Trying to stick to the actual topic. . . . .

$10 fuel matters more than an equivalent increase in insurance because you feel it so often. If my insurance premium doubled, it would hurt badly once a year. But gas at $10 or more means I’m spending a minimum of $500, up to $800, every time I fill up. I can’t do that many times before I start asking myself whether I had $500 worth of fun. That much money buys a lot of fishing and sailing, and a nearly infinite amount of guitar playing.

I won’t delay my retirement in order to continue flying. Fuel could be the final nail.

“1981 Cessna A185F, 7000TT, 800 SFNEW. . . . .”

I'm glad I took Dan's advice at Central Cylinder and went with the standard 7.5 compression Pponk instead of the 8.5. Car gas will run just fine. Also, to touch on the ethanol comment, Eagle Fuel Cells used to have on their website that Nitrile bladders were compatible with ethanol. I looked last night and they have changed their website and it is talking about the new unleaded fuel instead. But, I did find another site that had this quote."There are 3 standards of fuel hose designed to be Ethanol resistant, the basic standard should be marked J30R7 and is lined with Nitrile." I do know of a Cessna with bladders that used 10% ethanol for years. I still ponder what a o550 with 7.5 compression would be like. I would think it would have more power than the standard 520 Pponk.

Will the new gami fuels have the storage longevity of the LL we have now?

To those of you sticking to the questions posed in the op... thank you. I'd appreciate all lead fear talk not be posted here. This is not an environmental thread. Please beat that drum elsewhere.

I'd always thought valves, seats and fuel systems were pieces to the puzzle. Here's the but though, using the trash mogas we're sold in a/c only works if we use the equipment frequently.... it doesn't keep. I always followed the gas stc in that I generally always had a mix with 100ll. I flew the equipment regularly so gas rotting wasn't ever an issue.
Anyway having a dependable stabil fuel on tap has always been a comfort.

What do guys do about that issue?

rsrguy3 wrote:Will the new gami fuels have the storage longevity of the LL we have now?

To those of you sticking to the questions posed in the op... thank you. I'd appreciate all lead fear talk not be posted here. This is not an environmental thread. Please beat that drum elsewhere.

I'd always thought valves, seats and fuel systems were pieces to the puzzle. Here's the but though, using the trash mogas we're sold in a/c only works if we use the equipment frequently.... it doesn't keep. I always followed the gas stc in that I generally always had a mix with 100ll. I flew the equipment regularly so gas rotting wasn't ever an issue.
Anyway having a dependable stabil fuel on tap has always been a comfort.

What do guys do about that issue?

I know in my 180 we burned through fuel fast enough that the Mogas never got old. I also only used ethanol free premium gas that I was buying at bulk prices.

I burn straight mogas in my Continental IO360 (8.5:1). The plane regularly sits for weeks, life is just too busy. Actually, I filled it up around the first of the year and didn’t refill till sometime in July. Had made several short flights in that time but never refilled. The only time I had a stale fuel problem is when the plane sat for about a year. The injectors varnished up. Cleaned the injectors and added a splash of 100ll for good measure.

whee wrote:I burn straight mogas in my Continental IO360 (8.5:1). The plane regularly sits for weeks, life is just too busy. Actually, I filled it up around the first of the year and didn’t refill till sometime in July. Had made several short flights in that time but never refilled. The only time I had a stale fuel problem is when the plane sat for about a year. The injectors varnished up. Cleaned the injectors and added a splash of 100ll for good measure.

Will adding Stabil for a known inactive period prevent varnishing?

I'm actually looking forward to G100UL.

Lead is the leading cause of stuck oil rings, stuck valves, dirty spark plugs, and frequent oil changes.

I know most probably don't fly enough to be annoyed by changing the oil every 30 hrs, but at 150 hrs or so a year it seems like I'm changing the oil every time I turn around.

A good portion, if not all of this extra 75 cents a gallon may be offset by avoiding the problems the lead causes.

We should be able to eventually transition to synthetic oils and significantly extend oil change intervals. The reason we do not use synthetic oil in aircraft piston engines is because it doesn't hold lead in suspension.

1970-1974 . I was a kid on a street with nothing but American Muscle. Then the EPA rules for emissions came out and everyone said _ That's it. End of an era. It did take time but all those guys are simply amazed you can go down to the dealer and buy a car that will roll out the door with 800 factory horsepower.

