MikeOH

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!

Interesting that, per this table, fluorosilicone is rated 'fair'; only Viton (and Kalrez) is 'satisfactory' for toluene:

So, should airframe manufacturers be forced to test any fuel that a potential unleaded fuel supplier sends them, for FREE? And, if not, then they can't complain? Is that your point?

YUCK! If I understand your post correctly, he spent 640 hours (16 weeks as a full-time employee)? I hope you didn't pay hourly for that! Frankly, it's hard to imagine the shop even covered his DL cost (640 x $30/hr = $19,200)...unless techs make minimum wage. I guess my real question is if that is a typical amount of labor for a job like yours, or was the tech just slow?

Well, let's hope GAMI doesn't set pricing based on your criteria

Fascinating. Amazing how you know my testing requirements! Let me spell it out so you don't have to assume what I want: 1) An unleaded fuel that has equal or better characteristics than 100LL. Causing damage in excess of 100LL, in any regard, is not acceptable. 2) Priced the same...LOL! I know that is unrealistic. Question is, what is an acceptable premium, 'for the children, and all'? We really haven't been discussing #2 but I am curious where the price is going to end up if 100LL is banned in, initially, Kalifornia. It seems $6.99 at RHV is bearable; that's about a 20% premium over PAO. It's also curious that $6.99 is the introductory price in a southern state (can't remember which one). Seems more a 'try it out price' than market based. Makes me wonder what the price will be when 100LL is banned and there is NO OTHER option. So, I ask you (rather than assuming), at what premium are you going to cry, 'foul'?

Five stages of grief: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. I'm not in denial; I agree that unleaded fuel is coming. As I've stated multiple times, it should AFTER a fully vetted alternative is field PROVEN. I'm more in the anger and bargaining stages (with HOPE that if enough issues with G100UL arise we wont' be FORCED to use it). If you are not accepting, then the conclusion is you're just stuck in the depression stage Please be careful as flying while depressed isn't recommended

EXACTLY! You wouldn't be hearing anything out of me, either.

It's NOT on us to prove or disprove these 'items of conjecture'; nor should we have to go to GAMI for the answers; they are hardly an unbiased observer. This should be proven, publicly, by GAMI and confirmed by independent testing. It's shocking to me that you are so tacitly accepting, and actually vehemently defending GAMI. It is NOT scientific. ANY new product introduction should be carefully scrutinized and tested, preferably by multiple, independent labs/organizations. Repetition of experimental data by multiple, independent, testers is the hallmark of good science. Not reliance upon "I am the science" bluster. The animus you express towards those of those who are rightfully skeptical continues to amaze me. I have NO problem with the introduction of unleaded avgas. My issue, consistently, has been the idea this product, G100UL, will be FORCED upon us before being fully vetted, by the banishment of 100LL with NO OTHER alternative. Fully vetted is MORE than the manufacturer, GAMI, and the FAA (which has not been without credibility issues; e.g. Boeing). It requires long-term field testing in the real world. Only then should 100LL be removed from the marketplace. This should NOT be an issue of what the masses of parents with pitchforks and torches thinks. That is why we are a republic and not a democracy; our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that mob rule is not a good idea.

Can you please point to where that is discussed in that document? And, do they define 'some' swelling? IIRC, the video from the A&P showed the swelling exceeded the parts' tolerance by a significant amount; like 10%. Is that acceptable as 'some swelling'? Maybe it's just me, but having a part dimensionally change by over its design limits is NOT acceptable. Look at this way, if you bought a new O-ring and it was 10% out of tolerance would you go ahead and install it, or return it? You'd be correct if you guess I'd return it!

Depends on your definition of captive. Lead has around a 1 month half-life in blood, 2 months in soft tissue, 2-3 years in the brain, and 20-30 years in bone. Other interesting info: 1) OSHA PEL 8-hour shift atmospheric workplace limits are <50 ug/cubic meter. 2) SoCal AQMD ran a study at Whiteman airport (KWHP) with the following results (note these data are in nano-grams/m^3, 1000 less than micro-grams/m^3!):

Exactly why I created this poll. My gut told me the market is REALLY small. I don't have a clue how many gear sets get inspected and fail inspection every year. Whether that's because they aren't getting inspected, or that they all pass...don't have a clue on that, either. I'd think the same, or even less, would be true for the no-back spring issue but the fact LASAR is offering them...???

EXACTLY! The new owners of LASAR don't have the same sense of 'community' as Paul Lowen, that's for sure.

It looks like 6016X has, at the least, fallen out of registration. Not sure how that is going to work even after a 'successful' annual. I'm going to be very blunt: For a first time owner there are way too many red flags on this. You should RUN. Could you get lucky? Very unlikely, IMHO. Much more probable you are going to be spending lots of time and money before flying it. FREE could be too high a price. Seriously.