Pinecone

I have a few test rockers from my friend. Who is interested in getting 1 or 2 to test? PM me name and address and I will send them out.

I agree. But the key is, you have to get some viable products out into the market to push the change in standards. You don't change the standard unless there is a good reason to do so. And GAMI is the first step in doing that. Swift 100UL will be another big step. If I buy the STC(s) now, and in 3 or 4 or whatever years, the STC is not longer required due to standards changes, I am fine with that. And there is no reason that the revised standard could not cover GAMI and Swift and any others that come along and work. And then we could just fill up with whatever UL 100 is in the tank at the airport where we landed. But that is years away.

Two things. 1) Be ready to act. Have your funds together. Maybe even a deposit already in the hands of a title/escrow service. 2) Be ready to walk away if there are issues. Don't start thinking of it being YOUR plane until it IS your airplane. I went through 4 airplanes before the one I bought. Some were issues with the planes. Some were issues with the seller/broker. One plane I put a deposit on had a questionable engine. I walked away. The plane is still on the market 8 months later.

I am all for supporting Mooney. And I did order the part through an MSC from Mooney. And yes, I have been around manufacturing, but still.....

IIRC, no, it is not the no lead thing that makes it not meet D910.

What makes the part below be over $600???? The rod end is $35 for one from Aircraft Spruce. The clevis is about $20. The tubing, $2 - 3. Time? Maybe 30 minutes to fabricate. BTW, it is an adjustable brake link. It seems that my plane has the 3" extensions, but the wrong, non-adjustable, links. The knobs are a bit better. One is from Mooney. One from Mouser based on the part number in the IPC. But the Mouser one was $5 plus $10 for 2nd day. The Mooney one was $10 (not bad, but double), but $50 for 2nd day shipping. It seems Mooney does not have a shipping contract with anyone, that is more than if I ship it from my local UPS store.

Stickers and official paperwork showed up today.

Have you ever been involved in a major change to a consensus standard? The standard is not owned by the USG, but by the ASTM.

Sort of. You are correct that it is a mandatory additive. But there is no minimum amount of the additive. So how much to you have to put in, if no minimum level?

Are you sure that is what it is for? Normally, when you dip underground tanks, you put a smear of water indicating paste. It turns color when water touches it.

They are so light, install two.

As many as you can get. Most of the pulse systems allow you to run some/all of the lights as constantly on. So you can still have landing/taxi light.

I remember some posts on this, but it is not possible to make it meet the ASTM standard. If it was, then PAFI or Eagle would have pounced on it. They were/are constrained to meet the ASTM standard.

No. But if it met the ASTM standard, it would not require an STC, as it would be an aviation fuel.

For recog lights, the question is, wig wag between the two, or both recog wig wagged with an landing/taxi (cowl mounted)? I am sure that there has been research done on this.

Yes, but the appropriate one for AVGAS is D910. Which does reference a number of other ASTM standards.

The reason that they did not do ASTM certification is that the fuel does not meet the ASTM standard. The Eagle and PAFI programs have been trying to make a fuel that does meet the ASTM standard, and see how that has worked out. And there are some major fuel players trying. GAMI saw a different path, and decided to follow it. Thinking out of the box. There is the possibility that the ASTM standard could be changed a bit to cover G100UL, so that is another path. But consensus standards are a huge can of worms.

I would think Red for critical things, like trim and AP. Yellow for load shedding.

I called JPI a couple of times. Once pre-sale and once after install. Both times they answered the phone and were very helpful.

He is claiming that people were saying he should be banned or censored. I did not say that. I did point out that if someone did not want to listen to him, they could put him on ignore. Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs, that the do not argue or have a meaningful conversation, but just want to shout their beliefs. And others find this tiresome and don't want to hear it. And it is interesting, the number of people that feel that GAMI should spend over a decade of effort and untold amounts of their own money, then give away the product. And those that are claiming that G100UL will cause the banning of 100LL, when that was already in progress. CA has had the legislation in the process for over a year. And a number of states will do whatever CA does when it comes to environmental activism.

Exactly And while I am sure that George wants to make money, he is also, bottom line, a GA pilot. He has taken his skills and love of aviation to bring several products to market. Including G100UL.

Or maybe they just don't to spend time with certain individuals drivel. On some forums there are people I put on my ignore list, even though I agree with some things they say. I just don't want to deal with the way they say it. I never stated that you should be banned or censored. Just that is someone doesn't want to listen to you, it is their right to put you on their ignore list. And think that you are a bit thin skinned that you think everyone should listen to your opinions, and get upset that someone might ignore you.

He is not stopping you from speaking. He is offering a way to NOT listen to you. Also, the 1st amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT from preventing you from expressing your views, not individuals or businesses. See Twitter and Face Book. Do what you wish. If you don't need the STC, then don't buy it. But CA was already in the process of banning 100LL. If not state wide, then country/jurisdiction at a time. Two airports have already had it banned. BEFORE G100UL was approved.

FYI, this was just posted at BT about the issue with the STC tied to the engine serial number and if you are looking at a new/reman soon-- "As an incentive to adopt the STC before fuel is available, we'd like to offer free replacement engine STCs to the original purchaser for a period of 10 years. That offer is currently set to expire 1 June 2023. John-Paul"

Since CA is talking about a state wide ban, he would have to fly to another state for fuel.