MikeOH

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

The same way 100LL is offered alongside 94UL, Jet A, and, in the past, higher octane fuels. The idea that FBOs can't offer multiple fuels is absurd. As to if they aren't mixable with G100UL, well I guess I won't be buying G100UL. As far as your reference to the AVWEB article here are some pertinent excerpts: "In addition to engine tests in static cells and in aircraft, the fuel has to be tested for its interaction with other parts of the aircraft from the all-important O-rings to paint." That sure seems like a good idea to me! "Owen said for the vast majority of aircraft engines, including those made by Continental, Lycoming and Rotax, the transition will be seamless. But he said for some of the 143 other makes of engines making up 9% on the FAA registry there "may have to be modifications" to the engines or operating procedures." So, sounds like those of us with Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax engines will be fine. And then there's this: "In the meantime, the EAGLE reps said it's important that 100LL remain constantly available until the transition to new fuels is complete and they warned against local and state governments prematurely trying to eliminate leaded avgas." Which is what I have been advocating all along.

Where have I said that I was blaming being forced to buy G100UL on GAMI?? THAT is the fault of an overreaching government.

Just think what a ban on sales of 100LL would do for sales of a sole source product Regardless of quantity sold, a couple of months is just not enough time to observe long term effects (think O-ring failures, valve recession, etc.)

@tcal780 Do you recall if you purchased from LASAR when Paul Lowen still owned it? I can't recall when he sold the biz.

My bad! I got some 25YO Macallan for Xmas; I'll pour you a glass if you're ever in the area to make up for the wine

Which is pretty close to 20,000,000

I never claimed, or blamed, GAMI/George for the politics. But, as you point out, it's the Feds as well as Kalifornia...so, the mandates will come EVERYWHERE. Frankly, I don't believe the threat from airborne lead is significant...see my previous post sharing southern California AQMD airborne lead testing around a GA airport and the resultant very LOW lead levels, comparable to those in the rest of the Los Angeles basin. Point being, they can continue to 'slow roll' this indefinitely as far as I'm concerned.

Are they impervious to G100UL?

Not at this moment. But, here in Kalifornia (coming soon to the rest of country) the plan is to soon BAN 100LL. At that point, yes, we will be FORCED to buy G100UL if no other unleaded fuel is available to compete. If banning of 100LL wasn't an issue I wouldn't even participate in this debate. Buy, don't buy, we should be free to choose.

@George Braly Thank you for your detailed response. I am encouraged after reading your pricing comments. However, my concern is really one of monopolistic pricing (out of your control) should 100LL be banned by government mandate. Currently there are several 100LL manufacturers to keep that concern in check; I would prefer to see G100UL compete head-to-head with other unleaded offerings and let the best fuel win BEFORE 100LL is banned. While I do not discount your testing in regards to paint and o-ring issues, I don't discount the issues raised by others, either. It matters not to me whether their 'paint' was proper if it was NOT a problem with 100LL but is with G100UL. It is interesting that you provide 'special handling' information to prevent staining; so, there is something more aggressive with G100UL. Similarly, I will not be very happy with the expense of changing out O-rings if problems arise with G100UL when I have had none with 100LL. My contention is that the scope and degree of these problems will ONLY be fully known after a year or two in the field with all types of GA piston aircraft, not just 'lab' testing by you or others. One or two planes is just not a sufficient sample size for valid statistics. I assume the Embry-Riddle fleet was homologous and of recent vintage; perhaps with better paint and other than nitrile O-rings? That is not, IMHO, representative of the GA fleet in toto. Was there any evidence of valve issues? Given the valve problems older automobiles encountered when unleaded fuel was introduced, combined with our ancient aviation engine design technology forms the basis of concern. While I believe that the 'ban lead' mandate is based more on politics than science, the realist in me recognizes that it is inevitable. You have invested time and money developing G100UL based on that inevitablility. From a purely business perspective you want that ban to come as soon as possible. From my POV as a user I don't want 100LL ban to happen until there are multiple unleaded fuels competing for my business after being field proven. Thanks again for your response

Ah, yes, tell someone that doesn't agree with you to just, "GET OUT!" Very mature.

My point was: Viton would have been a better choice when they changed materials. Maybe Viton wasn't available in 1976? IDK

Ah, "as if they were kept out"...YOUR opinion. I just re-read their document and came away with an entirely different opinion. Namely, that they have chosen to expend their resources on the PAFI and EAGLE methodologies. Not on 'stand-alone' potential suppliers. That seems like a prudent corporate decision to allocate resources, not some dodge. No, I don't trust G100UL and have no intention of buying it. That is NOT the issue; as I've said multiple times, my issue is being FORCED to buy it! Kalifornia, e.g. RHV, is on the ban 100LL path. Other states will, no doubt, follow. If it was not for that Consent Decree and the RHV ban I would not even be participating in this thread (or the other G100UL ones)! I believe we should have a CHOICE. Here are the pertinent sections so that other readers can draw their own conclusions about Textron's lack of G100UL testing: "As a part of these ongoing efforts, Textron Aviation has been actively involved in and providing technical and in-kind support to both the FAA Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) and in the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) programs. Each of these programs seeks to provide comprehensive testing of candidate replacement fuels for engine performance, materials compatibility, and operational safety. Textron Aviation is aware that there are certain aviation fuels that have been granted Supplemental Type Certification (STC) for use in certain aircraft engines through the FAA in a process that is separate and apart from the PAFI and EAGLE programs. For example, the GAMI G100UL fuel received such an STC approval. Because the STC process, unlike the PAFI and EAGLE programs, does not involve broad aviation industry coalition participation, neither Textron Aviation nor its engine suppliers, Lycoming and Continental Motors, have had the opportunity to conduct the type of comprehensive and wide-ranging performance, compatibility and operational testing with respect to that fuel needed to provide a basis for approval of the fuel for use in Textron Aviation’s current and legacy fleet of Cessna and Beechcraft aircraft."

I'm saying a new fuel product needs to be the responsibility of the new fuel supplier; NOT that of the users (engine, airframe, and owners). That seems pretty rational. I can't name a product where I'm responsible for the defects in a product I buy because I didn't fully test it! Can you? What's disingenuous? Being given a sample for testing does NOT suddenly make me guilty of some nefarious act if I don't test it!