Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet

wayneda40 said:
I'm not finding the term "industry consensus" in your text above (happy if it's not there). Link to complete source, please. (or maybe I missed it earlier in this thread)
Click to expand...
I am NOT the person saying that the the fuel must meet "industry consensus."
 
WDD said:
Sometimes the market place sets the standard (VHS vs Beta), and sometimes government needs to set the standards (How to rate Octane, thread pitch for a 1/4 inch bolt, etc.).
Click to expand...
Thread pitch is set by SAE, not the government.

How to rate octane is set by ASTM. Gov only sets which one is displayed on the pump (AKI versus RON).
 
Lowflynjack said:
Also, he's one who wants and STC based on horsepower, it's on their website. So you develop a fuel, we all have to use it unless we want to use MoGas, but you'll force us to buy your STC even though it's supposed to be an equal replacement with no mods to our planes.

This is the first time I heard him mention that it's heavier than 100LL... I'm curious how much heavier.

I'm not convinced he has the correct solution to the market. I'm also not convinced he doesn't! He's a very smart guy and a successful businessman, but he's up against some very large companies. We'll see what happens.
Click to expand...

STC price set by HP has been the standard in aviation.

To use MOGAS you have to buy an STC. And in many cases that buys the paperwork and some fuel filler stickers. Some aircraft require additional mods.

Even UL94 AVGAS requires and STC for some engines.
 
Pinecone said:
STC price set by HP has been the standard in aviation.

To use MOGAS you have to buy an STC. And in many cases that buys the paperwork and some fuel filler stickers. Some aircraft require additional mods.

Even UL94 AVGAS requires and STC for some engines.
Click to expand...
Right, but none of them are going to be considered the go-to fuel for the GA fleet like this one will. 2 of them have no STC, 1 is $100, 1 will be based on HP.
 
He can’t sell the fuel because with the new FAA authorization it would be illegal.
 
Lowflynjack said:
. . . It seems like they're doing it correctly by letting multiple companies compete and come up with the best product for us. If they accept his fuel, according to what I heard, none of the other manufacturers' fuels would be compatible, so he would own the market. How would this be fair to the rest of them? They were all given the same amount of time and testing requirements.

Also, he's one who wants and STC based on horsepower, it's on their website. So you develop a fuel, we all have to use it unless we want to use MoGas, but you'll force us to buy your STC even though it's supposed to be an equal replacement with no mods to our planes . . .
Click to expand...

The other companies had the same amount of time to come up with their own solution. None of them came up with one, and they had a decade of time to do so. GAMI did it. Then, FAA/Govt came up with EAGLE to add yet another time table and chance for competition after GAMI had a viable solution. If be ****ed if I were him, too. Don't change the rules at the end of the game.
 
Yikes. So the alphabets did lobby for the inclusion of the language, and OEMs are on record betting on lead staying around via the very persistence of govt sanctioned initiatives like PAFI Dos. Yeah, that's not a good look, it's pretty clear the profit is valuable enough to stonewall the inclusion of a "wild cat" fuel not playing by the good ol boy ASTM reg capture.

I don't buy the "it's an insignificant market for them to make a fuss about". uh huh, the hell it is...the ladies doth protest too much. I was agnostic to the GAMI plight before this, and I still don't like the STC path as the solution, but spade a spade, this whole thing is terrible optics for the alphabets. They're sabotaging the retrofit process.

At this point, I fight the urge to be accelerationist and straight up cheerlead for the environmental legal firms to come in and pick the low hanging fruit, press-to-test on the finding of endangerment, and force the hand of the entire sector. Crack this whole charade open, what I call daddy/station wagon justice: Everybody gets a hand to the face, innocent and guilty alike, for refusing to self-police the back of the wagon. Panic groundings and people freaking out about the airplanes they overpaid for, always seems to be the language people understand in the end.

Braley is no spring chicken, if I were doing the math I'd be selling that recipe a 'la IT startup in 1999, and enjoying my FU money. This hobby's kinda effd anyways, have a drink and spend some money while you got it. Justice delayed is justice denied type of thing.

Good lord what a systemic rot.
 
If you worked for the competition, you wouldn’t be doing your job if you just let attrition of a profit center (100LL) occur. That would be irresponsible. Plus, there’s real jobs on the line, all up and down the chain of command. It’s a fight. Only winners get trophies.
 
Here is the rub ...

To summarize this for you, the just-passed House FAA Reauthorization bill requires any unleaded fuel intended to replace 100LL at an airport to have both FAA approval and an industry consensus standard which, essentially, means an ASTM spec. General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s G100UL is FAA approved (via STC) but does not have an industry consensus standard. The industry consensus standard language was inserted into the bill at the request of AOPA and the other alphabets.
Click to expand...
 
I'm surprised that the environmental lobby is not pushing Congress to remove obstacles to adoption of the existing unleaded fuel.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm surprised that the environmental lobby is not pushing Congress to remove obstacles to adoption of the existing unleaded fuel.
Click to expand...
Then they would have to find something new to yell about. Leaving things like this alone helps their cause too.
 
