GAMI 100UL update by AVweb

I don't think this problem is unique just to the unleaded fuel initiative. Multiple times the goalposts have been moved. I wonder if even 100LL would meet the criteria to replace 100LL. But you listen to what the folks at Dynon have to say about autopilot approvals. They get very little feedback on what else would be needed or any changes. It's usually silence or "we'll let you know". And it's not like it's an airframe that's never seen an autopilot. It's not like the autopilot hasn't been proven first with experimental and now a few certified models. The autopilot has been proven. The process shouldn't start from scratch for every new airframe.
 
:popcorn:
 
All y'all do know....the engine STC is half the battle....airframes need to be approved next. lol :D
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
All y'all do know....the engine STC is half the battle....airframes need to be approved next. lol :D
Click to expand...

Hence my popcorn. Anyone who’s actually been involved in trying to solve the problem realizes it goes beyond the over simplification people like to make it out to be.

Insurmountable? Of course not. But there’s more to it especially with such a huge legacy fleet.
 
So, AvBlend and MMO and the rest of the stuff we put in gas is OK, but to have a completely fungible fuel the rules change?
 
Ted said:
Hence my popcorn. Anyone who’s actually been involved in trying to solve the problem realizes it goes beyond the over simplification people like to make it out to be.

Insurmountable? Of course not. But there’s more to it especially with such a huge legacy fleet.
Click to expand...


As Paul points out, though, this problem has been in the works for about 50 years, one way or another. Today's problem is no longer technical; it's bureaucratic.
 
Half Fast said:
As Paul points out, though, this problem has been in the works for about 50 years, one way or another. Today's problem is no longer technical; it's bureaucratic.
Click to expand...

Well, that all depends. For example, The Petersen (I think) MoGas STC is approved for the O-540. HOWEVER, it is not approved for the PA-24 air-frame due to the routing of the fuel lines, and issues with vapor lock during testing. So while GAMI's fuel might be a drop in for all engines, it may not just be paperwork at this point. Have they tested it in all AIR-FRAMES? I doubt they have. If, and only if, they have tested it on all air-frames with a 100% success rate is it truly a drop in replacement.
 
Ok...maybe I'm wrong...but George says it here.... his AML includes airframes.


Ted said:
Hence my popcorn. Anyone who’s actually been involved in trying to solve the problem realizes it goes beyond the over simplification people like to make it out to be.

Insurmountable? Of course not. But there’s more to it especially with such a huge legacy fleet.
Click to expand...
 
Racerx said:
Rather surprised both aopa and eaa took the faa's side with the new EAGLE initiative. If I was Braly there would be steam coming from my ears.
Click to expand...

I have been in favor of a lead substitute for at least the last 20 years, but AOPA and EAA siding with the FAA is not surprising. The screams with millions of gallons of product in the field and problems arising would be a catastrophe.
 
Racerx said:
Rather surprised both aopa and eaa took the faa's side with the new EAGLE initiative. If I was Braly there would be steam coming from my ears.
Click to expand...

NIH isn't the sole province of the FAA.
 
The existing infrastructure should be fine - not like switching from AV Gas to Ethanol based fuel for example. I can't imagine that an airport's fueling system even needs purged. Just refill the storage tank with the new fuel, as a temporary blend - however small - shouldn't matter.

  • I vote - FWIW - to get rid of lead in fuel.
  • Is is a big problem? I don't think so, as so little aviation gas gets burned each year.
  • Should it take this long? No
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
Well, that all depends. For example, The Petersen (I think) MoGas STC is approved for the O-540. HOWEVER, it is not approved for the PA-24 air-frame due to the routing of the fuel lines, and issues with vapor lock during testing.
Click to expand...
They didn't test 100LL against every engine and airframe when it came out. G100UL is formulated pretty close to 100LL. The vapor pressures are likely close to, if not the same, as 100LL and nowhere near the mix that is available in the various mogases. In fact, in tests for the specs of 100LL, G100UL outperforms production 100LL. The major difference is that it is slightly denser with the incumbent higher energy content per gallon.
 
