exM20K

I carry 100 gallons of our cheap fuel out of here, so that’s a 1% solution. Or, I’m a one percenter lol. -dan

@dkkim73 does your plane have the cabin heater mod? M20|308A it works wonders in extreme cold. not a lot else to share, except that I’m currently in the same pickle, only worse. Brand new top o/h with Phillips XC 15W50 Type M, and half a tank of Florida fuel. I’m trying to get from Illinois back to Florida but will pass on flying till Thursday most likely. I presume t(e Type M oil is more prone to congealing than A/D oil and don’t want to risk it. I will put 0.5G per side of the 99.9% IPA when I go good lck -dan

RAM may have an engine for you. Did AirPower quote a lead time? I just topped my 1750 hour engine, but before I did, we pulled a cylinder from each side to get a look at the cam and lifters. sorry to hear of your misfortune. -dan

Want.

Florian, I, too, am in Chicagoland part time. I have general maintenance done at JA Aircenter (KARR), and while kind of speedy, they have been able to source hard-to-find parts and diagnose issues with no obvious solutions. Matt Mukenschnabl’s place, Chicago Aviation Services, at DPA quite a bit, too. Good people. For annuals, I’ve had much better luck with Mooney-specific shops like Don Maxwell Aviation in Longview, TX and Air Mods and Repair in NJ. Longview has service to ORD via one stop in Dallas. Trenton Robinsville, NJ is a short, relatively cheap NJ Transit ride to EWR for direct service to ORD. Welcome to Chicago. You have, in my opinion, the best Mooney made. -dan

and if the 3 leg test shows an airspeed indicator error, suspect alt static is open -dan

It also happens to be true. We are in the discovery phase of replacing the 30 year old underground dual tank, dual pump setup at my Illinois joint. Approximate quote? $550-850,000 for 2x8000 gallons. 8000/4000 above ground is the better part of $300,000. At the low end, 3000 gallons above ground: $160,000. That is a big nut for an FBO or county. Above ground also incurs a lift charge for delivery, and delivery has a flat-rate dispatch fee. Together, these add $0.15 - $0.30 cents to fuel cost. -dan

Yes, that is it. Really designed for a round base, not for the rectangular tubing in the seat support. -dan

POH 7-16: BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT The baggage compartment is located aft of rear passenger seats. The standard compartment has 20.9 cubic feet (0.59 cu.m.) of baggage or cargo space. A maximum of 120 pounds (54 Kg) may be loaded in this area. There are floor tiedown straps provided. Passengers should not be allowed to occupy this space. Additional cargo space is available by folding rear seats down. To fold seats down remove rear seat bottom cushion. Pull seat back release handle and fold seat back forward, pull Velcro attachment loose, and slide seat cover UP and OFF frame. Fold the seat backs the rest of the way down. Store the cushions as desired. Reverse the procedure to re--install. Seat back frames may also be removed for additional space. To remove frame fold rear seat back forward, pull Velcro attachment loose, and slide seat cover UP and OFF frame. Pull the lock pin on the left side of each frame then pull seat frame from pivot rods. Pull seat back release handle UP and push pivot rods forward & down into seat cushion cavity. Reverse the procedure to re--install.

Mine fall out all the time. they hold the seat back tubes onto the hinged tube mounts. -dan

@Bolter that is common and nothing to be concerned with. It is excess fluid steaming off. -dan

Maybe. I don’t have but an hour or 2 in a caravan, and that one was on floats, so kind of different. Im generally indicating 150-160 knots, and min icing speed / cruise climb is 120, so you have a little room. I don’t recall ever losing more than 10 KIAS in ice. Was th caravan booted or TKS? The philosophy of use is different for each. -dan

The “forcing” is evidently more likely from state and local government. Presenting G100 as a drop-in replacement gives those forces cover or pretext to ban 100LL. I sincerely wish you the best in your efforts to develop and commercialize a viable, economically competitive no-lead avgas which, in the fullness of time, can be proven benign or better yet, beneficial, to our airframe systems and engines. -dan

Amen. And it is the novelty of G100 and any other new fuel that gives this aviation conservative pause as to adopting a radically new fuel. -dan

kinda. I think this is the last word on “known” icing from the FAA. if you observe icing on your airframe you best be getting somewhere else if not FIKI. FIKI or not, that’s a good plan. -dan

