rahill

I should have used more happy faces. It's not a big deal, and it's a total non-issue if you're based at Reid Hillview since it all (including the $20 shipping) gets refunded anyway. But the instructions are to print out the forms and take them to the airport for the event on Saturday for signatures and placards.

I think the concern is that it can stain paint, not actually eat it. Apparently negated by promptly wiping up any spills.

Actually, just the decals , you can print the 337 and STC yourself.

The STC cost varies depending on horsepower. The 180 hp Mooneys are $395 ($375 + $20 shipping), the 200 hp Mooneys are $420 ($400 + $20). The breakdown seems to be $50/airframe + a variable cost per engine.

It's fun isn't it? Z-Z1-Y1-cross 31R-A1-to 31L. Which replaced "taxi via Z" more or less. Z1, Y1, and A1 are not much more than one plane length. One day they'll finish the construction, hopefully.

It didn't stop Santa Clara County - they banned the sale of 100LL more than a year ago with no viable alternative available. That was done to speed up the closure of the airport, not to sell unleaded fuel.

I appreciate the effort you put into developing the fuel. Unleaded auto gas has been around for almost 50 years (1975), it's amazing that 100LL has lasted this long. It's extremely fortunate that as more local communities grab hold of the lead issue, significant or not, there's a viable alternative on the horizon.

And if you saved your earlier cradle (they're cheap, about $18 each), the iPad mini 6 fits in the cradle from the iPad mini 1.

The real reason they did the lead study is to prove the airport is unsafe and therefore close it. It's just the latest approach, and it seems to be working. It has nothing to do with encouraging pilots to move, they're not trying to prove the airport is underutilized (it's not!), they just want it gone. The fact that there's now an alternative to 100LL for the majority of the aircraft (and by Q2 2022, all aircraft), especially the training aircraft which make up a huge percentage of the use, didn't really occur as an option to the anti-airport crowd when they glommed onto the lead issue - and it probably doesn't matter. Hopefully transitioning as many aircraft as possible to UL94 (same cost as 100LL) now may ease some of the "close it now" calls.

I think it has to do with compression ratios, although that may be a bit simplistic. Even some of the lower horsepower IO-540s are able to use UL94 and it turns out they have slightly lower compression ratios too. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The flight schools at RHV have largely switched to UL94 fuel, and had so before this latest announcement in an attempt to be a proactive solution to the problem. That works for a lot of people, including many (all?) of the carbureted Mooneys, but it's not available for fuel injected Mooneys.

This is super annoying, but to blast it as a California problem is short sighted. Reid Hillview, along with other urban airports nation-wide, have been threatened by development and other issues for decades. The lead issue is the latest weapon in the arsenal against the airports, and frankly it's a little surprising it's taken this long. Leaded auto fuels were phased out in the US 45 years ago. Read the lead report that Santa Clara County commissioned. You could see the conclusion before it was even presented, but there are countless arguments about the effects of what were thought to be trivial lead levels being an issue. Was it biased and predetermined - yes, it seems so - but the counter arguments seem cold-hearted, poorly thought out, and aren't helping much. What would be needed is a comparable report proving that the lead from 100LL is not an issue. Removing 100LL from the airport is no-doubt going to cause major inconveniences and possibly safety hazards, but it's the county's immediate response to the issue. Don't dismiss this as a "liberal CA thing", it's been simmering for a long time.

http://static.garmin.com/pumac/sa01899wi_aml.pdf

Understood, she already told me that "xfoil doesn’t account for vortices, wing-body join, interface between the two airfoils, etc. so there are probably a lot of things contributing to the differences". I think she gets it.

I've already got my daughter plugging numbers into XFOIL and wondering why the airfoil numbers don't match the measured data. I think we may have you beat in the geek department. Rich