GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[redbaron1982]

And if GAMI wouldn't have an alternative, people that is complaining should consider that a worse scenario could be possible: EPA/FAA banning 100LL and you would be left with the option of either scrapping your aircraft of hoping for someone to develop a diesel engine for Mooney, oh, and BTW, that would also require a STC, plus a new engine.

[MikeOH]

15 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

And if GAMI wouldn't have an alternative, people that is complaining should consider that a worse scenario could be possible: EPA/FAA banning 100LL and you would be left with the option of either scrapping your aircraft of hoping for someone to develop a diesel engine for Mooney, oh, and BTW, that would also require a STC, plus a new engine.

I am NOT against G100UL as an ALTERNATIVE.  My beef is that now that there IS an option, the government WILL ban 100LL.  Why is that so hard to follow and accept as a cogent argument?

If 100LL continues to remain available along side G100UL, I wish GAMI the best with COMPETITION in the market.  If they want market share they MUST be price competitive.

And, no I'm not trying to 'cheap' out by not purchasing an STC.  Despite @John-Paul's protestations otherwise, they can EASILY pay back their investment with the fuel sales: Avgas (nearly ALL 100LL) is somewhere around 150 MILLION gallons per year.  If the EPA bans 100LL, and the ONLY available option is GAMI G100UL, that's pretty clearly 150 MILLION gallons for them ALONE!  How does ten cents a gallon sound?  Sounds like $15 million a year to me.  How is that NOT going to pay back quickly?

To have invested more than a decade in development and suddenly they want their payback NOW??  I wonder if @EricJ is onto something with uncertainty as to if the fuel is going to be available any time soon.  Then their present quest for $400 STCs makes sense.

The doomsday scenario would be the EPA banning 100LL THINKING GAMI is able to deliver G100UL....and they CAN'T!  YIKES!!

[Pinecone]

4 hours ago, MikeOH said:

GMAB

Dissenting opinions like mine are contentious because they don’t align with your self righteous opinion?  WOW, you must really miss the old pre-Elon Twitter where dissenting views were just eliminated.

Amazing, telling him how to block views he doesn’t want to hear. A real free speech fan, you are

He is not stopping you from speaking.  He is offering a way to NOT listen to you.

Also, the 1st amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT from preventing you from expressing your views, not individuals or businesses.  See Twitter and Face Book.

Do what you wish.  If you don't need the STC, then don't buy it.  But CA was already in the process of banning 100LL.  If not state wide, then country/jurisdiction at a time.  Two airports have already had it banned.  BEFORE G100UL was approved.

[dzeleski]

The amount of entitlement in this thread is absolutely wild. You all realize how privileged we all are to even be able to do this let alone complain about a new fuel that doesn’t poison the people below us that help pay for the airports we commonly land at? We have a big enough issue with airports closing due to “noise” when those people bought a house next to an airport that has existed for half a century we don’t need leaded fuel to even be in the conversation anymore, it’s a joke.

The fact that we are burning leaded fuel still in 2023 is frankly disgusting and negligent. It should have been banned 3 decades ago.

If you don’t want to buy the STC, don’t buy it. This place is more toxic then video game lobbies at times it’s ridiculous.

 

[dzeleski]

6 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

If this place is too toxic, don’t frequent it.

What a shit take. Plenty of people do for that exact reason. Doesn’t build that great of a community when knowledgeable people leave because of it.

[John-Paul]

50 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I am NOT against G100UL as an ALTERNATIVE.  My beef is that now that there IS an option, the government WILL ban 100LL.  Why is that so hard to follow and accept as a cogent argument? 

Fuel sales will certainly pay back the years of hard work . . . and then some. However, there are no fuel sales until there is fuel.  The STC sales are PART OF what gives us the capital to build the fuel in sufficient volumes to roll it out to the parts of the country as quickly as possible.  Can we do that without the STC sales? Sure, but it will take longer.  There are people out there who want unleaded fuel now, not later.  Plus, there's no question that being first market is important to any company with potential competition.  

