G100UL unleaded avgas approved

Assuming the base is still gasoline, I wonder what it's blended with that makes it weigh that much more?
 
EdFred said:
If it's just a sticker, I'll print one, slap it on the tank cover and call it good. I won't be paying for an STC for something that's not permanently attached to the plane. I doubt the FAA is going to be hanging out by fuel pumps and asking for your logbook.
Click to expand...
325F5B07-A734-4F64-8E1C-D4E2A5AE4E82.jpeg
 
EdFred said:
I've been handling lead with my bare hands for 20+ years on a near daily basis. (around 400,000lbs of it as a VERY conservative number) The issues are WAY over blown.
Click to expand...

The cheeky answer is that all that lead exposure as affected your faculties.
The reality is lead exposure has two known large side effects on the brain. One is cognition the other is anger management; when you get some lead in your system you are more likely prone to violence due to the lead.
Anyway, the reason you are likely not affected is because the lead you handled was not airborne or in a state where it permeates your skin (e.g. lead in water and air are very bad).

txy said:
Of course TEL is extremely toxic--if you drink it or put it on your skin. The point is that there is so little of it in emissions from aircraft that NO properly conducted study has found that aircraft exhaust results in human exposure to TEL that exceeds EPA's action level. Regarding the "zero" exposure threshold, it reminds of EPA's one-time rule on asbestos--that a single fiber can cause mesothelioma. EPA lowered the threshold for lead exposure a few years back. If "zero" was correct, I'm surprised they didn't go there.

Anecdotally, while dealing with the bogus lead monitoring at my airport, I had my whole family, including kids, tested for Pb in blood. We've spent our whole lives around airports and airplanes. The results? Low/normal.

But I agree with other posters that all of this history is almost certainly moot now. The only reason I bring it up is to a) vent a little, and b) make a record of what happened on the chance that we might do better the next time anti-aviation forces attack.
Click to expand...

TEL has a history problem; and GA just inherits it. TEL was determined to be very unhealthy for humans, and the primary cause of spreading it around the world was combustion engines.

The general public does not see the difference between the gas engine in their car and the one in the plane. Combined with the normal class warfare, and stereotypes that too many pilots propagate, the end result is TEL buts a target on GA's back regardless of the studies. At the end of the day, keeping TEL in our fuel, is the greatest threat too GA from a public action perspective. GA may die due to many other causes (costs being one of them), but TEL is by far the only one which has animated enough of the public to give a dam and potentially strangle GA.

EdFred said:
Say it triples my oil change interval. My oil change costs me around $80. (Disposal costs me nothing) So my oil changes costs now for 150 hrs is $240 and would be $80. So it would save me about $1.07 per hour. This fuel is going to cost me at minimum $7.50/hr more. I doubt the TBO will be bumped to 4000 hours, TBO doesn't matter for part 91, and lead isn't really getting into the crank case and on the cams and crank anyway. We're still behind in cost no matter how they spin in.
Click to expand...

Ed, you should see some of the videos by engine shops. The lead creates a slurry in the engine case, which eventually causes problems. This is one of the major limitations on engine longevity (besides corrosion). So yeah. you probably could get 4K hours out of the engine if you did not have TEL in there, and you also could use synthetic oils which provide better protection and last longer. But you are correct, that there will be a cost for this, my guess is it will be around five to ten bucks and hour total for most GA planes.

Tim
 
Palmpilot said:
This study attempts to account for other lead sources, but I don't have the expertise to evaluate the methodology.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...d_Aviation_Gasoline_on_Blood_Lead_in_Children
Click to expand...

Quick read of this study suggests it is a pretty good case. There is a fall off with distance from the airport, even after linear controls for other lead sources, as well as a temporal correlation with the drop off of flights after 9/11.

An observational study will never be as certain as a randomized trial (which would not be ethical to perform in this case). And while mere correlation does not establish causation, as more and more correlations are observed across different independent variables, the argument for a causal relationship becomes stronger.

Interestingly the authors use estimates of the economic effects of IQ decreases due to lead exposure to estimate a $6/gallon price at the pump economic cost of this damage.
 
