76Srat

Thanks for supporting the topic, @T. Peterson. I agree with everything said on here, some more than others, of course. My hope is that we start/continue to think far beyond just the fuel issues and look to support the progress, investment and anyone who supports a more efficient/simplified certification process to give our Mooneys and their owners more options when it comes to powering them for the next generation. I submit that merely looking at the fuel equation and fuel options will certainly help in the short-term, but isn't a viable long-term solution. Only a fresh, new, innovative power plant upgrade(s) will do the trick. It's either that, or extinction of the mark will be inevitable. I'd hate to see that happen. With DOGE and the over-due look at government inefficiencies that's taking place currently, it'll only be a matter of time before we'll see our very world become a blip on the map of history (see the upcoming sea-changes to privatizing air traffic control, flight planning, etc., that is just around the corner, for example. DOGE has already held up the Euro/Canadian model as "the best" from an economic standpoint, which I can't disagree with from a pure efficiency/operating cost-benefit analysis, but I'm scrambling to find reasons to agree operationally from a user's viewpoint, primarily because there aren't near the number of operations in Canada and the whole of Europe combined in a week as we have every single day in the US). Let's not let our lack of considering other power options/engineering mean the end of the line for legacy single engine piston aviation. Fuel alternatives alone will not save it. Everyone who has expressed a concern about the outright costs of re-engining the fleet or pursuing and obtaining a completely new recip engine program for Mooneys and other legacy single engine piston aircraft is correct--it just will never make economic sense to do so. I can't argue with that. What I am suggesting is that we learn from our Cirrus brothers and sisters who, by way of not selling or marketing a "new, safer alternative aircraft", but instead have done a hall-of-fame job marketing a lifestyle brand differently than all other aviation manufacturers had ever done before, we can save the entire single engine piston fleet. What have Textron/Beech/Cessna/Piper ever done to make anyone not already involved in general aviation think that they should become involved? A lot, if you're talking about post-WWII pilots earning their civilian wings after the war and into the boomer years under the GI Bill. But literally zero after that, at least by way of marketing and innovative ways to bring in more people to GA. Zilch. Enter Cirrus. I loath Cirrus and love Cirrus, all at the same time. I loathe them for producing an inherently unstable airframe that I believe is far inferior to Mooney. I LOVE them for single handedly rescuing single engine piston aviation. Without Cirrus, we'd be stuck in the rut that Cessna/Textron have hewn through the decades of stale thinking, stale engineering and without Congressional support in tax deduction/depreciation legislation, would have run all of piston aviation into the museum by now. Sorry for the rabbit-hole of topics here on this reply to your post (to my OP), but that's my intent with this thread--get us all thinking outside the box of merely supporting a 100UL replacement, which is what we should all be doing anyway, and on to more grandiose goals of securing the operational future of all of piston aviation for the next generations and beyond. It will not survive if we're focused merely on fuels . . .

Thanks for your take on this, @jlunseth. I appreciate the concern. That said, I am thrilled that there has been the response to this topic. While I'd love to see "that all of GA should replace all of its engines", that certainly will never happen, much less happen in my lifetime. Overall, my attempt at getting us to think about a lot more than just the energy and time (and $$$) in getting 100UL replacement fuel(s) certified is time well-spent. I appreciate your take, for sure, but would never consider all of the input here not worth responding to--it's valuable insight into our collective mindset. I argue that such collective mindset should be expanded beyond just considering the benefits (and costs) associated with 100UL replacement. It should go far beyond that if we really do value preserving the utility of our Mooneys for more than a few more years.

I think your point is valid. My point, though not very well said by me, is I think people aren't disinclined to use 100UL based solely on price per gallon. I think they're disinclined to use it for the simple reason that it isn't readily available in as many places as 100LL. Obviously this will change once more and more 100UL options become available. However, I don't think the use or non-use of 100UL is due solely to it being priced higher per-gallon than standard 100LL. On the price per gallon issue, I'll always agree with you. That said, and perhaps this is more about options at TBO/OH point in time, which we'll all face in one way or another (much akin to the decisions we face when replacing panels or a panel upgrade), should we be pining for more recip technology and the options that go with that, instead of hoping for ubiquitous 100UL options to pop up everywhere? The tech and investments being made in fuel research seem to me to be a bit misplaced because we're talking about piston engine tech that is 65+ years old. Again, this is no different than restoring or reinvesting research and development in cathode ray tube television sets, which is cool for the exercise but not viable or even remotely smart going forward. By the time we have ubiquitous 100UL options, we could have far better and affordable piston recip upgrade options. We'll never get there unless we can foresee the next set of trees way ahead instead of trying to figure out how to harvest the virtually extinct species of trees we've been using for decades with little to no tech advantages.

