Jump to content

GAMI 100 UL


Recommended Posts

Just to point out, I think the 60-90 cents is at the manufacturing level. I think it's going to be more like $2 to us... 

Don’t forget the price of the STC. Which they are careful not to mention it.
How long before big government sunsets 100LL? Effectively forcing us to buy the STC. ACA already paved the way to allow this.
I’ll bet an adult beverage that California will be the first to mandate its use.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, carusoam said:

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-

I wouldn't think that the gami stuff would necessarily require separate sanitized shipping or pipes or tanks from the leaded stuff since it goes into tanks which also mix with lead.  At least not initially when that is the expectation.

There is a benefit to no lead I can think of which is less lead fouling in the engines.  I think I have read that our engines would last significantly longer if there was a good no lead alternative.  If for example an engine lasts an extra 500 hours simply because the lead is removed, then that would pay for an extra $0.90 easily.

The Gami guys are going to make a fortune, since selling fuel must be the only way to make really actual big money in aviation.  I mean if they make $0.02 per gallon individually, can you imagine?!!

My question at this moment is how wide spread will this stuff be.  Will it remain boutique that we will see at a few filling spots in Oklahoma, or is it going to spread across the country and be at most FBOs?

Will it be available at FBO's as an option and choice, or will it simply replace 100LL at some FBO's?

Their claim is it is simple to mix using standard available methods, so my guess is we do see it offered widely.  If that is the case, then this is likely the initial transition toward soon sunsetting 100LL, first at some state levels, like CA as someone mentioned, and then possibly federally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The FAA has awarded GAMI an STC for 100 unleaded.

I think it’s great news.  

For decades the threat of interruption in the availability of 100LL has had no solution. Now there’s at least one viable path that requires no engine modifications.  

Heck, I am so encouraged I might buy another piston airplane.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

If for example an engine lasts an extra 500 hours simply because the lead is removed

My take is most of our engines go bad from too little use, not too much use. IOW, the reason to not make TBO isn't lead, is is insufficient use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

If that is the case, then this is likely the initial transition toward soon sunsetting 100LL, first at some state levels, like CA as someone mentioned, and then possibly federally.

I know that CA has more GA activity than all of Europe, but I'm sure we'll be going that route, unless EASA decides they have to have their own, in which case Hjelmco will have to talk to GAMI and do it that way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tmo said:

My take is most of our engines go bad from too little use, not too much use. IOW, the reason to not make TBO isn't lead, is is insufficient use.

Sure - many engines corrode and don't make TBO because of under use.  If that is your engine, then nothing regarding less lead fouling will help.

If you have an engine that can make tbo because you do use it enough, and some owners fit this category and more so some operators, then I repeat my observation.  Running a no lead solution has some financial benefit if it squeezes out even a few extra hundred hours of operations before rebuild.

I just watched the avweb interview of George Braley, he mentioned that point - he asserted that at least in the race car world, when they transitioned from lead to no lead then the engines lasted twice as long.  I can very much believe we would get a few hundred hours at least, and that alone would pay for a little bit of extra at the pump (I am being deliberately daft - because $0.90 to more realistically $2 per gallon extra at the pump is the more likely end game and I wouldn't be happy....)

BY the way, they are selling STC's to use this stuff - I think that is silly.  They should give away the STC's.  They will make plenty on the fuel itself, so any barrier at all to some people not using the fuel will only reduce their total profit in selling fuel I think.

But wow - guys like Braley are going to be stupid rich soon.  The real way to get rich in aviation - sell fuel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, aviatoreb said:

Sure - many engines corrode and don't make TBO because of under use.  If that is your engine, then nothing regarding less lead fouling will help.

Agreed! :) But if the more expensive UL is the only avgas available, those who fly less get shafted twice - once at the pump, involuntarily, and again at the overhaul, because they didn't let their friends fly their plane ;)

Which I guess makes sense, and is yet another reason to go flying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the whole idea was making a fuel the FAA would certfiy as a direct replacement to 100LL.j  Why an STC?  If it is so great the FAA can certify it for all aircraft and no STC would be necessary.