I'm generally not in favor of banning anything. What California and/or the EPA does might help us in the long run, but with or without us, that is a foregone conclusion.  At the typical speed of government, it might be another 10 years before all the lead is gone. 

I think people will still chose to buy an unleaded fuel, even at a slightly higher price, if given the option.

Jpt

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

If Cancer is a worse than hitting your head with a hammer should you hit your head with a hammer?

How hard?

 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, dzeleski said:

What a shit take. Plenty of people do for that exact reason. Doesn’t build that great of a community when knowledgeable people leave because of it.

Ah, so knowledgeable people are only those that agree with YOUR point of view.  Those that don't should just 'be quiet'

Got it!  Thanks for clarifying...SHEESH!

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, John-Paul said:

Fuel sales will certainly pay back the years of hard work . . . and then some. However, there are no fuel sales until there is fuel.  The STC sales are PART OF what gives us the capital to build the fuel in sufficient volumes to roll it out to the parts of the country as quickly as possible.  Can we do that without the STC sales? Sure, but it will take longer.  There are people out there who want unleaded fuel now, not later.  Plus, there's no question that being first market is important to any company with potential competition.  

I'm generally not in favor of banning anything. What California and/or the EPA does might help us in the long run, but with or without us, that is a foregone conclusion.  At the typical speed of government, it might be another 10 years before all the lead is gone. 

I think people will still chose to buy an unleaded fuel, even at a slightly higher price, if given the option.

Jpt

That's a reasonable post I can agree with.  Pragmatically, it hinges on what "a slightly higher price" ends up being.

I'm counting on the "speed" of government to provide that decade buffer.  I'm pretty confident if it pans out in that fashion, that other options will be available and competition will provide a fair price.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

He is not stopping you from speaking.  He is offering a way to NOT listen to you.

Also, the 1st amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT from preventing you from expressing your views, not individuals or businesses.  See Twitter and Face Book.

Do what you wish.  If you don't need the STC, then don't buy it.  But CA was already in the process of banning 100LL.  If not state wide, then country/jurisdiction at a time.  Two airports have already had it banned.  BEFORE G100UL was approved.

Good grief!  I am fully aware private entities (such as MS) can censor whomever and whatever they want.

I just find it disturbing that certain individuals are so thin-skinned that they want those opinions that don't agree with their own to be banned/censored or are providing 'advice' to others how to shield their snowflake sensitivities from dissenting opinions.

Do you really think that's a healthy attitude?

[GeeBee]

11 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Not unless the government came along and denied your competitor the right to buy the other parcel for sale.

If the other parcel is say........ not on the water, kind of makes it hard to build a dock to receive boats. Would you expect the government to dredge a new canal so there is a competitor? No, one guy foresaw the need for a port and bought up all the land in some place and everyone thought it was madness, until the war came along and the port was needed. The owner saw the direction the government was going and bought the land.  

All the other people had a chance here. Shell, Phillips, Chevron, Swift they all participated in the PAFI 10 years ago and came up with a dry hole. GAMI wisely chose to chart a different course, one that seemed like madness at the time, but now they are the last man standing with a viable product. You talk about being "American"? That my friend is the very essence.

[Pinecone]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Good grief!  I am fully aware private entities (such as MS) can censor whomever and whatever they want.

I just find it disturbing that certain individuals are so thin-skinned that they want those opinions that don't agree with their own to be banned/censored or are providing 'advice' to others how to shield their snowflake sensitivities from dissenting opinions.

Do you really think that's a healthy attitude?

Or maybe they just don't to spend time with certain individuals drivel.  

On some forums there are people I put on my ignore list, even though I agree with some things they say.  I just don't want to deal with the way they say it.

I never stated that you should be banned or censored.  Just that is someone doesn't want to listen to you, it is their right to put you on their ignore list.

And think that you are a bit thin skinned that you think everyone should listen to your opinions, and get upset that someone might ignore you.

 

[Pinecone]

15 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

If the other parcel is say........ not on the water, kind of makes it hard to build a dock to receive boats. Would you expect the government to dredge a new canal so there is a competitor? No, one guy foresaw the need for a port and bought up all the land in some place and everyone thought it was madness, until the war came along and the port was needed. The owner saw the direction the government was going and bought the land.  