Half Fast said:
and without the ethanol and detergents that go into automotive fuels. Such a fuel exists: G100UL.
Click to expand...
You do know that the FAA sponsored a test where a production 172 was run with 100% ethanol for TEN years with absolutely no issues. They found almost no wear/fouling. The only modification was rejetting the factory carb.

Ethanol is not bad, it doesn’t expire in 90 days, it doesn’t turn into water.. these are all old wives tales. Initially the cleaning of the alcohol did cause a problem because it was removing all the crud left behind by lead and ash.

It’s 2023, ethanol is a known quantity and low compression low RPM engines run fine with it.
 
pfarber said:
You do know that the FAA sponsored a test where a production 172 was run with 100% ethanol for TEN years with absolutely no issues. They found almost no wear/fouling. The only modification was rejetting the factory carb.

Ethanol is not bad, it doesn’t expire in 90 days, it doesn’t turn into water.. these are all old wives tales. Initially the cleaning of the alcohol did cause a problem because it was removing all the crud left behind by lead and ash.

It’s 2023, ethanol is a known quantity and low compression low RPM engines run fine with it.
Click to expand...

The Vanguard squadron is a formation group of RV-4s that perform at airshows. Their primary sponsor is Poet, an ethanol producer, and they fly on 100% ethanol.

That being said, I happen to know each of the aircraft has a small header tank of avgas, just in case of vapor lock. I've also seen they have quite a hard time hot-starting after a fuel stop.

While they can and do operate on ethanol most of the time, it isn't without problems and probably is not meant for mainstream use.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Oil lobby $$$$ >>> Enviro/green lobby $
Click to expand...

I really have a hard time believing that anyone is actively lobbying to keep the lead. From the oil refineries to the transporters, having to handle a specialty lead based product for a niche market is just a pain. If anything it is just each of the proposed replacements lobbying for their product over all others, and the government and industry not providing a clean choice or path forward.
 
Any racers run ethanol that would differ?

My experience is e85. Too easy, too fast to absorb water. It was a mess. Granted that was a retrofit in a street-strip engine.
 
midwestpa24 said:
I really have a hard time believing that anyone is actively lobbying to keep the lead. From the oil refineries to the transporters, having to handle a specialty lead based product for a niche market is just a pain. If anything it is just each of the proposed replacements lobbying for their product over all others, and the government and industry not providing a clean choice or path forward.
Click to expand...

Lobbying is not one issue, it’s a package deal. The lead issue is small potatoes, but part of a relationship between a politician and lobbyist. All I’m saying is that there is more effective convincing going on by oil industry reps than any seemingly well organized environmental group.

I’ll say it again - anyone with a job involving 100LL dollars changing hands is not going to sit idly by waiting to be unemployed (up to and including a board of directors that have a duty to their shareholders).
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Lobbying is not one issue, it’s a package deal. The lead issue is small potatoes, but part of a relationship between a politician and lobbyist. All I’m saying is that there is more effective convincing going on by oil industry reps than any seemingly well organized environmental group.

I’ll say it again - anyone with a job involving 100LL dollars changing hands is not going to sit idly by waiting to be unemployed (up to and including a board of directors that have a duty to their shareholders).
Click to expand...

The people producing 100LL aren't going to be unemployed, they will just start producing the replacement blend. Its not like there is a 100LL Inc that only produces 100LL and nothing else. I don't see the transition costing a single job, and probably little to no transitional cost to production. The only real cost is the certification and testing to create whatever the new recipe will be.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I think I’m going to spectate for a while before I **** off some of my POA friends.
Click to expand...

Not ****ing me off, whether we are considered friends or not. :cheers: I think this has been a good discussion and I've learned a little about some of the processes.

At the end of the day, the way I see this needing to play out is a new compatible blend that can be intermixed with 100LL and can meet or exceed the performance of 100LL needs to be found, then that product just replaces 100LL production until the lead can be phased out.

The ideas of having 2 or 3 different products at the airport are going to be non-starters for many airports and FBOs due to infrastructure costs. Requiring every aircraft owner in the country to purchase an STC (which mostly is a new decal) to continue using their aircraft is not going to lead to widespread implementation.

I believe that product can be done, maybe already has been. The hurdles are going to be cost, paperwork, and acceptance.
 
pfarber said:
It’s 2023, ethanol is a known quantity and low compression low RPM engines run fine with it.
Click to expand...


Run, yes. Sit unused for a while? Not so much.

For my infrequently used engines, like my motorcycle and my old truck and my tractors, ethanol fuel causes problems as these may sit for several weeks without use. And sometimes my plane sits for a few weeks, too.

There are applications for non-ethanol fuel.
 
midwestpa24 said:
a new compatible blend that can be intermixed with 100LL and can meet or exceed the performance of 100LL needs to be found,
Click to expand...


Such a fuel exists.

