GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[Raymond J1]

25 minutes ago, carusoam said:

The mere mention of the Tesla thread will cause it rise to the top…

It was more electric plane passion…supported by viable electric car examples…

Holy cow… have you seen all of the electric aviation getting off the ground?

 

I am a fan of Jerry’s 100LL solution…

But his plane is a bit too large for my needs…

I was holding out for the turbine powered Ovation announced by Mooney back about 2007…

A new one back then would be coming up in the pre-flown market just about now…
Keeping my powder dry for that…   

a bummer that didn’t work out….  

The closest Diesel engine four seater was Tom’s Lanceair IVPT…

For other diesel technology… follow Continental…

They perfected the IO550 for 100LL

They have been working on Diesel engines almost as long…

Don’t shoot the messenger… especially if we want ask him more questions… 
 

Europe likes their diesel vehicles… a much larger percentage of private cars use diesel in Europe than in the US…

In the US it is harder to find the diesel pump, or have to wait for it…

Modern Diesel engines are awesome…

Politics of fuel… diesel goes to Europe, gasoline gets shipped to the US…???

PP thoughts only,

-a-

Diesel worked in France because there was: 1) A tax incentive for it (VAT on fuel deducted for professionals); 2) Lower consumption; 3) A lower fuel price and 4) Less stringent emission standards. But the wheel has turned, now it's the turn of the electric...

[carusoam]

Just now, Raymond J1 said:

Diesel worked in France because there was: 1) A tax incentive for it (VAT on fuel deducted for professionals); 2) Lower consumption; 3) A lower fuel price and 4) Less stringent emission standards. But the wheel has turned, now it's the turn of the electric...

A big year, this year, for all manufacturers building a few electric models each…

Makes the solar panel on the roof idea to match the car sound enticing…

-a-

[GeeBee]

So let me get this straight. There is great aigst about as much as 4 dollars a gallon more for UL, but you are all on board for a Jet-A solution.

Do you know what that costs? I researched a Jet-A solution for a PA-18. If you were doing one for a Mooney, because of the larger engine it would be a 200K cost minimum. You're going to have to buy the new engine outright and I'm guessing only one STC supplier (again) AND it would exceed the hull value of all but the long body fleet.

Now I fly about 200 hours a year. If 100 went up 4 dollars a gallon, it would take me 15 years to make 200g. OK, let's assume I was going to overall the recipe any way. 7.5 year payback and that diesel? It's a disposable engine, no overhaul allowed.

Now I'm a big fan of diesel. I just dropped 18K for a new 7.3 engine for my truck because it's non def and two valve....but

Come on guys.

 

[Pinecone]

6 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

It was last amended in 2021, so I bet it’s not that difficult. 
 

I’d expect that g100ul could meet all the other tests required to meet D910, except for the lead additive. If it can’t, that’s sort of an issue.

IIRC, no, it is not the no lead thing that makes it not meet D910.

 

[EricJ]

17 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

IIRC, no, it is not the no lead thing that makes it not meet D910.

Standards get amended all the time, and new ones get written, too.   If getting an ASTM standard for unleaded avgas is a significant hurdle for operation without an STC (I'm not convinced it is) then once a reasonably successful deployment period of a successful solution or two or three has happened it probably wouldn't be too difficult to get the industry stakeholders and players together to develop either an amendment or a new standard.   This is basically how many standards are developed, anyway, so it's nothing new. 

I suspect that this may be how it goes:   a couple solutions get deployed for a while, long enough that any production and deployment issues are evident.   Once market acceptance is evident and a sustainable economic model is apparent then there will be pressure to develop a relevant standard, or whatever is necessary for the industry to operate without a constant STC-enforcement problem.  I don't think it is practical or sustainable to expect reciprocating aircraft operators to have to buy potentially regional license(s) to buy fuel for the rest of eternity.   This would be another big pressure toward the death of GA.

