UteM20F

As much as I'd like to agree with this sentiment, I don't believe the feds think like you and me. If (when!) they require UL, they are not grounding "all avgas burning aircraft". They will see it as though they are only "inconveniencing" a mere 20% of the GA owners, those that are owned by 'rich' folks like us. As everybody agrees, 80% of the fleet, including almost all of the trainers, will run just fine with any of the unleaded options. They don't care if we 'rich' folks have to derate or replace our engines, replace some O-rings, or suffer some paint degradation. And back to my original issue from the other day, I am terrified of what will happen when we get to 2029 and the FAA starts implementing the public phase of the transition, and some airports have 100E, some have 100R, some have G100UL, and some (many?) don't have 100LL.

I hope you're right too. It scares me the number of people that are basically putting their eggs in the basket of hoping that the government extends the 2030 deadline.

Has anybody heard anything further about the new Lyondell unleaded fuel's (UL100E) continued testing? Or Swift's 100R? The last I saw from Lyondell was from June, where their guy admitted it wouldn't work in 20% of the fleet (high compression engines) without retarding timing, modifying (increasing) fuel flow, or in some cases, requiring major changes like changing compression ratio. And last I heard was that 100R still only works on low compression engines in 172s. The recent FAA transition doc even mentioned that some planes may have to move to non-spark (diesel, Jet A) ignition engines. I would LOVE to hear that my info is old, and that UL100E and/or 100R are now drop-in ready, or even that they expect to be drop-in ready, without requiring any mods. If that is the case, please cite the reference(s). My worry is that 2030 is rapidly approaching, and I don't see that there are any competitors riding to the rescue besides these fuels and G100UL. I realize that most of the recent posters will never use G100UL, and obviously that is fine. But what are we supposed to do when our airport with just 1 tank starts removing 100LL and only provides UL100E or 100R? Are you going to adjust your timing and give up performance? What if you have a twin and your performance drops, so single engine climb is negative on a hot day? What is an acceptable loss of performance? And if we do make these adjustments, will we still be able to switch back and forth with 100LL without undoing those changes? Will our performance still be reduced on 100LL if we don't undo the changes? Just asking, as I don't know the answers. Thanks, Ute

I'm still new to the Mooney, with only 200 or so hours of Mooney time, so I have no statistically relevant information to share. We just had our first failure that might fit your survey. On a cross country flight, the weld at the inlet to the muffler broke, causing CO to enter the cabin. Luckily we have a CO monitor that quickly notified me that the CO concentration was rising rapidly, to hundreds of ppm. Turning off cabin heat and opening the outside air vent made the problem manageable. While this isn't a powerplant failure, it had the potential of being worse if there wouldn't have been a CO monitor. A bright side to the story is that we're having a Power Flow exhaust installed while the plane is down.

I think you're right, in that Swift can now put 100R at all the airfields they want, with support of the big distributors, big oil companies, and even the airframe manufacturers. But end users can only pump it into a few 172s, and only after they've purchased the STC. So G100UL is still the only unleaded option for my IO-360-AIA. Please correct me if I misunderstood.

You can try Kerry McIntyre in Evanston, WY. He's a bona fide Mooney expert. DM me for another option in Provo. Good luck!

The plane departed St. George, and ended up in the water near Bend, OR.

I've been curious about it today as well. I bet Russ will post on Avweb as soon as there is information. I wouldn't proffer a guess how it will turn out, as both sides (IMHO) offered lots of disinformation in their respective court filings.

Speaking of the defense statement, besides Hoyle, the other person quoted extensively is "D'Acosta", whose declaration was quoted 5 times. This is likely Chris D'Acosta, the CEO of Swift fuels. No one is more virulently anti-GAMI than he, which is understandable given that GAMI market share comes at his expense. The entire defense to the lawsuit seems to be to bash G100UL.

Hi David, My son and I have used Flightline Medical in Orem for our Medicals. We've been happy with their doctor. We're very healthy and haven't had to jump through any hoops. Good luck! Ute

Mike, I'm guessing you and Mr. Baron are a joy to be around at parties. I thought George did a very good job explaining why it isn't simple (and therefore inexpensive) to offer two fuels at the same airport, even if they purchase a shiny new 1000 gallon fuel truck. Yes, RHV has one of those new trucks with "GAMI" plastered on the side, but they ALSO have a tank to store an entire semi load of fuel. You should re-read George's comment about how that makes all the difference vs. having to call a tanker and doing a "truck to truck" transfer, which is very expensive. As for the infrastructure at the vast majority of airports only supporting one type of fuel, that is also true. I don't argue that in the olden days, when I started flying, many airports did have multiple types of fuel. But that is not the case today, since almost all planes can get by just fine with 100LL. When the demand for the alternate fuels went away, so did the pumps and the tanks. Sure, those airports could put in new tanks and either a pump or a truck, but who will pay for that? What is the incentive for those small airports to invest that much money? The other problem with a truck is that you have to pay someone to operate it, and it wouldn't be open 24x7, which most municipalities try to offer. And 20% higher cost for G100UL??? I think the two airports that sell both 100LL and G100UL (Tupelo and Watsonville) have the price differential around 50 cents, which is closer to a 9% increase. Comparing the price vs "other nearby airports" is patently unfair. We can all find a nearby airport that charges more than 20% more than we are paying for 100LL. I'm still surprised you guys dislike George and GAMI so much, when I don't think you are claiming it is your planes that have been damaged by G100UL. I'm happy they are trying to solve the lead problem, and if I decide I don't want to try it in my plane, I won't try it. If 100LL is banned, and G100UL is the only option, then yes, I'll use it and be happy that I still have an option to use my plane. Ute

As of Dec 4, RHV had received 2 tanker loads (~7500 gallons each) of G100UL. This is sourced from the Consent Decree lawsuit that was posted above. Interestingly, the same document claims RHV paid about $5.50 / gallon for that fuel, which included the price of transporting it.

We use Blackstone and are very happy with their service. As mentioned previously, the analyst gives a quick blurb about the results. Here's a snippet from our most recent analysis: "Aluminum, chrome, and iron all nudged up a bit, and there's a little more copper and nickel in the oil than normal, too. When metals nudge up in unison like this, sometimes it's just due to operational factors like harder use/higher temp, for example. If the engine runs well and the oil filter is clean, we're not quick to think there's a problem, but let's see how metals trend from here. Note that the viscosity was a little thick; that's often a sign of heat on the oil." Hopefully this is a one-off. We just sent the latest batch in for testing... And finally, we got an email from Blackstone that their prices are going to $40 with the new year, but they sell multi-test packages at a discount. - Ute

So what did your neighbor decide? It seems like his decision would be a very good data point. Also, is the yaw damper more important with a shorter body or with a longer body?

This is great info, thanks guys. Regarding the cost, we got a quote for the GFC-500 2 years ago when we did the panel, and decided to hold off because of the cost. Bad choice in retrospect! The price is about 6 AMU higher than it was just 2 years ago.