Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
@John-Paul Townsend, is there going to be a current list of airports that have the G100UL fuel that could be referenced for planning?
GAMI G100UL STC available now
- Thread starter FPK1
- Start date
For me, the bigger deal is no longer have lead plug up the ring lands and valve guide. Between that and synthetic oil, I bet it will be commonplace for a lyco 320/360/540 to go 4000+ hours. Unfortunately it will probably come too late to benefit my current mid time engine. The plug fouling thing will be huge for training aircraft as well.
That’s what I suspect will eventually happen. Or the aircraft and engine manufacturers eventually get their aircraft approved for the new fuel. At a minimum, Lycoming has taken some steps in that direction by issuing documentation that lists some versions of unleaded fuel as approved in some of their various engines. They’ll likely follow up with doing the same thing for G100UL. Where the OEM approval may fail is with the unsupported airframes and engines. Those applications may still require an STC for compliance.
I’m really hoping there’s an eventual blanket approval of some sort that doesn’t involve STCs. I’m going to be spending a lot of money on paperwork if that doesn’t happen.
I think there will be, eventually. If there are several UL fuels available, there will be many many instances of a pilot landing at an airport, needing fuel, and not having whatever STC is needed for the gas at that particular airport. If he knows it's all fungible and approved for his plane, he'll likely say "screw it" and fill up regardless.
Multiply that a few thousand times over and it's obvious that enforcement becomes impossible, and unneccessary as far as safety goes. The FAA isn't in the business of protecting IP, so they'll find a way to make the whole issue go away.
Which would, sadly, leave GAMI short of an STC revenue stream. I'm sure they're motivated to make hay while the sun shines, and cash in on the STC market as early and quickly as possible.
My concern exactly: the fragmentation of the fuel market with G100UL, Swift fuel and its STC, and whatever comes out of EAGLE. I wonder why GAMI didn't pursue getting their revenue from licensing the fuel producers. Others could do the same, it would be much easier to police, and the market wouldn't be fragmented with the need for multiple STCs. Cost recovery to GAMI might be delayed this way, however.
Pinecone
En-Route
Hmm, you already are driving around with 4 - 5 gallons jogs worth. And probably even store it in your house.
Pinecone
En-Route
John Paul already posted that is part to get some revenue to jump start the production and distribution of the fuel. GAMI has already invested millions with NO return so far.
Hmm, you already are driving around with 4 - 5 gallons jogs worth. And probably even store it in your house.
Use a couple beer kegs
15gal each, hotrod people have been using them for fuel since hot rods and beer kegs came out lol
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
Vaccines and modern medicine allowing weaker genes to survive and reproduce.
Higher income/more intelligent people that make smarter decisions about using birth control to limit their reproduction while less successful people continue to breed prolifically.
Progressive government that rewards lack of initiative and productivity.
And the big one (as it relates to this discussion): Air pollution and lead making people sicker and dumber.
Perhaps, like idocracy
However some of the self proclaimed green intellectuals are all so often about as useless as Anne Frank's drumset
People thinking that the government forcing this new fuel to replace perfectly good 100ll is going to do anything other than just cost more money, it’s like they slept through the majority of other “green” scams, for every one that does good there are 100 that just get some people rich, are worse for the environment, damage property and businesses, or a mix of all of the above
Speaking of perfectly good 100LL, the other day when I was sampling fuel from one of the newer Cessnas with lots and lots of sampling points, the winds were such that I had trouble keeping fuel from getting on my hands. I decided that it would be a good idea to bring rubber gloves for that purpose.
Why?
You don’t think you’re actually going to get cancer or something from a splash of 100ll do you?
I was watching a episode of Frazier a couple days ago, Niles takes a napkin and wipes down the chair and table before he sits in it, the studio audience laughs as it was funny, no sane person would do that, now days I see people wiping things down all the time
Here I am, still will drink out of a hose, driving old cars with no nanny features, have had no covid shots, have been up to my elbows in everything from 100ll to old grease to the innards of game animals, here I am with no crazy allergies, doing well enough and smart enough to have a plane and no debt, no mental oddities like depression/anxiety
Last edited:
I think the danger to people in adjacent neighborhoods is probably being exaggerated, but what evidence is there that direct contact with the skin is safe?
Last edited:
History of pilots doing it with no issue, what I see with my own eyes
Also talked to a doc once about it, he practically laughed at me
Checkout_my_Six
Touchdown! Greaser!
And mechanics that drown themselves in fuel and grey belly sludge …..nothing to see here folks.
I skimmed it - question still not answered: I didn't see any BLL measurements in kids living around airports in the study; did I miss it? - just the "probability" it could pose a risk. It's kinda like science, except a little more guessing and a little less mesaurement. . .
And mechanics that drown themselves in fuel and grey belly sludge …..nothing to see here folks.