Development of a standard can be very good for IP holders.   I spent many, many years working in standard development and often a delaying factor in developing a standard is dealing with all of the entities that want to get their IP written into the standard, whether it makes sense or not.   Patent pools for standard with broad application can be very lucrative.

[Pinecone]

1 minute ago, EricJ said:

Standards get amended all the time, and new ones get written, too.   If getting an ASTM standard for unleaded avgas is a significant hurdle for operation without an STC (I'm not convinced it is) then once a reasonably successful deployment period of a successful solution or two or three has happened it probably wouldn't be too difficult to get the industry stakeholders and players together to develop either an amendment or a new standard.   This is basically how many standards are developed, anyway, so it's nothing new. 

I suspect that this may be how it goes:   a couple solutions get deployed for a while, long enough that any production and deployment issues are evident.   Once market acceptance is evident and a sustainable economic model is apparent then there will be pressure to develop a relevant standard, or whatever is necessary for the industry to operate without a constant STC-enforcement problem.  I don't think it is practical or sustainable to expect reciprocating aircraft operators to have to buy potentially regional license(s) to buy fuel for the rest of eternity.   This would be another big pressure toward the death of GA.

Development of a standard can be very good for IP holders.   I spent many, many years working in standard development and often a delaying factor in developing a standard is dealing with all of the entities that want to get their IP written into the standard, whether it makes sense or not.   Patent pools for standard with broad application can be very lucrative.

I agree.

But the key is, you have to get some viable products out into the market to push the change in standards.  You don't change the standard unless there is a good reason to do so.

And GAMI is the first step in doing that.  Swift 100UL will be another big step.

If I buy the STC(s) now, and in 3 or 4 or whatever years, the STC is not longer required due to standards changes, I am fine with that.

And there is no reason that the revised standard could not cover GAMI and Swift and any others that come along and work.  And then we could just fill up with whatever UL 100 is in the tank at the airport where we landed.

But that is years away.

[EricJ]

17 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

But the key is, you have to get some viable products out into the market to push the change in standards.  You don't change the standard unless there is a good reason to do so.

The only thing you need to amend a standard or create a new one is sufficient support for a particular proposal.   Most electronic standards are written without products in the market (e.g., 5G), there just needs to be credible bases to garner sufficient support.   For something like avgas I do expect that a deployment period is a good idea for a lot of reasons, but there may never be a period where 100LL goes away before we can buy 100UL without an STC.    Nobody knows how it'll play out, but it'll be interesting to see.

[Pinecone]

Just now, EricJ said:

The only thing you need to amend a standard or create a new one is sufficient support for a particular proposal.   Most electronic standards are written without products in the market (e.g., 5G), there just needs to be credible bases to garner sufficient support.   For something like avgas I do expect that a deployment period is a good idea for a lot of reasons, but there may never be a period where 100LL goes away before we can buy 100UL without an STC.    Nobody knows how it'll play out, but it'll be interesting to see.

Agreed.

Those standards are based on developing a new area, so there is no status quo.  A replacement or extension of a standard tends to need a proven product.

And yes, how it plays out, especially WRT timing, will be whatever it is.

[EricJ]

14 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Agreed.

Those standards are based on developing a new area, so there is no status quo.  A replacement or extension of a standard tends to need a proven product.

5G is an extension of decades of previous standards, and includes backwards compatibility requirements with what came before, so there was definitely a status quo.   Most wireless or electronics standards are that way, but still lend themselves reasonably well to development without deployment.   Avgas is different that way.

[ragedracer1977]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

IIRC, no, it is not the no lead thing that makes it not meet D910.

 

Braly himself has said multiple times it meets or exceeds D910. I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but a reading of the testing required, I can’t see which ones it shouldn’t meet, to be a successful fuel.

someone here once said “Braly made it only test to a 99.6 MON (octane), perhaps on purpose, to not meet D910”.

except D910 only requires a 99.5 MON.

