GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

IMO, legal arguments often come down to semantics!

In practice the reason you need your 'own' STC is again, safety, the gap seals must be installed per your STC on YOUR airplane to 'prove' it's safe.

That is NOT the case with the FAA's universal approval for ALL piston engine planes; they have, by edict, approved ALL are safe to use G100UL.  No longer any point to an STC.

You nailed it!! Well said!!

[ArtVandelay]

If we don't protect IP, then we're China

But the IP is the fuel octane additives, that’s protected by a patent if he applied for one.
STC should be a statement of safety, this modification is safe for this airframe.

[toto]

Bertorelli has some interesting additional info on the G100UL developments. He quotes a $0.50 to $0.85 premium for G100UL at the pump, and also updates on launch plans for GAMI as well as the Swift products. 

AVweb: G100UL Triumphs: Now the Hard Part.
https://www.avweb.com/insider/g100ul-triumphs-now-the-hard-part/

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, MikeOH said:

To protect the inventor for a period of time to allow him to profit from his invention and get back his investment without having it stolen by a competitor, perhaps better capitalized to take advantage of it.

For like the TENTH time I would have ZERO issue with this if it were not for the MONOPOLY GAMI has been granted by the FAA.  Again, for like the TENTH time if 100UL remains available I have ZERO issue with George/GAMI making what they can.  I doubt, for all the reasons already beaten to death, that is going to be the case.

We will be a market FORCED to buy his product at whatever price he sets (no, not the pump price, but the price he demands for his IP/patents that WILL flow down to us at the pump) enforced, as some of you are apparently perfectly happy with, government ramp checkers!

How you are ok with this is simply beyond belief

How did the FAA give them a monopoly?

ANYONE can come up with a competing product, and sell it, once they jump through the hoops of approval.  But now, the actual path to that approval is clear, as they cannot change the path.

There is nothing stopping refineries from making and selling 100LL.  And if there is a market for it, they will.

GAMI is just the first with an approved product.

[GeeBee]

Remember the PAFI process? You had all the biggies in the petroleum business AND FAA Technical trying to make an unleaded fuel work. They failed because they submitted to a flawed process. Now along comes GAMI and Swift and they create what PAFI failed to produce. If you believe that there is a monopoly, you would get laughed out of court because you cannot cite a barrier to entry. In fact others tried and failed with government assistance no less, because of lack of technical prowess.

 

[A64Pilot]

20 minutes ago, toto said:

Bertorelli has some interesting additional info on the G100UL developments. He quotes a $0.50 to $0.85 premium for G100UL at the pump, and also updates on launch plans for GAMI as well as the Swift products. 

AVweb: G100UL Triumphs: Now the Hard Part.
https://www.avweb.com/insider/g100ul-triumphs-now-the-hard-part/

Interesting article, it seems to indicate that there is not a fleet currently using the stuff, so I take that to mean Embry Riddle isn’t. Sure would make me feel better if they were and they would be better situated than most to test with their own maintenance etc. I won’t be an early adopter myself, not because I think GAMI is trying to pull a fast one, but because I don’t think the FAA has done anything testing wise to ensure it’s safety. I feel most likely engines have been tested very well, but there is a lot more to a fuel system than an engine, ref a lot of boat fiberglass tanks dissolved from Ethanol for instance.

So what might GAMI fuel do to my STC’d bladders?

I remember Mobil 1 Av oil too well. So I’ll wait, but fear even if it does eat some components we won’t have a choice

[A64Pilot]

2 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Remember the PAFI process? You had all the biggies in the petroleum business AND FAA Technical trying to make an unleaded fuel work. They failed because they submitted to a flawed process. Now along comes GAMI and Swift and they create what PAFI failed to produce. If you believe that there is a monopoly, you would get laughed out of court because you cannot cite a barrier to entry. In fact others tried and failed with government assistance no less, because of lack of technical prowess.

 

My opinion is that no one in the industry wanted UL, there was no need for it. Nothing wrong with LL, it’s not a health hazard, now if Airliners burned it maybe, but our little airplanes use so little and the lead is so widely dispersed it’s not a health issue.

There has been a saying forever that drives Greenies nuts but is essentially true “ The solution to pollution is dilution”

I assume skeet ranges and gun ranges in general will be shut down because the amount of lead there is millions of times what it is at an airport, to say nothing about car batteries, fishing weights, car tire balance weights, all put more lead in the environment than our fuel does.