All the other people had a chance here. Shell, Phillips, Chevron, Swift they all participated in the PAFI 10 years ago and came up with a dry hole. GAMI wisely chose to chart a different course, one that seemed like madness at the time, but now they are the last man standing with a viable product. You talk about being "American"? That my friend is the very essence.

Exactly

And while I am sure that George wants to make money, he is also, bottom line, a GA pilot.   He has taken his skills and love of aviation to bring several products to market.   Including G100UL.

 

 

[Pinecone]

8 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Mike wasn’t appealing to the First Amendment. Simply pointing out the current cultural trend of shutting down or fleeing the argument of those with whom you disagree. 

He is claiming that people were saying he should be banned or censored.   I did not say that.

I did point out that if someone did not want to listen to him, they could put him on ignore.

Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs, that the do not argue or have a meaningful conversation, but just want to shout their beliefs.  And others find this tiresome and don't want to hear it.

And it is interesting, the number of people that feel that GAMI should spend over a decade of effort and untold amounts of their own money, then give away the product.   

And those that are claiming that G100UL will cause the banning of 100LL, when that was already in progress.  CA has had the legislation in the process for over a year.  And a number of states will do whatever CA does when it comes to environmental activism.

[ragedracer1977]

10 hours ago, John-Paul said:

 

I think people will still chose to buy an unleaded fuel, even at a slightly higher price, if given the option.

Jpt

I think you’re wrong, at least right now.  I wouldn’t. If I had the option to buy a known product that has served aviation well for decades at a lower price than a competitive unproven product, I’d buy the known quantity every time.  In fact, I’d probably be more likely to pay a premium for the known product.  
I’ve been around aviation my entire life and I’ve seen too many wonder products end up to be anything but.

 Lead isn’t great, but it works. We know it works.

G100UL might be great. But we don’t really know if it works yet.  
 

i appreciate your hard labor and I think you deserve to be awarded, but I’ve been around the block enough times to be leery of being an early adopter of anything. 
 

i was actually going to buy the STC, but I couldn’t justify it right now. The pricing model doesn’t make sense. The people who will contribute the most to your long term profits, have to pay 3-4x the cost for privilege. And, if bought now, there’s no guarantee I won’t have to buy it again, at least once, but maybe multiple times, before I can even use it.

 I’m concerned that GAMI has chosen not to have their fuel certified (a la ASTM) at all.  It begs 2 questions.

#1- are they concerned it has issues that preclude certification?

#2- did they choose not to certify it because, if certified, they would be unable to sell an STC?

 There might be, and probably is, a 3rd question/answer that would explain it however from the outside looking in, that’s what I see.

 

[dzeleski]

11 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I never posed a single ad hominem argument. I never took offense with a single person. I stated an argument. You thought that was toxic. I simply offered back to you my version of your own statement.  “If you don’t want to buy the STC, don’t buy it.”  “If this place is too toxic, don’t frequent it.”

I bent over backwards in my posts to make sure it was understood that I fully supported the entrepreneurship of the fellows bringing their product to market. I voiced an economic concern using economic and philosophical argument.

 I would appreciate the same treatment. You didn’t even try, therefore I just gave you back your own medicine.

 

Did I reply/quote on anything of yours besides:

12 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

If this place is too toxic, don’t frequent it.

No. So now your stretching something to make an unrelated point that had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Between slowly seeing people stop posting here over the last several years and speaking to people at Mooney Summit im not the only person that thinks this place is going down hill.

  

10 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Ah, so knowledgeable people are only those that agree with YOUR point of view.  Those that don't should just 'be quiet'

Got it!  Thanks for clarifying...SHEESH!

This isnt up for debate nor is it MY point of view. Scientists determined lead was horrific for life in the 60s and our further understanding of that has only made the impact of leaded fuels worse. Those that dont should open a book and educate themselves instead of attacking people because they are pleased to see a vendor posting on this site for the product they are trying to release. The fact that you think Elon is twitters savor tells me all I need to know.