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Braly himself has said multiple times it meets or exceeds D910. I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but a reading of the testing required, I can’t see which ones it shouldn’t meet, to be a successful fuel.

someone here once said “Braly made it only test to a 99.6 MON (octane), perhaps on purpose, to not meet D910”.

except D910 only requires a 99.5 MON.

If it met D910, then it would not need an STC. 

The 100 in 100LL is the aviation lean method.   Yes, the required MON is 99.5.

I have heard that is it 99.6 aviation lean.  And that would mean it does not meet D910.  Which is that is the only reason it doesn't meet D910, someone else will modify it slightly to meet the 100 aviation lean rating.

I have heard that it doesn't meet some other part of D910.

[John-Paul]

I took the weekend (mostly) off, so I may have missed some stuff.   Someone said " I’m concerned that GAMI has chosen not to have their fuel certified (a la ASTM) at all."

The reason was twofold.

1) We actually started heading down the ASTM path, but a significant portion of our early intellectual data was stolen during that process.  Basically, there was no way to secure that path.  We had a few certain individuals who were quite determined to be bad actors.  We didn't see a fruitful way forward.

2) There wasn't a clear path to get from ASTM spec to fleetwide certification.  The shortest path was still via STC.  If you obtain an ASTM spec for your fuel, you still ahve to have that blesed in some way to be able to use it on the aircraft and engines.  The FAA didn't then have a method for doing that.  I'm not sure they still do ~12 years later.

As far as how G100UL compares to D910 Avgas, it's like this:    The 100LL fuel wasn't created to fit the D910 spec, rather the D910 spec was created to describe THAT fuel.  Any fuel that isn't THAT fuel will have a myriad of small deviations from the spec.  They may or may not be deviations that have any practical impact on the use of the fuel, but they will have deviations that won't fully meet the spec. 

John-Paul

 

[John-Paul]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:26 AM, ragedracer1977 said:

<snip>Braly himself has said multiple times it meets or exceeds D910. <snip>

Here he was refering to the G100UL meeting or exceeding the pertinant characteristics of D910 that are important to the operation of your engine (performance, detonation, vapor pressure, etc).  He did not mean that it would meet the letter of the D910 spec.  It won't.  If it did, it would be 100LL.

Jpt

[GeeBee]

5 hours ago, John-Paul said:

I took the weekend (mostly) off, so I may have missed some stuff.   Someone said " I’m concerned that GAMI has chosen not to have their fuel certified (a la ASTM) at all."

The reason was twofold.

1) We actually started heading down the ASTM path, but a significant portion of our early intellectual data was stolen during that process.  Basically, there was no way to secure that path.  We had a few certain individuals who were quite determined to be bad actors.  We didn't see a fruitful way forward.

2) There wasn't a clear path to get from ASTM spec to fleetwide certification.  The shortest path was still via STC.  If you obtain an ASTM spec for your fuel, you still ahve to have that blesed in some way to be able to use it on the aircraft and engines.  The FAA didn't then have a method for doing that.  I'm not sure they still do ~12 years later.

As far as how G100UL compares to D910 Avgas, it's like this:    The 100LL fuel wasn't created to fit the D910 spec, rather the D910 spec was created to describe THAT fuel.  Any fuel that isn't THAT fuel will have a myriad of small deviations from the spec.  They may or may not be deviations that have any practical impact on the use of the fuel, but they will have deviations that won't fully meet the spec. 

John-Paul

 

I have no doubt you have parasites all around your product, I am willing to bet some with pretty deep pockets, but prefer theft to work.

[John-Paul]

20 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I have no doubt you have parasites all around your product, I am willing to bet some with pretty deep pockets, but prefer theft to work.

Worse than that, Guy.  They were some deliberately trying to stall and/or completely derail the project out of malice.  There were a few who didn't even have a competing interest, but they so disliked George over an incident where they lost face ~20 years ago, they would do whatever possible to throw in a wrench.  Some of these were high ranking alphabet group guys.

