cujet

That would be us.

You are correct, I was only charged $6.40 for 100LL. And $25 per night. Along with my 1.3 hour delay. My mistake.

As Director of Maintenance for a corporate flight department with multiple East Coast locations, and as a pilot/aircraft owner, I travel far more than most. Travel includes service center visits for various aircraft, hangar bases, to broken aircraft and on critical overseas trips and personal flights. One thing I've noticed is that certain FBO's are introducing enough in the way of delays, to make flying light aircraft non competitive with driving. Especially on shorter trips. For example, Atlantic Aviation at SJC (Saint Augustine, FL) requires rental car returns at the defunct airline terminal, where they then eventually pick you up and shuttle you to your aircraft. In much the same way as many European airports do. So instead of allowing the pilot to bring baggage and pets to the aircraft, they are required to go through multiple steps. Baggage/passengers/pets gets transfered once or twice, often including a bag-drag through the FBO. Add in $7.50 Avgas and $25+ per night parking on a federally funded closed runway and the verdict is in. GA is becoming rather impractical. When it takes an hour or more from arrival to aircraft on each end, an hour flight turns into 3, and at that point, the interstate is more attractive. These FBO's fail to understand one major reason for their existence. The use of aircraft to save time. God forbid we try to fly in and out of a presidential TFR. Clearing the FBO's TSA system often takes forever, and is truly the height of insanity. They check the bristles on your toothbrush for contaminates, yet you can clearly carry aboard your private aircraft nearly anything you want.

Just a thought: If your engine is going to be apart for inspection, then re-assembled, but not overhauled. Consider renewing various wear items such as cam and lifters. (assuming you have a flat tappet cam) Main and Rod bearings, rod bolts and so on. Many disassembly-inspections go back together without replacement of those wear items. Sometimes they don't even remove the rods from the crank. Done correctly, you should have an engine that will go another 2000 hours from the "inspection". It may not increase the value like a true overhaul would, but it will have some value, especially to you.

Many gas turbine engines specifically allow the use of 100LL and/or unleaded gasoline. In fact the P2V had both piston engines and jet engines, all of which ran on Avgas. Our EC135 helicopter has Turbomeca Arrius 2B1 engines. They allow a good number of hours using 100LL avgas without restrictions or overhaul requirements.

I use Micro-Mesh regularly. Some thoughts: a) Removal of scratches requires significant sanding down of the plastic surface to a depth below all scratches. b) Sanding needs to be done in an organized manner, over a wide area. Optical clarity requires a uniform surface, without low spots. c) The finer grit papers need to be used far more than it at first seems, as you need to remove all the micro scratches you just put there with the previous sanding. d) Use a lot of water as you sand. e) I use a BluePoint 3 inch buffer (snap-on) with wool pad and "Flitz" (the metal polish) as a final finish. Done with skill, it results in world class clarity. Done without care and burns result. This heli is 17 years old and I've been able to keep the windscreens perfect, including sanding down through the minor crazing and polishing. No imperfections.

It is not unusual for paint vapors (light overspray) to get inside the fuselage and interior. Keep that in mind when your fresh leather no longer cleans up properly due to the overspray.

For those who may experience icing: https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/cspages/bfgicex.php https://www.skygeek.com/goodrich-icex-ii-de-ice-boot-adhesion-inhibitor.html IceX is a thick-ish viscous silicone coating that we use in our flight department on aircraft that have boots. It does not last 50 hours. It lasts one flight, and it makes a little bit of a slimy mess as it migrates back over the wing. (wipes right off, easy cleanup) . However, it works equally well on aircraft without boots. It's job is to prevent ice from sticking in the first place. Clearly, ice will form on the curve of the leading edges no matter what product you put on there. But, IceX will help prevent it from adhering as well, so buildups tend to be smaller and to come off. On our Pilatus PC-12, I've seen a fresh coating of IceX allow us to fly without using the boots at all. You can clearly see it buildup to about 1/16 inch thick, and depart. Understand, I don't say it's a solution or a fix. Only that a very fresh and thick coat of the stuff "can" help.

As far as I know, no angle valve lyc's can use any available unleaded. http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/299fa3d6aef0ba048625821e0072188a/$FILE/1E10_Rev_28.pdf https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070Z Specified Fuels.pdf

Corrected for clarity. The problem with reducing peak HP in an aircraft is self evident. Electronic control on engines like the higher compression IO360A1 series lyc's won't likely result in the same HP as we enjoy now, when coupled with lower octane fuel.

