Jump to content

GAMI Unleaded gets approval


Joe Larussa

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Are you getting your info from the GAMI site?  There are 17 pages of engines - 244 engine "families" in total - just eyeballing it looks like 1-2 thousand engines.  There are 62 variants of the O-360 listed for instance in that "family".

This was also back on page 14 in this thread.  You may be looking at the AML from last year (when the STC was originally approved) for only low compression engines

General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (gami.com)

Microsoft Word - SA01967WI_AC AML_pages (gami.com)

Microsoft Word - SE01966WI_AML Amd2_pages (gami.com)

Untitled360.png.10edc5d15b70bdb40fa58cfdc1f0b6ae.png

Does the term "Spark ignition" cover SureFly SIM electronic ignition module/magneto ?

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/7/2022 at 7:36 PM, toto said:

I hadn't seen much reference to the GAMI patent before in this thread, but in case anyone needs some bedside-table reading:

https://patents.google.com/patent/US8628594B1/en

That is NOT the correct patent.  That is an earlier patent by Braly in 2014.

The correct patent is US 010364399B2.  It was applied for in 2017 and awarded July 30, 2019

The PDF is easier to read.  https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/44/31/62/4c121e3b946012/US10364399.pdf

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10364399B2/en

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2022 at 3:50 PM, toto said:

I know I'm way out of my depth if I'm citing Wikipedia but here goes :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromatic_compound

This reads basically "blah blah benzene blah blah" to me.

 

1 hour ago, toto said:

As a layperson, swapping a lead avgas additive for a benzene avgas additive doesn't sound like a clear win for public health.  Do you know whether Friends of the Earth has a position on G100UL?

 

1 hour ago, jaylw314 said:

Washing my hands with benzene in organic chemistry lab notwithstanding, there is overwhelming evidence that no level of lead is safe.  That being said, don't wash your hands with benzene :) 

Let's STOP talking about free Benzene.  There is no free benzene in the fuel.  They are using Dimethyl and Trimethylbenzenes in these unleaded blends.  Toluene (in current 100LL) is METHYLBENZENE.  Xylene (in GAMI G100UL) is DIMETHYLBENZENE.   

Paul Millner mentions that Swift is using Trimethylbenzene to boost octane.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/june/pilot/unleaded-avgas

They are not toxic and not carcinogens. You can buy Toluene and Xylene at Home Depot or a paint store. Trimethylbenzenes are also safe

Trimethylbenzenes - Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals - NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov)

  • 2. HUMAN TOXICITY DATA

    2.1. Acute Lethality

    No reports of human fatalities or acute poisoning from TMB were found.

  • 2.6. Carcinogenicity

    No information was found regarding the potential carcinogenicity of pure TMB in humans. None of the TMB isomers have been classified by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Let's get a grip and stop spreading false fears.

Edited by 1980Mooney
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

Let's get a grip and stop spreading false fears.

Goodness gracious, I’m not trying to spread false fears. I don’t know a free benzene from an expensive one. I was just looking for people with more knowledge to respond, and I very much appreciate the info. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - no one has highlighted that engine compression will be able to rise with the introduction of G100UL.  Warbirds, that were detuned with the demise of 115/145 octane purple, will be able to go back to wartime power performance.  You will be able to run the HO (10.0 to one) pistons again in the Lycoming IO-360 without fear of detonation.  

Synthetic oils...higher compression...no lead deposits - maybe our engines will start to enter the 21st century.

Edited by 1980Mooney
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, jamesm said:

Does the term "Spark ignition" cover SureFly SIM electronic ignition module/magneto ?

Thanks

Why wouldn't it?   The idea of "spark ignition" piston engines is to distinguish them from diesel piston engines (like on the DA62 et al), which burn turbine oil (Jet A).

The new unleaded fuels are supposed to be all-encompassing to non-diesel reciprocating engines, essentially anything that currently burns avgas, so that covers electronic or magneto ignition.

I've been a little amused that many of the documents cite they are for "spark ignition piston engines", which would not cover rotary or other alternative architectures which may exist, especially in some experimental aircraft.  ;)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

They are not toxic and not carcinogens. You can buy Toluene and Xylene at Home Depot or a paint store. Trimethylbenzenes are also safe

Thanks for clarifying!  Although in fairness, saying they are not toxic is not accurate, since everything (almost) is toxic at a certain level.  It's like that old saying, "the dose makes the poison", not the label.  As it turns out, there have been plenty of examples of deaths from toluene and xylene toxicity, but they're pretty unrealistic for most people.  That is what's different about lead--unlike most chemicals, some type of toxicity has been found at typical environmental exposure levels

Also, claiming they are not carcinogens is about as inaccurate as claiming they are carcinogens.  Like 99% of chemicals out there, there's insufficient information, although the I'd agree it's probably more likely they aren't.