Yeah, +1 on Flightline, Messina's, and the terminal. When we visited the WW2 Museum in early March 2020 (immediately pre-Covid), my wife found some early-bird offer on TripAdvisor which for a modest charge gave us early and guided access to the museum. Dunno if it's still offered, but if it is, I'd recommend booking it. We stayed at the Higgins Hotel, which is Hilton-affiliated should you have HIlton points. It is basically across the street from the Museum. Also recommended. As for restaurants, I've twice had what i'd rank as top-10 dining experiences at Peche Seafood Grill in the Warehouse district. -dan

Don’t forget the kidney. As discussed in another thread, physical lead is safe to handle with proper hygiene. It cannot be absorbed transdermally. Lead in solution as in 100LL can. -dan

“These levels were also within the typical range of concentrations measured Basin-wide as part of MATES V (Figure 2)” Q.E.D. -dan

This is where we disagree. I am not a lawyer, and you are evidently not one, either. I am, however, someone who is a litigant in two similar cases which were argued and won in the Illinois Supreme Court and the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. We are on the cusp of a 7th Circuit win on the State’s appeal next year, too. And the arguments are similar to what I present here…. Regulatory overreach which, according to the law, not public opinion, is impermissible. -dan

I don't think anyone is trying to stop (un)leaded fuel. I certainly am not. I would like the GA advocacy groups to lobby to work to protect our ability to fly at least until such time as there is a replacement fuel that won't harm our engines or airframes. It is not obvious right now that G100 is that solution. -dan

That is not the argument. The argument is: "Sorry, Mr. EPA. You don't get to do that under this Act." Imagine the Agency arrogates further reach to create and enforce noise standards. "Your little planes make too much noise and are impeding children's study time." Same argument. It's the Zero Tolerance stuff that is problematic here. -dan

Your insult is unpersuasive. You are willing to concede against a zero-tolerance standard. You mis-read the political and legal landscape, which is the only substantial change recently here. Until there is a viable alternative to 100LL, then, yes, the GA orgs should be prepared to push back against the use of this “science” to whip up the mob against GA. I agree that winning the PR battle here is not likely, but that is not where this protection will be won, which is my point. The EPA operates under the Clean Air Act. The Act has been amended many times, often to broaden its scope. Whipping congressional support to keep 100LL outside the scope of the EPA’s enforcement pending a viable alternative is what a GA lobbying group should be doing. Maybe AOPA is doing so quietly and behind-the-scenes. Moreover, post-Cargill, Judges no longer must defer to government “experts” and opinions. So an EPA study concluding that GA is the biggest producer of airborne lead and a zero-tolerance standard demanding no lead anywhere no longer are themselves controlling in court. The orgs should be prepared to sue and to seek injunctive relief should the EPA move to ban 100LL in the absence of a functionally and economically viable alternative. Maybe the orgs are preparing in this way. Or, if you wish to throw in with the mob, quit flying your plane. If you believe that the lead produced by GA piston flying is harming children, then it is selfish and morally unacceptable to continue with this activity until a viable alternative fuel is available. -dan

I agree with the emotional stampede but strongly disagree with getting out of the way. One cannot reason someone out of a position they have been driven in a panic into. One can only work within the political and legal system to win. I’m deeply involved in one of the great and current civil rights policy debates, and I used to engage with the other side in describing how the existing laws function in legal commerce. No more. We now fight in court, where we win with the facts and reason. And we win. I am far from fluent on environmental law and the regulatory state, but the 100LL thing will ultimately be decided there. I hope Million Dollar Mark has his experts queued up to push back against preposterous “studies” showing abnormal and elevated lead levels in children residing near GA airports, but I fear he hasn’t. If the AOPA’s leadership wishes to stop the bleeding of membership and re-establish its relevance to grassroots GA, it has a window here to take an aggressive stand against the emotional tidal wave by side-stepping into the legal realm to protect our ability to fly. Else they will feed off the corpse of a once-great association while somebody else carries the fight. Don’t fold. -dan

Photo?

Rest Assured: Million Dollar Mark is On It! Of course, any discussion of this issue with former Administrator Michael Whitaker is not going to produce much. -dan