After a look at it I don’t think the Gami fuel will be hard to implement at all, I don’t think it will be blended at refiners but blended locally by Jobbers and I hope at the truck so 94UL can be bought for a $1 less than 100LL. Be nice to return Aviation to two fuels again.

But if profit overrides then it will be only the more expensive 100 for sale, we got used to it. This is why 80 Octane went away in my opinion, it was allowed a tiny bit of lead but didn’t need it, 80/87 isn’t hard to make lead free

[A64Pilot]

There are still issues that I assume have been addressed.

ALL modern aviation gasoline has always had two ratings, 80/87, 100/130, 115/145 etc. By modern I’m assuming maybe sometime after WWII, not say 21st Century

The first number is in a lean condition and the second in a rich condition 100LL is really 100/130. The detonation resistance does vary with mixture ratio especially with leaded fuels, see there is what’s called the lead bonus, which sort of means that even a little bit of lead significantly boost the fuels resistance to detonation at richer mixtures, UL fuel  may not perform nearly as well as fuel with just a little lead.

decent article explaining it I had to search for lead bonus, then lead bonus in aviation fuel 

https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/01/28/all-100-octane-fuels-are-not-equal/

Does this mean that the NA fleet will have problems? Surely not, but maybe the more highly boosted engines could.

Time will tell

[Pinecone]

9 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

There are still issues that I assume have been addressed.

ALL modern aviation gasoline has always had two ratings, 80/87, 100/130, 115/145 etc. By modern I’m assuming maybe sometime after WWII, not say 21st Century

The first number is in a lean condition and the second in a rich condition 100LL is really 100/130. The detonation resistance does vary with mixture ratio especially with leaded fuels, see there is what’s called the lead bonus, which sort of means that even a little bit of lead significantly boost the fuels resistance to detonation at richer mixtures, UL fuel  may not perform nearly as well as fuel with just a little lead.

decent article explaining it I had to search for lead bonus, then lead bonus in aviation fuel 

https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/01/28/all-100-octane-fuels-are-not-equal/

Does this mean that the NA fleet will have problems? Surely not, but maybe the more highly boosted engines could.

Time will tell

IIRC, G100UL tests out to over 130 rich.

So actually safer for boosted engines than 100LL.

I saw somewhere the warbird community is really looking forward to this fuel.

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, toto said:

Bertorelli has some interesting additional info on the G100UL developments. He quotes a $0.50 to $0.85 premium for G100UL at the pump, and also updates on launch plans for GAMI as well as the Swift products. 

AVweb: G100UL Triumphs: Now the Hard Part.
https://www.avweb.com/insider/g100ul-triumphs-now-the-hard-part/

I don't understand where these comments about price at the pump come from.

Braly never said the price at the pump will "be $0.65-$0.85 extra per gallon". In 2021 at AirVenture GAMI released a Q&A for G100UL .  They made a statement regarding "COST" when it leaves the producers plant or facility - And he qualified that cost increase was based upon $40-60 crude oil prices.  And he said the increased cost would vary with the price of crude. That was all quite dated at the time and in the rear view mirror now for the foreseeable future..

https://oac.ok.gov/sites/g/files/gmc221/f/GAMI Q and A 7 27 21 2 15 PM release.pdf

• "How much more than 100LL isG100UL avgas going to cost?
  • Current best estimates are that G100UL avgas will cost 60-85 cents/gallon more than 100LL as the fuel leaves the producer’s facility and begins to enter the stream of commerce. Estimates are based on crude oil pricing at 40-60 dollars/barrel, and will vary with the price of crude oil."

Note that his estimate is very dated and based upon $40-60/bbl crude oil prices. Crude has been and will be closer to $85-100/bbl.  His estimate was based on a median of $50 crude.  The current median is more like $92 crude. 

• That means the increased COST to produce G100UL will be more like $1.10 - $1.56 more than the cost to produce 100LL
• The PRICE that G100UL sells for at the pump is a whole different thing
  • Producers/Blenders will set a price to sell to the designated initial primary distributor, AvFuel
  • Wholesale price will be set by AvFuel first as they distribute to FBO's
  • Retail price to pilots/owners will be set by the FBO's

 

18 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

After a look at it I don’t think the Gami fuel will be hard to implement at all, I don’t think it will be blended at refiners but blended locally by Jobbers and I hope at the truck so 94UL can be bought for a $1 less than 100LL. Be nice to return Aviation to two fuels again.

