G100UL unleaded avgas approved

Jim K

Jim K

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
5,969
Location
CMI
Display Name
Display name:
Richard Digits
In case you haven't heard yet...
Yesterday George Braly of GAMI announced the FAA approved an STC for their unleaded 100 octane avgas.

https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative-Fuels/Unleaded-Avgas#FAQ


I'm happy to see GAMI successful, but that is tempered by the fact that it looks like I'm to have to pay a couple thousand bucks to have the privilege of buying a more expensive fuel. The claimed oil change and tbo savings will not come close to making up the $10-15/ hour fuel cost increase, all to fix an arguably non- existant problem.

The comparison to an auto- gas stc falls flat as that is an stc to use a cheaper fuel, not a more expensive one. I have no doubt the fuel will pass its additional testing, and I have no doubt the epa will ban 100ll within days of it doing so. Pandora's box has been opened and we're going to shoulder the cost.
 
So, is this a drop in replacement, even for high compression engines?
 
Jim K said:
In case you haven't heard yet...
Yesterday George Braly of GAMI announced the FAA approved an STC for their unleaded 100 octane avgas.

https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative-Fuels/Unleaded-Avgas#FAQ


I'm happy to see GAMI successful, but that is tempered by the fact that it looks like I'm to have to pay a couple thousand bucks to have the privilege of buying a more expensive fuel. The claimed oil change and tbo savings will not come close to making up the $10-15/ hour fuel cost increase, all to fix an arguably non- existant problem.

The comparison to an auto- gas stc falls flat as that is an stc to use a cheaper fuel, not a more expensive one. I have no doubt the fuel will pass its additional testing, and I have no doubt the epa will ban 100ll within days of it doing so. Pandora's box has been opened and we're going to shoulder the cost.
Click to expand...

Do we know the cost of the STC? I have not seen that information published.

It has been my general understanding that the STC is intended not to be burdensome, but rather, will be reasonable in cost to make the fuel attractive as an alternative.

The EPA will not "...ban 100ll within days of..." G100UL completing testing, for a whole host of reasons. On the other hand, having G100UL as a viable alternative to leaded fuel will clear the way for a more predictable future for GA.

At least, that's how I see it.
 
So, are these guys making money on the STCs that apparently everyone will have to purchase, or by patenting the formula… or both? Someone is going to get really, really rich off of this.

Per the video, the STC will be basically a sticker to apply to your filler port area saying you’re allowed to use 100UL. If the FAA is issuing blanket “drop in” approval…. That seems to be ridiculously unnecessary, with no value add. I guess that’s just the way of the FAA.
 
dans2992 said:
So, is this a drop in replacement, even for high compression engines?
Click to expand...
Supposed to be. Even some mention of Warbirds being able to run full rated power on the stuff.

SCCutler said:
Do we know the cost of the STC? I have not seen that information published.
Click to expand...
George addressed it in the interview I posted. He mentions it being similar to mogas stc pricing.
SCCutler said:
The EPA will not "...ban 100ll within days of..." G100UL completing testing, for a whole host of reason
Click to expand...
The US EPA may not, but I would bet money California will, and probably others. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the US epa mandate a sunset date for 100ll. They tried before, but FAA stopped them as there was no viable alternative. That argument won't fly anymore. I expect the changeover will happen fast regardless. It will probably be either the end of TEL production, or the banning of its import.
 
dans2992 said:
So, are these guys making money on the STCs that apparently everyone will have to purchase, or by patenting the formula… or both? Someone is going to get really, really rich off of this.
Click to expand...

If GAMI gets rich off of this, they'll be in a small club (people who have gotten rich off of a GA engine related product). :D
 
dans2992 said:
So, are these guys making money on the STCs that apparently everyone will have to purchase, or by patenting the formula… or both? Someone is going to get really, really rich off of this.
Click to expand...

Both, I believe. They've been working on this for a Very Long Time, and have found a way to get this done when a lot of much larger outfits have failed; their decision to go the STC route was brilliant. If they get "really, really rich" from it, well, they earned it, so good on 'em.
 
SCCutler said:
Both, I believe. They've been working on this for a Very Long Time, and have found a way to get this done when a lot of much larger outfits have failed; their decision to go the STC route was brilliant. If they get "really, really rich" from it, well, they earned it, so good on 'em.
Click to expand...
I am happy to see people make money off of brilliance and perseverance. But I draw the line when I'm compelled to purchase an item or stop doing what I have done for years, with no true benefit. That's either theft or extortion, and not "good on them."
 
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.
 
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...
Probably not for most of us, but when this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if they just happen to be around one day while YOU are fueling.
Or did you think POA is private and secure or that the govt doesn't monitor sites like this?
 
JOhnH said:
Probably not for most of us, but when this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if they just happen to be around one day while YOU are fueling.
Or did you think POA is private and secure or that the govt doesn't monitor sites like this?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they have (much) bigger fish to fry…
 
Or a government worker to take initiative and do his job? Highly unlikely....send me a sticker.
 
JOhnH said:
Probably not for most of us, but when this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if they just happen to be around one day while YOU are fueling.
Or did you think POA is private and secure or that the govt doesn't monitor sites like this?
Click to expand...

If Jerry Wagner can do what he does and not get a talking to from the FSDO, my worry about them watching me fill up with an approved fuel is exactly 0.
 
