GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[EricJ]

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.
 

 

[MooneyMitch]

17 minutes 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.

I'd make a strong bet, that theory has been discussed previously by many. 

[MooneyMitch]

6 hours ago, Hank said:

Nooo . . . . .

Ya gotta be a geezer to remember those days

[toto]

2 hours ago, Will.iam said:

I remember someone that used mobile fully synthetic oil but still kept to the 25 hour oil change and did not have any problems in their engine.

I used Mobil AV-1 for 2500 hours before doing a voluntary major OH.  This was with 50-hour intervals, had zero problems and perfect compressions, but was getting superstitious about living on borrowed time. See cases-of-oil photo from my hangar way up on page 1

[A64Pilot]

14 minutes ago, toto said:

I used Mobil AV-1 for 2500 hours before doing a voluntary major OH.  This was with 50-hour intervals, had zero problems and perfect compressions, but was getting superstitious about living on borrowed time. See cases-of-oil photo from my hangar way up on page 1

This is pretty much what I have been alluding to, Your not lying, nor are those that had problems, but clearly there was a problem, one that Mobil’s testing didn’t find, and you didn’t either. I did wonder about all those cases of oil  

I won’t try to state what the conditions were to cause the problem as I have no idea, but clearly in some instance severe problems occurred.

For roughly 30 years of my adult life has been testing aircraft, and one thing I learned early on is that you cannot drive the risk to zero, you ensure the best that you can you have covered all the bases but once in a blue moon you discover some condition wasn’t taken into account.

You really just don’t know for certain until the product has been out there in sufficient numbers for a significant time, then you begin to relax a little.

[A64Pilot]

Particularly the Germans made many different synthetic fuels, especially aviation fuel. It’s not hard to do, 100 / 130 was made way back I think in the 20’s, but cost I believe 20 times as much as 87, some Frenchman living in the US figured out how to crack petroleum and bring the cost way down.

The Swedes I’m nearly certain made a high octane UL fuel that met ASTM specs what 20 years ago? No STC drop in fuel.

I believe though the problem was $$$, but I don’t know.

The problem isn’t high octane, the problem is high octane at TEL prices, back in the 20’s when TEL was adopted, there were other ways, but I believe TEL was more economical.

Scroll down to evolution to 100 UL avgas

https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/04/a-history-of-aviation-gasoline/

[EricJ]

48 minutes ago, MooneyMitch said:

I'd make a strong bet, that theory has been discussed previously by many. 

Yeah, I'm looking now and that stuff is no secret at all.   There's tons of info on it, and while it did contain xylene (xylidine) it also contained lead (TEL).   Very interesting stuff, though.

 

[Shadrach]

3 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.

License fees to the production and distribution systems added to the fuel cost (like essentially everything else we buy in life) compensates the developers for their time and intellectual property.   No enforcement required, no hassles administering user permissions, etc., etc.  If fees for IP and other licenses were passed down to users on something like a cell phone, you'd be under a mountain of separate fees and use arrangements for all of the different incarnations of various included hardware, software, patents, copyrights, operator licenses, etc., etc.   Every other industry has figured out long ago that it is counter-productive to pass those down to the users.   I guess it is not surprising that general aviation is a place that may still be proposing to do so.

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.  

[MooneyMitch]

4 minutes ago, EricJ said:

Yeah, I'm looking now and that stuff is no secret at all.   There's tons of info on it, and while it did contain xylene (xylidine) it also contained lead (TEL).   Very interesting stuff, though.

Very interesting indeed.  I sure enjoyed the interview with Paul Millner. 

[MikeOH]

So, anyone know what the long term effects xylene has on the various materials used in fuel systems?

[MooneyMitch]

2 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

So, anyone know what the long term effects xylene has on the various materials used in fuel systems?

Wasn't that discussed in the Avweb Paul Millner interview?  Maybe I'm geezer hallucinating!

[1980Mooney]

7 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I have a basic understanding of the intricacies of octane (a chemical component of gasoline) vs Octane rating (any number of standards used to denote the measured detonation resistance of a fuel under compression). You said that from what you’ve read “G100UL is 98 octane or grade.  Or something like 98/140 with lean/rich rating.” I would like to see who made those claims and how they arrived at such a conclusion. Perhaps it was George himself, either way, I’d like to read it first hand.

 

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Sorry I can't remember where I read it.

Read the Patent and read the GAMI FAQ's.  Per the US Patent 10364399B2, G100UL is MON 96.0 Octane vs MON 99.6 for Grade 100LL.

Per extensive testing by GAM G100UL is 150-160+ octane in the Rich Test. (https://gami.com/g100ul/Excerpts_FAA_approved_Detonation_Test_Report_March_7_2021.pdf)

They ran their TCM IO-550 test engine continuously at 2550 RPM and at 33" MAP with OAT of 105 F and fuel temperatures of 110 F producing 380 HP in the Hot Day Rich tests with cylinder head temps of 431 F.

 

 

 

 

 

[RobertGary1]

It’s still interesting that there are some not cheering this. With 100LL ban looming we should offer GAMI a collective kiss.

[A64Pilot]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

It’s still interesting that there are some not cheering this. With 100LL ban looming we should offer GAMI a collective kiss.

We aren’t cheering it for a number of reasons.

