Jump to content

GAMI Unleaded gets approval


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

The issue is government overreach. If the government in their legitimate regulatory oversight says, “yep, this is good gas, safe to use in airplane engines, passes all our testing and is good to go.” Why in the world do I have to buy a special license to use that fuel? Especially if I have no other choice due to the regulatory power of that same government!

Because of the way the rules are written.

You cannot use common sense, you have to follow the rules.  And the rules are meeting the ASTM standard, creating an new standard (not FAA) and getting it accepted, or the STC process.

Where in the laws or regulations does it allow the FAA to ad hoc change the fuel rules for all aircraft?

And the engine and aircraft manufacturers (those that are still in business) would not want the responsibility (liability) of approving the fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it’s pretty simple, but these are all speculations.

The Gami fuel either can’t or would be too expensive to meet ASTM specs, by expensive I mean to pay for the Certification. But I suspicion it can’t meet specs, doesn’t mean it’s not good, just may have some differences.

Car gas can’t meet specs either as car gas is manufactured to its own, looser specs, it’s composition changes during the year and by location, but it was recognized that the old little motors that were Certified on 73 Octane fuel could easily and safely burn the stuff.

So it is allowed under an STC, some mostly newer aircraft do require modifications to burn it, these mods are mostly concerned with preventing vapor lock, but it’s not necessarily a drop in as some aircraft require additional fuel pumps, cooling ducts etc.

So there is a precedent of allowing fuel under an STC, and the FAA is big about allowing a level playing field, example one manufacturer of a Restricted category aircraft designs pre-dated FAR 23, a newer manufacture came into being, but had to comply with FAR 23 as FAR 23 was accepted prior to the aircraft being designed, they petitioned the FAA that it’s not an equal playing field if they have to comply and the other guy didn’t, the FAA agreed and relaxed many of the FAR 23 rules for the new guy.

So the new fuel meets or exceeds whatever company tests were done and the FAA has allowed its use under an STC because I’m sure that they had done so before.

Gami hopefully has some form of quality control over the production of its fuel, the car gas STC’s of course don’t and can’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dominikos said:

Wouldn’t ability to send it through pipelines instead of trucking potentially offset some of the increase?

The previously posted AvWeb vid with Paul Millner (a petrochemical executive/engineer with refining experience) indicated that it still can't be sent through pipelines.    Apparently there is intermix bleed between different loads in pipelines and since avgas is a small fraction of the transport load the intermix becomes a problem since it can't be used for anything else.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Because of the way the rules are written.

You cannot use common sense, you have to follow the rules.  And the rules are meeting the ASTM standard, creating an new standard (not FAA) and getting it accepted, or the STC process.

Where in the laws or regulations does it allow the FAA to ad hoc change the fuel rules for all aircraft?

And the engine and aircraft manufacturers (those that are still in business) would not want the responsibility (liability) of approving the fuel.

“Where in the laws or regulations does it allow the FAA to ad hoc change the fuel rules for all aircraft?”
I don’t know, but did this whole thread not start because the Feds just did exactly that? 

At any rate, I’m over it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, carusoam said:

Sufffffferrring….  -yoda.  :)

 

+1 in the column for it’s an opportunity…

-1 in the column if it’s mandatory…

+1 in the column if it’s really as good as described…

 

This is soooo good… the entire population of Kalifornia would want us to use it….

So… let’s say the STC is going to cost $400….

Wouldn’t the CA government want to issue you a credit equal to that cost?

A tax holiday for your annual ownership fees…. For eliminating your use of LL… on your time schedule… at your decision…

 

It looks like MS just solved the problem of the added costs for the STCs….   :)
 

 

Next up…

we still have the challenge of running out of fuel….

Looks like we add to this challenge when the fuel you want isn’t everywhere…

pushing the limit of the fuel tanks to get to an airport further than the closest one… sounds like another problem brewing…

Humans are known to be pretty crummy with actual fuel levels and distance to a good airport…

 

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

Excellent work O mighty Maestro of the bullet point!!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/10/2022 at 12:21 PM, GeeBee said:

Gami hopefully has some form of quality control over the production of its fuel, the car gas STC’s of course don’t and can’t.

A quality control plan is a requirement of the STC.

I understand they probably, no certainly had to write a quality control manual, but this will be blended by non aviation companies. Having been in the position of accepting parts from non aircraft sources I can attest to the value of continuous audits

Just playing devils advocate, time will tell, until we start burning it and have done so for a significant times it’s all speculation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

100LL is blended by non-aviation companies. It is blended at the truck terminal as it goes in the tank hatch, just as ethanol is added to auto fuel. Maybe, continuous audits is where some of that extra price/gal is going. In any event, I don't see where QC is any worse or better than it is now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

100LL is blended by non-aviation companies. It is blended at the truck terminal as it goes in the tank hatch, just as ethanol is added to auto fuel. Maybe, continuous audits is where some of that extra price/gal is going. In any event, I don't see where QC is any worse or better than it is now.

