Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:18 AM - G100UL (Kelly McMullen)
2. 08:04 AM - Re: G100UL (Charlie England)
3. 08:30 AM - Re: G100UL (Kelly McMullen)
4. 11:38 AM - Re: G100UL (dave@corwith.com)
5. 01:17 PM - Strobe Power Supply Replacement (Marcus Cooper)
6. 02:05 PM - Re: Strobe Power Supply Replacement (Lenny Iszak)
7. 02:37 PM - Re: Strobe Power Supply Replacement (Marcus Cooper)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Having just watched the AOPA webinar on the implementation of making this
fuel available, the one area not addressed is whether amateur built
experimental aircraft would need to do any paperwork to use the fuel. Type
certificated aircraft will require an STC, just like they do for using
mogas. Seems to me that we could just change our fuel placards to read
G100UL or 100LL required, and start using it. Would be interesting to get
EAA's opinion on this from one of their legal and technical experts.
If we don't need anything, it would reduce GAMI's potential income a bit,
although they still will get licensing/patent fees anyway.
There is no question in my mind that any IO-540 that is currently installed
in a -10 and runs satisfactorily on 100LL will be fine on G100UL.
Especially since the stock engine was originally certified on 91/96 Avgas.
Kelly
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
On 9/17/2021 9:17 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> Having just watched the AOPA webinar on the implementation of making
> this fuel available, the one area not addressed is whether amateur
> built experimental aircraft would need to do any paperwork to use the
> fuel. Type certificated aircraft will require an STC, just like they
> do for using mogas. Seems to me that we could just change our fuel
> placards to read G100UL or 100LL required, and start using it. Would
> be interesting to get EAA's opinion on this from one of their legal
> and technical experts.
> If we don't need anything, it would reduce GAMI's potential income a
> bit, although they still will get licensing/patent fees anyway.
> There is no question in my mind that any IO-540 that is currently
> installed in a -10 and runs satisfactorily on 100LL will be fine on
> G100UL.
> Especially since the stock engine was originally certified on 91/96 Avgas.
> Kelly
>
I've never heard of any rule preventing homebuilts from running any fuel
they want. No STC is required for a homebuilt. I've run 100LL, 93 E-free
mogas, and 93 E-gas in homebuilts, and I know of quite a few others who
run all variations too, down to 87 E-gas (in Mazda rotaries). I'm not
saying it's smart to run 87 in a 10-1 compression angle valve engine;
just that it isn't illegal.
It should be relatively easy to get EAA's opinion; just ask.
Charlie
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I agree with you, although I have heard of FBOs that won't pump into a
tank that doesn't have a placard allowing a specific grade of fuel..easy
to fix with label maker. I would especially look forward to less
maintenance in terms of fouled plugs, oil change intervals, etc.
Kelly
On 9/17/2021 8:08 AM, Charlie England wrote:
>>
> I've never heard of any rule preventing homebuilts from running any fuel
> they want. No STC is required for a homebuilt. I've run 100LL, 93 E-free
> mogas, and 93 E-gas in homebuilts, and I know of quite a few others who
> run all variations too, down to 87 E-gas (in Mazda rotaries). I'm not
> saying it's smart to run 87 in a 10-1 compression angle valve engine;
> just that it isn't illegal.
>
> It should be relatively easy to get EAA's opinion; just ask.
>
> Charlie
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Just read the article in AOPA magazine. It states that the stc funds the
development. About 1.50=24/hp i think. So a one time fee of 400-600=24 ge
ts u a sticker. Not sure how expermental fits in
Dave
Sent with a=C2-Spark
On Sep 17, 2021, 11:07 -0400, Charlie England <ceengland7=40gmail.com>, w
rote:
> On 9/17/2021 9:17 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> > Having just watched the AOPA webinar on the implementation of making
this fuel available, the one area not addressed is whether amateur built
experimental aircraft would need to do any paperwork to use the fuel. Typ
e certificated aircraft will require an STC, just like they do for using
mogas. Seems to me that we could just change our fuel placards to read G1
00UL or 100LL required, and start using it. Would be interesting to get E
AA's opinion on this from one of their legal and technical experts.
> > If we don't need anything, it would reduce GAMI's potential income a
bit, although they still will get licensing/patent fees anyway.
> > There is no question in my mind that any IO-540 that is currently ins
talled in a -10 and runs satisfactorily on 100LL will be fine on G100UL.
> > Especially since the stock engine was originally certified on 91/96 A
vgas.
> > Kelly
> I've never heard of any rule preventing homebuilts from running any fue
l they want. No STC is required for a homebuilt. I've run 100LL, 93 E-fre
e mogas, and 93 E-gas in homebuilts, and I know of quite a few others who
run all variations too, down to 87 E-gas (in Mazda rotaries). I'm not sa
ying it's smart to run 87 in a 10-1 compression angle valve engine; just
that it isn't illegal.
>
> It should be relatively easy to get EAA's opinion; just ask.
>
> Charlie
>
> Virus-free. www.avast.com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Strobe Power Supply Replacement |
I have a Strobes N More Pro 606 power supply driving my strobe lights and it has
been working great, but the power supply connector has become loose after 16
years and is intermittent. I'm not sure I can repair it so am looking for an
alternative and it appears the model I have is no longer produced. I saw another
by Preco that looks EXTREMELY similar to what I have, right down to the caution
verbiage. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with these or other
recommendations?
Thanks,
Marcus
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Power Supply Replacement |
I=99m using these LED strobes, the older v2 version, and they=99
ve been great. They fit the cutout of the Xenon bulbs you have.
https://www.strobesnmore.com/feniex-cannon-v3-hide-away.html
<https://www.strobesnmore.com/feniex-cannon-v3-hide-away.html>
Lenny
> On Sep 17, 2021, at 4:17 PM, Marcus Cooper <cooprv7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have a Strobes N More Pro 606 power supply driving my strobe lights
and it has been working great, but the power supply connector has become
loose after 16 years and is intermittent. I'm not sure I can repair it
so am looking for an alternative and it appears the model I have is no
longer produced. I saw another by Preco that looks EXTREMELY similar to
what I have, right down to the caution verbiage. I was wondering if
anyone has any experience with these or other recommendations?
>
> Thanks,
> Marcus
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Strobe Power Supply Replacement |
Those are really neat! I=99m mostly looking for a new power supply, bu
t these may very well be in my future.
Thanks,
Marcus
> On Sep 17, 2021, at 17:19, Lenny Iszak <lenard@rapiddecision.com> wrote:
>
> =EF=BBI=99m using these LED strobes, the older v2 version, and th
ey=99ve been great. They fit the cutout of the Xenon bulbs you have.
>
> https://www.strobesnmore.com/feniex-cannon-v3-hide-away.html
>
> Lenny
>
>
>> On Sep 17, 2021, at 4:17 PM, Marcus Cooper <cooprv7@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have a Strobes N More Pro 606 power supply driving my strobe lights and
it has been working great, but the power supply connector has become loose a
fter 16 years and is intermittent. I'm not sure I can repair it so am lookin
g for an alternative and it appears the model I have is no longer produced. I
saw another by Preco that looks EXTREMELY similar to what I have, right dow
n to the caution verbiage. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with
these or other recommendations?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marcus
>
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
==========================
=============
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|