WDD said:
The existing infrastructure should be fine - not like switching from AV Gas to Ethanol based fuel for example. I can't imagine that an airport's fueling system even needs purged. Just refill the storage tank with the new fuel, as a temporary blend - however small - shouldn't matter.

I vote - FWIW - to get rid of lead in fuel. Is is a big problem? I don't think so, as so little aviation gas gets burned each year.
Click to expand...
G100UL is entirely compatible with 100LL and can be mixed in any amount. I don't suspect that there are going to be problems there.
 
flyingron said:
They didn't test 100LL against every engine and airframe when it came out. G100UL is formulated pretty close to 100LL. The vapor pressures are likely close to, if not the same, as 100LL and nowhere near the mix that is available in the various mogases. In fact, in tests for the specs of 100LL, G100UL outperforms production 100LL. The major difference is that it is slightly denser with the incumbent higher energy content per gallon.
Click to expand...

"pretty close" isn't exact. A 13mm wrench is "pretty close" to a 1/2" wrench too, and I can use it in a pinch if a nut is on just past finger tight, but a lot of times it's gonna strip the head.
 
The real risk is that there is one TEL (tetraethyl lead) supplier in the free world. They are in the UK and if they close, the plant explodes or the greenies over there shut it down, we are toast. The risk is political, economic and natural disaster. We need a substitute like now.
 
Half Fast said:
As Paul points out, though, this problem has been in the works for about 50 years, one way or another. Today's problem is no longer technical; it's bureaucratic.
Click to expand...

Actually I disagree. The FAA could have easily 50 years ago mandated all planes manufactured after 1970 be able to run on unleaded fuel. This would have almost solved the issue on its own, because outside of some warbirds, most older aircraft run fun on mogas.
Now, due to a lack of action fifty years ago we have a very complex technical issue, in which how things are defined (ok, that part is bureaucratic) make the technical solution fundamentally impossible.

Tim
 
Meanwhile the noise aholes, gaining very little sympathy with their complaints after moving next to airports, have honed in on leaded avgas as a way to eliminate piston aircraft from THEIR skies.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Can we not…
Click to expand...
Everytime I clean the belly of my plane....and lather up with all that gray slimy stuff I think of the children. lol :D

....and yet I know of no one who is exposed more than the maintenance folks who work on our planes....and they are not suffering from lead poisoning. o_O
 
I literally asked that question to an FAA executive.....with the leader of the PAFI/EAGLE honcho on the call....and was given a reply like I had 3 heads. Folks just don't get it and are very zealous bout going lead free....and the end goal is to get carbon neutral (wave good by to your combustion engine). Obviously they are not very familiar with GA or have any ratings that go with it......
Half Fast said:
You obviously have not met the same brain-damaged A&Ps that I have.

:D
Click to expand...
 
Lindberg said:
Why is anyone other than GAMI in a hurry for this to happen?
Click to expand...

1) 12/20/50 years is in a hurry?
2) Our engines don't need lead to run (see #6, below).
3) Having a key part of our economy dependent on one industrial plant in a foreign country is a hugely terrible idea.
4) Perceptions matter, and in the view of a lot of people who matter to the health of GA, even a little lead=bad.
5) Fuel chemistry isn't so utterly mysterious that the large refiners couldn't have figured this out decades ago if they wanted to devote the resources to it. They haven't, and nothing points to any indication that they intend to in the future.
6) Most importantly, GAMI has already presented a mountain of data that G100UL is fully compatible with 100LL, and is quite possibly even better performing. I plan to be among the first in line to get the STC when it is available for my plane.
 
Lindberg said:
Also more expensive and subject to a monopoly.
Click to expand...

How expensive will 100LL be when there is a fire at the TEL plant? The company that sells the TEL isn't a monopoly? There is no reason the G100UL formula can't be licensed to multiple suppliers, and it almost certainly will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top