 

I know a few folks in the Comanche community that are skeptical of the QC regarding current 100LL supply. Anecdotal evidence that bladders are requiring premature replacement compared to the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/9/2022 at 11:33 PM, dominikos said:

Wouldn’t ability to send it through pipelines instead of trucking potentially offset some of the increase?

 

On 9/10/2022 at 10:43 AM, EricJ said:

The previously posted AvWeb vid with Paul Millner (a petrochemical executive/engineer with refining experience) indicated that it still can't be sent through pipelines.    Apparently there is intermix bleed between different loads in pipelines and since avgas is a small fraction of the transport load the intermix becomes a problem since it can't be used for anything else.

I think we as pilot/plane owners somehow think the scale of General Aviation is much larger than it really is.  We lose sight of what a really tiny shrinking minority we are as consumers in the economy.

Aviation Gasoline sales average about 413,000 gallons per day.  At first thought that seems pretty large.  But:

  • The FAA has identified 3,300 airports in their 2021 Plan that are considered for Federal Funding.
    • THAT IS ONLY 125 GALLONS PER AIRPORT PER DAY on average.
      • That is less than 2.5 typical liquid drums (55 gal.)
      • THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO 222 SIX-PACKS OF BEER
        • Large filling station/convivence stores in Texas sell more beer than that every day.
    • If you think about it on a statewide basis that is 8,260 gallons per day for each state on average
      • That seems sizeable but the average gasoline tank truck hauls 11,600 gallons
        • That's only 70% of one truck per day per entire state.
        • By comparison there are 110 full tank trucks of milk per state rolling to dairies every day. 
  • If you compare it to automobile gasoline - Automobile Gasolines sales are 370,000,000 gallons per day ( that’s hundreds of Millions per day - not hundreds of thousands)
    • That is 900 times AvGas sales.  Said another way more Auto Gasoline is sold in 10 hours of one day than AvGas for an entire year.
    • There are only about 6 refineries producing AvGas nationwide. Millner in the video said that the quantities are so small that even the refineries produce AvGas in batches.  
      • Pipelines only connect so far and then the fuel needs to be distributed in many directions.  
        • Products in pipelines are separated with pigs pushing it along.  The inner pipe surfaces are not perfect and the pigs leak (bleed) along with some material clinging to the miles of pipe surface.  
        • The "intermix loss" on a small shipment is substantial.  
          • This "intermix" is a contamination which has to be trucked back to the refinery for redistillation.

Pipelines make no practical or economic sense for AvGas.  We are therefore stuck with the inefficiencies of truck distribution

 

avgas.png.0dcbee1aebb066dd6b2fc092db32cd13.png

Edited by 1980Mooney
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry if this has been discussed, but something occurred to me.

G100UL has some similarities to auto fuel, being a mixture of gasoline base stock (alkylate) and a mixture of aromatics to boost octane.

I00LL is just gasoline and TEL. As it ages it mostly evaporates all at the same rate. The gasoline evaporates faster then the TEL so as the 100LL gets older, the octane goes up.

Car gas is made up of a witches brew of different chemicals, which all evaporate at different rates, so it changes its composition over time.

We all know how nasty car gas gets if you let it set in the tank. I think G100UL may have the same stability issues as car gas.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Sorry if this has been discussed, but something occurred to me.

G100UL has some similarities to auto fuel, being a mixture of gasoline base stock (alkylate) and a mixture of aromatics to boost octane.

I00LL is just gasoline and TEL. As it ages it mostly evaporates all at the same rate. The gasoline evaporates faster then the TEL so as the 100LL gets older, the octane goes up.

Car gas is made up of a witches brew of different chemicals, which all evaporate at different rates, so it changes its composition over time.

We all know how nasty car gas gets if you let it set in the tank. I think G100UL may have the same stability issues as car gas.

I believe Muller in the video highlighted that the alkylate in automobile gasoline is of much lower quality and lower octane than what GAMI is using.  I think he said that GAMI sources it from a chemical supplier in Europe.  Also auto gasoline is loaded with at least 10% Ethanol.  GAMI will not have that "witches brew" of crap in auto gasoline.  In any case they have been conducting tests now for years in Oklahoma where it is bloody hot.  I have to believe that they have conducted shelf life and evaporation tests. 

Now you may be right that G100UL doesn't have the same 3-5 year shelf life of 100LL - but what does?!

