2024 the year of GAMI - finally?

[Hengelo]

Longtime lurker on this topic; it’s incredible to me how long this is taking.

GAMI Unleaded G100UL Eyed To Go On Sale In California By Summer - AVweb

Aircraft operators in California will likely be the first to be able to fill their tanks with unleaded 100 octane aviation fuel. General Aviation Modifications Inc. head of engineering George Braly told AVweb the company has signed a licensing agreement with petroleum company Vitol Aviation and...

www.avweb.com

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

That was easy....

 

[Half Fast]

I’m waiting for EAGLE to find a way to squash it.

 

[AV8R_87]

Short of a nation-wide ban on leaded fuels, they won't gain any traction if they can't get the prices at current avgas levels or lower.

 

[Initial Fix]

Short of a nation-wide ban on leaded fuels, they won't gain any traction if they can't get the prices at current avgas levels or lower.

Worse will be when 100LL goes away and we are left with maybe one supplier. Without the price competition, who knows what the price could be. Sadly, only time will tell.

 

[Morgan3820]

Short of a nation-wide ban on leaded fuels, they won't gain any traction if they can't get the prices at current avgas levels or lower.

So true. Given a choice most people will go with the cheapest option all the time.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

So true. Given a choice most people will go with the cheapest option all the time.

yup.... I'll be the first to fly for cheap gas. Just flew yesterday and saved $1/gal.... on 58 gallons.

 

[Palmpilot]

Worse will be when 100LL goes away and we are left with maybe one supplier. Without the price competition, who knows what the price could be. Sadly, only time will tell.

I thought GAMI was planning to license others to do production and distribution.

 

[Half Fast]

I thought GAMI was planning to license others to do production and distribution.

They have said licenses will be available to any qualified producer.

 

[Racerx]

Worse will be when 100LL goes away and we are left with maybe one supplier. Without the price competition, who knows what the price could be. Sadly, only time will tell.

There's already only supplier of TEL

 

[Morgan3820]

What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?

My impression was that lead builds up in the engine, can foul plugs, and shortens the overhaul interval. Am I missing something? I don't see it adding up to $1/gal, but there is some benefit, right?

Agreed, but most don't think that far into it. Or are pilots a race of superior thinkers?

 

[Half Fast]

What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?

My impression was that lead builds up in the engine, can foul plugs, and shortens the overhaul interval. Am I missing something? I don't see it adding up to $1/gal, but there is some benefit, right?

Yes, all speculated benefits, but not yet quantified.

 

[Mikey52]

Didn't a university flight school switch to one of the unleaded fuels? Then took careful analysis of some wear and maintenance items, then decided to go back to 100ll.

Yep here it is.

Citing Valve Damage, UND Drops Unleaded Fuel And Returns To 100LL (Updated)

UND ditches Swift Fuels UL94 after valve problems surface

www.avweb.com

 

[AV8R_87]

Agreed, but most don't think that far into it. Or are pilots a race of superior thinkers?

No, just more stubborn than the average population.

$1/gal amounts to $500-750 more in fuel between oil changes. 20-30K over the theoretical lifetime of the engine. I doubt switching to unleaded gas will benefit me enough to justify half to two thirds of the overhaul price in extra fuel costs.

 

[ateamer]

There's already only supplier of TEL

Yep. One company in England. They have a problem and we’re all screwed.

 

[Hang 4]

Didn't a university flight school switch to one of the unleaded fuels? Then took careful analysis of some wear and maintenance items, then decided to go back to 100ll.

Yep here it is.

Citing Valve Damage, UND Drops Unleaded Fuel And Returns To 100LL (Updated)

UND ditches Swift Fuels UL94 after valve problems surface

www.avweb.com

They were running Swift 94UL, not the GAMI 100UL. They also did not cite any base data to show that the change was attributable to the UL, or if it even was a change from normal.

 

[Half Fast]

Yep. One company in England. They have a problem and we’re all screwed.

Conversely, they get screwed and we all have a problem.

Wonder what their reaction to GAMI-gas will be?

 

[OneCharlieTango]

What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?

What is it? Theoretical

As to this $1/gallon being thrown about, that's an increase in production cost, not cost at the pump. That'll multiply at each step until, at the pump, it's an increase of $2, $3, $5. . . . I'll be shocked if G100UL gets sold anywhere for less than $10/gallon, and I won't be surprised if it's $15.

 

[Pinecone]

Worse will be when 100LL goes away and we are left with maybe one supplier. Without the price competition, who knows what the price could be. Sadly, only time will tell.