EdFred said:
Say it triples my oil change interval. My oil change costs me around $80. (Disposal costs me nothing) So my oil changes costs now for 150 hrs is $240 and would be $80. So it would save me about $1.07 per hour. This fuel is going to cost me at minimum $7.50/hr more. I doubt the TBO will be bumped to 4000 hours, TBO doesn't matter for part 91, and lead isn't really getting into the crank case and on the cams and crank anyway. We're still behind in cost no matter how they spin in.
Click to expand...

That may well be true. But if the economic costs of damages to others are actually $6/gallon, then $7.50 per hour would be a bargain. If the estimate of the damages due to 100LL are correct, then those of us flying these have basically been polluting and externalizing part of the cost of our activities.
 
tspear said:
TEL has a history problem; and GA just inherits it. TEL was determined to be very unhealthy for humans, and the primary cause of spreading it around the world was combustion engines.

The general public does not see the difference between the gas engine in their car and the one in the plane. Combined with the normal class warfare, and stereotypes that too many pilots propagate, the end result is TEL buts a target on GA's back regardless of the studies. At the end of the day, keeping TEL in our fuel, is the greatest threat too GA from a public action perspective. GA may die due to many other causes (costs being one of them), but TEL is by far the only one which has animated enough of the public to give a dam and potentially strangle GA.

Tim
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
These sort of fairly subtle and distant effects are hard to be certain about. If one is serious about understanding this, a quick search on Google Scholar using the terms “lead aviation fuel iq” shows a number of peer-reviewed articles in the last 5 years. One would likely have to read and understand them to accurately judge the strength of this causal association.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
If it's just a sticker, I'll print one, slap it on the tank cover and call it good. I won't be paying for an STC for something that's not permanently attached to the plane. I doubt the FAA is going to be hanging out by fuel pumps and asking for your logbook.
Click to expand...
Doesnt an STC require a 337?
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Nobody forces you to fly. Auto gas is produced by private companies and unleaded gas is required by law to be used in your automobile - ever thought of that? It is exactly the same thing. You are required by law to use a fuel produced by private companies in order to have the privilege of driving your own car.

Unless you want to buy your own crude oil and refine some gasoline from it, that is your right.
Click to expand...
That “ies” instead of simply a “y” makes a huge difference.
 
Salty said:
That “ies” instead of simply a “y” makes a huge difference.
Click to expand...
Even AvFuel and others have said there will be multiple companies making and distributing it. The only thing we do not know and has not been exposed is the royalty cost for GAMI.
Considering pilot price sensitivity it likely will not be much. Also now that the way has been paved by the FAA, if the margin is too high expect other companies to jump into the formulation side. It only takes one additive change to get around trademark, patent or other issues which just leaves the STC costs which are now fairly well established.

Tin

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
I’d assume the STC is for a specific formulation. Your scenario is even worse if I have to get STCs for multiple formulations.

You hand waved away the single company profit, but it didn’t actually go away.
 
The best substitute for 100LL is 100LL. Not that long ago ALL fuel was leaded and Homo Sapiens survived quite well but now that only a tiny portion has lead it's the end of life as we now it.
 
Once burned in an engine TEL converts to lead oxide which I believe is non toxic. But I am not a chemist.
 
Ok, logistics- How and when will a small or large FBO decide to expend capital on another tank, truck, etc as a transition fuel? Or when do they say “ok it’s time to fill the 100LL equipment with 100UL” and have the volume and payback work out?

I can’t see myself tripling my cost of entertainment (fuel is already the most expensive part of flying for me), and my investment value (plane) may drop significantly if others are like me and supply of planes way exceeds demand.

I’d give up flying or pick something that runs on mogas.

Or do like we did on our turbo Buicks...mix our own fuel. As long as you don’t have to follow regulatory requirements for commerce, it would be easy to do.
 
Morgan3820 said:
I think this is awesome from a supply chain point of few. No more trucking from distant refineries, ...
Click to expand...
Really? Do you think the minuscule amount of GAMI 100UL will be shipped by pipeline? Do you know what it costs to switch products in a pipeline? GAMI 100UL will be shipped by truck just like 100LL. They may ship it by rail, just like they do 100LL in ISO containers.
 
