GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[1980Mooney]

1 hour 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. 

While there are 2 fuels in the retail chain - one Leaded 100LL and one unleaded G100UL or Swift 100R (if it ever really gets approved) there will need to be separate tanks and delivery AFTER THE POINT TEL IS ADDED.  It is a business liability issue given that municipalities and probably eventually the EPA will ban lead. 

Clearly GAMI has said it is compatible in your tanks and fuel lines - however there has not been a long term test.  We may wake up in 5-7 years and find out that G100UL or Swift 100R is slowly dissolving the seals on our wet wings  - and we will all be paying $10-15 K in the future for complete reseals while the fleet is largely grounded and backed up waiting for 3 bloody shops nationwide.

Who will you be suing then?  You may be saying "hey I have been using 100LL religiously for the past 5-7 years only flying to FBO's that still carry it.  How did this G100UL or Swift 100R crap get into my fuel tanks??!!  Are you (FBO and AvFuel distributor) telling me you shipped or filled tanks in alternate shipments with 100LL and G100UL without special handling?  Without purging and decontaminating?  Are you telling me that you cross contaminated the fuel supply chain out of ignorance, carelessness and laziness?"

Edited September 5, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[Fly Boomer]

3 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

We may wake up in 5-7 years and find out that G100UL or Swift 100R is slowly dissolving the seals on our wet wings  - and we will all be paying $10-15 K in the future for complete reseals while the fleet is largely grounded and backed up waiting for 3 bloody shops nationwide.

Maybe GAMI will get into the tank business?  Brilliant business strategy!

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

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.

Given the difficulty the industry has experienced in finding an unleaded blend that works for Internal Combustion aviation engines, I suspect that there is a high level of precision required - more so than Prist. 

Some of the people working the fuel trucks are not the most experienced - it might be a kid working part time...and some of the self serve pumps at some small airports are in pretty sad shape.  I am not going to trust either is blending "antiknock additives properly" at the truck or pump only find out that my engine is detonating on take-off with the family on board

Edited September 5, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[GeeBee]

It will be blended at the truck terminal, just like 100LL is now. They insert the TEL as they fill the tanker.

 

[ArtVandelay]

During the transition, the 100UL will need to be competitively priced, otherwise planes being planes will simply fly to airports with the cheaper 100LL. It won’t take a FBO long before they see a jump in sales and they won’t switch. Even a $1 difference will make many avoid the 100UL.
I don’t see the transition happening quickly…I’m thinking at least 10 years.
I also don’t think we’ve seen the last of ICE in cars, I’ll be surprised if it’s 50% by 2050.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, ArtVandelay said:

During the transition, the 100UL will need to be competitively priced, otherwise planes being planes will simply fly to airports with the cheaper 100LL. It won’t take a FBO long before they see a jump in sales and they won’t switch. Even a $1 difference will make many avoid the 100UL.
I don’t see the transition happening quickly…I’m thinking at least 10 years.
I also don’t think we’ve seen the last of ICE in cars, I’ll be surprised if it’s 50% by 2050.

You are assuming a level and static regulatory landscape.

 

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

You are assuming a level and static regulatory landscape.

 

Bingo, for both cars and Av fuel. All it will take is for Leaded fuel to be banned, bang overnight essentially no more leaded fuel. 100UL or no fly, you’ll pay whatever it costs, or no fly. if it’s not available, no fly

But I believe in free enterprise, I think if the price is high enough either another fuel will become available or methanol and water STC for NA guys , but it will take time.I’m hoping for the alcohol / water injection because it has the potential to break me from Av fuel entirely, although I’d prefer 94 UL.

My suspicion is that will happen soon as you have to admit without being political there has been a big shift in energy policy and or environmental policies lately, but even before that the only thing keeping LL alive was no suitable substitute, now there is the FAA has said so, without apparently testing themselves, but relying on the inventors tests. Hope that works.

I’m not so concerned about the engine but it’s possible affects on aged fuel systems. I’m thinking possibly bladders and hoses, tank sealer etc sitting for a couple of decades in LL are different than new articles

Same with the cars, you could either simply ban them or tax the fuel to the point except for classics no one could afford ICE anymore. The classics you don’t drive enough to matter.

What’s different with the cars is the rather very glaringly obvious fact that there is nowhere near enough electricity generating capacity to make it happen. Mandating EV’s without the charging infrastructure, and I’m not talking fast chargers, but a strong enough grid to support them makes as much sense as mandating people to stop breathing to reduce levels of CO2.

I just hope a gradual transition is allowed

[RobertGary1]

After the epa determination of endangerment a ban is next. That was the whole point of the finding of endangerment. With more places either already banning 100LL sale or considering it they can’t get this new fuel out fast enough. 

[Shadrach]

12 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

While there are 2 fuels in the retail chain - one Leaded 100LL and one unleaded G100UL or Swift 100R (if it ever really gets approved) there will need to be separate tanks and delivery AFTER THE POINT TEL IS ADDED.  It is a business liability issue given that municipalities and probably eventually the EPA will ban lead. 