I know some have auto gas STCs but that is using a gasoline not made for aviation in aviation.  This is being developed for aviation there is a difference.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, PT20J said:

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

Yes, it will take away one of the arguments to close suburban airports like KRHV. Children+lead=political death. Ask the paint industry or Flint, MI.

I too worry about engine and tank seal compatibility. I have think given it is totally mixable with 100LL that is not an issue. They have been running this stuff at E-R for some time. I would think if there are those kind of issues, they would have already shown up. 

1% gain in energy content is nice...6.3/gal, not so nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with unleaded mogas fuel in aviation is not the absence of lead but the water content that is not guaranteed. However, the alcohol contained in the fuel is greedy for water and the vapors are corrosive. If the lead-free mogas is dried up as is the avgas, there is no problem anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

My question at this moment is how wide spread will this stuff be.  Will it remain boutique that we will see at a few filling spots in Oklahoma, or is it going to spread across the country and be at most FBOs?

Since 100LL is on borrowed time...   I'm guessing it will be "boutique" for a little while and as it proves itself it will start to slowly expand.  Then we'll here about a 100LL cutoff date for the environment and 100LL production will drop and the cost will go up.  Then you'll see the expansion take off through all FBOs as 100LL becomes harder to get.  And since those FBOs won't have to invest in any new equipment, it will be a no-brainer for them to just start filling their 100LL tanks with GAMI's no lead.

How quickly will this change take place, that's the million dollar question.  I'm pretty sure George will keep pushing their fuel and get more and more larger groups to buy in.

And looking at that half full glass of no-lead....  One can only hope that the cost will drop at least a little bit once it's productions level has increased to replace 100LL.  (I'm going to win the lottery today too!!)

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the FAA eventually concludes that the use of the E100 is just as consistent and reliable as the 100 LL... And we will do as in Brazil, we will change our aluminum pipes by those in stainless steel and put back a layer of sealant compatible with alcohol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this closely for a while. I'm building my current project to be compatible with MOGAS (VP considerations, full flow, back pressure regulated system) should 100x ever become unavailable or ridiculously expensive; though, I would have to swap over to shorter pistons.  As is typical, I was wrong again as I thought Swift Fuels would be the ones that (further) advanced there product first. Their 94UL has been around for a while. Yes, it burns very cleanly:

Here are some facts as I understand them.  

The mere fact the SGs between the fuels are (ever so slightly) different should require an STC. W&B, POH revisions, placards, etc. would probably be required for certified world; hence the STC. The FAR-ologist here will surely chime in.

I'd expect that since the replacement fuels heating value slightly exceeding the spec minimum, that aspect will probably get a pass. The reported 1% improvement in HV is probably within spec. 

There are claims made (citation needed) the GAMI fuel has higher aromatics though GAMI states it is compatible with existing seal materials. This would seem to be a potentially large contradiction. Not saying it is/isn't a concern but I've seen no specific reference to Polysulfide compatibility though it is inferred. 

A price point of reference,  my friend buys Swift 94UL at 700 gallons US bulk from a distributer here in FL. He paid ~$5.50/gallon, delivered to his property in Swift's palatable storage tank with his last purchase. You can find 100LL cheaper down here in Hot AF Florida but also way more expensive. Storing it legally is probably the biggest problem. FIre and EPA codes aside, anything that could affect fuel farm sales isn't going to be welcomed at any airport as well. 

The Swift fuel STC for their (soon to be offered) 100UL is quite reasonable. $100 for a "lifetime" STC. My assumption is any future changes/upgrades/revisions/supersedures  will not require subsequent payments. I'd expect GAMI to be equally reasonable. They want you to buy their healthy margined product.

Price is my biggest concern:

If we are stuck with a single source provider, we are flat, collectively screwed.

The new providers will certainly tout the compatibilities with 100LL. I don't expect either/any to lay their junk on the table and proclaim compatibility with competing products; especially if they're first to market.  This could become a huge issue when traveling.

It's all an evolving story but at least there's movement. I do like the fact that some small "market disruptors" beat Shell to the game.  This is probably a bigger positive than can ever be known. There has been plenty of past discussion, right/wrong but believable,  about them using their influence to hinder the smaller guys market advancements. Who really knows but as mentioned, It's probably a positive for use consumers.