Edited by 1980Mooney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

I believe Muller in the video highlighted that the alkylate in automobile gasoline is of much lower quality and lower octane than what GAMI is using.  I think he said that GAMI sources it from a chemical supplier in Europe.  Also auto gasoline is loaded with at least 10% Ethanol.  GAMI will not have that "witches brew" of crap in auto gasoline.  In any case they have been conducting tests now for years in Oklahoma where it is bloody hot.  I have to believe that they have conducted shelf life and evaporation tests. 

Now you may be right that G100UL doesn't have the same 3-5 year shelf life of 100LL - but what does?!

Let’s hope that that the substance that makes up the bulk of G100UL can be made at any oil refinery and doesn’t need to be shipped from Europe.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1)  G100UL does have a "brew."  Just like 100LL, there is a light fraction to provide enough vapor pressure so that it will start in the winter.  That fraction would evaporate before the base alkylate.

2)  ALL the components of G100UL can from just about any refinery.  They just have to adjust their factionation points to produce the proper alkylate.  The rest is normal stuff.

3)  GAMI did a 3+ year test with sealed and vented barrels in FL.  The fuel was fine after 3 years.  100LL is specified to have a 1 year shelf life, even though it does last longer.

4)  Car gas is not a "witches brew" be mixing, it is just a less critical cut of the distillation process.  Just like ethanol to be mixed into auto fuel is not as tight a cut as ethanol intended to be a fine whisky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

1)  G100UL does have a "brew."  Just like 100LL, there is a light fraction to provide enough vapor pressure so that it will start in the winter.  That fraction would evaporate before the base alkylate.

2)  ALL the components of G100UL can from just about any refinery.  They just have to adjust their factionation points to produce the proper alkylate.  The rest is normal stuff.

3)  GAMI did a 3+ year test with sealed and vented barrels in FL.  The fuel was fine after 3 years.  100LL is specified to have a 1 year shelf life, even though it does last longer.

4)  Car gas is not a "witches brew" be mixing, it is just a less critical cut of the distillation process.  Just like ethanol to be mixed into auto fuel is not as tight a cut as ethanol intended to be a fine whisky.

Car gas may have some or all of the following in different concentrations to get the formulation of the day along with other additives. 

100LL is mostly Alkylate (the good stuff), but then G100UL is also, they are just adding more BTX to raise the octane number.

if GAMI did the shelf life tests, then that's good. I hope it works out.

 

The following are refinery jargon and not necessarily scientific terms.

  • Straight-run gasoline, commonly referred to as naphtha, is distilled directly from crude oil. Once the leading source of fuel, its low octane rating required lead additives. It is low in aromatics (depending on the grade of the crude oil stream) and contains some cycloalkanes (naphthenes) and no olefins (alkenes). Between 0 and 20 percent of this stream is pooled into the finished gasoline because the quantity of this fraction in the crude is less than fuel demand and the fraction's Research Octane Number (RON) is too low. The chemical properties (namely RON and Reid vapor pressure (RVP)) of the straight-run gasoline can be improved through reforming and isomerization. However, before feeding those units, the naphtha needs to be split into light and heavy naphtha. Straight-run gasoline can also be used as a feedstock for steam-crackers to produce olefins.
  • Reformate, produced in a catalytic reformer, has a high octane rating with high aromatic content and relatively low olefin content. Most of the benzene, toluene, and xylene (the so-called BTX hydrocarbons) are more valuable as chemical feedstocks and are thus removed to some extent.
  • Catalytic cracked gasoline, or catalytic cracked naphtha, produced with a catalytic cracker, has a moderate octane rating, high olefin content, and moderate aromatic content.
  • Hydrocrackate (heavy, mid, and light), produced with a hydrocracker, has a medium to low octane rating and moderate aromatic levels.
  • Alkylate is produced in an alkylation unit, using isobutane and olefins as feedstocks. Finished alkylate contains no aromatics or olefins and has a high MON (Motor Octane Number).
  • Isomerate is obtained by isomerizing low-octane straight-run gasoline into iso-paraffins (non-chain alkanes, such as isooctane). Isomerate has a medium RON and MON, but no aromatics or olefins.
  • Butane is usually blended in the gasoline pool, although the quantity of this stream is limited by the RVP specification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Let’s hope that that the substance that makes up the bulk of G100UL can be made at any oil refinery and doesn’t need to be shipped from Europe.

It does (or can) come from Europe, but it was pointed out that so does TEL.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Just like ethanol to be mixed into auto fuel is not as tight a cut as ethanol intended to be a fine whisky.

Whew!!  Glad to know my 25YO Mcallan Scotch is not going to go bad:D

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.

 Share

×
×
  • 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.