Another oddity of forum display is that some of my posts have a red 1 and red editing symbol where the name of poster I’m replying to would normally be, upper RH corner.
Doesn’t correlate to newness of post, nor missing name as still occurs with some posts.
If you’ve flown or owned a Piper PA-28 airplane with the sidewall fuel valve installed, Fuel Lube or EZ Turn has been used to lubricate the brass cone in the brass valve body in order to ensure the detents are identified and operation is smooth. In 50 years of maintenance, I’m not sure I mentioned what was used to any client. All he wanted was a valve that worked and was easy to turn.
I would venture to guess that most all mechanics are familiar EZ Turn (aka ‘fuel lube’). I have a tube in my hangar. Can be used to lube fuel valves, or, for example, I have used it to coat gaskets that are exposed to fuel. I coated the gasket that seals the float valve to the bottom of my fuel tanks. No leaks.
All I can say is that I am not ready to experiment with my airplane to see if G100UL will damage it in any way - either paint (which is costly to repair) or gaskets, o-rings, hoses or other components that are essential to the safety of flight. I would be delighted to use any fuel in my aircraft that does not have lead, but not at the expense of failure of components. I suspect that my airplane will fly just fine on 93 octane UL mogas for which there is an STC, but I am an architect, not an engineer, so I need to rely on experts, not folks with a vested interest. I am not saying that Mr. Luvara is right or wrong, but he does bring up valid points and concern.
Does that include the experts at the FAA who approved the G100UL STC, and who didn’t have a vested interest to approve it?
How do we know he is one of the “experts” you mention? What makes him more or less qualified to pass judgement on G100UL vs any other A&P out there?
correction to my post: not float ‘valves’, just floats for the transducers.
Best I can find is he works for a company (electric vtol wisk?) that has no skin in the game on keeping 100LL around: Flight Plan Podcast
Based on test pilot and mechanic background seems to be cautious or genuinely curious after availability of the new fuel?
Good points - the real issue includes questioning who is an expert in this context, it seems.
When I was getting my A&P license ~2000 Cessna had a AD warning that fuel control valves needed to be disassembled and checked for “Fuel Lube” - it needed to be removed. Their where accidents attributed to it.
I considered the same … The old Imron was a two step paint that would stand up to just about anything but DuPont removed it from the market and the common paint after that was JetGlo from Sherwin Williams, a water based paint.
I suspect the aggressive solvents in 100UL (Toluene) are melting the water based paint.
Imron is back on the market but I don’t know the resistance difference between Imron of today and Imron thirty years ago.
This whole topic is nonsensical. It’s a complete waist of time. Russ throws these 100UL blog candy topics out there when he needs a little blog action.
The photograph is showing an improper fueling technique that could lead to a fire from static electricity.
A more responsible photo would show the nozzle in contact with the tank.
This is why we ground the aircraft before refueling. Are you saying that is insufficient?
Exactly. Static electricity can build in the fuel flowing out of the nozzle and a spark can jump to the filler tube resulting in a bad day for the operator. Keeping the nozzle touching the spout and having a ground cable attached completes a ground circuit and prevents any static buid up.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.