But if profit overrides then it will be only the more expensive 100 for sale, we got used to it. This is why 80 Octane went away in my opinion, it was allowed a tiny bit of lead but didn’t need it, 80/87 isn’t hard to make lead free

Blending additives at the truck or fuel tank on the field will be a disaster.  There is no quality control or testing.  Many trucks and tanks at small FBO's are not especially well maintained.  Letting water get into the tanks is one thing.  Screwing up the additives (or not adding at all) will go undetected until your engine knocks itself to death.

And I don't understand the comment about being $1 cheaper -do you mean G100UL or 94UL,  In any case it appears that the additives that replace TEL are more expensive.

[A64Pilot]

5 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

IIRC, G100UL tests out to over 130 rich.

So actually safer for boosted engines than 100LL.

I saw somewhere the warbird community is really looking forward to this fuel.

That would be good, I didn’t know.

I don’t get any Aviation pubs, I got tired years ago reading articles that were rehashes from former ones cause face it except for avionics there isn’t much new, besides I can’t afford a new aircraft, or don’t want what’s new that I can.

But other than hearing about they are working on it, there hasn’t I don’t think been much news about this Gami or the Swift fuel. Suddenly it seems out of the blue maybe there was a change in the FAA leadership? But bang it’s approved across all models and ages of aircraft with as far as I can tell very little field testing. Maybe new fuel bladder material is different than 20 yr old bladder material that’s been soaking in 100LL? 

I would feel better if say Embry Riddle had been running it for the last year or so.

I will burn 100LL as long as possible until the early adopters have well tested it in real world conditions.

I say as long as possible because I do think the impetus of approval had more to do with being able to ban LL than anything else, the only thing that had stopped it from being banned was there was no substitute, now there is.

[toto]

3 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

I don't understand where these comments about price at the pump come from.

Braly never said the price at the pump will "be $0.65-$0.85 extra per gallon". In 2021 at AirVenture GAMI released a Q&A for G100UL .  They made a statement regarding "COST" when it leaves the producers plant or facility - And he qualified that cost increase was based upon $40-60 crude oil prices.  And he said the increased cost would vary with the price of crude. That was all quite dated at the time and in the rear view mirror now for the foreseeable future..

https://oac.ok.gov/sites/g/files/gmc221/f/GAMI Q and A 7 27 21 2 15 PM release.pdf

• "How much more than 100LL isG100UL avgas going to cost?
  • Current best estimates are that G100UL avgas will cost 60-85 cents/gallon more than 100LL as the fuel leaves the producer’s facility and begins to enter the stream of commerce. Estimates are based on crude oil pricing at 40-60 dollars/barrel, and will vary with the price of crude oil."

Note that his estimate is very dated and based upon $40-60/bbl crude oil prices. Crude has been and will be closer to $85-100/bbl.  His estimate was based on a median of $50 crude.  The current median is more like $92 crude. 

• That means the increased COST to produce G100UL will be more like $1.10 - $1.56 more than the cost to produce 100LL
• The PRICE that G100UL sells for at the pump is a whole different thing
  • Producers/Blenders will set a price to sell to the designated initial primary distributor, AvFuel
  • Wholesale price will be set by AvFuel first as they distribute to FBO's
  • Retail price to pilots/owners will be set by the FBO's

 

Blending additives at the truck or fuel tank on the field will be a disaster.  There is no quality control or testing.  Many trucks and tanks at small FBO's are not especially well maintained.  Letting water get into the tanks is one thing.  Screwing up the additives (or not adding at all) will go undetected until your engine knocks itself to death.

And I don't understand the comment about being $1 cheaper -do you mean G100UL or 94UL,  In any case it appears that the additives that replace TEL are more expensive.

The 50-80 estimate is from Paul Bertorelli, and he does not cite a source. His exact quote is:

"G100UL will be selling into a market where 100LL will be cheaper by an unknown amount probably around 50 to 80 cents"

This seems clearly to be talking about a price at the pump, but the "at the pump" wording was my own.  

[A64Pilot]

I expect a $1 if for no other reason than they can. Look at the huge differences in fuel prices from airport to airport now, based on they can, they have tested how high they can go before the higher price overrides the convince of getting it there.