+1 for wondering about the LoPresti cowl whereabouts/costs/availability (LASAR?). Amazing to see his cowl induction engineering influences in literally every production piston from Piper, Mooney, Cirrus. The only reason Textron/Cessna/Beech don't use his cowl designs is because they stopped aero engineering those designs when Gerald Ford left the White House.

adding to my post above: maybe we should be lobbying for legislation that expands to an accelerated personal depreciation of the replacement piston engine tech, etc. This is a way the agencies can support private industry to invest in the development and support the user/consumer to buy it. It won't ever get "cheaper", but it certainly could become more "beneficial" to all involved. If the user/buyer/taxpayer were incentivized as equally as the OEM/developer could be, then we'd be closer to a longer term solution. But you're right, merely relying on pure marketplace economics will never get us out of the piston engine or piston leaded-fuel dark ages. Plenty of policy makers want to eliminate private aviation altogether. We need to support those that should be supporting it in creative and sustainable ways going forward, otherwise we'll only be enjoying our piston aircraft on static display posts in museums some day . . .

I totally agree. Respectfully, however, what does a full-glass, kicka$$ Garmin or Dynon panel replacement cost? Nearly that, I'd say. And that's what all this boils down to, the dollars. I also argue that our regulatory agencies have to get on board and make the certification process a lot less burdensome and time consuming. I'm all about safety and security in designs and function and the DOT/FAA systems of certification are second to none. We should all be thankful for just how top-notch it is. That said, and I got in to this friendly argument with my non-aviator neighbor the other day, the marketplace won't be the reason none of us are zipping around in our own little Jetson's drones, point to point, anytime soon. It will be the regulatory agencies who can't seem to move at the speed of any marketplace whatsoever. Hell, the FAA can't even decide if/when it wants to replace or remove its terrestrial vacuum tube driven ground-based pre-WWII radar technology. What makes anyone think the FAA will agree to move at the speed of post-1990s development on anything in this new century? My cynicism aside, I argue this is a twofold problem: it isn't just a fuel replacement solution; it is a recip engine technology replacement solution, too. It may truly come down to the likes of DeltaHawk and others deciding to actually develop a certified replacement for our Mooneys (and others like them) or not, much akin to the decisions which led to the unbelievable panel tech we now have, thanks to those same 1990s certification efforts. They just as easily could have decided only to make a better steam gauge back then (many did that are no longer around). I'm very glad they decided to go a different route and the agencies supported them for it. Hint: it also significant tax legislation and GAMA and many others' coordinated efforts on the lobby and legislative side to make it happen. This is what I'm talking about when it comes to the agencies easing up on the timelines and expenses OEMs and other developers have to endure just to propose something that makes it better for all of us. ***this is the asterisk explanation that I forgot to include above, btw.

I hear you, for sure, and I am all-in on a viable fuel replacement. And if it were just as simple as a plug and play fuel replacement, we'd already have it ubiquitous easily. Fact is, and we all agree, it isn't easy, nor will it be ubiquitous anytime soon. It just doesn't work that way when it comes to fuel supply and distribution, which is what I'm really getting at with this topic. Thinking globally, an unleaded 100LL replacement likely won't move any needles and won't solve the long-term problem. Globally-speaking, there is a huge need for more modern, viable, serviceable piston engine replacements far more than the more desirable and more (short term) feasibility of a viable fuel replacement. To overstate the obvious, the US GA marketplace is the largest of its kind in the world, so whatever works "best" for the US is, in popular view, the "best" solution. I'm just curious what the business case was back in the day when the avionics wizards figured out both the regulatory side of the puzzle***, as well as the actual sales-to-market side of the puzzle. By all respects that I can ponder, we're at the same inflection point regarding making the business case for going a bit (okay, a lot) further with the unleaded fuel replacement technology and doing it right: let's focus on viable, outright piston engine replacement tech instead of just the fuel for it. Again, this isn't anything new, its just perhaps a different way to solve a lingering problem. I'm afraid the pursuit we're after with just a replacement fuel is akin to forcing the marketplace to retain its old VCRs just so we can continue to use and play our old VHS tapes. Is a replacement fuel solution really a long term solution? I'm not so sure it is.

