GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[M20F]

16 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

The introduction of unleaded automobile fuel with modern synthetic detergent oils has, in automobile engines, doubled oil change intervals, allowed spark plugs to last practically forever without maintenance and effectively doubled the lives of automobile engines.
 

In your plane,  imagine only one oil change per year, spark plugs that last the life of your engine virtually without maintenance and 3000 hour TBOs. 
 

That is huge. And it offsets the price of the fuel. 

Modern engines have allowed that not unleaded gas.  My 1971 MGB will run unleaded but it derives none of the benefits you speak of. 

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, ArtVandelay said:

Be nice if the auto market (high performance cars) could embrace this fuel as well, then the volume would go up and prices to go down.

Very interesting idea!  No clue what the legal barriers would be to that idea, but it most certainly would up volume!

[ragedracer1977]

Question.  Is an STC even necessary at this point? The FAA said It’s approved fleet wide. This makes it a de facto aviation gasoline that is grade 100.  
 

every TCDS I’ve perused, both airframe and engine, are certified to use grade 100 and 100LL aviation gasoline.

 So?

[MikeOH]

5 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Question.  Is an STC even necessary at this point? The FAA said It’s approved fleet wide. This makes it a de facto aviation gasoline that is grade 100.  
 

every TCDS I’ve perused, both airframe and engine, are certified to use grade 100 and 100LL aviation gasoline.

 So?

LOL!  There's been an ongoing debate on that very point!  The AR types are claiming that, somehow, only fuel that has been ASTM tested and certified is legal to use.  Which the G100UL has not been (to anyone's knowledge). The others, myself included, feel that if the FAA has blanket approved the fuel for ALL piston aircraft engines an STC is an oxymoronic requirement.  The AR's claim FBOs won't fill your tanks unless you show "your papers, please" and insurance will deny any and all claims if a trace of G100UL is found in your tanks after any incident if you don't have an STC!

[toto]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Now that G100UL is approved there is low and diminishing incentive for Shell and others to continue to pour endless R&D spending into a replacement fuel.

@GeeBee's theory seems increasingly likely to be the correct one. Avgas producers throw money at GAMI to buy out the IP, start making UL and save a couple bucks on liability insurance. We keep buying from the same pumps at the same FBOs with an STC in hand, and the G100UL partners walk away with some cash in the bank and no more need to figure out an international distribution network. 

[M20F]

20 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Be nice if the auto market (high performance cars) could embrace this fuel as well, then the volume would go up and prices to go down.

Easiest octane solution for old cars these days is aviation related water/meth injection. You can snap a kit onto almost anything in a couple of hours.  
 
If you wanted an alternative fuel choice E85 would be it.  Better yet use E85+Meth.  
 
I probably wouldn’t run G100UL in my MG anymore than I ever ran 100LL.  Too much effort and $$ with easier returns elsewhere.

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, M20F said:

Easiest octane solution for old cars these days is aviation related water/meth injection. You can snap a kit onto almost anything in a couple of hours.  
 
If you wanted an alternative fuel choice E85 would be it.  Better yet use E85+Meth.  
 
I probably wouldn’t run G100UL in my MG anymore than I ever ran 100LL.  Too much effort and $$ with easier returns elsewhere.

I took his suggestion to mean NEW production performance cars...UL race fuel does exist, but pretty hard to find.  G100UL would be an interesting option, I think.

[M20F]

1 minute ago, MikeOH said:

I took his suggestion to mean NEW production performance cars...UL race fuel does exist, but pretty hard to find.  G100UL would be an interesting option, I think.

https://www.motor1.com/news/597420/dodge-hellcat-finale-909-horsepower/amp/
 
E85 and that is from manufacturer.  Guys are getting 1100HP today on conversions.  Very cheap. 

[1980Mooney]

35 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Is it legal to extend oil change intervals out to a year?  Platinum tip spark plugs were also a significant factor in extending automotive plug change intervals; and, they are already available for aircraft.  I'm at 2600 since OH, and for Part 91 non-commercial, TBO is only a suggestion. I do my own oil changes, but didn't think saving an oil change a year is going to offset the kind of avgas cost increases we are discussing.  I'm skeptical that saving a few oil changes, and eliminating plug changes (a stretch, me thinks), and that Lycoming/Continental are going to advertise 3000 hour TBOs is going to happen because of G100UL.

Perhaps I am not communicating.  The benefits of unleaded gasoline and synthetic detergent oils have been demonstrated in automobile engines over the past 40 years (improved corrosion control and lubrication, extended oil change intervals, reduced internal deposits in heads (reduces sources of detonation points), valves, and exhaust, extended spark plug life and overall extended engine life, etc - not just environmental benefit).  There is no reason that aviation internal combustion engines cannot also benefit.  And the regs need to change accordingly.  Our engines are stuck in the 1930's.  There is no reason that they can't begin to enter the 21st century.

33 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

You’re blaming lead for most of the wear and tear on our engines. Other than stuck valves and dirty spark plugs, I’m not sure about the major increase in engine life. They still will be operating at 100% power at takeoff and well over 50% for most of the tach time.