But $1 I’ll grumble about but can live with, what other choice do I have, but $3 a gl or higher may have me selling, but I bet the prices of aircraft that have to have 100 octane will be severely depressed, because a bunch of us will be selling, and especially older lower priced aircraft will really take a hit, cause the person who fuel cost just doesn’t matter doesn’t want older and less expensive, they want shiny newer and glass 

I won’t get out of flying I’ll probably get some kind of LSA amphib that can burn car gas.

I bought my 140 soon after the LSA rule came out, LSA legal aircraft overnight prices sky rocketed, a 140 isn’t LSA legal and their prices were severely depressed because of it, so I bought it cheap, maybe high performance aircraft that need high octane fuel will go the same way?

[A64Pilot]

23 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

I don't understand where these comments about price at the pump come from.

Braly never said the price at the pump will "be $0.65-$0.85 extra per gallon". In 2021 at AirVenture GAMI released a Q&A for G100UL .  They made a statement regarding "COST" when it leaves the producers plant or facility - And he qualified that cost increase was based upon $40-60 crude oil prices.  And he said the increased cost would vary with the price of crude. That was all quite dated at the time and in the rear view mirror now for the foreseeable future..

https://oac.ok.gov/sites/g/files/gmc221/f/GAMI Q and A 7 27 21 2 15 PM release.pdf

• "How much more than 100LL isG100UL avgas going to cost?
  • Current best estimates are that G100UL avgas will cost 60-85 cents/gallon more than 100LL as the fuel leaves the producer’s facility and begins to enter the stream of commerce. Estimates are based on crude oil pricing at 40-60 dollars/barrel, and will vary with the price of crude oil."

Note that his estimate is very dated and based upon $40-60/bbl crude oil prices. Crude has been and will be closer to $85-100/bbl.  His estimate was based on a median of $50 crude.  The current median is more like $92 crude. 

• That means the increased COST to produce G100UL will be more like $1.10 - $1.56 more than the cost to produce 100LL
• The PRICE that G100UL sells for at the pump is a whole different thing
  • Producers/Blenders will set a price to sell to the designated initial primary distributor, AvFuel
  • Wholesale price will be set by AvFuel first as they distribute to FBO's
  • Retail price to pilots/owners will be set by the FBO's

 

Blending additives at the truck or fuel tank on the field will be a disaster.  There is no quality control or testing.  Many trucks and tanks at small FBO's are not especially well maintained.  Letting water get into the tanks is one thing.  Screwing up the additives (or not adding at all) will go undetected until your engine knocks itself to death.

And I don't understand the comment about being $1 cheaper -do you mean G100UL or 94UL,  In any case it appears that the additives that replace TEL are more expensive.

The $1 cheaper would be for the straight 94, because as you say the additives cost more. Oil cost more today than the comment of 65c to 85c, plus that’s cost, not sales price and not much is simply passed on, everything has a markup, hence the $1 guess, plus there are costs in distributing, storing, shipping and blending so maybe that $1 guess is naively optimistic.

Blending at the truck could be done easily unless it needs to sit for 24 hours or be at a perfect temperature or who knows what, we blend Prist at the truck for Jets now. But neither of us know what the level of difficulty in blending is nor the level of precision required, so your statement of it being a disaster is no more accurate than me saying perhaps we could blend it at the truck, except your saying it as if you know where I’m saying maybe.

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Interesting article, it seems to indicate that there is not a fleet currently using the stuff, so I take that to mean Embry Riddle isn’t. Sure would make me feel better if they were and they would be better situated than most to test with their own maintenance etc. I won’t be an early adopter myself, not because I think GAMI is trying to pull a fast one, but because I don’t think the FAA has done anything testing wise to ensure it’s safety. I feel most likely engines have been tested very well, but there is a lot more to a fuel system than an engine, ref a lot of boat fiberglass tanks dissolved from Ethanol for instance.

So what might GAMI fuel do to my STC’d bladders?

I remember Mobil 1 Av oil too well. So I’ll wait, but fear even if it does eat some components we won’t have a choice

Wise choice, but if the consensus on this forum is correct, 100LL is going to be rapidly made unavailable. I guess we just hope the consensus is wrong.

It also seems to me that MikeOH is consistently misunderstood although I don’t know how he could be more clear. He simply makes the point that if there are only two choices and the government eliminates one of them, that is in effect granting a monopoly to the surviving choice regardless of legal mumbo jumbo to the contrary. He also made it clear that if at least one competing choice were offered as one poster intimated would happen in Q1 2023, he would be quite satisfied. 

