John-Paul

Higher vapor pressure tends to make starting easier, not harder. Vapor pressure tends to depress in colder weather, so butane is often added to mogas to raise the vapor pressure to make starting in the winter easier. Unfortunately, a winter blend of fuel carried over to the summer will see its butane come out of solution in a vented receptacle at the higher ambient temperatures. That will cause the vapor pressure to drop and can lead to a vapor lock situation.

I can answer some of those! "9) How many other markets can use the G100UL fuel? (Race cars, boats, my corvette?)" Yes to all! Race applications are particularly interesting. The automotive octane is rated, G100UL comes in at ~110+ octane. Also, the "supercharge" rating (rich rating) is in excess of 160 MON, which would be in excess of ~180 AKI or so (my estimate, you can't really measure that high). "10) Can this be used in a car with a catalytic converter if needed?" No real testing has been done to confirm or deny that, but there is nothing in the fuel chemistry which would make us suspect it would be anything other than transparent. "12) Are my Gami injectors going to need to be watched….?" Fuel system components (including GAMIjectors) will use the fuel transparently. There will be no need to adjust or change the nozzles. Jpt

You may continue to have that choice for years and years to come . . . or the EPA/FAA/LMNOP may choose to regulate 100LL out of existence as fast as possible. We sincerely hope not. In fact, we have been lobbying the EPA to NOT make any rash, sweeping declarations that will accelerate the banning of leaded fuels. There is a time when leaded fuels will be completely gone, and that will be to the benefit of us all, but that time isn't today or tomorrow. It's important to understand that GAMI doesn't want to be or plan to be in the business of making or selling fuel. We created a formula, which will be liscensed to someone else to make, distribute, and sell G100UL. Go out to your airport and look at the name on the fuel truck. That will be the same. The little sticker that says 100LL will change to G100UL, but the big name on the side of the truck will still be what it is today. They and the FBO will determine what you pay for that fuel. We couldnt' demand a higher or lower price if we wanted to. So, I don't have any clue what the PUMP PRICE will be. However, I do have some detailed calulations of what the manufacturing costs will be. Again, this is tied to volume. At current, relatively low, volumes, the cost of manufacture may be about $0.80 per gallon higher than the cost to manufacture 100LL. As volumes increase, and some materials sourcing improves, that may drop - maybe quite a bit, maybe not. As with 100LL, that changes with the price of crude, and with the price and worldwide availability of the other constituent components. There may also be some transportation savings. There are some factors for and against that. Some of those things we just can't know yet. Jpt

Austin, Once G100UL has nationwide coverage, there may be little to no price difference between it and 100LL. Right now (today) you can buy 100LL for $5.08 in Mojave, CA or $8.39 in Santa Monica. That's a $3/gallon swing in prices. As the volume of production increases, the price will come down some. At the same time, as more and more airports get eliminate leaded fuels, the volume of that production will decrease and those prices will rise. As far as the STC is concerned, I envision a time when that will no longer be necessary. People who live in certain areas may never need an STC, but people who live in early adopter areas will. When Eagle wraps up in 2030, they may have that figured out. Or, they may ask for another 5-10 years of taxpayer $$ to flounder around. So far many people have decided that roughly the cost of a tank of fuel to help deploy unleaded fuel is a good use of their money. Others may spend $500 on a pair of shoes, or dinner and a concert. Everyone has a different sense of value and they each have to do what makes sense to them. Jpt

Good to know!

Worse than that, Guy. They were some deliberately trying to stall and/or completely derail the project out of malice. There were a few who didn't even have a competing interest, but they so disliked George over an incident where they lost face ~20 years ago, they would do whatever possible to throw in a wrench. Some of these were high ranking alphabet group guys.

Here he was refering to the G100UL meeting or exceeding the pertinant characteristics of D910 that are important to the operation of your engine (performance, detonation, vapor pressure, etc). He did not mean that it would meet the letter of the D910 spec. It won't. If it did, it would be 100LL. Jpt

I took the weekend (mostly) off, so I may have missed some stuff. Someone said " I’m concerned that GAMI has chosen not to have their fuel certified (a la ASTM) at all." The reason was twofold. 1) We actually started heading down the ASTM path, but a significant portion of our early intellectual data was stolen during that process. Basically, there was no way to secure that path. We had a few certain individuals who were quite determined to be bad actors. We didn't see a fruitful way forward. 2) There wasn't a clear path to get from ASTM spec to fleetwide certification. The shortest path was still via STC. If you obtain an ASTM spec for your fuel, you still ahve to have that blesed in some way to be able to use it on the aircraft and engines. The FAA didn't then have a method for doing that. I'm not sure they still do ~12 years later. As far as how G100UL compares to D910 Avgas, it's like this: The 100LL fuel wasn't created to fit the D910 spec, rather the D910 spec was created to describe THAT fuel. Any fuel that isn't THAT fuel will have a myriad of small deviations from the spec. They may or may not be deviations that have any practical impact on the use of the fuel, but they will have deviations that won't fully meet the spec. John-Paul

