GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[ragedracer1977]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Correct.  What I am getting at is that maybe GAMI wanted to ensure an STC was required.  I was curious how benign/difficult it would be to have G100UL conform to the ASTM spec.

Technically ASTM D910 requires lead.  
 

[MikeOH]

8 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Technically ASTM D910 requires lead.  
 

Thank you!

[GeeBee]

55 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

You are mostly correct. I have only heard of one of the three. 
I suppose your inference is the application of “Public Domain”. If that’s what you are opining, I won’t counter. No point in arguing for Liberty with folks that seem to value it so lightly.

Assumes fact not in evidence, but your idea of "liberty" in the commercial world died with Wickard v Filburn in 1942. You can "rage against the man" all you want, but one lives in the world as it is, not as one would wish. We're talking reality here. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good enough.

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Assumes fact not in evidence, but your idea of "liberty" in the commercial world died with Wickard v Filburn in 1942. You can "rage against the man" all you want, but one lives in the world as it is, not as one would wish. We're talking reality here. Don't let perfection be the enemy of good enough.

Taking of private property for public use, as you say, is well established, sadly.  What is even more disturbing is the idea that such a thing is "good enough" and should be left alone.  Why should there be 'rage against the man?". How else to start to effect change?  Just sit silently and accept that the government can abscond with your private property?  Frankly, I cannot imagine a more socialistic doctrine than eminent domain.

Having said that, even I recognize the need in very special circumstances.  The best example is roads and freeways; sometimes that taking of private property is the only option.  But the slippery slope has been around long enough that the doctrine has been horrifically abused: Kelo v. City of New London would be a prime example.

So, no I'm not arguing perfection, but the status quo 'good enough' is NOT!

[GeeBee]

8 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Taking of private property for public use, as you say, is well established, sadly.  What is even more disturbing is the idea that such a thing is "good enough" and should be left alone.  Why should there be 'rage against the man?". How else to start to effect change?  Just sit silently and accept that the government can abscond with your private property?  Frankly, I cannot imagine a more socialistic doctrine than eminent domain.

Having said that, even I recognize the need in very special circumstances.  The best example is roads and freeways; sometimes that taking of private property is the only option.  But the slippery slope has been around long enough that the doctrine has been horrifically abused: Kelo v. City of New London would be a prime example.

So, no I'm not arguing perfection, but the status quo 'good enough' is NOT!

Wickard was not about eminent domain. It was about the Federal government's ability to regulate commerce. The SCOTUS basically said, Congress can do pretty much what it wants and it purview over transactions is all encompassing and if you don't like it, sue and lose. Later rulings on the ICC were very narrow and if one were to take this case to the SCOTUS (assuming you would make it that far) you would be laughed out of the chambers.

[larrynimmo]

I applaud GAMI, their research, their testing, and their lobbying, and most of all their ability to bring a product to market.

free enterprise prevails….but at the same time, their are free market conditions that will allow others to bring their product to market.

to a large degree the government will be (in effect) mandating a specialized product (if they indeed ban leaded fuel). From my standpoint, the government should subsidize the cost and offer limited price supports

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Wickard was not about eminent domain. It was about the Federal government's ability to regulate commerce. The SCOTUS basically said, Congress can do pretty much what it wants and it purview over transactions is all encompassing and if you don't like it, sue and lose. Later rulings on the ICC were very narrow and if one were to take this case to the SCOTUS (assuming you would make it that far) you would be laughed out of the chambers.

Where did I say anything about Wickard??  So, I will now: Cliff Notes summary is that a farmer, on his own land, was penalized for growing too much wheat!  And, lost his case!!

I cited an egregious eminent domain case, Kelo.

Regardless of which of those two cases is being discussed, the troubling thing is that the tone of your posts is that what I view as being extreme government over reach, to the point of near socialism, you seem perfectly happy with; defending the decisions with hyperbole using phrases like, "laughed out of court."

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, larrynimmo said:

I applaud GAMI, their research, their testing, and their lobbying, and most of all their ability to bring a product to market.

free enterprise prevails….but at the same time, their are free market conditions that will allow others to bring their product to market.

to a large degree the government will be (in effect) mandating a specialized product (if they indeed ban leaded fuel). From my standpoint, the government should subsidize the cost and offer limited price supports

Interesting idea, Larry.  I just don't take well to government subsidies but it would serve to offset any de facto monopoly that may be established if 100LL is outright banned nationwide.

