UteM20F

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.

Hi folks, we just got a quote for a GFC-500 to finish up our new Garmin panel in our M20F. We've been without an autopilot since we bought the plane. It had an old S-Tec that was inop and not worth repairing. We've heard that some don't think it is worth the extra cost for the adding the rudder/yaw controls. I really have several related questions: What do the A/P yaw controls add to a plane? BTW, we don't have a rudder trim. Would this be a poor rich-man's rudder trim? Is it only for coordinating A/P turns? Or is it a damper to stop tail wagging? Both? The avionics shop claims that with a mid-body Mooney, we won't be happy without it. Do any of you with a mid-body have the GFC-500 w/o the yaw, and if so, what are your thoughts? Is it worth an extra 5 AMUs (estimate for the servos and labor) to have the yaw controls hooked up? Thanks for your help! Ute

Back to the G100UL drop-in vs. STC discussion, it might work if Congress appropriated a big chunk of money for GAMI, and in exchange GAMI sent a free STC to every airframe/engine in the registry. This would satisfy all the legality issues. Obviously it would all have to be worked out beforehand with the FAA/GAMI, and no, I don't know how they would come up with the amount of of the "big chunk of money". It seems like everybody would win with this approach. Especially if they shut down the taxpayer money-wasting PAFI/EAGLE initiatives at the same time. And if Swift or Lyondell eventually come out with a drop-in capable avgas, they may be able to go the same route.

You'll notice that I was quoting @Ibra when I mentioned the homemade tanker. According to his profile, he's from a small (and beautiful) backwater country in Europe that I visit on occasion. Maybe that is how they refer to small tanker trucks across the pond.