G100UL unleaded avgas approved

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...

Previously posted a long time ago, G100UL can be almost completely shipped via pipeline. Most of the additives are standard, the fuel is standard, but the distribution points will need to have one or a few additional additives trucked in (additives are normally sent via truck, so this is nothing new).

Tim
 
Echo419 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they’ll do that once more people than not have the STC, sticker, or whatever. Logistically, that really doesn’t work out until an all out phase out/ban.
 
Timbeck2 said:
To the woodworkers on this forum:

Sounds a bit like SawStop

To the non-woodworkers on this forum, nutshell version:

Guy invents a patented device which stops and retracts a spinning table saw blade in milliseconds when skin contacts the blade, thus preventing catastrophic injury. He then tries to make his device mandatory on ALL table saws. It didn't work.
Click to expand...
Probably not a valid comparison…maybe if the government had been saying for decades that any table saw that can seriously injure someone will not be usable, and the sawstop guy came up with it as a way to keep table saws usable, but GAMI didn’t create the problem as a way to implement their solution.
 
RyanB said:
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. :(
Click to expand...

I have been hearing the same prediction for thirty years when i first started to follow flying.

Tim
 
Salty said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is not a hand wave, it is how capitalism works.

Tim
 
EdFred said:
So which version of C8H18 is GAMI that auto fuel isn't?
Click to expand...
Mogas is allowed a higher percentage of other petroleum fractions than avgas.

Judging from the higher weight of the new 100UL, the additives must be a fairly significant percentage, unlike the relatively tiny percentages of other common fuel additives.
 
tspear said:
I have been hearing the same prediction for thirty years when i first started to follow flying.

Tim
Click to expand...
I’m sure, but the trends don’t lie. The costs of flying and operating a general aviation airplane have largely increased since then and those in certain income brackets have already been priced out of ownership vs. that of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
 
Back to the topic: Think of price elasticity curves. Fuel prices going up 20%, from $5 to $6? While people don't like it, given the increased demand for flying post pandemic, any small downward pressures in demand from higher prices will be swamped and never noticed.

Related topic - each plane owner has to buy an STC to get fuel? I can't see that lasting in long term. Maybe I misunderstood what the STC is and who needs to buy it.
 
I disagree, i think you're downplaying the price elasticity of demand in this hobby wrt fuel. The 2011-2013 seasons were very illustrative on this front. They were giving away twins and fuel price was Occam's razor.

At 6.00 you're looking at a pretty good culling of the bottom end. Also yearly hours will shrink on an individual basis, accelerating the exit of the fence sitters. Even EABers who would be inclined to smugly highlight how they're immune from everything, would have to eat the cost in their travels, since they're captive audience to mainline fuel prices when away from their home ramp.

I hail from a place where you can't get fuel for less than 6.25 without crossing an ocean. Recreational flying is dead effectively if the prevailing fuel access goes to 6 and above.
 
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...


 
hindsight2020 said:
I disagree, i think you're downplaying the price elasticity of demand in this hobby wrt fuel. The 2011-2013 seasons were very illustrative on this front. They were giving away twins and fuel price was Occam's razor.

At 6.00 you're looking at a pretty good culling of the bottom end. Also yearly hours will shrink on an individual basis, accelerating the exit of the fence sitters.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
 
luvflyin said:
Do they require posting bond in lieu of insurance?
Click to expand...
Virginia has a $500 per year uninsured motorist fee which is required as part of your registration. You still get all the liability.
 
If the STC for G100UL is in the range of $200-$400, the switch can look like this:

1) FBO now only has G100UL.
2) Pull up to pump
-Scan QR code to purchase STC
-How would you like to pay for your purchase? Select one: One time payment - Monthly charge of X to your card

Reality is that the guy pumping gas isn't going to ask to see your G100UL sticker, but if you get ramp checked, the FAA might ask to see the color of your fuel.

It is the same as the TrollTune STC for our 182Q to increase the MGTOW to 3,100 lbs. It is a few sheets of paper for a few hundred bucks, but the same W&B envelope as a 182R.
 
RyanB said:
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. :(
Click to expand...
So, as with everything else in life, enjoy it while you still can.
 
RyanB said:
I’m sure, but the trends don’t lie. The costs of flying and operating a general aviation airplane have largely increased since then and those in certain income brackets have already been priced out of ownership vs. that of the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Click to expand...
Flying has never, ever been an inexpensive pastime. Admittedly my timeline is longer, But, prior to the current run up in prices, I bought my Warrior for the same price as my RAV4. How affordable do you need it to be?
 
Morgan3820 said:
Flying has never, ever been an inexpensive pastime. Admittedly my timeline is longer, But, prior to the current run up in prices, I bought my Warrior for the same price as my RAV4. How affordable do you need it to be?
Click to expand...
I certainly never made the claim that flying was inexpensive. I stated that the costs associated with, have steadily increased over the years and that’s taking inflation into consideration. I’d love for it to be affordable enough for the average person to have access to it. Is that unreasonable? There’s a reason why General Aviation is shrinking…
 
Ryan, I agree. GA has become expensive so that the average Joe/Jane is getting edged out. In 1970 a new Skyhawk cost 1.25 times the medium income. Now it is 5x.

