UteM20F

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.

One photo I saw showed a large tanker truck emptying fuel into an underground tank, with the homemade GAMI truck sitting idle behind. So it would seem there is on-site storage, and the little truck is only used to drive to the planes and fill them up.

Some nice freebies for those based at RHV and E16 (Morgan Hill) are coming on Saturday, Nov 2: Free STCs and free IA signoff on the 337. And for those Bay area pilots who fly in on Saturday, they're giving away 25 gallons of G100UL. I'm not seeing many drawbacks with this kind of promotion. https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1466/2024-10/gami-incentive-notification-2024-10-29.pdf?VersionId=3.UKONJ6CIInkNQ4Lhxz3UYY.YfviuJi Ute

https://g100ul.com/news/g100ul-high-octane-unleaded-avgas-at-reid-hillview/ Reportedly, the cost is $6.99/gallon.

On Beechtalk, they are claiming that a semi load of G100UL was shipped to Reid Hillview (RHV) and that it will go on sale today. I hope its true. The aircraft owners out there need this option.

Thanks @Parker_Woodrufffor posting the article. This conversation, in tandem with the difficulty of insuring aging pilots, and with already inflated renewals over the last several years, makes me closer and closer to self-insuring the hull, and just buying liability insurance. It's a simple math exercise of risk vs. reward.

We're on the waiting list for the induction boot special manufacturing run by LASAR. IIRC, the cost is $610. We're expecting the new boot about the end of the year.

I'm jealous! Congratulations!

I for one am excited to try G100UL. Having read all that I can find on it, and watching about every George Braly video on youtube, I actually believe what's he's saying. I am an engineer, and like others here am naturally skeptical about any new shiny object. But, I'm also able to follow the science, and truly believe that a crankcase and oil will be MUCH cleaner without burning TEL. Thus I believe that oil changes and overhauls will become less frequent. And let it be known I generally don't trust 3 letter govt agencies, but the fact that two FAA field offices approved G100UL after each of them went through ALL of the testing criteria, I'll admit to being impressed. And I'm also impressed with the amount of testing that GAMI has done for over a decade, and nobody disputes that they have the best aviation fuel testing rig known to man. I'm impressed that the fuel that has been stored for years works perfectly. I'm impressed with the fungibility of the product, and the materials testing. I'm not concerned with the lack of "standards", knowing how such standards work. I've been involved in standards work with software many times over my career. You can't miss the hatred of GAMI that oozes out of almost everything that PAFI and EAGLE put out in their press releases. I expect that only FBOs in CA and those that operate at fields where there is another provider of fuel will be willing to provide G100UL until they are forced by the all powerful Federal Govt to stop selling 100LL, but when an FBO within a reasonable distance sells G100UL, I'll go out of my way to support them. I understand that G100UL will cost more, but it wouldn't surprise me if the price doesn't drop dramatically when there are multiple producers, distributors, and sellers of the fuel. That's just how competition and free markets are supposed to work. I guess all of this makes me a fan boy. Ute

What are the odds? We hit another small bird last night in the blackness over the desert. This one hit the leading edge and like the last one, didn't cause any damage. We didn't realize we hit it until we were cleaning off the bugs after the flight and there was this area of blood and feathers. We'd already sprayed water on it. We'll still send in the few tiny feathers and hope the Smithsonian can identify it for us. I have just under 600 hours total time, and these are the only birds I've ever hit. And both in 5-6 weeks. Ute

Thanks @0TreeLemur. We submitted the online report and sent the few pieces of feathers that remained to the email at the Smithsonian that the report specified. Today we got an email that they discovered the culprit: a green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus). It is a large sparrow, weighing about 29 grams. Truly a duck would have caused significant damage. Ute

You're probably right. I only thought duck because it smelled like duck entrails. We were climbing at the time, so airspeed was probably only 100k, and the splatter isn't as big as you would expect a duck to be. Using the link that @0TreeLemur provided, it says we can send the feathers in to the Smithsonian and they will try to identify the species of the wayward bird. We'll try to collect the few feathers that remain and hope for the best. I saw that, but my BIL says when the necropsy came back, it was a Tundra Swan.

Thanks Bolter. I read the story the first time in Reader's Digest, Drama in Real Life, when I was a teenager. I met my soon-to-be wife some years later, and was amazed the story was of her brother. I look forward to reading these accounts again. Thanks, Ute

While on a flight from Salt Lake (U42) to Tri-cities WA (KPSC) early this morning, we hit a bird in the blackness over the Great Salt Lake. It was jarring! The windshield doesn't seem to be damaged at all, but it doesn't smell good. We think it was a duck. We feel lucky, as my brother-in-law, the GIB, hit a swan in his Idaho Air National Guard F4 some 40 years ago, ending the flying career of his pilot as it smashed through the canopy. My bro-in-law ended up landing that plane from the back seat, getting all kinds of flying awards in Washington DC. Ute