Domenick said:
Really? Do you think the minuscule amount of GAMI 100UL will be shipped by pipeline? Do you know what it costs to switch products in a pipeline? GAMI 100UL will be shipped by truck just like 100LL. They may ship it by rail, just like they do 100LL in ISO containers.
Click to expand...

Depends on the additives/process. If it's just dumping some additive into UL93 Premium, it could come in via pipeline. I don't know the process, but it is possible. Probability might be a different number.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Honestly I do not understand why people say this as a distinction from a right.

Why should one not be able to travel freely through the air so long as one is not endangering others by doing so? It is not like the danger to others from flying small aircraft is so vastly much greater than say driving a car on the street. Both activities endanger others to some small degree.
Click to expand...
Peter, this has been covered before. What does it say about flying in the constitution? In the constitution it says you have the right to freely navigate the navigable waterways of the nation. This is why we don’t have to have a recreational boat license from the national government. In spite of the fact that recreational boating kills a lot more people than recreational flying. Navigating around the United States in an airplane is not mentioned in the constitution, Or in the motor car. This is why we have to have licenses for those activities. I am not disagreeing with you in your thought but this is how I look at it from a legal point of view.
 
EdFred said:
Depends on the additives/process. If it's just dumping some additive into UL93 Premium, it could come in via pipeline. I don't know the process, but it is possible. Probability might be a different number.
Click to expand...
It can't be made from mogas. It's not just the octane; avgas has much tighter control of vapor pressure and other things, and none of the additives commonly used in no gas.
 
Dana said:
It can't be made from mogas. It's not just the octane; avgas has much tighter control of vapor pressure and other things, and none of the additives commonly used in no gas.
Click to expand...

So which version of C8H18 is GAMI that auto fuel isn't?
 
100LL and G100LL can't coexist side by side for long. For one thing, most FBOs can't and won't handle two avgas grades. Second, once G100LL is fully approved and field experience gained, expect the EPA to sunset 100LL out of existence. That's been the goal all along. At that point, if your aircraft requires 100LL you will have to purchase the STC.
 
Some of you are getting all worked up over an issue that you don’t have all the information for and are speculating about the outcome. Understand you have no control over what’s going to happen. All you can do is react because we are just pawns in the game of life. First world promblems.

Embrace the suck
 
Morgan3820 said:
Peter, this has been covered before. What does it say about flying in the constitution? In the constitution it says you have the right to freely navigate the navigable waterways of the nation. This is why we don’t have to have a recreational boat license from the national government. In spite of the fact that recreational boating kills a lot more people than recreational flying. Navigating around the United States in an airplane is not mentioned in the constitution, Or in the motor car. This is why we have to have licenses for those activities. I am not disagreeing with you in your thought but this is how I look at it from a legal point of view.
Click to expand...

Of course it says nothing in the Constitution about flying or driving. In general I think the idea is that we have a set of rights and the Constitution is designed to help protect some of them, but does not grant them or enumerate all of them.

You are correct that the legal situation is complex. In the case of flying, the CAB was created and simply asserted Federal control over flying without much real consideration of rights. I have not studied the history of any legal challenges to that imposition at the time.

To the point here, I have not seen a good argument, from a natural rights perspective, for why flying should be regarded as any less of a right than traveling by any other mode. This is usually just asserted as a fact that it is a “privilege”.

I guess what you say here is an argument about it of sorts. That the only rights we have are those enumerated in the Constitution and that everything else is a privilege. I hope that is not the legal regime we are living under, but granted that premise, the argument seems valid.
 
Since G100UL can mix with 100LL, FBOs will just switch at some point. No one is going to install infrastructure to have more than one avgas option.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Some of you are getting all worked up over an issue that you don’t have all the information for and are speculating about the outcome. Understand you have no control over what’s going to happen. All you can do is react because we are just pawns in the game of life. First world promblems.

Embrace the suck
Click to expand...
No kidding! It really shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to see leaded fuel come under the chopping block, especially now with everything going greener. I’d imagine in the next 15-20 years, increased regulation, insurance and such, will cause most of the recreational pilots to pack up their ball and go home. It just seems like things are going in that direction. :(
 
Is there an example of any other STC which is required merely to use an aircraft in a particular way which involves no material change to the aircraft itself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top