I still have a hunch that a 20% lift in fuel prices won’t dampen demand much - unlike the 100% or so rise in 2008.
 
So I wouldn’t be able to drive to the local airfield and pump the new 100UL into containers and use it for racing anymore like I can with 100LL? Or maybe find it’s way into an airplane?

Sure would save a bunch of O2 sensor replacement.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Flying has never, ever been an inexpensive pastime. Admittedly my timeline is longer, But, prior to the current run up in prices, I bought my Warrior for the same price as my RAV4. How affordable do you need it to be?
Click to expand...
I'm a member in a flying club in northern California. Californians pay 51¢ per gallon in auto gasoline taxes, so our mogas cost is around $4.30 per gallon right now. The avgas at the airport where I fly is $5.15.

So, it costs me about $120 per hour (wet) to fly an Archer II from my club (not including the burger). The Archer burns about 9 gal/hour. This means that the cost to fly for an hour will increase to $129 (that's rounding up to the top G100UL price increase estimate to $1 per gallon, the actual cost may be less). If I fly 75 hours per year, the additional cost for me would be around $675 per year, or $9675 instead of $9K.

I certainly don't want to have to pay more to fly, but I'm used to paying high prices for gasoline, so maybe I'm not as bothered by the additional cost of fuel than others. Perhaps the added cost would be a deal breaker for some folks, but I would not stop flying because of it; would you?

Whether or not you like it, it seems like 100LL will be going away at some point. The good news is that at least we now have a viable option available to keep our engines running when that happens.
 
RyanB said:
I certainly never made the claim that flying was inexpensive. I stated that the costs associated with, have steadily increased over the years and that’s taking inflation into consideration. I’d love for it to be affordable enough for the average person to have access to it. Is that unreasonable? There’s a reason why General Aviation is shrinking…
Click to expand...
The average person absolutely can afford to access it. But not with the $800 truck payment or the $200/ month internet/phone or the big house or any of the other expensive ‘essentials’. One of my parters works at a paper mill and drives a 15 year old truck. He has made the choices, some would say compromises that enable him to go fly a well equipped complex aircraft because those are his priorities. My truck is 21 years old. Life is full of choices. The fulfillment of your personal goals is all about the choices you make. I sold my warrior to two mid twenties gentlemen of ordinary means that have been flying it all over the east coast. They made the choices (sacrifices) needed to fulfill their dreams. My hanger mate recently bought a Commander Lark, not a plane that I would want, but he only Paid $15k and it passed annual inspection. He found a plane that nobody wanted going for cheap. He is using it to learn to fly. He Found an instructor that instructs for the love of flying. He made it happen.

So yes, it is affordable to the doers, but not the lazy or talkers. But that has always been the case forever, for just about everything.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
The average person absolutely can afford to access it. But not with the $800 truck payment or the $200/ month internet/phone or the big house or any of the other expensive ‘essentials’. One of my parters works at a paper mill and drives a 15 year old truck. He has made the choices, some would say compromises that enable him to go fly a well equipped complex aircraft because those are his priorities. My truck is 21 years old. Life is full of choices. The fulfillment of your personal goals is all about the choices you make. I sold my warrior to two mid twenties gentlemen of ordinary means that have been flying it all over the east coast. They made the choices (sacrifices) needed to fulfill their dreams. My hanger mate recently bought a Commander Lark, not a plane that I would want, but he only Paid $15k and it passed annual inspection. He found a plane that nobody wanted going for cheap. He is using it to learn to fly. He Found an instructor that instructs for the love of flying. He made it happen.

So yes, it is affordable to the doers, but not the lazy or talkers. But that has always been the case forever, for just about everything.
Click to expand...
Exactly, you make life choices based on your priorities. I am 62 and have been flying since 1983. Up until 3 years ago I was renting. I retired and was finally able to afford my archer. My road warrior is a 2003 Silverado. I could have spent 80 grand on a new truck but I chose a plane. Life choices!
 
My concern with this fuel is what happens if it is found to cause problems after the roll-out? I know that GAMI is an organization with sophisticated test methods and has done extensive testing, but it probable includes testing in less than 10-15 engines and aircraft. Will this truly extrapolate to the entire GA piston population?

In the medical field, clinical trials for new medications are based on dozens or hundreds of test patients. It is not all uncommon, after the drug is on the market and given to thousands (or millions) of patients, that problems pop up that weren't apparent in the clinical trials with a smaller sample size.

So what happens if, after the product is in widespread use, engines are damaged or quit in flight? Is GAMI in a position to make things right? Do they have the resources / insurance to cover any engine damage. Or do they go bankrupt and the owners / operators are left holding the bag?
 
