GeeBee

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 Shell has withdrawn.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.

Because it is likely you "can't get there from here". As I said before, it is unlikely there will not be some magic elixir that will work perfectly without some changes to our aircraft and the way we operate and some of that will cost money. As I see it, G100UL is the most "minimally invasive option" out of a basket of bad options. I would like to have a perfect "drop in" option that would cost me no money, or changes but then I learned those centerfolds are airbrushed. "You can't always get what you want, but you get what you need".--Mick Jagger

Uh I believe you are putting words in my mouth. I doubt any fuel would be as aggressive as Skydrol since fuel is not di-ester based. However a new fuel may necessitate some higher level of maintenance, just as boat owner had to do with added ethanol. I had to replace all my fuel lines for instance. I do believe in nice and tight fuel systems. which is why I resealed my tanks even though the weeping was in the "permissible" zone. I know there is "permissible" tank leakage, but I'm not a fan of flying a giant Van Der Graff generator seeping fuel. Call me crazy. It may be very likely you will have to reseal your tanks and replace a few o-rings to accept the new fuel, just like you had to get a transponder, then an encoder, then ADS-B and if you are Canadian, a diversity set up. Things change and sometimes you have to spend money if you want to keep flying the plane of your choice.

Because all the fluids we use eat paint, some more quickly than others depending upon the paint. I have some paint damage (factory paint job) on my underwing from 100LL which is the reason why I took the airplane to WetWingologists for a complete and professional re-seal. The best avoidance for fuel induced paint damage is a tight fuel system.

Because most corporate aircraft have a Skydrol resistant clear coat such as Imron AF740. I say resistant, meaning you got about 24-48 hours to clean it up, which usually happens in corporate aircraft. Put Skydrol on most finishes without a clear coat like airliners and the paint is toast right now.

No, Skydrol WILL peel paint. Period. It will also rearrange your fingerprints too. Trust me, I have repainted more than one car in the employee lot at the departure end that got Skydrol rain. It is clear few of you have read the Reddit link I posted about Skydrol

I simply pointed out many fluids in aviation peel paint, more do than not. I would also point out Prist peels paint and in the Mooney realm, yes anhydrous alcohol can peel paint. I just am pointing out that all kinds of fluids in aviation peel paint and yes the FAA says that is OK.

I chose option 2.

Probably not, but using 100LL to clean your belly really? Would you use BBQ lighter fluid too? The point is a lot of fluids used in engines and airplanes peel paint. Not only Skydrol but most turbine engine oils peel paint although not as fast as Skydrol because of higher viscosity and lower di-ester content. But the comment was, is it ok for aircraft fluids to peel paint and the answer is emphatically....... Yes and the FAA approves it too.

A fellow flew an A36 from KRHV to Ada, OK to KHPN and back. Transcontinental trip on G100UL. Said any staining was cleaned off with simple green. Overall consumed 0.5 mph less because of the higher energy content at similar power settings.

Aviation Consumer January 2025. Page 14.

Pretty simple. With Skydrol, if it leaks, it peels paint....period. Apparently, that is ok with everyone. If you walk down the concourse at any major airport you can spot all the leaking PCUs on the control surfaces.

I think we have if you listened to Don Kaye or read Aviation Consumer's latest article.

Ever seen what the ordinary and every day use of Skydrol which is used in most jet aircraft does to paint? One hydraulic leak and you are repainting a lot of area.

And I rebutted those.

I can make any number of paint jobs, especially on aluminum fail even using premium paint with as little as Isopropyl alcohol. Painting aluminum is a process which requires an intermediary. I see very few paint jobs, even factories that accomplish that. I am guessing, because I know Beechcraft does it right (using etch and alodine) that those panels GAMI is testing are doing so much better. I regularly paint marine outdrives for friends because even the factories do not etch and alodine their units. My paint jobs last 5 times as long as Mercruiser's. Without knowing how the surface was prepared there is no way of knowing if Luvela's test was valid. I will say right up front, that panel off the 182 is over coated and probably a result of trying to get adherence without proper prep. That is the first tell in a "quickie" paint job. As to the video, I will quote the OP on this site "The video is not marked as not publicly available so only way to watch it is by click the link." Apparently the video is now public, but again apparently in the beginning it was not

Because he posted it in a restricted method. The video was not made available on YouTube.com general, only through Reddit. When you do that it gives rise to innuendo. Further, the results are not repeatable. Because the paint test he did is only valid on the airplanes he used. We don't know if the paint job was correctly prepped with etching and alodine and I bet twenty bucks, he does not know either. It is rare to see a GA airplane correctly repainted with good underlying prep. When that is done, the owner strokes a check to reflect that quality. As to the O-rings, that question has been answered. GAMI has been through two certifications. After Wichita was ready to sign off, Washington demanded a second and independent certification test through the Atlanta certification office. Both times G100UL passed all tests by wide margins. We could do more tests in a better test cell, but the fact is, GAMI's test cell is the best in the world, even better than the FAA's or the factory test cells. So there is nothing to do but field the fuel. It has been fielded and what we have discovered is 3, 40 year old airplanes with paint and tank seals of equal vintage have leaked and the fuel stains easy. Beyond that, there is nothing.

Have no idea. I'm not a patent attorney, but it is clear there is IP involved otherwise patents would not have been issued.

There has been attempts to steal GAMI's intellectual property both at PAFI and at ASTM. A member of the ASTM committee in fact tried to file a patent and it is know they tried because there is a record of it being rejected because GAMI already had filed and granted earlier. Lots of subterfuge out there.

They have called me everything but a "child of God" on this site Mr. Braly. I understand your frustration, you have proven G100UL ad-infinitum, and I am sure there is abundant subterfuge against you and your product for all kinds of nefarious reasons. Remember the old adage, the dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

My father used to admonish me, "believe none of what you hear and half of what you see". The stakes here are so huge I would not be surprised there is subterfuge by any number of parties. As mentioned there is only one party so far that I have seen that has their testing verified by an independent party and indeed regulatory agency. I certainly welcome more testing, but it has to be more than a YouTube video. There are any number of independent test organizations that could perform the requisite tests. Of course engagement and payment would need to be by an interested but independent party like ABS, NBAA or EAA.

It is flat rate charge. $3999.00