Clearly GAMI has said it is compatible in your tanks and fuel lines - however there has not been a long term test.  We may wake up in 5-7 years and find out that G100UL or Swift 100R is slowly dissolving the seals on our wet wings  - and we will all be paying $10-15 K in the future for complete reseals while the fleet is largely grounded and backed up waiting for 3 bloody shops nationwide.

Who will you be suing then?  You may be saying "hey I have been using 100LL religiously for the past 5-7 years only flying to FBO's that still carry it.  How did this G100UL or Swift 100R crap get into my fuel tanks??!!  Are you (FBO and AvFuel distributor) telling me you shipped or filled tanks in alternate shipments with 100LL and G100UL without special handling?  Without purging and decontaminating?  Are you telling me that you cross contaminated the fuel supply chain out of ignorance, carelessness and laziness?"

The chemical properties of the tank sealants utilized in our aircraft are well understood. The ingredients in G100UL are not so exotic as to be an unknown. There is no doubt that any potential for adverse interactions were accounted for during testing. I think concerns over sealant breakdown under the circumstances border on silly.

[MikeOH]

10 hours ago, Pinecone said:

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

As long as refineries continue making an selling 100LL I do NOT have an issue with GAMI's STC.  It is if the EPA bans 100LL and there are NO other options besides GAMI, that is when there is de facto monopoly!  You either ground your plane or pay whatever GAMI and the fuel pump price demands.

If Swift, or others, come to market with alternative fuels before the EPA bans 100LL, I don't have an issue either; competition will exist.  Of course we will still be paying more than what we would have been paying for 100LL

[MikeOH]

8 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

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. 

 

@T. Peterson

Thank you!  I was beginning to think my prose was incomprehensible!

[MikeOH]

8 hours ago, Shadrach said:

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? 

Glad you asked!

My "solution" is that the EPA be prevented from banning 100LL UNTIL at least one other competitor shows up with another approved alternate fuel.  Simple.

And, yes, I think it HIGHLY likely that the "political seas" were parted for George (not that anyone cared it was George/GAMI...anyone would have been fine).

As I understand it, 100LL has been in a political 'hot potato' situation ever since the EPA banned leaded fuels; the government, likely under ever increasing pressure from the greenies, has been turning a blind eye to 100LL while dreaming for the day there was ANY other choice.  That day has arrived and my prediction is the EPA is going to trip over themselves banning 100LL as fast you've seen any government agency react!  Hell, Kalifornia cities are already doing it own their own!  And, without any real supporting data...but, since when do facts matter when you'll lie, cheat, and otherwise mislead to achieve your goal of shutting down an airport you don't want!

And, yes, I'm predicting George/GAMI is a potential, i.e. "would be" petrochemical robber baron.  What's to stop him?  And, don't tell me it's because you met him once and "he's just a swell guy that would never hurt a fly.". He's a very experienced businessman and trial attorney, and he didn't spend 12 years of his life just to make a "fair" profit; he's going to make as much profit as he can and I don't blame him one bit.

Competition fixes that; hence my solution above.

[MikeOH]

6 hours ago, ArtVandelay said:

During the transition, the 100UL will need to be competitively priced, otherwise planes being planes will simply fly to airports with the cheaper 100LL. It won’t take a FBO long before they see a jump in sales and they won’t switch. Even a $1 difference will make many avoid the 100UL.
I don’t see the transition happening quickly…I’m thinking at least 10 years.
I also don’t think we’ve seen the last of ICE in cars, I’ll be surprised if it’s 50% by 2050.

I agree; and that's how it SHOULD work.

Problem is, the EPA is going to BAN 100LL as soon as G100UL is available.

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, RobertGary1 said:

After the epa determination of endangerment a ban is next. That was the whole point of the finding of endangerment. With more places either already banning 100LL sale or considering it they can’t get this new fuel out fast enough. 

BINGO!

[Jerry 5TJ]

Just now, MikeOH said:

the EPA is going to BAN 100LL as soon as G100UL is available.

For years we feared the EPA would ban leaded avgas before any replacement was available.  
Now there is an alternative: Time to heave a sigh of relief.  
If the sole supply of TEL shuts down, or the refiners decide their liability exceeds the value, or if the EPA finally follows their mandate, we can still get a legal fuel for our internal combustion engines and fly our Mooney planes.  

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

For years we feared the EPA would ban leaded avgas before any replacement was available.  
Now there is an alternative: Time to heave a sigh of relief.  
If the sole supply of TEL shuts down, or the refiners decide their liability exceeds the value, or if the EPA finally follows their mandate, we can still get a legal fuel for our internal combustion engines and fly our Mooney planes.  

Before G100UL, or other alternate, there is NO way the EPA would ban 100LL; never even a distant fear.  GA is essential to our country...the EPA has been, and would have continued to, look the other way.

Yes, the single TEL supplier was a definite concern.  But, for reasons that escape me, they have chosen NOT to gouge us.  The status quo has worked fine, so I am NOT heaving any sigh of relief UNTIL I see how pricing works out for G100UL.

