GeeBee

And of course the DOJ never listens to the FAA

Yes, the insurance company has a duty to defend you from civil liability. Administrative or criminal charges, not so much. Guess which one the FAA will bring? Care to buy a vowel?

Depends if the hangman's noose needs a body. Crash into an elementary school and kill 9 children without an STC authorization, the gallows awaits. Ruin the furrows in a plowed field, nobody cares.

It is a 8.5:1 engine.

If you crash or have an accident with G100UL in your tanks with no STC what would the FAA and the insurance company say? I can see a denied claim. FWIW I see the STC route as smart as you have to create a ICA for an STC which limits both your liability as well as insuring people use your product correctly.

With regard to paying for the GAMI STC, George Braly can correct me if I am wrong but GAMI is allowing any refiner to blend G100UL royalty free. What I see is GAMI monetizing G100UL via the STC and not at the pump so as to allow as many refiners as possible to make it providing it passes GAMI's QA protocol. The monetizing model makes sense if you want the producer side to easily make a steady supply without tracking royalties and licensing. In essence like the IBM PC he has open sourced the production and made the user buy the license. Just as anyone could produce a PC but the end user would have to buy a license for the operating system.

Because and O-360-A (180 hp) is a carbureted engine with a C/R of 8.5. An IO-360-B is a fuel injected engine also producing 180 hp with a C/R of 8.5 so both can use lower octane fuel. An IO-360-A has a C/R of 8.7 and needs 100 octane fuel. It is all in the C/R numbers and for Lycoming it would appear the break is going beyond a C/R of 8.5 in their updated fuel list. Which make sense because C/R and detonation margin is naturally linked. Do not concern yourself with engine model, concern yourself with what C/R that model represents.

Nor will the Swift UL100R or the Lyondell fuel candidates work in the IO-360 engines. The only 100 unleaded with sufficient detonation margin is G100UL.

With all due respect Sabremech I've found your knowledge of the current circumstances wanting. You make claims about Shell, when Shell dropped out years ago. You made claims about 100VLL which has been withdrawn from the market, even in the EU. Ryan ORL is saying the same thing as Braly because both are up to date on the current events of who and what is happening in EAGLE/PAFI. Again I would suggest you read the October issue as well as previous issues of Aviation Consumer and in particular the reporting of Rick Durden to bring yourself up on the situation as it currently exists.

You missed the satire and incredulity. There is nothing here or anywhere in this matter that is "honest and fair" and that is why I am incredulous that anyone would think that it could exist anywhere at anytime under any circumstance. "Honest and fair" in the context of the subject of environmental regulation is like an ice cube in hell because all of it has nothing to do with the environment.

Honest and fair? Really?

George Braly knows the organic chemistry better than anyone I've ever seen. He knows combustion dynamics and he is a recognized world class expert. He knows what the others are doing, probably even evaluated those concepts in his own test cell himself before discarding them. He knows the chemistry, he knows what is required, he has patented those concepts himself (why else would people on the ASTM committee try to steal them) and that leaves everyone else without a viable chemistry. You can't repeal the laws of physics. The fact that people and companies have tried to impinge and steal his patents tells you something. Everyone else has bupkis otherwise why steal?

Well stated but I would not count on this new administration changing anything. Indeed PAFI had been going on the entire 4 years of the first Trump administration and EAGLE was the brain child of FAA Administrator Steve Dickson who was Trump's nominee. Dickson created EAGLE to "buy time" because of PAFI's failures (setting 2030 deadline). Now that G100UL exists in the field, driven there by local regulations, given the propensity and indeed the fiscal imperative to cut costs I predict DOGE (aka Elon Musk) will close down EAGLE and PAFI and say, "problem solved, move on". No one, not even Trump wants to touch the tar baby called lead. I think most of you are completely misreading the political imperatives, the inertia and the gathering critical mass. With G100UL in the field, critical mass is rapidly approaching.

Yep, that is why corporate jets are unaffected by Skydrol and airliner have "paint melts" all over them. I wonder if a square of Scotchguard Paint protection film around the filler cap would work?

I think if CEH wins their motion to enforce the consent decree (and they likely will), 2030 is irrelevant.

I don't think the chemistry is with you.

I just sent mine off, moooooooooo!

I use this: https://www.sportys.com/anr-control-holder.html Sporty's does not seem to have the model for Bose, but I see them on other sites including Etsy. You can attach it with velcro and that works but when my airplane interior was re-worked at AeroComfort, Hector drilled the holders then made a backing plate and attached them to the sidewall with machine screws. and riv-nuts just below the limitation placard. It is the bomb.

Personally based upon experience in the marine industry, I don't want any ethanol anywhere near my airplane. I am fortunate in Georgia I can purchase 91 octane non-ethanol fuel. The difference in stability is astonishing. My fear and correct me if I am wrong is the ethanol will "phase separate" and while the percentage per gallon is small in fresh fuel, because of the specific gravity when it phase separates it accumulates at the bottom of the tank in gross proportions that lead to tank corrosion.

My 2000 series has nut plates under the skin to run the screws. That said, I don't see how adjusting a pot on an electronic board for "asymmetric control" adds 2000 bucks to the service, but I remain to be convinced.

I wonder why the 100 series are 1999 but the 2000 series are 3999? How much difference can there be?

Or never get to the runway. There is one candidate fuel out there that uses ETBE. Which has ethanol. Ethanol when used in boats that like airplanes sometimes sits for a while was a disaster. It destroyed fiberglass fuel tanks but worse it corroded aluminum tanks. This is because over time, ethanol fuels under go "phase separation" and the ethanol absorbs a bunch of water. That mixture sinks to the bottom of the tank and starts corroding it. Many of a boat owner has arrived at their boats to find gallons of fuel leaked into the bilge from aluminum tanks, several times the thickness of our Mooney tanks. Go down any marine supply store's "chem aisle" and you will see additives such as "Marine Sta-Bil" and Star Tron which are designed to prevent phase separation. One can only imagine the repair bill for a corroded wet wing like our Mooney's. The factory would at least make a brisk business of cutting new wing skins. Would you rather reseal your tanks for G100UL, or replace skins before you reseal your tanks with ethanol?

I would suggest you read the article in Aviation Consumer, October 2024 "High-Octane Unleaded : Where Are We" You will be surprised to find Lyondell/Basell cannot work in airplanes with big bore Continentals or Lycomings. Swift fuels UL100R will actually result in a range decrease of 7% because of lower BTU and they too say the big bore engines are likely not possible. Further it uses ETBE which is actually illegal in CA for self propelled vehicles. Finally ETBE is ethanol, great, if you want to corrode out your tanks and fuel system. I sooner replace O-rings and seal my tanks, while they are still un-corroded. Shell has withdrawn.

Did you know those centerfolds are airbrushed?

I am not an investor, but I wish I was. I have been watching this for a long time and I don't see Swift who is the closest competitor as being able to be used fleet wide. Too narrow detonation margin. Heck they even lost the UND fleet with their 94UL and their 100R is supposed to work? As of right now 100R is usable in only C-172 with lower compression engines. The others have suggested de-rating engines. That is not going to work. For starters, how do you modify the performance data in the AFM's especially of airplanes and manufacturers out of business like Mooney? G100UL has so much margin the warbird guys are able to run with the ignition un-retarded. If I remember correctly, Mr. Braly was running an TIO-550 at over 400 hp in the test cell with no detonation.