GAMI vs Swift UL fuel competition

T

Tokirbymd

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 17, 2019
Messages
286
Display Name
Display name:
Tokirbymd
Swift fuel announced their own 100LL replacement will be available in 2023 via STC. They have been pursuing the new FAA EAGLE initiative process apparently and will offer their fuel as a $100 STC. So is this the reason FAA has refused to finalize GAMI 100UL? Do they want to see competition in the market? Or does Swift have some highly influential friends in their pocket? I don't like how this is shaping up- while I am not necessarily in favor of the entire fleets fuel needs being provided by a single company, having multiple companies all with their own STC you have to purchase doesn't seem wise either. Am I going to have a slew of STC stickers on my wing looking like a NASCAR car by 2026? I would think also with multiple fuels there would need to be testing that the different replacement fuels are fungible with each other, just as they are testing they are fungible with 100LL.
 
From everything that I have seen though GAMI is the way to go. Completely mixable and it just "works". I think the FAA is so hesitant to make any official decision right now.
 
Tokirbymd said:
I don't like how this is shaping up- while I am not necessarily in favor of the entire fleets fuel needs being provided by a single company,
Click to expand...
It already is. There is only one company in the world that makes tetraethyl lead. No matter who you buy 100LL from, the L comes from a sole source.
 
Has anything ever been approved within 2 years of an expected approval announcement when it comes to dealing with the FAA
 
I might be mistaken, but I believe that if your aircraft manufacturer has approved UL fuel via a Service Bulletin, as Textron has done with many models, you won’t need the STCs. If the fuel meets the octane requirements in the SB, I think you’re good.

Do I have that right?
 
It would seem the most efficient way of getting paid for this STC (either G100UL or Swift 100UL) would not be from collecting $ directly from tens of thousands of aircraft owners, but rather from a royalty on the fuel. Just make the STC free to download to add to aircraft records.

If you figure $100/plane x 200,000 planes = $20,000,000
About 180,000,000 gal of avgas sold in the US per year. Charge $0.05/gal royalty and you can make the same money in 2 years with far less accounting costs. Heck, charge $0.10/gal, at this point it's a rounding error.
 
Racerx said:
Has anything ever been approved within 2 years of an expected approval announcement when it comes to dealing with the FAA
Click to expand...

A fair amount of Garmin's stuff. But they're the 800 lb gorilla in the room now.
 
I am using the ul94 when available . It seems to be fine .with the gami 100 ul it looks like the FAA is involved and that seems to be the holdup. A little competition might be a good thing.
 
frfly172 said:
I am using the ul94 when available . It seems to be fine .with the gami 100 ul it looks like the FAA is involved and that seems to be the holdup. A little competition might be a good thing.
Click to expand...
I would be happy to use either or both - just get the lead out! It seems that big oil is pressuring the FAA/congress to slow down - change costs money and they have plenty of 100UL to sell that they don't want to have to dispose of.
GAMI is planning on licensing their formula to whomever wants it - so not a single source necessarily. I don't know what Swift's production plans are.
 
Half Fast said:
I might be mistaken, but I believe that if your aircraft manufacturer has approved UL fuel via a Service Bulletin, as Textron has done with many models, you won’t need the STCs. If the fuel meets the octane requirements in the SB, I think you’re good.

Do I have that right?
Click to expand...

No, the Textron Service Bulletins allow the use of UL91 or UL94 that complies with the ASTM D7547 standard, which among other things require that the fuel be made solely of hydrocarbons. I believe that all of the unleaded 100 octane fuel candidates at this point have some non-hydrocarbon component, either an oxygenate like ETBE, an aromatic amine, or a metal additive. So using these fuels isn’t allowed under the Textron SB, even if the motor octane rating may be high enough.

Now, Textron and other OEMs might well issue a new SB for a new fuel (since they are going to need to certify any engine or aircraft models they are selling on the future unleaded fuel anyway).
 
Half Fast said:
I might be mistaken, but I believe that if your aircraft manufacturer has approved UL fuel via a Service Bulletin, as Textron has done with many models, you won’t need the STCs. If the fuel meets the octane requirements in the SB, I think you’re good.

