mluvara

Been awhile, but have an update on some aircraft (plus a new one), and interesting learnings from fuel selector bench testing.

I shared the SAIB with the owner. The FAA FSDO did visit the aircraft onsite with Cirrus, so they are aware. If you note carefully in the SAIB, the notice was for FSDOs to report what they had learned too.

Same Cirrus that I reported on previously. It went to a Cirrus service center near Juan for inspection and repairs

He said on Beechtalk that he did submit it as part of the SAIB request.

Paul shared this link of an updated report based on your inputs and those who have read earlier versions and thanks everyone for the input. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-BAdrBUFKZNaVIoJ6sFFXuu2GG9rr1Cp/view

I reached out to Paul and conveyed your feedback to him. Thanks for the comments. I appreciate it. Michael

His original intent of this document was to share it with the two airports that carry G100UL (RHV & WVI). I believe his point was that he exclusively filled up any time in the bay area with G100UL, but obviously needed 100LL to fly home. The aircraft's flight history is here, with obvious stops for border crossing. He quantified that the D-Shannon tip tanks hold 40 gallons in this post.

This ruling is about upholding existing rules and regulations and the situation goes back over three years. Those of us who require 100 octane have suffered since the draconian ban went into effect on Jan 1,2022. Then the County finally brought G100UL in last Nov after promising for three years that it was 'coming soon'. Note: I am a complainant in the Part 16 complaint and people have misattributed my motives in the situation.

That is my understanding and I pointed it out in that video (if you haven't watched it). This link goes right to the references and questions of some possible connections.

That's the same one I referenced previously that was sitting in Hollister. See here for direct part of video.

From what I can tell, the judge has not issued a final ruling yet. It appears that the CEH sent a survey out about G100UL interest at FBO's after the Mar 5 hearing in order to show 'demand' for G100UL. A request was submitted on Mar 18th (11th hour?) to add it as new evidence (Ex Parte). CEH Ex Parte Application Declaration Settling Defendants Response Opposition Declaration Excerpts attached CEH: Settling Defendants:

Yes. Agree. I was trying to relate the point of a non fully seated primer (whether lock pin, o ring/debris, etc) causing the effect.

FAA issued this notice last week seeking primer failure reports, which is of a related situation. “The FAA is investigating a report of a worn fuel primer pump that may be installed in general aviation aircraft following a non-fatal accident on a Champion 7EC Traveler. During the initial takeoff climb, the pilot noticed a significant decrease in the engine rpm and lost full engine power shortly after. It was determined that the fuel primer pump in the accident was worn and unable to lock properly causing an overly rich fuel mixture. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the right wing and the fuselage.” https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/noticeView.aspx?nid=14328 FAA_ACS_-_7EC_Fuel_Primer_Pump.pdf

Keep in context the fact that they relied on a report and a narrative from GAMI. The current CEO of AOPA was not part of the previous testing. My read of Eagle Fuel Cell's report doesn't align completely with GAMI's conclusion. https://flyeagle.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AOPA-Baron-Fuel-Cells-Report.pdf https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/aopa-baron-wing-stain-traced-to-leaking-bladder-patch/ https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/november/pilot/unleaded-fuel-what-we-have-learned

The following post in January was the most recent statement on their position. "First, AOPA does not support one unleaded fuel over another. The marketplace (pilots) will ultimately determine which fuels are successful and which are not. Second, AOPA has been a strong proponent of a “burn and learn” approach to new FAA-approved unleaded fuels to help accelerate a transition to an unleaded future. As we did with our Beechcraft Baron last year, AOPA will continue to demonstrate new unleaded fuels as they become available, and we’ll provide full transparency on our results." https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/january/23/presidents-position-on-unleaded-fuel

Part 4.

>130" at 3400 RPM. Highest I ever saw was 145" on one of the P-51 racers that I crewed on.

I have a bit of experience in this area, as I spent 2003-2015 crewing on numerous aircraft at Reno (including several that won Unlimited Gold) and supplying telemetry systems to them. I also worked as a party to the NTSB investigation to the 2011 Galloping Ghost crash because I built the telemetry system. That aside, ADI was a system adopted for the high power race engines. On the Merlins, the after cooler was removed in favor of a tube induction system after the supercharger. It usually had an automatic system that would come on with a manifold pressure switch and feed the ADI fluid into an area of the supercharger (if I recall correctly). Failure of this at 130” MAP for a carbureted system would result in a pretty instant catastrophic result if not caught quickly. On the other hand, a fuel injected 3350 on a Sea Fury actually would not suffer the same instant fate if the ADI failed and induction temp resultingly increased. I remember we ran a good portion of a lap when the ADI system failed at high power on the Sea Fury. The real time telemetry saved numerous engines because of system failures. I just feel the extra complexity could be an issue for GA because it’s another system to maintain, care, and feed. One needs to carry methanol to mix with water, or have a supply at airports. It’s another preflight item.

