Sabremech

Would it be beneficial to send a sample to a lab to analyze the components and more importantly the percentages of each? We’re not going to get the second part of that from GAMI. I’d be willing to chip in for the cost of that if it would get us beneficial information. David

I think ACF-50 is better and lasts longer but glad we all get our own choices.

I have to disagree that it’s better. I’m going to call it miserable because even 10 years after it was sprayed in my bird it was wicking out between the seams of the wing skins. What a pain in the butt cleaning that after every flight. Sure puts a damper on it if you plan to paint the airplane. Plan on more cost to ensure it is not on the paintable surface. I much prefer ACF-50 as it’s not as likely to wick for years. Pick wisely as there’s bound to be some kind of issue you didn’t plan on having in regards to maintaining your bird.

The 2005 SR22 in my hangar doesn’t have any of this wrinkling. If it’s the NACA scoop I think it is, it’s far out on the wing and also due to dihedral unlikely to see anything but vapors. Plus as others have stated, zero blue stains like a leak near the fuel tank. I have to lean towards bad prep or being affected by fuel vapors during painting based on the paint coverage of the vent and not being plugged off for paint. I also question the brown color you state that 100LL turns to. I’ve seen the brown on a small seep that was on the bottom of my Mooney. I didn’t equate that directly to the 100LL but to dirt that gets picked up by the close proximity to the gear and the ground clearance on a Mooney. Cleaning that did not leave any brown color but a very light shade of blue. David

Interesting Hammdo! Look at that baffling! Wonder who did that? Lol

The advantage of taking on a barn find, is typically all the parts are there. Why not bring a dormant airplane back to life?

I picked up the free ( old dirty hangar) barn find Mooney last year about this time. A 1956 M20. A neat machine and currently making its way back to airworthy. My intent is not to keep it, but get it flying again and sell it. My thoughts going ahead with this project were that I could always part it if I found something beyond economical to making it airworthy. David

Look at the TCDS for which tire you can use.

I manufacture these tools. A set sells for $325 plus shipping. I have plenty of stock. David

I have a nose shock disk tool that I rent as an option. David

Strip the paint and go with a polished wing!

Yes, but again, if GAMI did it, so will some other company. They will have competition.

Really? I don’t think so but hey, whatever.

What could possibly go wrong? Would have to be proven that it was caused directly from the 100UL and everything we’re being sold says its better for our engines.

Who are the STC police at the fuel pumps? What’s to stop you or anyone else from pumping GU100LL into your plane and using it? I don’t know how you can police whether you have the paperwork that gives you the privilege to pay more for your fuel or not! ????

Shouldn’t GAMI repaint your wing? The damage to paint is a known and disclosed problem. Does that mean it’s acceptable for you to incur the damage caused by a vendors product? That’s setting a new precedent which should not be acceptable. I hate to say it Don, but this is the difference between those who don’t have a budget and those who do. The care level meter swings quite a bit depending on which end of the spectrum you’re on. Still unacceptable.

Well the script is almost identical from you and George. I don’t know why you’d feel insulted? Is it because someone else thinks the same as you?

Sounds like you’ve been communicating with George as this is almost a carbon copy of what he sent me. If GAMI came up with an acceptable blend, what makes you think some other company with bigger pockets can’t do the same or better? I’m betting that there will be competition for GAMI in the future. They may be the first but won’t be the only. Give it time.

Thank you for not answering my questions.

What does your question have to do with what I posted and you’re quoting? There are other companies working on a 100UL fuel is what I said. Is that not a true statement? Do you think another company is not capable of producing a product to compete with GAMI?

I don’t give a darn about California and doubt anything they do will change the 2030 target for the other 49 states. As I stated before, give it a rest.

You don’t know that. It’s not 2030 and there are other companies working on an alternative fuel. Give it a rest.

Hi George, From what I’m reading Shell has fuel available in Europe for testing, etc. It makes me wonder if they’re going to go the EASA route for certification and then bring it to the US where the FAA gives a blanket approval. I should have gone that route on my STC’s as the FAA automatically accepts them but the other way around, nope, spend more money with EASA for approval.

I don’t need a history lesson. We’re all keenly aware of what’s on the horizon for 100LL. I never inferred that it was going to be an easy process. We would only have one choice if the government chose to ban 100LL today. That’s not going to happen. Other companies are working on a solution / alternate as well. I for one think Shell has the best potential to supply the system as it’s currently being supplied for 100LL now. That’s going to be determined at the FBO or airport management level and not you or I. The government has thrown trillions of our tax dollars at solutions looking for a problem. Looks like we have plenty of problems out of those tax dollars.

There’s more companies working on this so hold your excitement. There’s Shell with their 100VLL, LyondellBasell/VP Racing working through the PAFI/ EAGLE process and doing well along with Swift fuels. Hopefully we’ll have some choices in the near future.