Do I have that right?
Click to expand...

"Owners and operators of Cessna 172 Skyhawk and 182 Skylane can utilize 91-octane unleaded (91UL), 94UL or 100VLL (very low lead) fuel in their aircraft wherever it is available, provided they have a Lycoming engine."
 
Somebody is clearly on the payola for this to be taking this long. The question is who?
 
EAA AirVenture 2022 Oshkosh:

GAMI expects their drop in unleaded 100 to be approved by the end of August... But they are not holding their breath!
c0009f8dc3817de72a9631ed92e38642.jpg
 
Sure, GAMI will get their STC ...just a few months after everyone else. Too bad they won't be in time to negotiate with the major suppliers. /s

Honestly, I don't care who wins. I just want that STC.
 
As long as 100LL is still available, I don’t really care too much…

I’d like to see Jet A diesels take off, but they really haven’t for some reason…
 
FPK1 said:
EAA AirVenture 2022 Oshkosh:

GAMI expects their drop in unleaded 100 to be approved by the end of August... But they are not holding their breath!
Click to expand...


Which year?
 
Jeff Oslick said:
We'll cross that bridge when it happens, but I'm having a difficult time believing that there is some magical incompatibility to be found there.
Click to expand...


Probably not, but I bet neither company is in a hurry to prove it. :)
 
dans2992 said:
As long as 100LL is still available, I don’t really care too much…

I’d like to see Jet A diesels take off, but they really haven’t for some reason…
Click to expand...
Heavier, less horsepower.
 
I wonder what Swift price per gallon will be?

G100UL is projected at less than a $1 more, based on oil prices $40 - $60 per barrel.

Plus, Swift requires a $100 STC. GAMI STC is free.
 
I stand corrected. I thought that the STC was free, that their money would come from the fuel.

Gonna be a lot of stickers on wings. :D
 
Pinecone said:
Gonna be a lot of stickers on wings. :D
Click to expand...
Are there any serious players out there besides GAMI and Swift? I only ever hear about those two, and I've been hearing about them for ~10 years.

I already have one giant "100LL only" sticker on each wing. If I could replace that with two smaller GAMI and Swift stickers, I might still have a smaller sticker footprint than I do now...
 
Shell is supposedly still going the PAFI/EASGLE route.
Might be a couple others.

Tim
 
ateamer said:
Well that is certainly a fair and unemotional article, written by a journalist who puts fairness to both sides first and strives to not show any personal bias.
Click to expand...
We're not going to keep 100LL around based on science. It will be emotion and "Think of the children" that gets it banned. Probably sooner than you think.

From the opening paragraph: " leaded fuel remains in use all around the country by small, piston-engine aircraft, poisoning the air breathed in by millions of children who live in close proximity to the country’s general aviation airports." :popcorn:
 
“When planes from these airports fly over our communities, they are crop-dusting our neighborhoods with lead-poisoned air.”

You can't make this stuff up ... oh! Wait!
 
The problem with all these latest studies are that the soil is contaminated....but, how can they prove it's from aircraft and not years of leaded auto fuel or lead paint?
mcdewey said:
We're not going to keep 100LL around based on science. It will be emotion and "Think of the children" that gets it banned. Probably sooner than you think.

From the opening paragraph: " leaded fuel remains in use all around the country by small, piston-engine aircraft, poisoning the air breathed in by millions of children who live in close proximity to the country’s general aviation airports." :popcorn:
Click to expand...
 
westrujp said:
There's actually an interesting graph in one of their other articles:

View attachment 109357

https://qz.com/2173461/leaded-airplane-fuel-is-poisoning-a-new-generation-of-americans/

(I'm no statistician)
Click to expand...

I'm not a statistician, but I am an environmental professional. My first question on this graph is, were control studies done near highways that are away from airports? I see seasonality, but that could be from surface soil disruption and more dust in the atmosphere in the summer than the winter, and therefore much of this signal could be from historic aerial-deposited lead from cars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top