Fuel sales will certainly pay back the years of hard work . . . and then some. However, there are no fuel sales until there is fuel. The STC sales are PART OF what gives us the capital to build the fuel in sufficient volumes to roll it out to the parts of the country as quickly as possible. Can we do that without the STC sales? Sure, but it will take longer. There are people out there who want unleaded fuel now, not later. Plus, there's no question that being first market is important to any company with potential competition. I'm generally not in favor of banning anything. What California and/or the EPA does might help us in the long run, but with or without us, that is a foregone conclusion. At the typical speed of government, it might be another 10 years before all the lead is gone. I think people will still chose to buy an unleaded fuel, even at a slightly higher price, if given the option. Jpt

Don't get me wrong, it isn't altruism. We hope G100UL is very profitable for us in the long run. It's a business, and that what businesses (hope) to do. I don't make any claims that we're GA warrior and environmental saviors either. I think the "lead poising our babies" trope is WAY overplayed. It isn't a zero effect issue, either. The writing was on the wall 20 years ago regarding 100LL. We chose not to bury our heads in the sand when we realized it was a problem we could solve and people would pay us to solve. That's the free market. Your statements about the STC process illustrates you have NO IDEA what it took to get this done. You said paying back our investment isn't a concern . . . maybe not to you, but it's sure a concern for those of us hoping to keep the business running. 6 months ago, we weren't 100% sure we would EVER get the STCs. 2 months ago, we weren't 100% sure we were EVER going to get to sell STCs. Like Guy said, Swift may be right on our heels. Someone we don't even know about might be quietly going through the STC process, and almost done, right now. EAGLE/PAFI may negate the whole STC process and the FAA may declare all piston engines able to use approved unleaded fuels by some executive fiat. I might get hit by a school bus tomorrow. The future is always uncertain. By selling STCs now for about the cost of a full tank of fuel, we hope to be able to get fuel to market sooner. That's not a trade secret, that's just sensible business. Some people out there will appreciate our efforts enough to spend that money to help us accomplish that goal. They know it will benefit us both in the end. Here's the other side of the free market. You don't have to ever buy the STC or the fuel. You can probably get 100LL for years to come. You can (maybe) switch to an electric airplane or a diesel someday soon. You can make and certify your own fuel. You can give up flying and take the bus. You have options. Trying to paint the owners of GAMI, or plain ol' employees like me, as some kind of gougers, racketeers, or money grubbers makes it plain that you don't know us very well. Anyone who does know us on a personal level will tell you that isn't who we are. That's just the truth. John-Paul

I'm flattered to think the EPA/PRK couldn't do a big sweeping thing without our help. That makes me feel important! I'm glad we don't make electric stoves, or they would ban propane for sure! Jpt

Thanks! I'm just here to help and try to answer questions. Without knowing the backstory or the people involved, people sometimes get the wrong ideas or jump to the wrong conclusions. It happens in all walks of life. I'm guilty of it myself from time to time. John-Paul

That's a weird way to look at it. We're trying to incentivize early adoption of the STCs to fund a more rapid deveployment of the fuel. Remember, this isn't a government program, where we just print whatever money we need. We're a small aviation R&D company, and those efforts are funded by the sale of our products and services. When you buy a set of GAMIjectors, tip tanks, G100UL STCs, etc, a generous portion of that money goes to developing some next GA improvement. John-Paul

The reality is that 100LL is going away, with or without our involvement. Did the certification of our fuel accelerate that? Maybe, maybe not. The EPA has been on the verge of issuing an endangerment finding for years. Manufacture and deployment of a brand new fuel isn't a cheap or easy prospect, and that money has to come from somewhere. It's true there are some "cents per gallon" to be made on the licensing of the fuel, but truthfully it probably isn't as much as you think, and it will be years before all the overhead is covered on the vast progress we've made up to this point. The STC fees pay for some (but not all) of the years of essentially unpaid work, and also pay for the upcoming costs. Without that, it would still be years before we could get the fuel in the field. Where would that leave people in places where leaded fuel was banned? Flying their bicycles to work? My assumption is most pilots would rather pay roughly the cost of filling up the aircraft one time for an STC vs the alternatives one 1) no fuel for your aircraft or 2) having to develop your own alternative fuel. I could be wrong about all that, though. Electric airplanes may be right around the corner, and all this fuel conversation may be moot. John-Paul

There is an alternative! You could develop and certify your own fuel. It only took us 12 years and cost many, many millions of dollars of non-taxpayer money. Hopefully, the sales of the STC will fund the deployment of the fuel to places that are (wrongly or rightly, you decide) banning or threatening to ban the current fuel. I'm guessing a ~$500 STC will be much cheaper and easier for you. John-Paul