1972 - My Uncle was a farmer, and they outlawed DDT. He said the world would starve, all crops will fail. fast Forward to 2022 . Bald Eagles now nest on His property in Central Texas, and although He is gone ,the surrounding fields are ripe with Cotton.

One thing I know from life. People of all races and colors resist change . And, we live in a free market economy. If there is a dollar to be made someone will come up with the solution.

Can't wait for UL. Better for health, better for engine, better for neighbors--a great bargain for a few more bucks. That'll tide me over until the battery revolution

StuBob wrote:Trying to stick to the actual topic. . . . .

$10 fuel matters more than an equivalent increase in insurance because you feel it so often. If my insurance premium doubled, it would hurt badly once a year. But gas at $10 or more means I’m spending a minimum of $500, up to $800, every time I fill up. I can’t do that many times before I start asking myself whether I had $500 worth of fun. That much money buys a lot of fishing and sailing, and a nearly infinite amount of guitar playing.

I won’t delay my retirement in order to continue flying. Fuel could be the final nail.

“1981 Cessna A185F, 7000TT, 800 SFNEW. . . . .”

Your post might explain why there is so many 180-185s for sale up here.

I just got my bulk tank filled with 100ll and asked the delivery guy who does most of the province about this new fuel and he didn’t know anything about it. I would use it or premium car gas but no stc for my 172 with fuel pumps. I know a guy that uses Run up Declan and his plugs look like new after 50 hrs to bad it wasn’t allowed in certified engines. I should add is this new fuel for the good of the people or someone’s bank account? Seems like lots of new earth saving technology ends up being not so good for earth as it is for creating wealth for a few billionaires.

sierrasplitter wrote:1970-1974 . I was a kid on a street with nothing but American Muscle. Then the EPA rules for emissions came out and everyone said _ That's it. End of an era. It did take time but all those guys are simply amazed you can go down to the dealer and buy a car that will roll out the door with 800 factory horsepower.

1972 - My Uncle was a farmer, and they outlawed DDT. He said the world would starve, all crops will fail. fast Forward to 2022 . Bald Eagles now nest on His property in Central Texas, and although He is gone ,the surrounding fields are ripe with Cotton.

One thing I know from life. People of all races and colors resist change . And, we live in a free market economy. If there is a dollar to be made someone will come up with the solution.

I agree on most parts, minus the free market, when the gov bans one product to promote another it’s the opposite of free market

The California county which Reid/Hillview airport lies in has said they are going to prohibit the sale of 100LL fuel, due to the lead content.

AOPA announced that it has petitioned the FAA to prohibit that move, based on the fact that there are a lot of aircraft based at that airport that have no other option than burn 100LL. What that does is puts the FAA in a position where they've just been slapped with the news that an airport which has received AIP funds from the FAA is now in violation of the agreements its management signed to receive those AIP funds.

This is precisely how AOPA has kept the Santa Monica Airport open for decades, and is far better than a lawsuit. When an airport management accepts AIP funds, they are required to sign a lengthy and detailed agreement, which essentially says that if that airport fails to uphold their agreed upon conditions, they will be required to pay back the AIP funds they accepted.

I'm betting that in the case of Reid/Hillview that would amount to many millions of $$$. In the case of Santa Monica, that threat has kept the airport open for many years. The AIP agreements have a sunset date, effectively when the government has gotten the full utility from the AIP funds. So, for big projects like paving a runway, construction of taxiways, lighting, etc.....those monies will be subject to refund for many years.

THAT is how you get these folks' attention, NOT with a lawsuit, with the FAA and a contractual agreement that THEY signed.

MTV

mtv wrote:The California county which Reid/Hillview airport lies in has said they are going to prohibit the sale of 100LL fuel, due to the lead content.

AOPA announced that it has petitioned the FAA to prohibit that move, based on the fact that there are a lot of aircraft based at that airport that have no other option than burn 100LL. What that does is puts the FAA in a position where they've just been slapped with the news that an airport which has received AIP funds from the FAA is now in violation of the agreements its management signed to receive those AIP funds.

This is precisely how AOPA has kept the Santa Monica Airport open for decades, and is far better than a lawsuit. When an airport management accepts AIP funds, they are required to sign a lengthy and detailed agreement, which essentially says that if that airport fails to uphold their agreed upon conditions, they will be required to pay back the AIP funds they accepted.

I'm betting that in the case of Reid/Hillview that would amount to many millions of $$$. In the case of Santa Monica, that threat has kept the airport open for many years. The AIP agreements have a sunset date, effectively when the government has gotten the full utility from the AIP funds. So, for big projects like paving a runway, construction of taxiways, lighting, etc.....those monies will be subject to refund for many years.