. . . well, not quite. Here's my thought: Just like you guys, I've been reading just about everything I can find on the boiling EAGLE/100LL/unleaded debate/debacle/call-it-what-you-will issue. And I apologize if this specific idea has been thrown around in here and I just can't find it, but I've been wondering a lot if we're simply missing the point altogether here. Instead of wringing our hands over unleaded fuel options du jour and all of the worries with supply chain, distribution, pricing, loyalties between suppliers, does-it-play-well-with-others, etc?, should we get to pondering a larger opportunity? With credit to the latest article on the topic in this month's "EAA Sport Aviation" magazine, I think the solution might be in not trying to proffer the best "fuel" alternative and instead proffer the best reciprocating engine alternatives. What do I mean by this? Well, for starters, we have to wonder if on the fuel/engine side we're sitting on an upcoming sea-change in technology, not on the fuel side, but on the engine side. And in support of this (possibly) exciting change, should we look no further than what has happened with avionics since the day the GNS430 was born? Cue the logical coffee spewing over computer screens at this point, and I'm not trying to stir a long-tormented hornet's nest, but since the certification process is what it is (anything but cheap), should we as the marketplace look for a cheaper/viable engine replacement program instead of just pushing the rope further uphill on fuel alternatives? The real answer lies in the cert process and the example shown us from those who dared to tread the shark-filled void of avionics upgrades, circa late 1990s. It was said then, as it is being said now for engines in legacy types such as our beloved Mooneys, that "uprooting the legacy steam-gauges will never catch on" in the legacy piston fleet. We see now how short-sighted that viewpoint was then and just how great it has been since. I agree that there are legion reasons a recip engine replacement wouldn't be viable or feasible for most, if not all legacy piston fleets. But, long term, a viable SAF-burning alternative recip engine for IO-320/360/IO-470/520/550 fleets out there seems to me to be money far better spent toward certification than a yet-to-be-determined acceptance rate of unleaded fuel replacements. It is less than ironic to me that in the time you have to wait for a FOH we'll likely have the debate over the very unleaded fuel we'll be forced to use in that FOH solved--this is not a sustainable logic. Let's put that effort in to gaining the best engine replacement for a longer term, instead of wasting this decade-plus over a fuel to be burned in engines that aren't sustainable themselves. We now have streaming and digital music. Is this entire debate about unleaded avgas replacement going to end up being the VHS/Betamax debate? Fast forward 5 or 10 years from now and will this fuel debate end up on the academic editing room floor, when we really should be debating not if, but which recip alternatives should be out there?