After hearing that the ASTM standard can't be met by G100UL because the standard REQUIRES lead, I posit that a more effective action would be to update the ASTM standard to allow for lead free avgas!  That would eliminate the need for an expensive and really unneeded STC, not to mention encourage competition.

[Pinecone]

54 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Technically ASTM D910 requires lead.  
 

Sort of.

You are correct that it is a mandatory additive.  But there is no minimum amount of the additive.  So how much to you have to put in, if no minimum level?

 

[Pinecone]

2 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Interesting idea, Larry.  I just don't take well to government subsidies but it would serve to offset any de facto monopoly that may be established if 100LL is outright banned nationwide.

After hearing that the ASTM standard can't be met by G100UL because the standard REQUIRES lead, I posit that a more effective action would be to update the ASTM standard to allow for lead free avgas!  That would eliminate the need for an expensive and really unneeded STC, not to mention encourage competition.

Have you ever been involved in a major change to a consensus standard?

The standard is not owned by the USG, but by the ASTM.

 

[GeeBee]

17 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Where did I say anything about Wickard??  So, I will now: Cliff Notes summary is that a farmer, on his own land, was penalized for growing too much wheat!  And, lost his case!!

I cited an egregious eminent domain case, Kelo.

Regardless of which of those two cases is being discussed, the troubling thing is that the tone of your posts is that what I view as being extreme government over reach, to the point of near socialism, you seem perfectly happy with; defending the decisions with hyperbole using phrases like, "laughed out of court."

No, Wickard grew wheat on his own land for his own use. He never intended for it to enter the market place or affect quotas, but Congress says it affects interstate commerce and they have a right to regulate what you produce, even if it is for yourself. IOW any economic activity is the purview of Congress and the ICC of the Constitution. 

To that end, if Congress outlaws something (like 100LL) in such a way that only one patent holder has the ability to meet the law's requirements, and create a viable product, that is legal. You may not like it, you may not say it is "freedom", but what is right and what is legal are two different things.

[MikeOH]

6 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Have you ever been involved in a major change to a consensus standard?

The standard is not owned by the USG, but by the ASTM.

 

Yes, and I never said it would be easy.  Just that it would be logical, efficient solution.  If lead deserves to be eliminated everywhere, in any amount, it would appear politically advantageous for ASTM to embrace its elimination rather than steadfastly hold to mandating lead's inclusion in fuel.  Especially if the EPA bans leaded avgas nationally, that ASTM standard becomes a bit useless, don't you think?

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

No, Wickard grew wheat on his own land for his own use. He never intended for it to enter the market place, but Congress says it affects interstate commerce and they have a right to regulate what you produce, even if it is for yourself. IOW any economic activity is the purview of Congress and the ICC of the Constitution. 

To that end, if Congress outlaws something (like 100LL) in such a way that only one patent holder has the ability to meet the law's requirements, and create a viable product, that is legal. You may not like it, you may not say it is "freedom", but what is right and what is legal are two different things.

I was NOT incorrect.  As you say, the government had the 'right' to regulate what the farmer could produce; exactly what I said.  The details that it didn't matter that the wheat he overproduced was for his own use.  That just adds to how egregious this ruling is!

To your second point, that whatever the government constructs makes it 'legal' just goes to prove the level of blatant corruption to which our government has sunk.  What better example of corrupt government do you need than passing a regulation that creates an advantage monopoly for a single private business?  But, hey, it's "legal" so you're all for it, I guess.

 

[GeeBee]

29 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I was NOT incorrect.  As you say, the government had the 'right' to regulate what the farmer could produce; exactly what I said.  The details that it didn't matter that the wheat he overproduced was for his own use.  That just adds to how egregious this ruling is!

To your second point, that whatever the government constructs makes it 'legal' just goes to prove the level of blatant corruption to which our government has sunk.  What better example of corrupt government do you need than passing a regulation that creates an advantage monopoly for a single private business?  But, hey, it's "legal" so you're all for it, I guess.