THAT is how you get these folks' attention, NOT with a lawsuit, with the FAA and a contractual agreement that THEY signed.

MTV

The reason I don’t drive 100 MPH down some roads isn’t because it’s unsafe, with my car and me for many roads it isn’t, it’s because some cop will end up costing me thousands if I do it


The way you stop unwanted behavior you make it hurt, you make it really hurt to do it so others don’t want anything to do with what cost the last guy their job and pension, and that’s what lawsuits are for, and the reason I never gave AOPA a single dollar

What should be done is do make a full time job out of that city and also a part time job on holding many of those people INDIVIDUALLY liable.

I much rather have that happen than get a stupid hat and magazine to put in my bathroom from AOPA, or build and give away 200k re imagined (aka repainted) C150s

I agree on most parts, minus the free market, when the gov bans one product to promote another it’s the opposite of free market

pretty much sums up how they thought back then too

sierrasplitter wrote:

I agree on most parts, minus the free market, when the gov bans one product to promote another it’s the opposite of free market

pretty much sums up how they thought back then too

Except there are zero valid studies showing 100ll actually is hurting anything

NineThreeKilo wrote:
Except there are zero valid studies showing 100ll actually is hurting anything

Is that so?

Bet you can't prove it.

AKclimber wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:
Except there are zero valid studies showing 100ll actually is hurting anything

Is that so?

Bet you can't prove it.

Proving a negative?

NineThreeKilo wrote:

AKclimber wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:
Except there are zero valid studies showing 100ll actually is hurting anything

Is that so?

Bet you can't prove it.

Proving a negative?

Haha,
Exactly,
That was my point

NineThreeKilo wrote:

mtv wrote:The California county which Reid/Hillview airport lies in has said they are going to prohibit the sale of 100LL fuel, due to the lead content.

AOPA announced that it has petitioned the FAA to prohibit that move, based on the fact that there are a lot of aircraft based at that airport that have no other option than burn 100LL. What that does is puts the FAA in a position where they've just been slapped with the news that an airport which has received AIP funds from the FAA is now in violation of the agreements its management signed to receive those AIP funds.

This is precisely how AOPA has kept the Santa Monica Airport open for decades, and is far better than a lawsuit. When an airport management accepts AIP funds, they are required to sign a lengthy and detailed agreement, which essentially says that if that airport fails to uphold their agreed upon conditions, they will be required to pay back the AIP funds they accepted.

I'm betting that in the case of Reid/Hillview that would amount to many millions of $$$. In the case of Santa Monica, that threat has kept the airport open for many years. The AIP agreements have a sunset date, effectively when the government has gotten the full utility from the AIP funds. So, for big projects like paving a runway, construction of taxiways, lighting, etc.....those monies will be subject to refund for many years.

THAT is how you get these folks' attention, NOT with a lawsuit, with the FAA and a contractual agreement that THEY signed.

MTV

The reason I don’t drive 100 MPH down some roads isn’t because it’s unsafe, with my car and me for many roads it isn’t, it’s because some cop will end up costing me thousands if I do it


The way you stop unwanted behavior you make it hurt, you make it really hurt to do it so others don’t want anything to do with what cost the last guy their job and pension, and that’s what lawsuits are for, and the reason I never gave AOPA a single dollar

What should be done is do make a full time job out of that city and also a part time job on holding many of those people INDIVIDUALLY liable.

I much rather have that happen than get a stupid hat and magazine to put in my bathroom from AOPA, or build and give away 200k re imagined (aka repainted) C150s

Seriously? Suing that county would result in nothing except a whole bunch of lawyers on both sides getting rich. Let’s see: who per chance might sit on that jury (if it ever got that far)? Ummm, local county residents, who are probably not going to be sympathetic to a bunch of whiny, rich aircraft owners.

Now, assuming the FAA enforces the provisions of the AIP CONTRACTS, as they did at Santa Monica, that county could be on the hook for hundreds of millions, to be paid back to the government.

And, no lawyers make money out of that deal. Check out the situation at SMO. The city tried to close the airport decades ago. The AOPA petitioned the FAA to enforce AIP contracts. Airport is still open. Yes, eventually, the city of Santa Monica will close that airport, but not until AIP investments are amortized.

So, it sounds like 93Kilo may be an attorney? Sue em, sue em!

MTV