Edited by jaylw314
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washing your hands in organic solvents went out of style in the 80s….

Putting up signs reminding people that dead dinosaurs are dangerous… but not as dangerous as the live ones…  must be a California thing… :)

Most people on the east coast stopped reading signs shortly after the day they got posted…. Memory of what the sign says lasts about a month, if they read it…
 

Anything good… gets banned in Boston first….

If launching a new product, service, or rock album…. Send it to Boston…. Get it banned.  Then launch it everywhere else…

The free promotion will have everyone talking about it…

Sooner or later even the good people in Boston overcome the parental banning….

 

Soooo…..

We have two fuels…

1) one is in existence already… not banned except a few mis-informed places…

2) the other MAY be better… nobody knows for sure…

 

We will have a few types of responses…

1) There will be some early adopters…

2) There will be some late adopters…

3) There will be some non-adopters…

 

i have one foot in the wishful camp of hoping this works out well…

another foot in the pragmatic camp of holding off until the results are in…

 

Try not to breathe this stuff… weather it has lead or not…

Be sure to have anti-oxidants in your diet in case you do breathe in…  :)
 

Wait…

Last questions of the day….

In Kalifornia… do they actually post signs near the beach… that UV rays from the sun cause skin cancer…?

They should be all over the place near Newport Beach!

 

What if you drive a convertible?

There should be a placard… wearing a hat is required on sunny days. :)

If you subject kids to going to the beach, in a convertible… you are a Monsta!

 

Somebody will want to regulate this… The nice officer pulls you over to make sure your kids have proper sunscreen on….

 

Good Morning,

-a-

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

Thanks for clarifying!  Although in fairness, saying they are not toxic is not accurate, since everything (almost) is toxic at a certain level.  It's like that old saying, "the dose makes the poison", not the label.  As it turns out, there have been plenty of examples of deaths from toluene and xylene toxicity, but they're pretty unrealistic for most people.  That is what's different about lead--unlike most chemicals, some type of toxicity has been found at typical environmental exposure levels

Also, claiming they are not carcinogens is about as inaccurate as claiming they are carcinogens.  Like 99% of chemicals out there, there's insufficient information, although the I'd agree it's probably more likely they aren't.

True - Water, table salt and baking soda are toxic to humans at high enough levels...

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16614865

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_poisoning

Edited by 1980Mooney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, EricJ said:

Here's an interesting thought if you want some more FUDD (fear, uncertainty, doubt, and drama) in the mix.    In this vid it is mentioned multiple times that a 100/150 octane "fighter fuel" developed in the 1940s was essentially the same formulation as G100UL.   If this is true and the technical details are sufficiently available for somebody to reproduce it, it would be clear of any patents or other intellectual property held by anybody else since it would essentially be prior art.

Anyway, it's just another possibility of something that could happen.   There are apparently several alternatives in the pipeline anyway, and it'll be interesting to see which ones become reality and when.
 

 

 

Yeap, all you have to do is to get it certified or jump through the testing hoops to get an STC for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Thanks for clarifying!  Although in fairness, saying they are not toxic is not accurate, since everything (almost) is toxic at a certain level.  It's like that old saying, "the dose makes the poison", not the label.  As it turns out, there have been plenty of examples of deaths from toluene and xylene toxicity, but they're pretty unrealistic for most people.  That is what's different about lead--unlike most chemicals, some type of toxicity has been found at typical environmental exposure levels

Also, claiming they are not carcinogens is about as inaccurate as claiming they are carcinogens.  Like 99% of chemicals out there, there's insufficient information, although the I'd agree it's probably more likely they aren't.

Look at all the people who are killed by dihydrogen monoxide. I bet it doesn’t mix well in g100ul either 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a couple of grade V Titanium bolts for my motorcycle the other day, came in a heat sealed plastic bag that had the California warning about cancer sticker.

Lord I hope not, both my knees are largely grade V Titanium, think the warning was for the little bag?

You can’t make this stuff up.

But if you Google aromatics in auto fuel, there sure seem to be a whole lot of folks up in arms over aromatics and health concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

 

I don't know about the beach, but.......

 

 

disney prop 65 jpg.jpg

Yep, that’s the sign EVERYWHERE in Kalifornia.

They should make it the state motto and just put signs on the highways into the state that read “WARNING: The state of California contains chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects”

Save everybody a lot of trouble!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I agree with you.  Not to mention, the STC process was never intended to be used in this manner.  It was designed as a means to approve major modifications and alterations from the type certificate on individual aircraft.  It was not designed to be the only means by which the entire GA fleet continues to operate after the only fuel approved in the TCDS is regulated out of existence.  It has been the stated goal of both federal and state authorities to eliminate 100LL.  This is an unprecedented situation that could affect the whole fleet.  The approval framework should take that into consideration.  If that requires an act of congress, so be it.  