[Jerry 5TJ]

6 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

GA is essential to our country...

I’ve heard that said many a time  - but never outside GA.  

[A64Pilot]

The TEL supplier didn’t gouge because if he did another would spring up, TEL isn’t any kind of intellectual property.

Not that it matters but I’m nearly certain that technically LL has been refined since the 70’s illegally.

The feds passed a law that said leaded motor fuel will no longer be made or sold in the US. They didn’t say except for Avgas, merely an oversight I’m sure they weren’t after Avgas, that came later.

The prohibition of lead in auto fuel was really because catalytic convertors couldn’t work with leaded fuel, it was more to decrease pollution more than it was to get rid of lead.

Or maybe it was just coincidence that the first year for catalytic convertors was 1975 and leaded fuel that killed cats was banned in 1976.

Best that I can remember there was no large scale digging up every fuel tank that contained lead or new tanks installed or large scale clean up, just one day everybody was selling unleaded. At least in Georgia

[Shadrach]

24 minutes ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

I’ve heard that said many a time  - but never outside GA.  

In North America the supply chainS in the North Atlantic, Pacific Northwest and Alaska rely heavily on GA.

[jaylw314]

12 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

The TEL supplier didn’t gouge because if he did another would spring up, TEL isn’t any kind of intellectual property.

Not that it matters but I’m nearly certain that technically LL has been refined since the 70’s illegally.

The feds passed a law that said leaded motor fuel will no longer be made of sold in the US. They didn’t say except for Avgas, merely an oversight I’m sure they weren’t after Avgas, that came later.

I'm pretty sure the Clean Air Act of 1996 was specifically limited to leaded fuel produced and sold for street vehicles.  

[Shadrach]

18 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

The TEL supplier didn’t gouge because if he did another would spring up, TEL isn’t any kind of intellectual property.

Not that it matters but I’m nearly certain that technically LL has been refined since the 70’s illegally.

The feds passed a law that said leaded motor fuel will no longer be made or sold in the US. They didn’t say except for Avgas, merely an oversight I’m sure they weren’t after Avgas, that came later.

The prohibition of lead in auto fuel was really because catalytic convertors couldn’t work with leaded fuel, it was more to decrease pollution more than it was to get rid of lead.

Or maybe it was just coincidence that the first year for catalytic convertors was 1975 and leaded fuel that killed cats was banned in 1976.

Best that I can remember there was no large scale digging up every fuel tank that contained lead or new tanks installed or large scale clean up, just one day everybody was selling unleaded. At least in Georgia

Not coincidence. TEL will destroy a Catalytic Convertor is short order.

[GeeBee]

TEL requires the smelting of lead which is a very difficult process to get approved. 

In addition the manufacturer of TEL in the UK will be lucky to have power or fuel to smelt lead this winter. They are talking about rolling black outs and gas shortages that may leave many without heat. Right now the most googled term in Germany is "wood burning".

[GeeBee]

22 hours ago, MikeOH said:

So, did you EVER fly it during those 6 months?  If so, you intentionally violated the FARs with bad paperwork.  Gawd, if you'd had an accident your insurance would surely have denied any claims!

To answer your question directly. No. I had the engine out for overhaul at Gann. I used that time for analysis of a very complex set of logbooks, 337s and STC while adding several new including hp upgrade, STC to install upgraded engine into airframe, move the oil cooler, install a different alternator, install an engine analyzer. There is 5 right there. Oh I forgot, SS exhaust and a different muffler system. Add 2 more.

[RobertGary1]

I see this as a temporary reprieve. In a couple years the epa will certainly ban lead. However we already have gas car bans on the books. The friends of the earth will undoubtedly shift their concern to the hazard's of gas engine exhaust falling on the poor kids under the airport. The next step is to get out of fossil fuels in aviation. Fortunately I think that ban will be closer to the sunset time of most here. 

[A64Pilot]

39 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

To answer your question directly. No. I had the engine out for overhaul at Gann. I used that time for analysis of a very complex set of logbooks, 337s and STC while adding several new including hp upgrade, STC to install upgraded engine into airframe, move the oil cooler, install a different alternator, install an engine analyzer. There is 5 right there. Oh I forgot, SS exhaust and a different muffler system. Add 2 more.

As an IA on older aircraft I have never seen a clean set of books, there is always something there that’s not documented. For example my 140 had a C-150 alternator with no paperwork of any kind, it’s not uncommon. It now has a plane power which of course come with an STC, the STC is paid for when you buy the Alt, that’s very common, you get the STC included with the price of the product.

I wouldn’t be shocked if the Gami fuel STC is essentially free, if the money is in royalties, he’s not after your $100, but your continued royalties. Many things are that way now, Microsoft doesn’t want to sell you software, they want you paying so much a month forever to use it. Many could burn car gas, but if the STC is low priced or free, then maybe they will just burn your fuel.

Plus he gets a shed load of good will, and that’s worth something.

Who knows?