Jump to content

GAMI 100 UL


GeeBee

Recommended Posts

The FAA has. awarded GAMI an STC for 100 unleaded. Their initial AML list is primarily the aircraft in the Embry Riddle fleet, but they claim it will be expanded quickly. They also say it is easy to produce, AVFuels will be an initial producer, it will be 60 to 90 cents more per gallon. Per the STC is is totally mixable at any ratio with 100LL making switch over in bulk tanks easy. 

Here is George Braly and Tim Roehl explaining the product. 

https://www.avweb.com/multimedia/airventure-2021-gami-g100-fuel-in-detail/?MailingID=673&utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Avidyne%2C+Daedalean+To+Develop+AI-Based+Avionics+Vision+Systems%2C+EAA+Launches+AeroEducate&utm_campaign=Avidyne%2C+Daedalean+To+Develop+AI-Based+Avionics+Vision+Systems%2C+EAA+Launches+AeroEducate+-+THURSDAY%2C+July+29%2C+2021

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

I thought the main selling feature to get people on board was it was supposed to be cheaper because it can be piped? What happened to 94UL, where it was consistently cheaper?

The FAA happened. When was the last time they took action that didn't coast Owners and operators?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, toto said:

The STC thing is confusing to me. So you roll up to the pump, put a few gallons of this stuff in the plane, and then you're safe to fly but unairworthy? Unless you purchase the STC and have a log entry?


What makes you know that it is safe to fly?

 

Sounds like you think the government doesn’t want you to have low cost fuel… :)

Lets look at what an STC does…

The STC should be a document that verifies that this fuel is safe to put in your plane… and use with your engine… actual documented tests usually accompany the STC…

And you can still be skeptical after that…

There have been a few oils in the recent past that were STC’d and have caused expensive problems for some people…

We have a few rubber seals and sealant that is very willing to absorb new organic chemicals…

when rubber absorbs solvents… they expand and stop working as expected…  sealant can lose contact with the metal and slough off over time…

Don’t be in a rush to use something that can cost you an OH or a tank reseal… :)

If the STC isn’t worth the electronic document it is displayed on… don’t be in a rush to put a few gallons in your tank… let somebody else be the guinea pig…

The savings won’t cover the costs…

Trust but verify - Mr. Reagan

Fortunately, the Gami folks know this area of technology…

Many people have sealed tanks like Mooneys do…  we are not alone…

PP thoughts only, not a fuel chemist…

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hank said:

The FAA happened. When was the last time they took action that didn't coast Owners and operators?

^^^ THIS ^^^

Because the lead from GA is just such an overwhelming massive cause of pollution (massive sarcasm) we 'rich airplane owners' are now going be forced to pay $1 more a gallon.  Not yet, but you watch, they will phase out 100LL and then we'll have no choice once it's proven across the fleet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, carusoam said:

What makes you know that it is safe to fly?

I really meant only to comment on the airworthiness thing. Apparently the fake stuff can be mixed with 100LL in any ratio, so at the very least you aren’t violating manufacturer’s guidelines by putting a couple of gallons in. But having to have an STC is interesting for a drop-in replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, haven't we done this with E85. Supposed to be cheaper by the gallon, but turns out the mileage is ugly so you wind up paying less per gallon for the privilege of filling your tank more often because you run out faster. Net, you lose. GAMI, on the other hand, does good work and puts out good stuff that is well thought through. Maybe this will work. I guess we will see. First they need to get it distributed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmm….

This brings up another challenge that we have seen in the past…

The cost of machinery to handle different grades of av gas….

 

My home drome has two tanks…. Jet fuel and 100LL…

Probably would need another tank and pump system…?  Truck for delivery around the airport…    Truck for delivering to the airport?

 

Hopefully… there is some saving when going away from lead chemistry… that stuff isn’t low cost…

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Is there different energy per pound to go with that extra weight?

Best regards,

-a-

Yes. I believe it had a higher energy output. Was stated somewhere on beechtalk.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

^^^ THIS ^^^

Because the lead from GA is just such an overwhelming massive cause of pollution (massive sarcasm) we 'rich airplane owners' are now going be forced to pay $1 more a gallon.  Not yet, but you watch, they will phase out 100LL and then we'll have no choice once it's proven across the fleet.

The problem is that the lead pollution is concentrated around GA airports many of which are surrounded by residential areas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing the lead from the system is starting to look pretty good…

Less lead sludge in the oil pan…

No lead balls in the lower spark plugs…

No detonation even at 41+” of MAP….  Not sure if I will ever see MAP go above 31”in my NA IO550… :)


Does Embry Riddle have any Mooneys anymore?

ERAU has been testing this fuel in their fleet of planes for years…

It would be nice to hear about the Mooney experience… not being any additional issues related to seals and sealants…

Best regards,

-a-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hank said:

The FAA happened. When was the last time they took action that didn't coast Owners and operators?

NORSEE certifications

Removing the 6 hours of instrument flight from the 6 month currency requirements.

Approving certain AATDs for solo instrument currency logging.

Extending 3rd class medical certificates to 3 years for younger pilots. 

Skip
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.