16 hours ago, MikeOH said:

GMAB

Dissenting opinions like mine are contentious because they don’t align with your self righteous opinion?  WOW, you must really miss the old pre-Elon Twitter where dissenting views were just eliminated.

Amazing, telling him how to block views he doesn’t want to hear. A real free speech fan, you are

Im done in this thread.

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, ragedracer1977 said:

 I’m concerned that GAMI has chosen not to have their fuel certified (a la ASTM) at all.  It begs 2 questions.

#1- are they concerned it has issues that preclude certification?

#2- did they choose not to certify it because, if certified, they would be unable to sell an STC?

 There might be, and probably is, a 3rd question/answer that would explain it however from the outside looking in, that’s what I see.

 

The reason that they did not do ASTM certification is that the fuel does not meet the ASTM standard.

The Eagle and PAFI programs have been trying to make a fuel that does meet the ASTM standard, and see how that has worked out.  And there are some major fuel players trying.

GAMI saw a different path, and decided to follow it.  Thinking out of the box.

There is the possibility that the ASTM standard could be changed a bit to cover G100UL, so that is another path.  But consensus standards are a huge can of worms.

[ragedracer1977]

2 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

The reason that did not do the ASTM route is that the fuel does not meet the ASTM standard.

The Eagle and PAFI programs have been trying to make a fuel that does meet the ASTM standard, and see how that has worked out.  And there are some major fuel players trying.

GAMI saw a different path, and decided to follow it.  Thinking out of the box.

There is the possibility that the ASTM standard could be changed a bit to cover G100UL, so that is another path.  But consensus standards are a huge can of worms.

ASTM has more than one certification.  

[Pinecone]

3 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

ASTM has more than one certification.  

Yes, but the appropriate one for AVGAS is D910.  Which does reference a number of other ASTM standards.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

The reason that they did not do ASTM certification is that the fuel does not meet the ASTM standard.

Do you know what specification(s) from ASTM that G100UL cannot meet?

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

It never even occurred to me to hit the ignore button. I don’t even know where it is located. I understand passions can run high when we passionately disagree and so I don’t take it personally.

EXACTLY!

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

I understand your analogy, but it doesn’t fit the scenario. There is already a port and it is already supplied by several of the players you mentioned. Gami or anyone else is welcome to build another port, but I simply suggest it is unfair for the government to blow up the existing port.

If outside of government interference, the existing players simply abandon the field, and I then demand the government provide me some option, your analogy fits. Some argue the big oil companies want to abandon 100LL as it is more of a headache to them than worth the effort. Maybe they’re right and if the free market stops producing 100LL I will just have to suck it up buttercup. While I would be disappointed to be priced out of GA, I certainly would not have any angst if it was a free market consequence.
The free market has already excluded me from many things, yachts, vacation homes, mansions and the list goes on. That bothers me not one whit and neither does it bother me that there are thousands much more successful than me who do enjoy those things. God bless those folks! They provide millions of jobs for the rest of us and our economy would be much poorer without them. I SINCERELY hope the Gami folks join that elite group if they are not there already! A rising tide floats all boats. Maybe they will hire me into their corporate flight department after I retire from Spirit Airlines this year!

What does bother me is if I get priced out of my little piece of the American dream due to government decree meddling in the free market!

Please note for the nth time, I am not complaining about the Gami folks! And I am certainly not suggesting they give me anything! 

Apparently you have never heard of the California Coastal Commission, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency or the Army Corp of Engineers.

 

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Do you know what specification(s) from ASTM that G100UL cannot meet?

No.  But if it met the ASTM standard, it would not require an STC, as it would be an aviation fuel.

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

No.  But if it met the ASTM standard, it would not require an STC, as it would be an aviation fuel.

Correct.  What I am getting at is that maybe GAMI wanted to ensure an STC was required.  I was curious how benign/difficult it would be to have G100UL conform to the ASTM spec.

[Pinecone]

I remember some posts on this, but it is not possible to make it meet the ASTM standard.

If it was, then PAFI or Eagle would have pounced on it.

They were/are constrained to meet the ASTM standard.