    

Edited by Freemasm
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are worrying about reducing deposits and plug fowling, it will probably get worse not better. Most of the UL formulations are using MMT instead of TEL. MMT causes more fouling and more deposits than TEL.

None of these new unleaded formulations will work better or be cheaper then our current 100LL.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Since 100LL is on borrowed time...   I'm guessing it will be "boutique" for a little while and as it proves itself it will start to slowly expand.  Then we'll here about a 100LL cutoff date for the environment and 100LL production will drop and the cost will go up.  Then you'll see the expansion take off through all FBOs as 100LL becomes harder to get.  And since those FBOs won't have to invest in any new equipment, it will be a no-brainer for them to just start filling their 100LL tanks with GAMI's no lead.

How quickly will this change take place, that's the million dollar question.  I'm pretty sure George will keep pushing their fuel and get more and more larger groups to buy in.

And looking at that half full glass of no-lead....  One can only hope that the cost will drop at least a little bit once it's productions level has increased to replace 100LL.  (I'm going to win the lottery today too!!)

 

I generally agree that 100LL is on borrowed time. I was worried enough that 12 years ago when I was buying my current plane, I was worried then about investing too much into the hull value of an airplane that could potentially become a big paper weight if 100LL would go away.  It was a major factor in buying in the price category I bought in rather than something newer and possibly double or triple the cost.  This was the cost I figured I would be less hurt if I had to take a 100% hull value lost if 100LL went away as a clear and present danger.  And this has been a low-grade danger for all of us since.

With the rise of 100GU and also the swift version, and others, then at least this danger is greatly reduced.  I am looking forward to decades more I hope - possibly with my current airframe.  Knock on wood.

So I see this as generally a good thing.  For GA as a whole.

I figure economics will do its magic I agree, as you describe.  Especially if more than one 100 alternative comes to market. For now it is boutique but then in say 5 years when it is everywhere if 100LL were gone perhaps by mandate or law, then whatever is available. 100GU for example, would find its market value and we would be paying very close to whatever we would be paying then for 100LL.  Market forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They’re going to have to add all piston airplanes to the AML - turbo radials, warbirds, antiques, etc before it can really get out there.  I can’t see an FBO adding another tank or truck to carry Jet A, 100ll and 100GU at the same time.  But if are flying say a turbo and it’s not on the AML, you’ll still need fuel…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ragsf15e said:

They’re going to have to add all piston airplanes to the AML - turbo radials, warbirds, antiques, etc before it can really get out there.  I can’t see an FBO adding another tank or truck to carry Jet A, 100ll and 100GU at the same time.  But if are flying say a turbo and it’s not on the AML, you’ll still need fuel…

I was just trying to get some info on G100UL. it looks like its rich octane rating is actually higher than 100LL. They say it will work better in warbirds than 100LL. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

If you are worrying about reducing deposits and plug fowling, it will probably get worse not better. Most of the UL formulations are using MMT instead of TEL. MMT causes more fouling and more deposits than TEL.

None of these new unleaded formulations will work better or be cheaper then our current 100LL.

According to their presentation, deposit formation is much less and they have the photos to prove the point.

 

https://gami.com/g100ul/G100UL EAA Mike Busch seminar.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will be the death of 100LL.

The only reason it still exists is because there were no alternatives. As soon as it is available in enough quantity, they will kill 100LL.

Twenty years from now we will look back fondly at 100LL, or maybe not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit worried about the color and how visually distinguishable it will be from Jet A.   Maybe if it gets ubiquitous it can be changed to something more obviously different than Jet A.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, EricJ said:

I'm a bit worried about the color and how visually distinguishable it will be from Jet A.   Maybe if it gets ubiquitous it can be changed to something more obviously different than Jet A.

 

G100UL is orange. If mixed with 100LL it will appear green like the 100/130

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

G100UL is orange. If mixed with 100LL it will appear green like the 100/130

In their Q&A document that Anthony posted earlier it says "Orange or Amber", and the pics in the pdf posted above show an amber color, not unlike the "straw" color of JetA.

 

  • Like 1
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.

 Share

×
×
  • 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.