[GeeBee]

That is sad. 

By the way, I'm the other GeeBee, not the "Guy Gee-Bee" of "Gee-Bee Aeroproducts" but you're not the first LOL! I could take a lot of orders based on my inbox!

[Cruiser]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:26 AM, ragedracer1977 said:

Braly himself has said multiple times it meets or exceeds D910. I don’t know whether that’s true or not, but a reading of the testing required, I can’t see which ones it shouldn’t meet, to be a successful fuel.

someone here once said “Braly made it only test to a 99.6 MON (octane), perhaps on purpose, to not meet D910”.

except D910 only requires a 99.5 MON.

If I can recall, one of the tests failed to stay within maximum/minimum values at the low end of the cycle ( I am making up the terms) but it really didn't cause any operational or usage issues. Basically it was meaningless however the FAA failed the fuel because it was outside the parameter. 

[John-Paul]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

 

(snip) By the way, I'm the other GeeBee (snip)

Good to know!

[carusoam]

How soon until NJ is on the list for GU100?

Best regards,

-a-

[Austintatious]

On 1/14/2023 at 8:38 PM, Jerry 5TJ said:

Geez, 28 pages of this stuff?   
I’m glad I switched to JetA a decade ago.  

I cant wait to make that switch.

Break...

This is quite the thread.

Gami wants $550.00 for my aircraft for the STC...    I do have to laugh though.  All the talk about saving money on oil changes and overhauls that has been spouted... all GONE with the idea of paying a dollar more per gallon...

An oil change for me cost 150 dollars including oil analysis.  I do them every 30 hours.  That 5 bucks an hour operating cost for oil.   Assuming that Synthetic oil wouldnt cost more (yea right!) and I double my interval... that saves me 2.50 per hour.

To buy a Factory new engine for my aircraft would cost 70k with a 1600 TBO...  That  is  43.75 an hour.  Assuming I get DOUBLE TBO before I replace with a NEW engine...  That saves me 21.87 an hour.

Between those two "savings" I will be saving less than $25.00 an hour. 

I average about 20 gallons an hour burn.... So 1.00 per gallon more immediately evaporates most of the savings, which to calculate I have given EVERY advantage possible...  If we consider just a factory Overhaul at around 35k... well, I wont be saving a dime when I burn 100UL.

That all being said... I am tempted to purchase the STC just for resale appeal AND for fear that if this thing takes off and we are left with no other choice... why wouldn't they raise the price of the STC?

I get how the FAA system works, but I just cant help but find it really funny that the FAA gives FLEET WIDE approval (every engine/airframe ) yet they would violate us if they catch us using it without having handed GAMI $2.00 per HP.... what a complete joke.

Aviation is so fun!

 

[John-Paul]

Austin,

Once G100UL has nationwide coverage, there may be little to no price difference between it and 100LL.   Right now (today) you can buy 100LL for $5.08 in Mojave, CA or $8.39 in Santa Monica.  That's a $3/gallon swing in prices.   As the volume of production increases, the price will come down some.  At the same time, as more and more airports get eliminate leaded fuels, the volume of that production will decrease and those prices will rise.

As far as the STC is concerned, I envision a time when that will no longer be necessary.  People who live in certain areas may never need an STC, but people who live in early adopter areas will.  When Eagle wraps up in 2030, they may have that figured out.  Or, they may ask for another 5-10 years of taxpayer $$ to flounder around.  So far many people have decided that roughly the cost of a tank of fuel to help deploy unleaded fuel is a good use of their money.  Others may spend $500 on a pair of shoes, or dinner and a concert.  Everyone has a different sense of value and they each have to do what makes sense to them.

Jpt

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, John-Paul said:

Right now (today) you can buy 100LL for $5.08 in Mojave, CA or $8.39 in Santa Monica.  That's a $3/gallon swing in prices.