Kevin Holbrook said:
My concern with this fuel is what happens if it is found to cause problems after the roll-out? I know that GAMI is an organization with sophisticated test methods and has done extensive testing, but it probable includes testing in less than 10-15 engines and aircraft. Will this truly extrapolate to the entire GA piston population?

In the medical field, clinical trials for new medications are based on dozens or hundreds of test patients. It is not all uncommon, after the drug is on the market and given to thousands (or millions) of patients, that problems pop up that weren't apparent in the clinical trials with a smaller sample size.

So what happens if, after the product is in widespread use, engines are damaged or quit in flight? Is GAMI in a position to make things right? Do they have the resources / insurance to cover any engine damage. Or do they go bankrupt and the owners / operators are left holding the bag?
Click to expand...
The engines have far fewer variability than living organisms. Some of the issues affecting aircraft and fuel systems are vapor pressure (will the fuel system be able to deliver the fuel without evaporation or bubbles on a hot day in the mountains? Will the fuel evaporate properly in a carburetor in a really cold day?), detonation in a high-compression engine, and things like that- this is an incomplete list. If you consider food to be our fuel, you won't find engines having various allergies, things like celiac disease, and other similar issues. As for bankruptcy, it is likely someone will buy the intellectual property and sell the product. Looking at the patents, this doesn't appear too different then the fuels we use now. They are using aromatic hydrocarbons to help increase the octane:
Selected alkyl benzenes such as 1,3-dimethylbenzene, and/or 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene, or other mixtures thereof, may be used. Suitable alkylated benzenes may include a mixture of xylene isomers. Aromatic amines, such as m-toluidine, may also be added to increase MON. Base fuels may be a high quality aviation alkylate, or may be a commercial iso-octane, or a mixture of high quality aviation alkylate enhanced by commercial iso-octane, and may include iso-pentane or butane or both iso-pentane and butane in sufficient quantity to provide appropriate vapor pressure for the final fuel blend.
Click to expand...
. About the only thing I see a little different from regular gasoline are the aromatic amines (toluidines) but I'm not a gasoline chemist and they may be in gasoline now.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Holbrook said:
My concern with this fuel is what happens if it is found to cause problems after the roll-out? I know that GAMI is an organization with sophisticated test methods and has done extensive testing, but it probable includes testing in less than 10-15 engines and aircraft. Will this truly extrapolate to the entire GA piston population?

In the medical field, clinical trials for new medications are based on dozens or hundreds of test patients. It is not all uncommon, after the drug is on the market and given to thousands (or millions) of patients, that problems pop up that weren't apparent in the clinical trials with a smaller sample size.

So what happens if, after the product is in widespread use, engines are damaged or quit in flight? Is GAMI in a position to make things right? Do they have the resources / insurance to cover any engine damage. Or do they go bankrupt and the owners / operators are left holding the bag?
Click to expand...
GAMI has been in the business of providing extremely solid engine support for quite a while, for quite a wide variety of engines.

If I had concerns about this, they wouldn’t be about GAMI’s ability to provide an adequate level of testing to prevent major issues or ability/willingness to make things right.
 
Everyone in this thread should have been at the GAMI Presento at Oshkosh.

Based on what I heard, clearly this stuff is completely interchangeable with 100LL, has zero deleterious effects, is “comparable” in cost and weight, is easily produced, makes childbirth easier, turns FAA Staff into geniuses overnight, cures hemorrhoids, establishes world peace and multiplies in your tanks to replace burned fuel.

There maybe more attributes but I left early.

What are you worried about?

Cheers

ETA: It also may be carbon neutral but I don’t recall that being mentioned.
 
Last edited:
:popcorn:
 
Based on the quote from the patent in Cap'n Jack's post above, G100UL appears to be a blend of components available in most complex refineries. The exceptions might be the toluidines and trimethylbenzene. Based on that quote, there doesn't appear to be a "secret sauce" and the wonder is that the big oil companies that participated in the FAA-sponsored program failed.
 
Okay, thanks DoubleD and Capn Jack.

The patents mention “aromatic amines, such as N-methyl-p-toluidine, may be added to increase MON”

So it sounds like that’s the octane booster that helps replace lead. I looked it up,

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/N_N-Dimethyl-p-toluidine

and it seems it’s presently used in adhesives, paints, and such things — but fuels were not mentioned in its uses.
 
DoubleD said:
Based on the quote from the patent in Cap'n Jack's post above, G100UL appears to be a blend of components available in most complex refineries. The exceptions might be the toluidines and trimethylbenzene. Based on that quote, there doesn't appear to be a "secret sauce" and the wonder is that the big oil companies that participated in the FAA-sponsored program failed.
Click to expand...
They failed because of their approach. They tried to get a fuel that replaces 100LL across the board. This is like the MOGAS STC. If your plane is part of the STC, you can use it...if you can find it. What's interesting is there's 2 stc's. One is for limited Cessna airframes. And one for a limited number of Lycoming engines. Once testing is done the AML could expand. It took them 11 years to get to this point. I'd venture to say we're at least that long before lead is replaced, and odds are probably less than 50/50 G100UL is the solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top