Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,878
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
See post # 171 ...
Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet
- Thread starter wayneda40
- Start date
See post # 171 ...
I've heard that the ethanol absorbs water... is that something you worry about / consider?
It also degrades rubber.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
It does. But I don't worry about it given that I have been using E-10 for decades in cars and airplanes without a problem.
Note: If you occasionally find water in your sumps because you are tied down with leaky gas caps, then, NFW would you want to use E-10. But you would also probably want to fix the airplane.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
Sounds great. Why doesn't GAMI do that?
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
You keep saying that. But even if post #171 accurately reflected the legislation, there’s nothing to keep GAMI from loading a truck and selling fuel at oh, I don’t know…..say, Ada, Oklahoma.
Swift is probably an inferior fuel, yet you can buy it at over 30 airports. Why can’t GAMI do the same?
No, I don't. I said it once. Others have also told you to go read it.
Swift is a fuel producer. GAMI is not.
I understand other producers wanting to develop their own fuel rather than licensing GAMI's, but what ticks me off is that we're spending tax dollars for them to play at it. Let Phillips, Chevron, VP, etc., spend their own money. If they weren't sucking off the USG teat, GAMI's licensing fee might look more attractive.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
I don’t disagree about the government expenditures. I wonder, though, if it doesn’t buy us some time with the environmentalist wackos. They generally see the government as a solver of problems, and here’s the government, apparently working to solve their problem.
The behind-the-scenes stuff is probably complicated, ugly, corrupt, etc.
The behind-the-scenes stuff is probably complicated, ugly, corrupt, etc.
Meanwhile, our engines are wrecking themselves with 4X the amount of TEL they were designed for. The enviro concerns about lead in avgas are largely bull, but the damage the lead does to airplane engines is real.
Good point. I imagine that becoming a fuel producer would involve a pretty hefty capital investment, not to mention the likelihood that it would require finding and hiring types of expertise that fuel designers wouldn't necessarily have.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Yeah, the 40+ year OH time has really ruined the 0540 in the Comanche
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
And yet Swift, which started as a Purdue University-affiliated chemistry research concern, has managed to do exactly that.
I don't know the reasons, but somehow FAA legal hasn't been able to figure out a way to do that. Apparently it's more complicated than it seems. Most bureaucratic ca-ca is.
BUT, if they had any motivation to do it, I suspect the EAGLE fuel producers could pool resources and negotiate purchase of the STC from GAMI. Give it away "free" (Hah!) to make it back at the pump, and just bake the cost into the price per gallon. If they hold to the same pricing as GAMI, I suspect they wouldn't have to add very much to the fuel price depending on how quickly they'd need to recoup the investment.
I'm sure there are several ways to get UL to the market. As things stand, though, the fuel companies have no business motivation to do anything other than cash EAGLE checks and cook up soda pop in their labs. They're happy with the status quo and therefore will try to maintain it as long as possible.
Does the FAA have the statutory authority to make that determination?
As a renter, I don't have that option, but in any case, how do you get enough people to buy the STC to solve the problem?
By the way, the motivation for my suggestion was not to help GAMI; I just think it would be wrong for the government to steal their intellectual property.
Apparently not. But there might be other ways to skin it.
For example, Swift's UL94 supposedly requires an STC, but Textron published a service bulletin, SEB-28-04, that approves the use of UL94 in many Cessna and Beechcraft airplanes. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media...cessna-models-can-now-burn-reduced-lead-avgas
You can implement the service bulletin (basically just installing a fuel placard and getting an A&P signature in the logbook) and use UL94 without the Swift STC.
Could something similar be done for GAMI gas? Could the FAA do something other than an STC? Beats me, but maybe.
Swift has been producing UL94 for eight years, but it's still only available at a small number of airports, and not in every state. Are you sure that this is the example you want to hold up for GAMI to follow.?
https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative-Fuels/UL94-Swift
"UL94 has been produced by Swift Fuels at their Indiana fuel facility since 2015."
http://flyunleaded.com/airports.htmlI see less than three dozen airports on that list nationwide. (That list is from last year. Has anyone seen a more recent list?)
Unleaded UL94 Avgas Availability - Google My Maps
Retail Locations (Blue Teardrop) Private Users (Purple Diamond) Events (Red Teardrop) Universities (Gold Teardrop)
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
I don't see why not. They have the authority to approve/issue the STC. Not sure why they can't say, "not needed, owner or a&p can make a logbook entry and call it good."
But simple and government generally don't emulsify.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
Swift is available at 30-some airports. G100UL isn’t available anywhere.
Why isn’t it? Every possible excuse I’ve heard so far is nullified by the availability of 94UL.
So why is it impossible to buy G100UL?
DaleB
Final Approach
Consider, yes. Worry about, no. In the 7-8 years I’ve owned this plane I’ve sumped water exactly once, and that was after an Oshkosh rainstorm.