 

[Cruiser]

the actual production process is much easier. Any refinery can do it. 
NO need for purging and special handling
No issue with cross contaminations requiring dedicated tankers
No problem issue with switching product in the refinery.
So, the manufacturing and distribution portion of the process should be cheaper. 

[A64Pilot]

Yeah, I think the rather sudden blanket approval has more to do with it enabling lead to be banned than anything else myself.

But who knows maybe it’s superior in every way, will have zero problems and as it eliminates any special handling requirements lead has even cost less

[A64Pilot]

3 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

the actual production process is much easier. Any refinery can do it. 
NO need for purging and special handling
No issue with cross contaminations requiring dedicated tankers
No problem issue with switching product in the refinery.
So, the manufacturing and distribution portion of the process should be cheaper. 

If it’s just blending it won’t require a refinery it can be done locally at least the Jobber level, and as I understand it it won’t require a special lead only transportation system

[Shadrach]

16 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Well, thanks for the opinion on how prescient George is.  So, what?

Doesn't entitle him to a monopoly!

Understand, yet again, if the EPA does NOT ban 100LL or a competitor appears, then I have no problem with George getting whatever he can out of us as we will have a CHOICE.

FORCING us to purchase his product via government decree (EPA banning 100LL) is NOT a free-market and he does NOT deserve to benefit from such a decree issued simply because he provided the ONLY alternative to 100LL.

Talk to me after Q1 2023...if Swift fuels gets approval for their version and THEN the EPA bans 100LL I'll happily quit my bitchin'

So how would you suggest the FAA handle George Braly? He has created a viable alternative to a fuel that has been on its way out since I learned to fly in the 90s. You don’t like that George has the only fuel that has been approved and that he will have a defacto monopoly in states and municipalities that have restricted if not banned 100LL. What’s your solution? How do you create competition where all other entries to the market have failed? Do you think Braly had an easy time with this? Do you think the political sea was parted for him? Of all the shops working on a solution, his is likely the smallest and most meagerly capitalized. Now that he’s crossed the technical finish line in a highly regulated industry, he’s a would be petrochemical robber baron before he fuel has seen anything approaching mainstream distribution? 
 

What precisely would you propose as a solution? 

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

UL fuel  may not perform nearly as well as fuel with just a little lead.

Listen to the podcast.  Performs way better than required.

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Interesting article, it seems to indicate that there is not a fleet currently using the stuff, so I take that to mean Embry Riddle isn’t. Sure would make me feel better if they were and they would be better situated than most to test with their own maintenance etc. I won’t be an early adopter myself, not because I think GAMI is trying to pull a fast one, but because I don’t think the FAA has done anything testing wise to ensure it’s safety. I feel most likely engines have been tested very well, but there is a lot more to a fuel system than an engine, ref a lot of boat fiberglass tanks dissolved from Ethanol for instance.

So what might GAMI fuel do to my STC’d bladders?

I remember Mobil 1 Av oil too well. So I’ll wait, but fear even if it does eat some components we won’t have a choice

No, the Embry Riddle test are over. They used it and it worked, and worked well

https://www.avweb.com/ownership/embry-riddle-gami-g100ul-tests-looks-promising/

 

As to testing, the FAA has to rely on GAMI's test data because they are the only entity who has actually built a test cell to test the fuels.

[1980Mooney]

2 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I expect a $1 if for no other reason than they can. Look at the huge differences in fuel prices from airport to airport now, based on they can, they have tested how high they can go before the higher price overrides the convince of getting it there.

But $1 I’ll grumble about but can live with, what other choice do I have, but $3 a gl or higher may have me selling, but I bet the prices of aircraft that have to have 100 octane will be severely depressed, because a bunch of us will be selling, and especially older lower priced aircraft will really take a hit, cause the person who fuel cost just doesn’t matter doesn’t want older and less expensive, they want shiny newer and glass 

OK - Let's assume $1 increase in price due to the cost of unique additives.