AOPA has supported a safe and smart transition to unleaded fuels, including the filing of a part 16 complaint opposing Santa Clara County's unilateral ban on 100LL that started this whole mess. You can see much of that history here. https://www.aopa.org/advocacy/100-unleaded-avgas https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/november/26/aopa-asks-faa-to-rule-against-california-county-avgas-ban

Here's the background as I know it and have come to learn the history of over the past couple months. - In ~2011, CEH (Center for Environmental Health) sued several distributors of fuel (flight schools, FBO's,etc) regarding California's Prop 65 (we all know as the 'everything may cause cancer, harm, etc' labeling). - In 2014, a settlement (consent agreement) was made by the parties to carry unleaded when it came available fast forward.... CEH sued in Dec 2024 to enforce settlement agreement... and make them carry the 'commercially available' G100UL. See Avweb for summary of the court documents Not only that, they added a request to modify the agreement and prematurely ban 100LL in California before the FAA 2031 deadline. Given some recent filings requested use of my photos and referenced my work, I purchased a few documents. They are public record and free to share once purchased, so I am offering them here. If you want the rest, the docket location was posted earlier in this thread. A set of filings the past week describe several G100UL user's experiences (not all of them that exist). Grab your favorite drink and have a read... I've tried to put them in general chronological order. 59816247_01_24_2025_Declaration_OF_GEORGE_W__BRALY_IN_SUPPORT_OF_PLAINTIF___ 59816248_01_24_2025_Declaration_OF_PAUL_MILLNER_ON_BEHALF_OF_THE_AIRCRAFT___ 59909915_02_18_2025_Ex_Parte_Application_Settling_Defendants_Ex_Parte_App___ 59909917_02_18_2025_Declaration_Of_Patrick_Davis_In_Support_Of_Defendants___ 59909918_02_18_2025_Declaration_Of_David_Bertucci_In_Support_Of_Defendant___ 59909919_02_18_2025_Declaration_Of_Sean_Patrick_Kelley_In_Support_Of_Defe___ 59909920_02_18_2025_Declaration_Of_Daniel_Demeo_In_Support_Of_Defendants____ 59909921_02_18_2025_Declaration_Of_Steven_E__Rubin_In_Support_Of_Defendan___ 59909922_02_18_2025_Declaration_Of_Bruce_T__Nelson_In_Support_Of_Defendan___ 59909923_02_18_2025_Declaration_Supplemental_Declaration_Of_Patrick_Waddi___ 59909924_02_18_2025_Declaration_Of_Jeffrey_Soule_In_Support_Of_Defendants___ 59913858_02_20_2025_Declaration_SUPPLEMENTAL_DECLARATION_OF_PAUL_MILLNER____

Piper issued a customer information letter. "Piper has not evaluated any STC fuels, including GAMI G100UL, for use in any Piper airplane model. Piper does not have sufficient information to evaluate the chemical properties of the fuel and how it may interact with materials throughout the fuel system, including but not limited to: the airframe surfaces and structures, fuel tanks (materials, sealants, bladders, gaskets, etc.), fuel quantity gauging components, fuel lines, and other fuel system components (pumps, valves, sensors, etc.)." https://www.piper.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CIL-2025-002.pdf

ADI comes with its own set of pros and cons. The first issue is that it is another system to manage and carry. When that system quits under conditions where it is necessary, then you are likely to have a problem (detonation). Just ask all the Unlimiteds at the air races what happens when it fails under high power. And then you you are carrying a water/methanol mix and associated components. One can't just use water because it will freeze in some scenarios and there are rust/material considerations. The addition of methanol changes the freezing point of the mixture, hence compatibility with cold or high altitude operations. It also affects the mixture and might require mixture compensation at different stages of power. Thanks! I'm just trying to transparently show observations.

For those that don't regularly partake in FAASafety or FAASTeam Wings seminars, I noticed that some Eagle representatives are presenting at one tomorrow (Saturday Feb 22nd). "Join us for A VIRTUAL cup of coffee, a donut, and a LIVE WEBINAR as representatives of EAGLE, an initiative consisting of the aviation and petroleum industries, and other interested parties, all working toward the transition to lead-free aviation fuels (UL AvGas) for piston-engine aircraft by the end of 2030 without compromising the safety or economic health of the general aviation industry. The speakers will explain the “big picture” from developing and authorizing a UL AvGas replacement to its distribution, storage and sale at airports. They will also provide the most current status of the three replacement UL AvGas that are at various stages of development, testing, distribution and sale. Aviation safety will be discussed, and is central to the content of this presentation." Details here: https://www.faasafety.gov/SPANS/event_details.aspx?eid=134442&%26caller%3d%2fWINGS%2fpub%2faccreditedactivities%2factivitySearch.aspx

What I believe you are referring to is what one of the RV-6 owners reported to me, is that the sealant appeared to harden after removal of G100UL. I have no first hand testing of that at this point in time.