We’ve been burning E10 in our cars and lawn stuff for decades too. Exactly zero issues with water or any of the other horror stories.
Some types of rubber, yes. Other types are perfectly fine with ethanol. If your fuel system is designed for E10 (ours is) then it’s not a concern.
Pinecone
En-Route
Probably be cheaper than EAGLE.
We got (or spent, depending on your political leanings) $10mil on ADS-B equipage rebates. How much is EAGLE costing us?
Apples and oranges. UL94 was developed much longer ago than G100UL.
I’ll try explaining this one more time.
1) Swift (STC holder for 94UL) is a fuel producer.
2) GAMI is NOT a fuel producer.
3) No fuel producer has purchased the license to produce G100UL because they are receiving tax money to play around in chemistry labs in a half-hearted attempt to develop their own UL fuel.
4) We taxpayers are financing this goat-rope despite an UL fuel having already been approved. Cut off those funds, and the fuel producers will likely license G100UL rather than spending their own money in a (so-far) futile effort to create their own secret sauce.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 16,021
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
The 2003 FAA budget shows $12.4 million
Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet
There aren't any possible parallels between events in recent memory… but “It’s perfectly safe” is something plenty of people are skeptical of in the last, say, uh, five years or so, especially when your kids are riding in the back. It’s the devil(s) you know as the saying goes. As well as the...
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
How much longer will GAMI have to take before you start wondering why it's taking so long?
GAMI isn’t the hold-up. The delay is caused by the USG disincentivizing fuel producers from blending G100UL.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
Swift became a fuel producer when they had a fuel to produce. Prior to that they were just a chemistry project. GAMI claims to have a fuel to produce. Where is it?
Your #3 assumes a lot of things. You may be right. It may also be that no one has bought the rights to G100UL because no one wants to be stuck with a fuel that no one wants to buy, likely because of its price.
As to #4, the taxpayers and the government, GAMI's whole business model apparently relies on 100LL becoming illegal. So, cheering for GAMI is cheering for the government to take 100LL away. That's too much for George and them to ask.
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,165
- Display Name
Display name:
OneCharlieTango
And yet, Swift is available at over 30 airports. How is it that they're able to overcome that disincentive?
And maybe we pilots want G100UL to be disincentivized. There is a price beyond which G100UL is worse than no UL at all. What if they can't sell it profitably for less than $20/gallon? Would delaying G100UL sound like such a bad idea?
schmookeeg
En-Route
At first I thought it was really silly that they sold the STC before the fuel was available. Now I see that it was genius.
Pilots having (amusingly) sunk $500+ to purchase the right to buy the not-yet-existent Braly-spittle must now channel their frustrations into pro-G100UL zealotry on online forums, and must beat us heathens upside the head about it all. The amount of digital ink I've seen spilled whining about lead, fouled plugs, and evil and corrupt oil-men since that paperwork went up for sale is mind-numbing. And it shows no sign of slowing.
Clever bunnies in Ada.
Pilots having (amusingly) sunk $500+ to purchase the right to buy the not-yet-existent Braly-spittle must now channel their frustrations into pro-G100UL zealotry on online forums, and must beat us heathens upside the head about it all. The amount of digital ink I've seen spilled whining about lead, fouled plugs, and evil and corrupt oil-men since that paperwork went up for sale is mind-numbing. And it shows no sign of slowing.
Clever bunnies in Ada.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
E10 wrecked my lawnmower, motorcycle, chainsaw engines.
Swift had an 8 year head start. G100UL got approved less than a year ago. Selling fuel ain't like selling Xboxes. That approval was also unexpected and quite a surprise to everyone involved, aside from Lirio Liu (FAA director of ACS). And it's not like G100UL is totally blocked. Apparently, they're on to plan B.
DaleB
Final Approach
I’ve heard people say that. Don’t know what to tell you. I wouldn’t leave it in the tank over the winter, but like I said we’ve been burning E10 in EVERYTHING since at least the 1990s without any problems. That’s all the cars, a couple of push mowers (I think the old one is still in use), a weed trimmer, lawn edger, snow blower, leaf blower, Harley, airplane…
I’ve got a ‘55 Vespa that I run avgas in, because it tends to sit for extended periods between repairs - I mean, uses. But when I had it running regularly I ran E10 in it.
It's been less than a year since the G100UL STC was approved for widespread use. The only thing I wonder is whether anyone has started setting up production and distribution, and if not, why not. I think the answers provided in this thread have a reasonable likelihood of being true.
If you think you know how the obstacles can be overcome, maybe you should share your ideas with George Braly.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Wasn't over the winter. Not even a full season. Ruined the carbs. Tried to start the bike and it caught on fire. But yeah, E10 doesn't cause ANY problems, ever.
The fact that their fuel is only available in a few dozen airports in the U.S. after eight years suggests that they haven't overcome whatever disincentives have existed during that time.
Speaking of making assumptions...