It was developed (not “found”) by GAMI, it’s called G100UL, and it’s been approved by the FAA for every piston/spark airplane in the fleet.
 
When I started flying, they had a truck for 80/87 (red), a truck for 100/130 (green), and a truck for 115/145 (purple). There are penalties for using 100LL, and 100UL in some planes. Mostly on engines that go over 45 inch's of manifold pressure.
 
Ethanol laced fuel is NOT part of the long term solution for aviation. I essentially had to junk a classic car because of the sour fuel smell, water absorption and eventual fuel pump seizure in the fuel tank of a personal car, when I lent it as an airport courtesy car at KSSQ. Borrowers had innocently refueled with mostly E10 for about 5 years, and I didn't recognize the consequences.

About the same time, my hangar mate had a power interruption over Lake Superior :)oops:) near Duluth Sky Harbor, which showed his C140 fuel line had narrowed. A fuel sample showed about 5% ethanol. His refueling history was primarily from an FBO who maintained his MoGas was supplier-certified as E0. Another reason to check all MoGas fuel sources.

Ethanol absorbs water, which in itself would be tolerable for short times as long as it stays mixed, and that other fuel system components are not negatively affected. However, as it ages, and as the temperature changes the amount of water dissolved in an E???? solution will vary. Chill the mix, and the water will come out of solution (I think that's way it goes) for whatever hazard or corrosion that can create. Aircraft fuel has to be reasonably temperature stable, time-stable, and water-absorption stable. Pure hydrocarbon MoGas (E0) does that pretty well. Otherwise higher levels of ethanol seem to find water everywhere, from the air or residual tank contents.
 
pfarber said:
It’s 2023, ethanol is a known quantity and low compression low RPM engines run fine with it.
Click to expand...
Older fuel lines and other "approved" fuel system components are not compatible with E-10. A buddy of mine lost power on takeoff due to fuel lines swelling shut. (E-AB with a Rotax engine that is "approved" for E-10, but he wanted to "build it right" with "Aircraft" fuel lines.)

Given that G100UL is already a simple drop in replacement for 100LL, seems silly to try and re-invent the wheel. A lot less cost, risk, etc.
 
Mikey52 said:
When I started flying, they had a truck for 80/87 (red), a truck for 100/130 (green), and a truck for 115/145 (purple). There are penalties for using 100LL, and 100UL in some planes. Mostly on engines that go over 45 inch's of manifold pressure.
Click to expand...

Aaaahh, GAMI G100UL would be rated as 100/150+

So it is BETTER for high boosted engines than 100LL.
 
Half Fast said:
Such a fuel exists.

It was developed (not “found”) by GAMI, it’s called G100UL, and it’s been approved by the FAA for every piston/spark airplane in the fleet.
Click to expand...
“Exists” is somehow different from “available.”

Why don’t they sell some?
 
OneCharlieTango said:
“Exists” is somehow different from “available.”

Why don’t they sell some?
Click to expand...
I know you're being rhetorical, but that was addressed in the video and the opinion piece folks posted earlier. The alphabets threw a wrench into the effort by capturing the legislative language in order to stonewall it. But you knew all that already. Again, I'm no fan of the STC pathways, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing the political rot that steers this supposed "technical problem" plaguing the sector for decades.
 
There is nothing in the legislation that prevents GAMI from selling its gas today. And equally important, there was nothing apparent that kept them from selling it six months ago.

I’m going to say it: G100UL is a pig in a poke.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
I’m going to say it: G100UL is a pig in a poke.
Click to expand...


Show me a better pig and I’ll buy it. Got one?

30+ years of USG-led attempts at creating UL avgas have given us nothing, and EAGLE shows no signs of doing any better.

Let’s stop wasting taxpayer money paying lip service and accomplishing nothing. Let’s implement the proven solution, get G100UL to market, buy the bloody STC, and move on. Preferably before the EPA and enviro-whackos ground us.
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Show me a better pig an I’ll buy it. Got one?

30+ years of USG-led attempts at creating UL avgas have given us nothing, and EAGLE shows no signs of doing any better.

Let’s stop wasting taxpayer money paying lip service and accomplishing nothing. Let’s implement the proven solution, get G100UL to market, buy the bloody STC, and move on. Preferably before the EPA and enviro-whackos ground us.
Click to expand...
If Congress were serious about the issue, they would negotiate a deal with GAMI and appropriate funds to pay for STCs for all eligible aircraft.
 
Palmpilot said:
If Congress were serious about the issue, they would negotiate a deal with GAMI and appropriate funds to pay for STCs for all eligible aircraft.
Click to expand...


Yep. It's all in how you spin it.

Political death: "Congress Pays Money to Rich Private Plane Owners to Stop Polluting Environment With Lead."

A better story would be that Congress establishes the Charles Taylor Congressional Medal for innovation and safety in aviation (with big prize money attached) and presents the first award to GAMI for developing UL avgas, something that has eluded the fuel industry and the FAA for decades, and making the formula available to fuel companies and providing aircraft owners with STCs, all gratis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top