Direct injection can help mitigate knock, by injecting fuel quite late in the compression stroke. The problem is that our engines operate under high load conditions, requiring sufficiently advanced (before TDC) ignition timing and therefore sufficiently advanced (direct) fuel injection. Can't light what's not there. Point being, direct injection probably won't allow higher compression and high boost aircraft engines to operate on lower octane fuel. The use of knock sensors (and lower octane fuel) in high compression engines simply results in less timing advance and HP loss. I predict a drop-in fuel made mostly with the very same Aviation Alkylate as our 100LL, high percentages of high octane components (trimethylbenzene, toluene, zylene etc) and the addition of lots of MMT octane booster. Along with components to scavange the residual MMT.

The C20 and Torco 108 are not oxygenated, and the closest possible products but still fall short. The higher octane choices from VP, Sunoco, Torco and others are oxygenated. They have excellent octane and excellent properties. HOWEVER, they will not work in our aircraft. Sunoco 260GT is 13% Ethanol, for example. There is no question some aircraft can use oxygenated fuels safely, an example might be a carb'd 172 operated in dry conditions and in constant use. But there are all sorts of problems with oxygenates. They damage or destroy fuel cells, fuel tank sealant, certain fuel lines, including the common Stratoflex fuel line, common O-Rings swell, and the fuel absorbs and retains water that cannot be sumped out. This results in a high risk of corrosion and freezing. One major problem is that most unleaded fuels typically do not exhibit the same excellent high octane characteristics as 100LL, when used in an over rich condition. Such as in turbocharged aircraft engines under high boost.

It's interesting that even the mighty VP-Racing Fuels does not produce an unleaded with enough octane to match our lowly 100LL. Their best comparable product is C20, a non oxygenated unleaded with a MON of 99. (roughly comparable to the 100LL "lean" rating of 100) and a RON of 107, far lower than the "rich" 115 octane rating of 100LL. I don't want to say "it can't be done" but it's certainly looking like some form(s) or combination of octane boosters will be required.

Mesitylene, the flavor of trimethylbenzene that Swift uses has been around for a long time, it was first produced in 1837! Some interesting reading. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2016/0168499.html

The original Swift 102UL was a binary mix of Trimethylbenzene and isopentane (maybe 70/30) a mix that produced 102 octane and had some excellent properties. It was not good in cool weather, and no amount of blending the percentages made it viable in cold weather, despite the superb octane. Even the Embry Riddle, FL folks could not get the engines to start in the frigid sub 50 degree F FL winter on Swift 102UL. Swift seems to be changing their formula ( percentage speculation: 20/70/10 trimethylbenzene, aviation alkylate, and isopentane) . In other words, it's 70% Avgas without the lead and their other two components. They claim this is to lower the cost, but I'd guess the real reason is cold weather operations. I had high hopes for Swift, I'm sorry to see them pull out. It ain't easy to get the lead out. I've been using unleaded fuels in very high boost race cars since the early 1980's, the trick was to use high percentages of toluene and to heat the fuel for proper atomization. MMT (methyl manganese tricarbonyl) is a classic octane booster that has been used for years, available in bottles at the local auto parts store. It's the stuff that leaves a reddish color on spark plugs and tailpipes. It's well understood and it may end up being the lead substitute in the next generation of Avgas. I question the safety benefit over leaded fuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylcyclopentadienyl_manganese_tricarbonyl Interesting that MMT degrades in 2 minutes, when exposed to sunlight.

The Internet is wonderful, the great equalizer. Where good and bad information can be shared. I've shared with accuracy. As always YMMV.

I have no ax to grind with DM. It may seem so, but that's simply not the case. However, your experience highlights some real problems.

No, he does not. That's why he hid the broken parts from the owner.

The failed wire at the alternator was the only problem. The shop failed to find the obvious. Instead opting to pull the baffling, ram air intake, alternator and surrounding parts. I caution aircraft owners to diligently oversee any maintenance. Your life may depend on it. Missing or extra parts will be clue number 1.