I know a ton of old as dirt mechanics, biggest health issue I see is a beer belly lol
The people with the odd diseases, mental issues, allergies that no one ever got a decade or two ago, they are all are like non gluten, quad boosted, rubbing hand sanitizer like a guilt stricken murder, and see a shrink to “unpack” whatever
: ) Just two "jugs" - my Mazda 3 had a ten gallon tank. . . I pranked a neighbor once, telling her several tons of high explosives were being transported through our neighborhood every day by people with no training or certifications for handling it.Hmm, you already are driving around with 4 - 5 gallons jogs worth. And probably even store it in your house.
https://www.britannica.com/science/tetraethyl-lead
"TEL can cause acute or chronic lead poisoning if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Indeed, the industrial chemist widely given credit for discovering the antiknock properties of the compound, Thomas Midgley, Jr., was forced to leave his job for several months in 1923 in order to recuperate from lead poisoning."
There's anecdotal evidence both ways. If you guys don't mind getting it on your hands, that's up to you.
"TEL can cause acute or chronic lead poisoning if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Indeed, the industrial chemist widely given credit for discovering the antiknock properties of the compound, Thomas Midgley, Jr., was forced to leave his job for several months in 1923 in order to recuperate from lead poisoning."
There's anecdotal evidence both ways. If you guys don't mind getting it on your hands, that's up to you.
Show me one case of someone getting sick from getting 100ll on their hands lol
I mean eating enough pickles CAN probably give you cancer too, along with everything in the state of California
They could revise the ASTM standard, but they won't. I'm not even sure that would resolve the bureaucratic issues at play here.
I don't know whether Midgley got it on his hands or not, but there is probably more risk from repeatedly getting it on my hands than there is from merely living in the neighborhood.
He was studying lead in the 1920s, like that was his entire job, just sayin…
So you can tell by looking whether a person has lead poisoning?
If you're saying that the extent of exposure matters, I agree with you.
I've met a couple A&Ps that I've wondered that about...
I can tell you spilling 100ll on your hands during preflight ain’t going to do crap to you
100%
Now put the napkin back in your pocket Niles
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Agree, but what also matters quite a bit is the age of the person being exposed. Children are extremely susceptible to lead poisoning and the effects are well documented on the harm lead ingestion has on children’s mental development. Even small amounts have a deleterious effect.
At least one of the CA studies I saw was an airport... in an industrial area... next to an interstate where cars burned leaded fuel for decades... no wonder they'd find elevated lead levels.
Long term occupational exposure to lead, bad. Splashing 100LL on your hands occasionally... not such a big deal.
Long term occupational exposure to lead, bad. Splashing 100LL on your hands occasionally... not such a big deal.
“The children”
Noooooooooope
That argument is a auto nope
So you can directly show how the 172 hurt little Timmy?
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Found the smooth-brained science denier.
You’re clearly in the “don’t know ****” group.
I’m out.
So show me the **** you know about little Timmy becoming even dumber because a 172 did a touch and go?
Verifiable qualified proof that 172 burning “basically hitler” 100LL hurt “the children”
I don’t deny science, but I’m not a fan of fear porn from couldn’t hack it in the real world green extremist career academics
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2013
- Messages
- 19,562
- Location
- Oakland, CA
- Display Name
Display name:
Bro do you even lift
So SGOTI says it's 100% safe. What else could I possibly need? Maybe I should refill my soap dispensers with it!I can tell you spilling 100ll on your hands during preflight ain’t going to do crap to you
100%
Now put the napkin back in your pocket Niles
Pinecone
En-Route
Dose makes the poison.
Low doses are typically not a hazard. Your body can deal with them.
In the old days, lean miners would work until they were suffering affects, then they were taken out of the miner, and the lead "baked" out of them. Literally. They would spend their days in a very hot room and the body would secrete the lead.
The current concerns are more about developing children. But there is very little low dose data. As there is no one with zero exposure.
EPA uses a linear dose response model where the only safe dose is zero dose, using data extrapolated from high dose data. But many things are actually helpful in low doses. Take zinc. High levels of zinc are bad, leads to metal fume fever. But you take zinc in multivitamins, because it is required in our bodies.
Sluggo63
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,927
- Display Name
Display name:
Sluggo63
Aha!
Now I remember where I saw your user name before.
You’re on the Dan Gryder thread in the mishap page extolling the virtues of Dan and Alex Jones.
I wish I had remembered that hours ago. It would have explained a lot and saved me a bunch of time…
schmookeeg
En-Route
There's a subtle genius in that sticker. They mix serif and sans-serif fonts as a reminder that G100UL can be mixed with 100LL.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
The TCDS for my 120 says "73 octane aviation gasoline"
Do I need an STC for 100LL??? Why would I need an STC for G100UL?
Do I need an STC for 100LL??? Why would I need an STC for G100UL?
TCDS’s usually list only the fuel grade or octane and not the approved fuel specification standard. G100UL does not meet the current approved spec standard which is required to be used in all TC’d aircraft and engines. Same with oils, etc. So the only other approval option on a large scale is to go the STC route just like mogas and the original multi-grade oils did. However, if G100UL gets included in a specification standard in the future then no STC will be required as it will be approved at the production level like 100LL is.