But no one talks about the market reality of distribution - wholesale and retail

• AvGas sales nationwide are about 420,000/gallons per day
• That sounds robust but there are about 3600 FBO's nationwide
  • That means the average FBO only sells about 116 gallons per day - that is basically two (2) 55 gallon drums
    • I bet large convenience store/filling stations sell more beer than that every day.
    • That means the average FBO sells about 42,000 gallons for the entire year
•  The average FBO cannot afford to sell multiple grades of fuel - especially if one is unleaded and totally separate
  • A separate unleaded storage tank, fuel truck, self serve tank/pump will easily cost $100,000 or more (let's say amortized $20,000/year)
  • The incremental cost to maintain and insure a separate fuel line could easily be $20,000/year
  • Total annual cost of about $40,000 per year vs sales of about 42,000 gallons per year
  • A separate fuel sales line will cost the average FBO about an extra $1/gallon 
• The average FBO will probably stick with one grade.  And when they switch it will be all Unleaded

Think about the wholesale distribution

• 420,000 gallons per day AvGas is only 8,400 gallons per day for the average ENTIRE STATE
  • That is only about 75% of a gasoline tank truck per entire state daily.
• Once you start introducing Unleaded you need separate trucks - separate delivery - splitting an already small volume
  • COSTS WILL RISE
• The Economies of Logistics and Scale go to crap quickly - especially in the more sparsely populated geographically large states.
• The Market Reality is that once Unleaded is introduced and builds some scale wholesalers will start making the decision to ship only Unleaded - they will start snipping off 100LL deliveries to small distant low volume FBO's.

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Interesting article, it seems to indicate that there is not a fleet currently using the stuff, so I take that to mean Embry Riddle isn’t. Sure would make me feel better if they were and they would be better situated than most to test with their own maintenance etc.

It's in the podcast.  Braley said he has already been contacted by the largest flight schools who want to be first in line.  Wouldn't surprise me too much if they already were using it, but these days nothing can be concealed for long.

[A64Pilot]

32 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

OK - Let's assume $1 increase in price due to the cost of unique additives.

But no one talks about the market reality of distribution - wholesale and retail

• AvGas sales nationwide are about 420,000/gallons per day
• That sounds robust but there are about 3600 FBO's nationwide
  • That means the average FBO only sells about 116 gallons per day - that is basically two (2) 55 gallon drums
    • I bet large convenience store/filling stations sell more beer than that every day.
    • That means the average FBO sells about 42,000 gallons for the entire year
•  The average FBO cannot afford to sell multiple grades of fuel - especially if one is unleaded and totally separate
  • A separate unleaded storage tank, fuel truck, self serve tank/pump will easily cost $100,000 or more (let's say amortized $20,000/year)
  • The incremental cost to maintain and insure a separate fuel line could easily be $20,000/year
  • Total annual cost of about $40,000 per year vs sales of about 42,000 gallons per year
  • A separate fuel sales line will cost the average FBO about an extra $1/gallon 
• The average FBO will probably stick with one grade.  And when they switch it will be all Unleaded

Think about the wholesale distribution

• 420,000 gallons per day AvGas is only 8,400 gallons per day for the average ENTIRE STATE
  • That is only about 75% of a gasoline tank truck per entire state daily.
• Once you start introducing Unleaded you need separate trucks - separate delivery - splitting an already small volume
  • COSTS WILL RISE
• The Economies of Logistics and Scale go to crap quickly - especially in the more sparsely populated geographically large states.
• The Market Reality is that once Unleaded is introduced and builds some scale wholesalers will start making the decision to ship only Unleaded - they will start snipping off 100LL deliveries to small distant low volume FBO's.

IF it can be blended at the truck, then there is just one of everything, except a separate tank for the aromatics.

Again, just like Prist. I know not everyone has flown turbines but when the Jet-A truck shows up, your asked do you want the anti-icing / anti microbial additive or not, if yes they flip a switch and you pay a little more.

This is the 21st Century, it would be child’s play to ensure through flow meters if the correct mix ratio is obtained or not.

But I know nothing about the blending, perhaps it had to be done above 100F and mixed for an hour who knows? Not me.

[Shadrach]

I will be an early adopter of G1000UL when it becomes available. I have the tech to see how it compares to 100LL under operating conditions. I will be happy to eliminate TEL from my flying whenever possible. I had my lead levels tested about 10 years ago just to see the data. While still within “safe” levels for an adult, but there is more lead in my system than would be considered safe for a child. As someone who grew up around GA airplanes, it’s an almost certainty as to where it came from. Glad my kids are around GA but hoping they grow up as close to lead free as possible. I will not put them on belly cleaning duty until they understand how and why to protect themselves.