Hardware will travel easily past the throttle plate, and tumble to the back of the intake plenum, where it gets sucked up by one of the aft intake tubes. Right about the time when the nose pitches up a little after takeoff. It then passes the intake valve and rattles around inside the cylinder. Banging up the piston, valves, spark plugs and so on. This leads to a dead cylinder rather rapidly. The problem was not just that a mistake was made. The problem was the cover up, the refusal to acknowledge a mistake and the subsequent poor treatment of the aircraft owner. Note #2: When I make a mistake, I've learned that's the time to spill the beans, so to speak. Tell everyone that matters, immediately. What I've found is that people will rush to help, for various personal reasons. Jet Aviation pushed our G550 back with the tail ladder not stowed. (my mistake for not stowing it when finished, and especially for not being there during towing) The ladder tore through 2 inches of the lower fuselage skin. Called the boss, the chief pilot, Gulfstream tech ops, the local Gulfstream service center and local Gulfstream mechanics in that order. I got help, lots of it. Fixed and done in short order, by people who have "been there, done that". Yeah, it feels awful at the time. In the end, I'm thankful for the outpouring of help and a job well done.

Engine failure on takeoff due to hardware ingestion, after leaving the Maxwell shop for an alternator wire fault, followed by denial, the hiding of damaged parts and a refusal to take responsibility. My suggestions: go elsewhere, or go there and remain at your airplane 100% of the time, making sure each and every task is performed correctly, from start to finish. Note: I'm Director of Maintenance for a very high end corporate flight department. In my 25 years as DOM, not once has a shop directly or indirectly caused an engine failure. The quality of the work coming out of Maxwell's shop was, quite simply, abysmal. The above mentioned airplane's engine and engine accessories were incorrectly reassembled on many levels, after the incident. Leading to significant further headaches and resulting eventually in a spun main bearing and loss of oil pressure. 2 engine failures, caused by one Maxwell mechanic. You be the judge.

So, after all this, where is that 18kts? My best guess is that it is a combination of drag increasing items. Each individual issue is minor in nature, yet they add up to a good bit of wasted time and fuel. 18kts loss over 4 hours is, quite simply, a big deal. That puts the slower airplane on a 70+ mile final when the other is on the ground. Worse yet, economy cruise is also affected negatively.

I'm really only trying to be helpful. I've done this before, once or twice, in the real world. https://www.adamsaviation.com/files/ww/Catalogues/RAMI.pdf

Unfortunately, I don't know the "towel bar" drag numbers. It ain't good though. Remember, there are variations on these too. Some are angled aft, for a reduction in drag. Some have larger bases. None are good. I "think" I remember reading 8 pounds, but my memory is useless, and I have no idea what speed the rating would be at. Lower drag alternatives include certain (but not all) V shaped wire VOR ones or the higher end dual blade antennas, properly positioned with the local airflow The trick question of the day is what Carusoam asked: "How much drag at 17k’... " Since we are discussing a fast turbocharged piston aircraft that can achieve similar IAS at various altitudes, the drag will nearly the same at a given indicated airspeed, regardless of altitude. Not really identical, but for our discussion, that's close enough. One major reason Experimental aircraft go so fast is that builders tend to hide antennas, and keep all forms of drag and unnecessary weight to a minimum.

It would have to be down 50+ HP to lose 18Kts. We would like to believe that all antenna are equal. They are not. Those VOR bar antenna you see on many aircraft are very high drag items. ADF is a bad one, if mounted externally. Very low drag antenna: Very high drag "towel bar" antenna: I'm not claiming that a couple of antennas cause the 18Kt loss. But it's good to understand that book numbers often do not include any gross offenders. Let's put that another way, making book numbers often takes an amazing amount of effort, generally involving the removal of equipment and the optimization of all things drag related. An interesting example includes the Gulfstream GIV aircraft as originally designed. It was easily capable of far exceeding M0.88 (MMO) in cruise flight at FL410, even when heavy. Add in a properly faired Satcom antenna and it's radome on top of the tail and the maximum cruise speed drops to M0.85. Same altitude, same fuel flows, huge drop in cruise speed. Just one change that looks completely invisible to the casual observer. The common angled fiberglass covered VHF com and LORAN antenna each create about 4 pounds of drag at Rocket speeds. 12 pounds of drag, with 3 of those babies. Conversely, the blade style VHF antenna have 3/4 pounds of drag. The removal of the V antenna on a Bonanza is worth almost 3kts, and it's has only 2 pounds drag at Bonanza speeds.