are not working properly. I did make it to 99,935 on a set of front brake pads.

Go over to Beech Talk. Scott Dyer did a good lay person explanation of the Consent Decree. "Commercially Available" IS defined in the Consent Decree. And the Consent Decree was agreed to by the FBOs and fuel suppliers. They were not directly forced to agree.

GAMI is not forcing anyone to use their fuel. You have a choice. Once 100LL is banned, you can use G100UL or any other fuel that is allowed by your TDCS as amended by STC. GAMI has just given us an answer to how to fly once 100LL is banned. And it WILL be banned. You are free to come out with your own version of UL AVGAS.

While I look for 3000 feet or more, my home field has a turn off at 2000, that I can make if I want, but the next one is at 2500 and is very easy to make.

No, they are not banning competition. ANY UL fuel can be sold, but just not 100LL. As I said before, you are free to develop a UL AVGAS and become a millionaire. But it might take billions to do so.

Actual tie down anchor tests. One takeaway is that the system is only as good as the weakest link, which can be the soil itself. https://abesaviation.com/pages/test-results https://www.aviationconsumer.com/accessories/portable-tiedowns-claw-is-a-top-pick/

G100UL is not mandated. You are free to run any fuel meets your TDCS, as amended by STC, and that you can buy. Feel free to develop a competing fuel with G100UL and become a millionaire. BTW you do know that there is only ONE manufacturer of TEL in the world. That is a real monopoly. And what happens if that plant burns down or is shut down?