While technically not a winning bid from a salvage auction, my very good friend in Texas (Mark Hasse, sadly flew west in 2012, God rest his soul) won a sealed bid from some tiny county in the Carolinas on a '65 310K. All the listing said was something to the effect of "Seized/forfeited aircraft; Cessna 310; locked with no keys; no known records; seized in drug raid; unknown condition, sold as-is, where-is". All interested parties were to send in written sealed bids via US Postal service to the county clerk (in other words, the selling entity wasn't aviation-related at all). Nearly wincing at the potential of offending the county, he sent in a bid for $10,000.00, thinking the IO470 cores would be worth at least double that (this was in the early 'aughts). He then went about his usual business and forgot all about his bid. About 3 months later, he gets a call out of the blue from the "X County Courthouse". He was a retired prosecutor/lawyer at the time, so getting a call from a "county Courthouse" wasn't altogether unusual. He answered and the very nice lady on the other end of the line said, "Mr Hasse, congratulations, you won the bid." "What bid?", he replied. She said, "the airplane that was seized here in South Carolina in the drug raid". He then remembered his sealed bid. She told him he was literally the only bidder. Now to the juiciest parts of any similar aviation auction/sealed bid-related story you'll ever hear: Mark was a consummate A&P/IA and an extremely cunning individual. He flew commercial out to see his "new-to-him" acquisition imposed upon him by the local authorities by virtue of his forgotten-bid (evidently the listing in the aviation auction periodical where he found out about it in the first place wasn't completely accurate, or at least had scared off everyone else because it made everyone think that the aircraft had actually been used in running drugs to and fro and was thus seized during an actual drug raid--it hadn't been and suffered no such fate. It was merely owned by some local idiot who had been caught running drugs elsewhere and this was merely an asset of his). Anyway, back to the story: Mark arrives at the county courthouse to give them his $10,000.00 cashiers check. The nice lady there giving him his bill of sale then tells him "go to the airport and ask for Jed. He'll take great care of you. Thanks so much for helping us out with this nightmare airplane problem." Still thinking he got a complete piece of crap, Mark then hops in his rental car and goes to the airport where the aircraft was sitting on the ramp, still in its "seized state", all locked up without keys or "records". Mark hoped that the old wives-tale about all 1960s-era Cessna locks being identical to unserialized Samsonite luggage locks was true. By damn, it was true. With less effort spent than tying his shoelaces, he was able not only to unlock the cockpit door, he also unlocked both nacelle lockers and guess what was inside? Yep, all records, from new, with fresh annual sign-off and fresh, complete OH on both engines AND props, full-stop--the owner had evidently overspent some of that hard-earned drug running money on his own airplane and had just returned to his local airport from that lengthy, extraordinarily expensive shop visit. Icing on the cake was that the other engine nacelle locker had 4 sets of brand new DC headsets. Remember "Jed"? Well, Jed was the local groundskeeper at this tiny little county airport in the middle of fly-over Carolina and explained to Mark that the county seized all of the owner's property because he was a known, local drug dealer and hadn't paid his property taxes. This was never a "drug seizure" and the aircraft was never involved in anything nefarious. Mark corroborated this with the local FBO guy, too (Mark used his jacks and shop to do his own gear-swing and ferry flight permit inspection to fly it back to his own shop for further eval in TX). My buddy got a great twin that I flew in with him for dozens of hours in later years for about 10% of its market-value, all for responding to a no-pictures, written ad in an auction periodical from some tiny, random county in the Carolinas who truly had no idea a) how to properly list a aircraft for sale; and b) how to determine its true condition and c) literally gave zero effort to even try to unlock the aircraft and find out what was inside. The local sheriff just wanted it gone and the lovely clerk at the courthouse saw to it that it was gone with minimal effort. PS--this story is 100% true, even down to the county waving any and all ramp fees/storage and they even paid a full fuel top-off since Mark was "so nice and pleasant to deal with". With ode and respect to my great friend Mark Hasse, Rockwall, TX. A true gem, if there ever was one on this planet. May he rest in peace.

