Shadrach

yes with Forced induction.

It's a hollow argument from a regulatory standpoint which is all that matters. There is a physics argument to be made but it's navel gazing from an operations standpoint unless one is willing to make up their own rules and disregard certificate limitations.

Forced induction is a hell of a drug... That powerband is insane. A step from 2500-3000 and a consistent pavement peeling pull all the way to 7000 with a drop off back under 900hp near redline.

This is pretty much sums up my take. It's been said many times that Ayn Rand wrote cartoonishly idealist heroes into her novels (I tend to agree), but that her villains were real. I can see a touch of Randian drama playing out in this initiative.

???? That is not a number that I have seen published for a production LT1

It is listed in that models section of the TCDS. I don't have all the POHs in my files and don't need them as it is clear in TCDS 2A3 that M20Js with Serial Number 24-3000 thru 24-3078 are approved to deploy 15° flaps at 145 m.p.h. (126 knots) IAS. As far as I know it is the only Mooney model ever certified with an increased Vfe for partial flap deployment.

I actually dug up the HP and Torque curves for the naturally aspirated 2024 C8. Output is remarkably close to the IO360 at 2700. That’s where the similarities end. The LT2 is 170lbs heavier than the angle valve Lycoming IO360 and 210lbs heavier than a parallel valve O360. I don’t have the Chevy’s fuel specifics, but I can say with confidence they’re not as good as the Lycoming.

Some recommend leaning during a static run up for best power. Some just twist the knob out during the initial roll until they “feel” the engine hit max power. One could also consult the POH which will give you max RPM, max power fuel flow for a given altitude. It won’t be dead, solid, perfect but it will get you close.

I installed mine without doing that but if you have the capability, it probably makes things easier.

And that agrees with the TCDS. Which is the final authority on the subject. There is no approved higher speed for partial flap deployment. Logic would dictate that one could deploy partial flaps at some speed above Vfe without generating the aerodynamic loads encountered at max extension at Vfe, nevertheless, anyone doing so is playing test pilot though the stakes are quite low compared to other stupid pilot adventures. To be clear, I think most airplanes have exceeded Vfe at some point in their lives though likely not intentionally, but accidentally during busy, single pilot operations.

@Utah20Gflyer and @Ragsf15e Gents, I pooched all of my posts in this thread royally.... I originally cut and pasted historical weather from wunderground weather into an online E6B not bothering to see that wunderground was giving station pressure, not altimeter setting. (Duh...26.68” is not possible). I came up with an approximate DA of 12,500ish (again duh). The 10gph figure is what my POH show for best power at 12,500' I went back and amended all of the mistakes but neglected to amend the FF which should have been leaned to ~ 15.5gph. I have edited the previous post. It's been a long week for me and I am showcasing it in some of my posts...

Has Lycoming ever stated that using mogas under the Peterson STC is grounds for denying warranty claims? If not, then one must wonder why?

I’ve had much less flattering monikers in my life!

Yes, you’ll note I edited the post, ‘twas a brain fart on my part

Edit: looks like wunderground give the pressure setting and not the altimeter setting. I should have caught that. I will rework the numbers after dinner. The calculated DA from the prelim was just under 8000’.

It worked out fine on my 67F. I would encourage you to do it in the summer time. I caused a small crack in left middle window. I am pretty sure had I done the install in June instead of January, it would not have been a problem. It took me a full afternoon to do both sides. IIRC the passenger side was actually easier. once the straps are in place you can use a fastener to make witness marks on the back side of the pillar trim for precise drilling. Make sure you have everything where you want it first. It's easy enough to remove the door trim to see what your dealing with before committing.

Whoops...You typed wool but I read wood... I covered min in ultrasuede 10 years ago.

As in thin wood veneer or did you use thin strips like a tambour door?

It looks to me like all of the supposed “issues” are non-specific.

Indeed this is specifically addressed in the GAMI FAQ section. Of course, one would have to believe that GAMI is representing the test results accurately which is questionable given that the owner is “essentially a Salesman” and an “Attorney”. I mean think of all the shady stuff that GAMI has done in the last 30+ years and then couple that with all of the compelling evidence presented in this thread.

DA was ~8000.. properly leaned, his take off FF should have been just a bit over 15gph. 5000’ seems like a lot of runway for an F model but I can envision a scenario where it isn’t and this one has many of those components corrected for cut and paste error

Glad there were no injuries. Very sorry to see another 1967 Exec destroyed.

You seem to be confusing the term standard and specification. G100UL does not have an ASTM specification. It has met or exceeded the standards for ASTM D910 per memorandum ANE-2010-33.7-5A released by the FAA Engine and Propeller Directorate (EPD) on July 26, 2011, long before PAFI was even a thing. I’m not sure what people think the STC approval and 10+ years of testing and analysis was based on. G100UL conforms to a specification that that was created during the STC approval process. If you examine the document, you will see a number ASTM test methods/standards specified within the document. G100UL wasn’t subjected to the PAFI framework because it would have required $hit canning three years of R&D and certification work. This is purely my speculation and reading of the timeline of events, but it looks to me like Continental, Lycoming and Cirrus were all engaged with GAMI early in the development process but when PAFI came along 3 years later, the politically expedient thing to do was to be team players and jump on board the PAFI bandwagon. GAMI was not the politically expedient product to support. More than 10 years have passed and PAFI has not yet delivered a viable drop in. One thing is obvious from this thread. There are a lot of uninformed folks regarding the process and approval. Every one is entitled to an opinions no matter how uninformed.

Take off and climb are the most crucial to safety and usibilty. Requiring a SIM with a timing map certified to work with a new fuel seems like a bigger regulatory ask than where we are now.

Ok then, this begs the question what would be satisfactory? The fuel has 100s if not 1000s of hours of testing on the most sophisticated aviation engine test stand available...anywhere. It has gone through two STC applications and met all standards for approval each time through two different FSDOs. No one here has articulated an actual technical concern with the fuel, just concerns about product development as a process in general. Either there is a standard or there isn’t. If there is, either that standard has been met or it hasn’t. In this case there is a standard for STC approval. If one has an issue with said standard or the process in which approval was granted, then make it known. “I am sure there is something wrong with it because there have been things wrong with other things at other times that I have observed ” is a lousy argument.