1. it’s not an ASTM fuel, why not? makes me nervous. I prefer things that meet specs.

2. We don’t know what it’s going to cost. (this is I think the elephant)

3. It will very likely be the impetus for LL to go away, most concede the only reason it’s still around is there was no substitute, and we would prefer more than one fuel available and them tested before we lose LL

4. Some of us are uncomfortable with the apparent lack of fleet testing in different airframes in different conditions, freezing weather, high altitude, tied down in real heat like Tx or Arizona for a couple of months. 

5. Many believe there was nothing wrong with LL, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

[jaylw314]

4 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.  

Every thing you said made total sense up until that last sentence.  That would require some delusional optimism!  

[RobertGary1]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

We aren’t cheering it for a number of reasons.

1. it’s not an ASTM fuel, why not? makes me nervous. I prefer things that meet specs.

2. We don’t know what it’s going to cost. (this is I think the elephant)

3. It will very likely be the impetus for LL to go away, most concede the only reason it’s still around is there was no substitute, and we would prefer more than one fuel available and them tested before we lose LL

4. Some of us are uncomfortable with the apparent lack of fleet testing in different airframes in different conditions, freezing weather, high altitude, tied down in real heat like Tx or Arizona for a couple of months. 

5. Many believe there was nothing wrong with LL, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

Maybe it depends on where you live.  Without GAMI I would be surprised if 100LL would exist in 5 years in California. San Jose has banned it. Santa Monica has been under pressure to ban it. With the successful ban in San Jose his year the flood gates are open. 
The EPA has been fighting off Friends if the Earth and only held them off because they keep saying a 100LL substitute was close. 

[GeeBee]

4 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

We aren’t cheering it for a number of reasons.

1. it’s not an ASTM fuel, why not? makes me nervous. I prefer things that meet specs.

2. We don’t know what it’s going to cost. (this is I think the elephant)

3. It will very likely be the impetus for LL to go away, most concede the only reason it’s still around is there was no substitute, and we would prefer more than one fuel available and them tested before we lose LL

4. Some of us are uncomfortable with the apparent lack of fleet testing in different airframes in different conditions, freezing weather, high altitude, tied down in real heat like Tx or Arizona for a couple of months. 

5. Many believe there was nothing wrong with LL, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

ASTM fuel is a performance spec, not a formulation specification. G100UL is the first aviation fuel that has a guaranteed formulation.

As for testing, just a few of the tests

 

 

 

[GeeBee]

And a cold soak inflight restart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2nscsnKYyo&t=25s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2nscsnKYyo&t=27s

[toto]

6 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I did wonder about all those cases of oil  

Yeah there's about 40 cases sitting there collecting dust.  I should send this guy a picture:

https://www.synlube.com/MobilAV1special.htm

[jamesm]

Am I reading the STC list correct? I don't See O-360-A1D or A1A which most vintage models Mooney's run or IO-360-xx  in the STC list for the M20J. Also  I didn't see the Continental TIO-360-xxx used M20K model either.

The engine TCDS E-286 covers A1D but isn't called out specifically  in the STC. what am I missing ?

I would suspect they are working on it.

Thanks,

James '67C -A1D Engine

SE01966WI_AML-Amd1.pdf

[toto]

1 hour ago, RobertGary1 said:

The EPA has been fighting off Friends if the Earth and only held them off because they keep saying a 100LL substitute was close. 

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?

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Every thing you said made total sense up until that last sentence.  That would require some delusional optimism!  

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.

[toto]

7 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Particularly the Germans made many different synthetic fuels, especially aviation fuel. It’s not hard to do, 100 / 130 was made way back I think in the 20’s, but cost I believe 20 times as much as 87, some Frenchman living in the US figured out how to crack petroleum and bring the cost way down.

The Swedes I’m nearly certain made a high octane UL fuel that met ASTM specs what 20 years ago? No STC drop in fuel.

I believe though the problem was $$$, but I don’t know.

The problem isn’t high octane, the problem is high octane at TEL prices, back in the 20’s when TEL was adopted, there were other ways, but I believe TEL was more economical.

Scroll down to evolution to 100 UL avgas

https://airfactsjournal.com/2022/04/a-history-of-aviation-gasoline/

 

This AFJ article is interesting, thanks for posting.  The Hjelmco product you mentioned is interesting - I wonder why it was never submitted for approval outside Europe?

From the article:  

In 2006 Hjelmco introduced the unleaded grade 100 UL which at the same time was tested and evaluated by another European Civil Aviation Authority. Hjelmco states that the fuel meets ASTM avgas standard D910 parameters (100 LL standard) in all respects except for energy content (gives 1-2 % potential higher fuel consumption).

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, jamesm said:

Am I reading the STC list correct? I don't See O-360-A1D or A1A which most vintage models Mooney's run or IO-360-xx  in the STC list for the M20J. Also  I didn't see the Continental TIO-360-xxx used M20K model either.

The engine TCDS E-286 covers A1D but isn't called out specifically  in the STC. what am I missing ?

I would suspect they are working on it.

Thanks,

James '67C -A1D Engine

SE01966WI_AML-Amd1.pdf 254.17 kB · 3 downloads

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)

Edited September 9, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[jaylw314]

28 minutes 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?

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