@dans2992

GAMI spent years and millions of dollars to do the research and complete the process. They took the risk, they deserve the reward.

@Jim K

TEL is a real problem. There are multiple sides to the problem:
1. There is only a single factory for TEL, it requires extremely specialized handling
2. TEL is very harmful to the environment
3. As a result of TEL, all equipment cannot be shared with other fuel users. This raises the capital costs significantly, making updates and maintenance more problematic.
4. TEL puts a target on GA's back. Removing this target would be very good.

Tim
 
JOhnH said:
Probably not for most of us, but when this happens, I wouldn't be surprised if they just happen to be around one day while YOU are fueling.
Or did you think POA is private and secure or that the govt doesn't monitor sites like this?
Click to expand...

If there's a list... @EdFred 's already on it ;)
 
tspear said:
@dans2992

GAMI spent years and millions of dollars to do the research and complete the process. They took the risk, they deserve the reward.
Click to expand...

They can do it without raping the consumer. But I bet you a years worth of avgas they go the rape route.
 
I just hope it's more available than the 94UL that's been out for some time now, but virtually unavailable.
 
Dana said:
I just hope it's more available than the 94UL that's been out for some time now, but virtually unavailable.
Click to expand...
My guess is that it will only be widely available once 100LL is sunsetted. If this is going to be a $6000 STC for a ****ing sticker, no one is paying for that unless they are forced to.

If they were smart they would make the STC about the cost of a sticker, and make all their money back on being the only fuel supplier. Which they will do and then sell it to us for $12/gallon since they are the only gami (see what I did there) in town. - $30/gallon at your local Signature. But they will do that with the fuel prices and still rape us on the STC.
 
Salty said:
Federal regulations forcing the purchase and use of an STC and consumable product produced by a private company. Who could have a problem with that?
Click to expand...


They don’t need to require you to buy the STC. They just need to prohibit the sale of LL gas. The government already prohibits the sale of many products.
 
Half Fast said:
They don’t need to require you to buy the STC. They just need to prohibit the sale of LL gas. The government already prohibits the sale of many products.
Click to expand...

But you can't legally use the fuel unless you buy the STC.
 
What should happen, but probably won’t, is that the government establishes a sunset date for LL that coincides with the expiration of the UL patent. But the EPA won’t wait that long.
 
EdFred said:
So it is what Salty said, forcing you to buy the STC through Federal regulation.
Click to expand...


Effectively yes. But it won’t be an FAA regulation requiring you to get the STC. It will be an EPA prohibition on LL.

And nothing prevents some other company from creating their own product and seeking incorporation into the STC.
 
I think this is awesome from a supply chain point of few. No more trucking from distant refineries, no more issues with tetraethyl lead. I think GAMI did a wonderful job and if we have to pay them a little money for an STC, I am happy to do so. I think they deserve every bit of it. They could’ve been a lot more greedy about it. If they patented it you’ll be paying the royalty. as it is, anybody can make this stuff. Could you imagine if Shell aviation fuels came up with this.? Then you would be paying dearly.

As for the complainers, you don’t even know the details yet Some people would complain about a free lunch.
 
Good for Gami, taking such a big risk to protect the future of GA. I'm not a fan of patents, but I wish them all the best, especially when so many BigCorps have failed with a 100LL replacement, and TEL is living on borrowed time (both for political and basic market-economics reasons).

Personally, I wouldn't be forced to buy Gami's STC; I could buy the Petersen STC instead and operate my Piper PA-28-161 on mogas. But either way, I'm more optimistic than I was 10 years ago that my plane can still be flying in 2030 and beyond. Maintaining the status quo just isn't an option for the future, no matter how much we bluster — something is going to change, so let's embrace the change that has the smallest impact on our flying instead of fighting our way into extinction trying to defend some kind of mistaken principle.
 
Yeah, you aren’t forced to not commit murder either :rolleyes:
 
There is no public health problem associated with 100ll, unless you count the group psychosis that got us here. The “problem” was entirely fabricated by Friends of the Earth with the cooperation of the air division of EPA and local environmental agencies such as the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in northern California. Epidemiological studies don’t control for other sources of lead, and can’t explain similar lead levels away from airports. Air studies showed no concentrations of airborne lead higher than EPA’s already low action level. (One study at my airport put monitors inside the fence in the runup area, immediately behind aircraft—virtually almost up the tailpipe of aircraft. This study violated EPA and the monitor manufacturer’s standards and directions for conducting air studies, yet it still only generated a couple of hits.

None of this has stopped anti-airport groups and politicians from repeating false claims about 100ll. What was more disturbing was the lack of support from the alphabet groups in fighting this charade. Instead, it was accepted as gospel that 100ll is bad, that the end is inevitable, and that the best that could be done was to find a substitute.

So, this was a political problem that presented a business opportunity. I don’t fault GAMI for solving it, but I’m not happy about paying for it. I’m especially not happy because I’m living in California and get taxed heavily on fuel, the hangar I rent from the County, and my airplane. There’s an enormous surplus of fuel tax revenue that the State is legally required to spend only on airports and aviation, but it remains unspent. Since it’s OUR money, it would make sense to buy every aircraft owner based in California an STC to use G100. And eVTOL pigs might fly.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
So could this undercut the RHV "investigation and report"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top