 

11 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Shadrach will correct me if I misunderstood, but I believe he is pointing out that the STC rules are being shamelessly abused in this fuel application. Therefore, instead of rolling over or abandoning certified airplanes we ought to put pressure on the government to adjust the rules to prevent this abuse.

 

On 9/7/2022 at 10:50 PM, hais said:

Then I won't buy the STC so that I can witness 1st hand the poor enforcer tasting the fuel :)

 

22 hours ago, EricJ said:

This is one of many reasons why I don't think STC fees to use the proposed unleaded fuels are practical.   Nobody is going to want to enforce it, enforcement adds cost to whoever is asked to enforce it, many of the potential enforcers would be placed in a conflict of interest to do so, etc., etc.
...  I guess it is not surprising that general aviation is a place that may still be proposing to do so.

Aviation fuel STC's have been around longer than most here on MS has been flying.  The Petersen Fuel STC was introduced in 1983 and claims over 39,000 purchased and issued. The Swift Fuel STC was introduced in 2015.  Petersen charges $1.50/HP and Swift started out at $400 but is now $100.  GAMI said they will follow typical fuel STC pricing.

Why all the angst, outrage and vitriol now over a measly one time maybe $300 for mid and short bodies, maybe about $450 for long bodies or maybe it will be $100.  We pay more than that for virtually anything on our planes or any annual subscription for data that expires.  The carping about the long established use of fuel STC's seems disingenuous. 

This is great day for GA.  This will extend the life of our fleet.  We have a superior fuel with higher energy content that will allow modern synthetic oil, higher compression, cleaner burning with less maintenance that may ultimately extend TBO. Braly/Roehl/GAMI are the classic American capitalistic success story.  They are the "Davids" that persevered with their own investment and successfully did what the "Giants" (Shell, Chevron, BP, Total,  FAA Coordinating Research Council ( CRC ) Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development 1992-2007, FAA PAFI, etc.)  couldn't do.  They created both a technical success and successfully navigated the regulatory process.  Their reward is well deserved.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

 

 

 

Aviation fuel STC's have been around longer than most here on MS has been flying.  The Petersen Fuel STC was introduced in 1983 and claims over 39,000 purchased and issued. The Swift Fuel STC was introduced in 2015.  Petersen charges $1.50/HP and Swift started out at $400 but is now $100.  GAMI said they will follow typical fuel STC pricing.

Why all the angst, outrage and vitriol now over a measly one time maybe $300 for mid and short bodies, maybe about $450 for long bodies or maybe it will be $100.  We pay more than that for virtually anything on our planes or any annual subscription for data that expires.  The carping about the long established use of fuel STC's seems disingenuous. 

This is great day for GA.  This will extend the life of our fleet.  We have a superior fuel with higher energy content that will allow modern synthetic oil, higher compression, cleaner burning with less maintenance that may ultimately extend TBO. Braly/Roehl/GAMI are the classic American capitalistic success story.  They are the "Davids" that persevered with their own investment and successfully did what the "Giants" (Shell, Chevron, BP, Total,  FAA Coordinating Research Council ( CRC ) Unleaded Aviation Gasoline Development 1992-2007, FAA PAFI, etc.)  couldn't do.  They created both a technical success and successfully navigated the regulatory process.  Their reward is well deserved.

The cause of my angst is simple:

 I’m perfectly happy buying and flying with 100LL.

I do NOT want to be FORCED to pay more to accomplish the same thing!

Is that really so difficult to understand?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Aviation fuel STC's have been around longer than most here on MS has been flying.  The Petersen Fuel STC was introduced in 1983 and claims over 39,000 purchased and issued. The Swift Fuel STC was introduced in 2015.  Petersen charges $1.50/HP and Swift started out at $400 but is now $100.  GAMI said they will follow typical fuel STC pricing.

I'm not up in arms over anything.  I am merely pointing out that the STC process was designed to allow the approval of individual make/models to be modified or operate outside the specifications in the TCDS.  What we have here is a situation where state and local governments have called for the wholesale abolition of the only approved fuel listed in the TCDS of every spark ignition certified aero-engine in existence.  The FAA has been calling for a "drop in" replacement. Forcing all operators to buy an STC or cease operating is not a drop in replacement.  If 100LL is banned, any operator that can't use mogas will be compelled to buy the STC if they wish to continue operations.  Has the FAA done anything like that in the past?  It's not about $300, it's about the principle. It's a very slippery slope to compel behavior for reasons that have no bearing on the safety of operations. Would it be OK if the STC cost $10,000?  Just because the cost is reasonable does not mean it sets a good precedent.  

Moreover, what if Swift gets approval in the coming months and begins distribution as well?  Are airports going to carry both? Will you need to have multiple STCs in order to by fuel at the various airports along your route?  

  • 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.