ragedracer1977

How do you require an STC to purchase something that doesn't require one and theoretically can not legally be applied to an non-certificated airplane? I'm under the impression that an STC controls the legal USE of the product in a certified airplane. I know Garmin et.al. want you to buy the STC for certified airplane, but they will sell you the product without for experimentals. I guess what am asking is - If a Vans RV pulled up to the self serve and pumped G100UL without an STC purchased from GAMI, what is being violated - in a legal sense.

The reason I bring it up is because GAMI has said in the past that it would not be legal to purchase the fuel unless you had the STC.

Sent you a message, i do have one

Does this mean, like I suggested way way back, that an experimental aircraft can buy G100UL without buying the STC?

What’s this property tax thing you speak of?

I’m sorry I didn’t make it today. I’ll try again tomorrow

I’m pretty sure I do. I think it’s in a box under my work bench at the hangar. I can run by tomorrow and check

I certainly don’t think anything intentionally nefarious is being done. That said, GAMI has been opaque on information. When anything is questioned “don’t worry, we tested it is fine” but you can’t get answer as to what was tested. The other line is “it’s because your airplane is a pile of junk.” When we are shown testing, it’s glaringly obvious that they tested one thing and one thing only. Reference the paint thing. They tested a bunch of identical pieces from identical airplanes. Or their claim that with G100UL you will have 40-60% less wear in your engine. Based on one single oil sample. No, I’m not kidding. Or continually referencing an article from a decade ago saying it proves 100LL damages paint. However- that article never once mentions paint. It just contains one pixelated photo of a blue stain on a wing. And then taking photos from PAFI UL testing and trying to pass them off as damage from LL - as one of countless such examples found on line. That no one else seems able to find. The belief apparently held at GAMI that service bulletins are mandatory. And every single one has been complied with - and if you didn’t - there would be long paragraphs of documentation from a mechanic describing why you refused. Or the attempted use of government power to ban their “competition”. This, after years of telling anyone who would listen that there was a vast conspiracy including the government, to keep their product off the market. “We gave everybody barrels of fuel to test. We have no idea why they never did.” Only for us to find out that no one would touch it because GAMI required them to sign an NDA prohibiting them from disclosing any adverse safety findings to any one - including the FAA. It’s not that there’s teething issues. We all knew there would be. The problem is the handling of those issues, such that it makes me very very unlikely to try the fuel unless I’m forced to use it.

George, i see you updated this to verify. Good to hear! I’m a relatively blunt person, as you are. Sometimes that comes off as rude. Sorry if I come off that way. I do have to ask - you say this is one of countless examples of 100LL paint damage. I think of myself as pretty good at internet research… I’ve honestly spent several hours searching in every fashion I know. I cannot find even a [i]single[/i] example photo of paint damage caused by a 100LL fuel leak. My Google-fu may be weak. Can you provide some examples? All that google stuff did lead me to a couple of additional questions. 100LL is bad for tires. Even a small leak can pretty seriously damage the rubber. Is the effect any different with G100UL? What about hydraulic brake lines in the area? Another concern I thought about pertains to my own plane. One of the most hazardous systems in twin Cessna’s is the heater. It runs on 100LL. Have you tested any janitrol/southwind type combustion heaters? Is the “free-air” (my non expert description!) combustion of G100UL similar to 100LL? The fuel lines for the heater, in the nose, are partially neoprene rubber. (S51-4 hose). Will they play well with the high aromatic content? By nature, they run very rich. Any issues with deposits, etc?

Where did you find this image, exactly? Did you add the caption or was it found that way? you should probably be aware that that is NOT damage from 100LL and could, in fact, be damage from G100UL

Thanks for putting yourself out there. I know it drives ME nuts reading comments from people who clearly didn’t bother to watch. I can only imagine your frustration.

You don't see the problem with this methodology? Even setting aside the fact that the test was done differently... They have stated again and again that they've tested it against Beech louvre panels, and seemingly ONLY Beech louvre panels. I'd hazard a guess that testing a likely homogenous cohort has less fleetwide applicability than testing multiple panels from multiple planes, painted with multiple systems. If this is indicative of their testing methodology in other areas, it's concerning. And, to be frank, I'm a little concerned that it may be. See the photo below. One single oil analysis of one single engine does not demonstrate anything.

See replies above.

I don’t think you understand the scientific method. It’s in this thread. There’s 2 videos, both using a very clear scientific method, showing paint damaged by G100UL. There’s photos from multiple aircraft taken at different locations by different people, including the AOPA. There’s really only two options. #1: G100UL can strip paint and may have an adverse effect on fuel system components and materials. #2: this is just another part of a vast conspiracy to “silence” G100UL. There is no in between.

The link to lycomings public statement about the gag-restriction gives this Hoyt person a little credibility

I was being sarcastically proactive. I thought that would be obvious haha

I’m currently building an RV14. If I write my operating limitations to include g100ul, how would I buy fuel? i don’t need an STC.

Probably sealed the tanks with latex caulk and painted the plane with a roller.

I’m somewhat taken aback by this answer. this suggests the possibility that you may not have tested certain things because you believed SBs are mandatory and thus extremely unlikely a part that precedes the SB could still be in service.

I’m not sure that’s a comparison you want to make.

Any guesses why someone would want their product to be the sole source? Out of curiosity, does anyone know how much G100UL has been sold at RHV? It might dampen my worries if it’s 20 or 30k gallons over the last few months and we’re just seeing extreme outliers

I think 100LL is more like 20,000,000+ gallons a year in California, FYI.

Yeah, sorry. I disagree. He is actively working and supporting the move to ban 100LL in California to force his product (the only currently available) as the single source for avfuel. If he wasn’t actively pushing for that, I’d feel differently.

Not yet. At the moment he’s just asking me to risk my life and the life of others on “because I said so” and I kinda think that’s worse