And, that’s the point: I have a choice.

As long as 100LL remains legal and can compete with your product I have a choice. My concern is that 100LL will be banned and I will NOT have a choice; GAMI will be free to charge whatever high price they want; buy it or don’t fly!

Speaking of actual pump price….can you share GAMI’s latest estimate?  This has been a bit vague and I can’t believe GAMI hasn’t performed a detailed study and marketing pricing plan. And, yes, I’m aware GAMI doesn’t set pump price but I’d be surprised if GAMI hasn’t analyzed the effect of its pricing on pump price.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

And, that’s the point: I have a choice.

As long as 100LL remains legal and can compete with your product I have a choice. My concern is that 100LL will be banned and I will NOT have a choice; GAMI will be free to charge whatever high price they want; buy it or don’t fly!

Speaking of actual pump price….can you share GAMI’s latest estimate?  This has been a bit vague and I can’t believe GAMI hasn’t performed a detailed study and marketing pricing plan. And, yes, I’m aware GAMI doesn’t set pump price but I’d be surprised if GAMI hasn’t analyzed the effect of its pricing on pump price.

You contradict yourself in the same post:

• "GAMI will be free to charge whatever high price they want"
• "And, yes, I’m aware GAMI doesn’t set pump price"

 

[John-Paul]

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

And, that’s the point: I have a choice.

As long as 100LL remains legal and can compete with your product I have a choice. My concern is that 100LL will be banned and I will NOT have a choice; GAMI will be free to charge whatever high price they want; buy it or don’t fly!

Speaking of actual pump price….can you share GAMI’s latest estimate?  This has been a bit vague and I can’t believe GAMI hasn’t performed a detailed study and marketing pricing plan. And, yes, I’m aware GAMI doesn’t set pump price but I’d be surprised if GAMI hasn’t analyzed the effect of its pricing on pump price.

You may continue to have that choice for years and years to come . . . or the EPA/FAA/LMNOP may choose to regulate 100LL out of existence as fast as possible.  We sincerely hope not.  In fact, we have been lobbying the EPA to NOT make any rash, sweeping declarations that will accelerate the banning of leaded fuels.  There is a time when leaded fuels will be completely gone, and that will be to the benefit of us all, but that time isn't today or tomorrow.

It's important to understand that GAMI doesn't want to be or plan to be in the business of making or selling fuel.  We created a formula, which will be liscensed to someone else to make, distribute, and sell G100UL.  Go out to your airport and look at the name on the fuel truck.  That will be the same.  The little sticker that says 100LL will change to G100UL, but the big name on the side of the truck will still be what it is today.  They and the FBO will determine what you pay for that fuel.  We couldnt' demand a higher or lower price if we wanted to.

So, I don't have any clue what the PUMP PRICE will be.  However, I do have some detailed calulations of what the manufacturing costs will be.  Again, this is tied to volume.  At current, relatively low, volumes, the cost of manufacture may be about $0.80 per gallon higher than the cost to manufacture 100LL.  As volumes increase, and some materials sourcing improves, that may drop - maybe quite a bit, maybe not.  As with 100LL, that changes with the price of crude, and with the price and worldwide availability of the other constituent components.  There may also be some transportation savings.  There are some factors for and against that.   Some of those things we just can't know yet.

Jpt

Edited January 17, 2023 by John-Paul
Typo

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

You contradict yourself in the same post:

• "GAMI will be free to charge whatever high price they want"
• "And, yes, I’m aware GAMI doesn’t set pump price"

 

Not at all contradictory.  GAMI is NOT the only one in control of pump price; I thought that would be obvious, but happy to clarify that for you

To spell it out in more detail:

GAMI could add $0.80 to their cost/royalty per gallon or, if no competition, they could add $3.

After that, the rest of the supply chain can apply whatever markups they want in order to set the actual pump price.