GAMI is not a supplier of fuel. They developed the fuel. ANYONE can make it under license.

 

[Pinecone]

What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?

My impression was that lead builds up in the engine, can foul plugs, and shortens the overhaul interval. Am I missing something? I don't see it adding up to $1/gal, but there is some benefit, right?

Lycoming already allows double the interval for oil changes with UL fuel.

 

[robin ardoin]

What is it? Theoretical

As to this $1/gallon being thrown about, that's an increase in production cost, not cost at the pump. That'll multiply at each step until, at the pump, it's an increase of $2, $3, $5. . . . I'll be shocked if G100UL gets sold anywhere for less than $10/gallon, and I won't be surprised if it's $15.

Braly’s speculation is the cost increase to the consumer.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

So we are now starting to "rationalize" the fuel cost increases with fewer oil changes and extra BTUs per gallon and extended TBO's?....this is just cray cray.

 

[Half Fast]

So we are now starting to "rationalize" the fuel cost increases with fewer oil changes and extra BTUs per gallon and extended TBO's?....this is just cray cray.

No more cray-cray than worrying about theoretical fuel cost increases.

Like most changes, there will be pluses and minuses, but what they will be and which will be greater or lesser is mere speculation at this point.

 

[OneCharlieTango]

Braly’s speculation is the cost increase to the consumer.

From the AvWeb article: The costs of the components in a gallon of G100UL avgas is between 85 cents and $1.15 per gallon more than the cost of those components used in making a gallon of 100LL. That’s overhead, not consumer cost.

 

[AV8R_87]

OK, so we go from 50 hours to 100 hours. That drops us from 40 changes between overhauls to 20. 20 oil changes @$250 is $5K. That's significant - enough to offset about a third of the extra cost of the UL fuel.

I change my own oil. Cost of oil and filter is half of what you mentioned. That's not enough (cost-wise) to make me switch. And as OCT mentioned above, if the extra $1 is their production cost, not price at the pump, then the math becomes even more unfavorable for them.

At that point, we ethanol-proof our fuel systems, figure out a safe additive to handle water in fuel (I hear some people mention isopropyl alcohol?) and we convince airport managers to fill their tanks with mogas instead.

 

[robin ardoin]

From the AvWeb article: The costs of the components in a gallon of G100UL avgas is between 85 cents and $1.15 per gallon more than the cost of those components used in making a gallon of 100LL. That’s overhead, not consumer cost.

Not what Braly has said.

 

[Racerx]

Yep. One company in England. They have a problem and we’re all screwed.

Conversely, they get screwed and we all have a problem.

Wonder what their reaction to GAMI-gas will be?

Exactly. What happens if another country shuts them down?

 

[Clip4]

So true. Given a choice most people will go with the cheapest option all the time.

In the US, IPhone has 57% of the sales and is not the cheapest. The same thing could be said for Foreflight and Tide detergent……

If some of the positive claims for this fuel prove true, (less fouling, longer spark plug life, longer TBOs, ect) pilots will pay the premium.

 

[Skyrys62]

Probably won't even need to prove.
We pay for many things, including oil additives, on promises why not UL..

 

[Dana]

As soon as it's available at the first couple of California airports, they'll ban lead statewide, and the rest of the country will follow. Just like cars, there used to be cars with "California" or "49 states" emissions controls, now there's just one version.

 

[Jim K]

, there used to be cars with "California" or "49 states" emissions controls

Whoa... memories of watching "the price is right" and Rod Roddy saying "a newww caaaarrr....features, blah blah ... and California emissions..."

 

[JOhnH]

Not what Braly has said.

That added a lot to the conversation.

 

[Half Fast]

At that point, we ethanol-proof our fuel systems, figure out a safe additive to handle water in fuel (I hear some people mention isopropyl alcohol?) and we convince airport managers to fill their tanks with mogas instead.

Waiting to hear how you plan to address that vapor pressure problem with some low-wings....

 

[Domenick]

There's already only supplier of TEL

I have heard this over and over and seems not to be true. A couple of examples:

China Tetraethyl Lead, Tetraethyl Lead Ethyl Liquid, Tetraethyl Lead Additive - ROKEM

Shanghai Rokem Industrial Co.,Ltd: We produce TEL-B. This product is made by 61% Tetraethyl lead and 33.5% Dibromoethane. It is used for aviation gas as Anti-knock agent. It can improve the octane value of aviation gasoline.

www.tetraethylleadcn.com

Shandong JiaCheng - Tetraethyl lead

China supplier of Tetraethyl lead. We are the biggest producer of Tetra Ethyl Lead in the world at present time

jiachengsd.en.ecplaza.net

 

[robin ardoin]

That added a lot to the conversation.

