Sabremech

Thank you for not answering my questions.

What does your question have to do with what I posted and you’re quoting? There are other companies working on a 100UL fuel is what I said. Is that not a true statement? Do you think another company is not capable of producing a product to compete with GAMI?

I don’t give a darn about California and doubt anything they do will change the 2030 target for the other 49 states. As I stated before, give it a rest.

You don’t know that. It’s not 2030 and there are other companies working on an alternative fuel. Give it a rest.

Hi George, From what I’m reading Shell has fuel available in Europe for testing, etc. It makes me wonder if they’re going to go the EASA route for certification and then bring it to the US where the FAA gives a blanket approval. I should have gone that route on my STC’s as the FAA automatically accepts them but the other way around, nope, spend more money with EASA for approval.

I don’t need a history lesson. We’re all keenly aware of what’s on the horizon for 100LL. I never inferred that it was going to be an easy process. We would only have one choice if the government chose to ban 100LL today. That’s not going to happen. Other companies are working on a solution / alternate as well. I for one think Shell has the best potential to supply the system as it’s currently being supplied for 100LL now. That’s going to be determined at the FBO or airport management level and not you or I. The government has thrown trillions of our tax dollars at solutions looking for a problem. Looks like we have plenty of problems out of those tax dollars.

There’s more companies working on this so hold your excitement. There’s Shell with their 100VLL, LyondellBasell/VP Racing working through the PAFI/ EAGLE process and doing well along with Swift fuels. Hopefully we’ll have some choices in the near future.

It’s early in the game. Other companies are working on a fuel as well. You could temper your bias a bit. Are you a silent investor? Might explain your over exuberance.

Where are you located in the UP? None of the work your mechanic is recommending is too difficult. I’ve done the oversized bushing and replaced main gear trusses before. David

Again, we are not required to force the owners to comply with any S/B or overhaul requirements. Unless the aircraft is a flight school aircraft, the requirement you state does not apply and can not be forced. The liability is on the owner and not the mechanic unless we worked on the servo. Then we are liable for the work we did and not the whole servo.

Unless it’s a flight school aircraft, there is no requirement to have it overhauled. Nor can I force an owner to have it overhauled as a mechanic. Where are you coming up with this stuff?

Why should we have to accept this additional maintenance and cost to run a different fuel? None of this is cheap! it sure seems that the mission continues to make flying only possible for the wealthy! Why not design and manufacture a fuel that is a direct drop in replacement that does NOT require additional maintenance and cost to any owner? That should be the priority to not add additional cost going forward! If the new fuel costs a little more per gallon to get it out in the field, that’s understandable. To require me to reseal my poorly maintained 50 + year old tanks because those schmuck mechanics over the years couldn’t do it right is ridiculous. Stop blaming mechanics for this mess. Stop blaming mechanics for not adhering to some obscure letter from the FAA that says we should be replacing o-rings with Viton or Flourosilicone every chance we get. This mess isn’t on us and it shouldn’t be. There’s problems with this fuel for the guy on a budget. Those who don’t have a budget could care less and are over zealous fans of this product because it doesn’t impact their wallet like it does most of us little guys who just want to enjoy the same freedom of flying. @George Braly, good job on making an effort and progress on your unleaded fuel but please stop discounting the little guy on a budget. Paint stains or paint loss matter to us! Don’t brush us off like AOPA does.

I’m well aware of what Skydrol can do as I have worked with it in the past. It doesn’t have the effect you say it does on the corporate aircraft that I’ve maintained that have it. I still have Castor Oil in the top drawer of my toolbox. It’s clear you feel that you know more than many other members of this forum.

All of the fluids you mention “can” peel paint. It doesn’t necessarily mean it will. Do I care whether the FAA says it’s ok that it can peel paint? What does it matter that they supposedly say this? It would surely tick me off to no end that my $30k paint job gets screwed up by staining and possibly paint peeling. It sounds like you don’t care if your paint gets screwed up or not. The level of caring must be directly tied to your economic means to get it fixed.

From the FAA’s PAFI/ EAGLE unleaded fuel website, LyondellBasell/VP Racing are currently in the PAFI program. LyondellBasell/VP racing has passed the 150 hour initial tests and has moved on to the full scale engine and flight testing of their unleaded UL100E fuel. unless something has changed that’s not current on the FAA’s website, there is one company working through the PAFI / EAGLE process instead of the STC route. I also found Swift Fuels website to be an interesting read with their 100R unleaded fuel. They appear to be going the STC route with their version of unleaded 100 octane fuel. They recently posted information in regards to compatibility between their UL94 fuel and the GAMI G100UL. I understand they are competitors but the article in the FAQ section was interesting.

They, along with aircraft manufacturers, are who should be working with the seal manufacturers to change the compounds that are used. It’s not up to me or any other mechanic to search out an alternate p/n to switch to viton, etc. I may very well have been installing them but again don’t specifically look at the compound they are made of. Part number and cure date are the main things I look for. As I stated previously, this also has the real potential for intrusive maintenance which we all know can turn quite expensive quickly. I hope that other true direct replacement fuels come to market that don’t have the reported issues this fuel may have. Thanks

Hello Andrei, See if you can get a test patch done from the guy who travels. Have him explain his process then you can make a decision based off of seeing and hearing the processes of both. David

As an A&P / IA, it’s not up to me to make substitutions on the materials used to make an o-ring. It’s up to the manufacturers of those parts to change the material. I strictly work off of what’s in the IPC for the aircraft I’m working on. I can tell you other than looking at the P/N and the cure date, I don’t look for what it’s made out of. You’re putting mechanics in jeopardy by coming up with substitutions and acceptable data. Something goes wrong, and we’re left to hang. I understand what you’re trying to do and applaud you for it. What I don’t like is putting more onus on mechanics with gray areas for us to have to muddle through. Thanks, David

@George Braly, I should not have to change a thing to use any fuel. Requiring any owner to pay that bill means your fuel isn’t right. It’s ridiculous to push more costs on to owners for something that should be plug and play. I assume G100UL is more expensive than 100LL. How much more, I don’t know since it’s not available to me in the Midwest yet. As it stands right now, I wouldn’t use this fuel until the engine manufacturers approve it. I have no intention of training to become a glider pilot in my Mooney.

Kind of think this says it all. Not approved by the engine manufacturer is significant.

No different than mine which is a 56 M20 with the tail S/B complied with in 1986 via Mooney kit.

The bigger question is why should we replace parts and do maintenance, some very intrusive and time consuming, to use a different fuel? This should be a straight replacement with zero maintenance required other than ongoing. Why do we as aircraft owners and mechanics have to continue to bear the cost of this? It’s a sure way to kill off more of GA all in the name of safety again. I like Mike Rowe’d safety third more and more every day.

I am an A&P with an IA and I’m not going to go outside what is listed in the manufacturers IPC unless the part is obsolete and not obtainable. Then I’ll work another way to find a part that will work in form, fit and function. There’s millions of o-rings of all sizes including metric. Why do I want to take on the liability of researching to find an alternate O-ring and not be sure it’s correct? What owner wants to pay for my time to research this and hope it’s right? This is a no win for mechanics.

We use the part numbers listed in the relevant IPC. When I order o-rings, I don’t get to specify what it’s made from. Unless the manufacturer updated their IPC to include alternate P/N’s made from different materials, we risk not using the correct parts and potentially causing other issues, which could be catastrophic.

Those downlock are perfectly legal!