Be nice if the auto market (high performance cars) could embrace this fuel as well, then the volume would go up and prices to go down.

I am blaming lead itself and because it precludes the use of superior modern synthetic detergent oils.  The lead deposits as well as the lead byproduct buildup in the inferior oil we are forced to use causes most of the wear and tear.

https://generalaviationnews.com/2005/04/08/synthetic-oils-and-leaded-fuel-not-a-good-combination/

"Synthetic oils and leaded fuel: Not a good combination"

[1980Mooney]

34 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

LOL!  There's been an ongoing debate on that very point!  The AR types are claiming that, somehow, only fuel that has been ASTM tested and certified is legal to use.  Which the G100UL has not been (to anyone's knowledge). The others, myself included, feel that if the FAA has blanket approved the fuel for ALL piston aircraft engines an STC is an oxymoronic requirement.  The AR's claim FBOs won't fill your tanks unless you show "your papers, please" and insurance will deny any and all claims if a trace of G100UL is found in your tanks after any incident if you don't have an STC!

The only thing that the FAA has done is approve GAMI's STC. Period.  GAMI, not the FAA, has announced that GAMI has been granted approval.

Show me an announcement from the FAA that the FAA has announced that airplanes and owners can utilize a STC from anyone for anything without acquiring documented approval from the STC Holder.

[ragedracer1977]

7 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

The only thing that the FAA has done is approve GAMI's STC. Period.  GAMI, not the FAA, has announced that GAMI has been granted approval.

Show me an announcement from the FAA that the FAA has announced that airplanes and owners can utilize a STC from anyone for anything without acquiring documented approval from the STC Holder.

The question is “does it even require an STC? And if so, why?”

 The TCDS for every plane and engine I looked at includes 100 octane aviation gasoline.  What is G100UL if not 100 octane aviation gasoline?

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

The introduction of unleaded automobile fuel with modern synthetic detergent oils has, in automobile engines, doubled oil change intervals, allowed spark plugs to last practically forever without maintenance and effectively doubled the lives of automobile engines.
 

In your plane,  imagine only one oil change per year, spark plugs that last the life of your engine virtually without maintenance and 3000 hour TBOs. 
 

That is huge. And it offsets the price of the fuel. 

Thank you for offsetting so much gloom and doom! I was about to hang a for sale sign on my plane!! LOL!!

[A64Pilot]

3 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

I like to see how current prices have affected avgas consumption.

If we get to $9-10 I think you’ll see a end of high prices for used planes.

I think your correct, but maybe it won’t hurt the most efficient ones as bad, I think a Cherokee 6 would be a tough sell, but a J model Mooney is about as miserly as it gets, I can actually fly per mile on less fuel than my C-140, and it was the efficiency king of the little old airplanes, 110 mph on 85 HP.

So the guy who was looking at the Bo or whatever may look harder at a J Mooney with its 1/3 less fuel burn, same for the other 4 cyl models

[Raptor05121]

3 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

I like to see how current prices have affected avgas consumption.

If we get to $9-10 I think you’ll see a end of high prices for used planes.

I've averaged about 175hrs/yr for the past 5 years I've owned my plane

Last year I flew 52 hours

My plane came out of annual over a month ago and I still haven't flown it. What used to be a $75-100 fillup is now almost $200. Hard to justify swiping $200 to go bum around by myself for an hour. If AvGas hit $10/gal, I would automatically sell my plane.

[A64Pilot]

32 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Perhaps I am not communicating.  The benefits of unleaded gasoline and synthetic detergent oils have been demonstrated in automobile engines over the past 40 years (improved corrosion control and lubrication, extended oil change intervals, reduced internal deposits in heads (reduces sources of detonation points), valves, and exhaust, extended spark plug life and overall extended engine life, etc - not just environmental benefit).  There is no reason that aviation internal combustion engines cannot also benefit.  And the regs need to change accordingly.  Our engines are stuck in the 1930's.  There is no reason that they can't begin to enter the 21st century.

I am blaming lead itself and because it precludes the use of superior modern synthetic detergent oils.  The lead deposits as well as the lead byproduct buildup in the inferior oil we are forced to use causes most of the wear and tear.

https://generalaviationnews.com/2005/04/08/synthetic-oils-and-leaded-fuel-not-a-good-combination/

"Synthetic oils and leaded fuel: Not a good combination"

Your right, even my 1923 Ford Model T benefits from Shell Rotella T6 and unleaded fuel. The Rotella as a synthetic Diesel oil is first synthetic and as old spec Diesel oil it has not had the anti wear additives removed that poison modern Cat convertors etc, and the UL fuel burns clean with little deposits. The T has no valve seats, just the cast iron block and no issues. I’m in the middle of a valve job right now, but because of corrosion issues, my T last run in the early 60’s, so 60 years ago.

Of course with its massive I think 3.8 to 1 compression ratio and 2,000 RPM redline it’s not stressing oil, but the plugs except for soot stay relatively clean, no lead fouling.