Not meant to…just clarifying a misconception. I have been following George Braly’s comments in various public forums and the final cost is to be determined by the retailer but expected to be about $1 (give or take) at the pump more than 100LL. If the components cost $.85-1.15 more per gallon to produce that would end up costing quite a bit more at the pump compared to current fuels.

 

[Hang 4]

I have heard this over and over and seems not to be true. A couple of examples:

China Tetraethyl Lead, Tetraethyl Lead Ethyl Liquid, Tetraethyl Lead Additive - ROKEM

Shanghai Rokem Industrial Co.,Ltd: We produce TEL-B. This product is made by 61% Tetraethyl lead and 33.5% Dibromoethane. It is used for aviation gas as Anti-knock agent. It can improve the octane value of aviation gasoline.

www.tetraethylleadcn.com

Shandong JiaCheng - Tetraethyl lead

China supplier of Tetraethyl lead. We are the biggest producer of Tetra Ethyl Lead in the world at present time

jiachengsd.en.ecplaza.net

To clarify, there is one worldwide approved supplier of TEL. I doubt Shell, ExxonMobil and others are willing to go through qualifying any Chinese suppliers of a product with the environmental footprint and handling issues of TEL. Not talking about impact of flying, but rather the supply chain impact upstream of the airport fuel pump. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[Pinecone]

I change my own oil. Cost of oil and filter is half of what you mentioned. That's not enough (cost-wise) to make me switch. And as OCT mentioned above, if the extra $1 is their production cost, not price at the pump, then the math becomes even more unfavorable for them.

At that point, we ethanol-proof our fuel systems, figure out a safe additive to handle water in fuel (I hear some people mention isopropyl alcohol?) and we convince airport managers to fill their tanks with mogas instead.

Then there is that your spark plugs will last longer.

And it is likely the engine will last longer. And even more so if we can get some synthetic oils.

In dino oil days, auto engines were good for about 100,000 miles. Now they do 250K or more. How about skipping even just one overhaul?

Funny thing about fuel prices, when I was flying before my hiatus, everyone was squawking about the demise of GA if AVGAS prices went over $4 per gallon. And you could still find fuel for under $2 per gallon. Now the sky is falling if we hit $10. Will some people stop flying? Sure. But even if fuel prices don't go up, a number of people will stop flying.

 

[schmookeeg]

Funny thing about fuel prices, when I was flying before my hiatus, everyone was squawking about the demise of GA if AVGAS prices went over $4 per gallon. And you could still find fuel for under $2 per gallon. Now the sky is falling if we hit $10. Will some people stop flying? Sure. But even if fuel prices don't go up, a number of people will stop flying.

My favorite bit of this is the people I talk to "waiting for prices to go back down" before they buy an airplane, when I'm pretty confident the current price regime is "the new normal" and people need to adjust their expectations. Particularly for blue-chip planes like 182s and bonanzas. Some of the fringe high-opEx stuff that has run up recently may retrench a bit, but certainly not all the way to how it was 5 years ago.

 

[AV8R_87]

The range of inconsistency in automotive pump gasoline is extreme, and the type of fuel you get in different locations can be massively different, based on differences between supplier, local blend regulations, and a whole lot of other stuff.

While there are differences between summer and winter blends, and altitude adjustments, these are pretty well documented in federal fuel standards. Not to the level of AVGAS, I agree. But it's not as unreliable as you make it sound.

And an airport manager could specify a particular blend, that is suitable for high altitude operation and without all the butane blended in that lowers the vapor pressure.

And all those blends run just fine in my air-cooled, 8:1 compression ratio, fixed ignition timing cheap generator, that can generate 7 hp from 13 cubic inches (at 3600 rpm). That's comparable to the output of the typical air-cooled airplane engine.

I have zero interest in trusting my life to it.

Sadly, we might not have a choice if we want to keep flying.

Waiting to hear how you plan to address that vapor pressure problem with some low-wings....

Keep the tank pressure above vapor pressure. Or at least the pressure in the fuel lines. At some point, the cost of two in-tank fuel pumps will be more than offset by the lower fuel costs.

 

[Pinecone]

Although the consistency of AVGAS is not perfect. I was talking to the Cies president at a Mooney gathering and asked why we can't have accurate capacitive fuel gauges like the turbine guys with no moving parts.

He told me they tried it, but the capacitance of AVGAS varies too much.