Spot-on, yet again. I tried to highlight your word "operated" above (not sure if its legible in the final product here). A deep and abiding conversation needs to be had with each partner's CPA and a keen understanding of local and State tax regs is always best, e.g., if one partner is using the aircraft in the course of a business (even as simple as business travel, and thus writing off such travel as a deduction), then doing so might affect the tax status/reporting requirements of the other, "personal-use" partners who may never deduct any such aircraft or operating expenses, etc. Suffice it to say that none of this is impossible, nor disallowed, but my point is it needs to be done in black-letter compliance with the tax man's rules. Bottom line: the partners really need to have a mutually-agreeable, written understanding about what is allowed and not allowed by way of operating the aircraft because one partner's use of it will always affect the other partners' interests, whether they were the operator or not, especially come tax reporting time (if applicable). A few other "tip of the iceberg" topics to be considered, and by no means is this exhaustive: Taxes: Most tax authorities relegate the aircraft property tax issue at the State level to, on average, 1.5 persons who are a) overworked and b) paid in precisely opposite proportion to their workload. So one single person will usually have jurisdiction to figure out upwards of thousands of aircraft registered in his or her State. Naming the partnership: Don't name your entity after the airplane by make, model or N number. It's just not a good idea. "Business" of the partnership: be very specific that at no time shall the partnership operate the aircraft in a commercial or business pursuit, i.e. the acts of one partner bind the entirety of the partnership. Consult your favorite knowledgable attorney for what this really means. In the simplest of terms: if you and your partners are merely forming the partnership to tend to the usual ownership and costs associated with owning the aircraft, then you're fine. If there are any business pursuits directly associated with and require the aircraft (such as one partner using the aircraft commercially or instructing others outside of the partnership in the aircraft), then you have a different ball of wax that should be the subject of a different thread. Sticky wicket, indeed, if one partner is a commercial business involving the aircraft***. Partnerships (LLC formation and membership) specifically: It isn't spoken of very often on here, but the issue of FAA Civil Aircraft Registry regulations and guidelines involving LLCs and other partnerships is very straightforward, but also very detailed and complicated to the uninitiated. Consult your favorite competent aviation title lawyer or aircraft title escrow agent in OKC for further help on this very important step before you choose how to structure your LLC or other partnership. And don't be fooled by thinking you don't have a de-facto partnership just because you haven't formed a formal LLC or other corporate entity; if you and another person own an aircraft together, you have a partnership, full-stop (even your spouse, believe it or not). It just depends on what State you each live in as to how that's treated for tax and property purposes. Look at the options on the 8050-1 for the list of types of ownership the FAA recognizes. Another "wow, I never knew that" moment: the FAA Registry has its own viewpoint, regardless of what your local law might have to say otherwise, about spousal ownership and registration of aircraft: they're either "co-owners" or "partnerships", unless otherwise stipulated by you when you file your ownership and registration docs with OKC. Don't assume your friends at the Registry have a working understanding of your structure. Chew the FAA Registry's food for them by consulting local OKC knowledgable people first--you'll be better off if you do. Getting these seemingly simple documents and elections wrong at Registry filing can literally be the $2.00 o-ring that causes major headaches later (morbidly, don't leave your estate to figure this out later--it can be a nightmare with no end). ***edited to add that the "partners" comprising the partnership can be any number of legally-recognized "persons" or "entities". The FAA Registry has differing views of this versus most State laws governing partner entities within a partnership. Be wary.

What you really should be asking us is "how much should I charge this guy to take it off his hands?"

Wow. Kudos @Vance Harral. Your explanation and detail of what a healthy, proper aircraft (and operating) partnership should be goes immediately into the Hall of Fame of posts on this entire website. In a former professional life, I was deeply involved in commercial aircraft and engine leasing. Your analysis of expenses, anticipation of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance items and also things that go in the "supplemental" category is spot-on. Far be it for me to even *try* to guild the lilly of your brilliant undertaking above by merely suggesting a "partnership rent*** structure" (so to speak) that consists of three categories: base rate (think in terms of monthly rent that escalates (or not) based on predetermined rates of rent on an annual or semi-annual basis. This base rate is calculated based on all fixed costs strictly related to the hull value or overall aircraft market value, such as hangar rent (if the partnership wishes to amort such a cost assigned to the actual aircraft itself, or some other leasing structure that can be as complicated or simple as the partners wish), hull insurance and/or whatever other basis/bases the partners can agree on ahead of time, as long as its fixed and relates strictly to the standing value of the aircraft. This base rate is then a function of a lease rate factor of 1.1x X or whatever); supplemental rate (hourly rate charged based on utilization--think of this in terms of @Vance Harral's very good example of diminution or depreciation of value of the aircraft, based on an hourly rate) and a third "reserve" category for expendables such as subscriptions, avionics upgrade reserves, etc. So the simple way to break this down on the rates of what to charge the partnership, they'd be: 1. Fixed base rate on a monthly basis: monthly, based on aircraft valuation, diminishing. 2. Supplemental rate: hourly, based on Hobbs time/utilization, monthly. 3. Reserve rate: hourly, based on Hobbs time/utilization, monthly. @Vance Harral: now that I've showered you with praises, any chance you can share a sanitized form of your partnership agreement? Pretty-please? I'd love to see it. ***please don't overthink my use of the term "rent", because I wholeheartedly agree with anyone who yelled at their screens, saying "this isn't an aircraft lease deal, its a partnership deal". Totally agreed. I'm just using the "rent" term very loosely, for lack of a better word to use when charging-back or, more accurately, calculating what a partner owes a given partnership pro-rata for the ownership/use/upkeep of a partnership-owned aircraft.