I’ve run 100 LL in race bikes before, and it fouls plugs eventually, and requires rejetting as it runs lean, it’s almost as of it were an O2 bearing fuel. Sunoco 100 octane ul race fuel is better

 

[Will.iam]

20 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Thank you for offsetting so much gloom and doom! I was about to hang a for sale sign on my plane!! LOL!!

Whoa slow down, every decade there is a doom and gloom story. Before this it was mooney shut down, covid before that then there was the scare that only one place in the world now made lead for our gas if it shut down what happens next fear or what if the….   Sort of like the airline business always a doom gloom fear that management uses to validate not giving a bigger raise at negotiation time. 
we need to go for a hamburger run to enjoy the fun part of airplane ownership and not dwell on the negative what if’s. 

[A64Pilot]

Yeah the fixing to ban leaded aviation fuel has been around since the 80’s when I first started flying GA, and it’s always been plausible, it stated with as far as I know a lawsuit form the friends of the Earth lawsuit that leaded fuel was illegal, and they were correct, leaded fuel refinement was banned in the 70’s, no provision was made for Avgas, it was simply overlooked, but the law plainly said no more lead in motor fuel, but here we are 40 years later still buying it, but maybe that’s coming to an end,

If you look the Friends of the Earth have brought many lawsuits, they wont go away

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, ragedracer1977 said:

The question is “does it even require an STC? And if so, why?”

 The TCDS for every plane and engine I looked at includes 100 octane aviation gasoline.  What is G100UL if not 100 octane aviation gasoline?

Grade 100 Aviation Gasoline is an ASTM aspecification.

G100LUL does not meet that ASTM spec, it is NOT Grade 100 Aviation Gasoline.

And on top that, I read on another forum, G100UL is actually 98 - 99 octane. 

[Pinecone]

Just now, Pinecone said:

Grade 100 Aviation Gasoline is an ASTM aspecification.

G100LUL does not meet that ASTM spec, it is NOT Grade 100 Aviation Gasoline.

And on top that, I read on another forum, G100UL is actually rated 98 - 99 octane. 

 

[Will.iam]

3 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Grade 100 Aviation Gasoline is an ASTM aspecification.

G100LUL does not meet that ASTM spec, it is NOT Grade 100 Aviation Gasoline.

And on top that, I read on another forum, G100UL is actually 98 - 99 octane. 

True but i also read an article that when the FAA came down and watched the detonation testing that once G100ul passed, that gami then turned up the boost to find where it would detonate and when they got to 100% full boost there was still no detonation so it’s proven better than 100LL on that test. I’ll see if i can find the article. 

[A64Pilot]

Most of us could actually run 94 UL, if we were to accept lower limits, like less than 500F cyl head temps, but that’s not likely to happen.

‘If you look at the specs Lycoming has to test to like 500 cyl head temps and max oil temp and a cut I believe of 10% fuel flow, none of us ever operate like that, yet some seem somehow to detonate an engine, but I can’t figure out how, unless they are blind and stupid, but we have to account for blind and stupid folks I guess. Hence 100 Octane fuel.

‘Non blown motors, I accept you guys are different.

[A64Pilot]

Remember Avgas has two octane ratings, lean and rich. Which confuses me as 100 LL only has one.

Its not the same as car gas , 93 octane car gas may or may not meet aviation specs for 93 octane

[1980Mooney]

56 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

The question is “does it even require an STC? And if so, why?”

 The TCDS for every plane and engine I looked at includes 100 octane aviation gasoline.  What is G100UL if not 100 octane aviation gasoline?

It requires that Airplane Owners acquire a STC certified by the STC Holder for a simple reason - Because George Braly and Tim Roehl of GAMI CHOSE to do it that way.  They chose to use the established FAA Supplemental Type Certificate process protect their intellectual property and trade secrets.

Your Cessna 310 TCDS states Fuel: Grade 100 or 100LL aviation gasoline.  As @Pinecone just said, that is an ASTM Grade.  When you say generically "100 octane" do you mean octane determined by RON (Research Octane Number) or MON (Motor Octane Number) or (RON+MON)/2 (like at your gas station pump) or by the ASTM D910 procedure?  ASTM Grade 100 is a Specification for Leaded Aviation Gasoline ONLY - It has a Rich Octane Rating of 130 and a Lean Octane Rating of 100 per the ASTM testing procedure.  GAMI did not use the ASTM approach and therefore did not petition ASTM to change D910 to accommodate unleaded fuel.

 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, ragedracer1977 said:

The question is “does it even require an STC? And if so, why?”

 The TCDS for every plane and engine I looked at includes 100 octane aviation gasoline.  What is G100UL if not 100 octane aviation gasoline?

 

[1980Mooney]

15 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

True but i also read an article that when the FAA came down and watched the detonation testing that once G100ul passed, that gami then turned up the boost to find where it would detonate and when they got to 100% full boost there was still no detonation so it’s proven better than 100LL on that test. I’ll see if i can find the article. 

It may be better in many respects. We won't know if it has the same incredible shelf life that 100LL has and we won't know if it somehow degrades the sealant in our wet wings for years.