 

So what are you going to do? Stop flying?

[GeeBee]

Good luck with that.

 

[carusoam]

Welcome aboard JP and the whole G100 team!

It is nice to have you visit MS.

I hope you can hang out long enough to answer some tech questions about your products.

It is always good for us to have access to the key people that are delivering great products to the Mooney world.

Sure there are equally serious questions about price, quality, availability and competing options.

Please don’t get disappointed by some of first sentences…  or first posts…

MSers are truly concerned people…

Concerned about their future of Mooney aviation…

 

Gents,

Hate the game, not the player…

Keep JP here as long as it takes for MSers to understand what he has to offer.

The Ovation was certified to use two different fuels in 1994.  100LL and 100 avgas.

No matter what Kountry you live in…. We need as many fuel options as we can get!

As we have covered in the past… Lead in the atmosphere is on the way out…

 

Please be generous to JP while he is still here.

Thank you everybody!

Go MS!!!!

Best regards as always…,

-a-

[MikeOH]

42 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

So what are you going to do? Stop flying?

At some price point, yes, that's exactly what I will have to do.

At today's money value that would be at $10 per gallon.  If 100LL is truly banned nationwide, and no competitor shows up to challenge GAMI, then I think $10/gal is entirely possible.

We shall see.  I hope I'm wrong.

[GeeBee]

31 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

You may very well be right. At least I know where you stand.

Yes I stand in.......... the real world.

[Pinecone]

Stickers and official paperwork showed up today.

 

[larrynimmo]

I do contend if the new 100UL goes to 3x of automobile fuel, av fuel sales will fall by more than 50%.  Thereby reducing fuel sales everywhere…airports will close …McMansions will win out

lets face it…if you own a plane you can afford the $450-$500 to pay for the stc.  But how often will you fly to burn $10 gas?

my guess is that I will “down size” to a plane that will use MOGAS

[Jerry 5TJ]

Geez, 28 pages of this stuff?   
I’m glad I switched to JetA a decade ago.  

[RobertGary1]

1 hour ago, T. Peterson said:

I am in the same boat, but I need a traveling machine. I wonder if there are any entrepreneurs out there working on an alternative engine that would power a Mooney using Mogas or Jet A?? Most of us will eventually have to re engine our planes anyway.

When I was doing Cessna deliveries the factory had a new 182 running diesel / jet A. They claimed it was required for the European market. They were in final testing of it. Not sure why they dropped it. 

[ragedracer1977]

9 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Have you ever been involved in a major change to a consensus standard?

The standard is not owned by the USG, but by the ASTM.

 

It was last amended in 2021, so I bet it’s not that difficult. 
 

I’d expect that g100ul could meet all the other tests required to meet D910, except for the lead additive. If it can’t, that’s sort of an issue.

Edited January 15, 2023 by ragedracer1977

[Raymond J1]

I was close to buying the stc... Which would be a projection for future times would you say...
And at the last moment I preferred to put 380 Euros of 100 L on the plane.
At least I am certain that it will go up in smoke for my pleasure and that of a loved one.

[carusoam]

4 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I wonder if this thread trumped the length of the Tesla thread!

That also was a long and passionate thread.

The mere mention of the Tesla thread will cause it rise to the top…

It was more electric plane passion…supported by viable electric car examples…

Holy cow… have you seen all of the electric aviation getting off the ground?

 

I am a fan of Jerry’s 100LL solution…

But his plane is a bit too large for my needs…

I was holding out for the turbine powered Ovation announced by Mooney back about 2007…

A new one back then would be coming up in the pre-flown market just about now…
Keeping my powder dry for that…   

a bummer that didn’t work out….  

The closest Diesel engine four seater was Tom’s Lanceair IVPT…

For other diesel technology… follow Continental…

They perfected the IO550 for 100LL

They have been working on Diesel engines almost as long…

Don’t shoot the messenger… especially if we want ask him more questions… 
 

Europe likes their diesel vehicles… a much larger percentage of private cars use diesel in Europe than in the US…

In the US it is harder to find the diesel pump, or have to wait for it…

Modern Diesel engines are awesome…

Politics of fuel… diesel goes to Europe, gasoline gets shipped to the US…???

PP thoughts only,

-a-