GAMI Unleaded gets approval

[DonMuncy]

I am not sure how that works. Will any fuel blender pay a royalty (or some other term) to GAMI to use your formula? Have fuel makers previously paid a fee to someone to use their formula? Or is it like a patent; they only paid it for a period of time? If they pay GAMI for every gallon they sell, I would assume that will be added into the price paid by the ultimate user. Or will it be like other patent situations; someone will steal your formula, change it by a tweak and call it a new product? Then does the FAA step in and say "to be used in aircraft, it must be GAMI's exact formula"? 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Not at all contradictory.  GAMI is NOT the only one in control of pump price; I thought that would be obvious, but happy to clarify that for you

To spell it out in more detail:

GAMI could add $0.80 to their cost/royalty per gallon or, if no competition, they could add $3.

After that, the rest of the supply chain can apply whatever markups they want in order to set the actual pump price.

Once again, GAMI is not in control of the price. A royalty is just one element of cost. 

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, DonMuncy said:

I am not sure how that works. Will any fuel blender pay a royalty (or some other term) to GAMI to use your formula? Have fuel makers previously paid a fee to someone to use their formula? Or is it like a patent; they only paid it for a period of time? If they pay GAMI for every gallon they sell, I would assume that will be added into the price paid by the ultimate user. Or will it be like other patent situations; someone will steal your formula, change it by a tweak and call it a new product? Then does the FAA step in and say "to be used in aircraft, it must be GAMI's exact formula"? 

GAMI has a series of patents. Generally companies try not to rely upon a single patent. It is preferable to have a series of interlocking patents for maximum protection.  The life of a patent and the protection it provides is 17 to 20 years. The chemical industry is famous for making small changes or substitutions in order to produce “copy cat” chemicals to get around a competitors patent. However, this is different, because a slightly altered “copycat“ fuel will still have to go through the grief of getting an approved STC from the FAA. 

GAMI can answer but they will likely enter into confidential agreements with manufacturers/blenders in which GAMI shares the recipe and earns a royalty. 

And let’s not forget that avgas sales are a small and declining market. Aviation gasoline sales are 1/10 of 1% of automotive gas sales.  This will not attract a lot of companies wanting to spend years in development and seeking approval. Likely Swift 100. But others? 

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

Once again, GAMI is not in control of the price. A royalty is just one element of cost. 

Let's keep dancing on the head of this pedantic pin, shall we?  I never said GAMI could set the pump price; in fact, I stated clearly they could not.  However, how they choose to price their royalty (or whatever adder) will most certainly affect the pump price we pay.  It's that simple.

[MikeOH]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

And let’s not forget that avgas sales are a small and declining market. Aviation gasoline sales are 1/10 of 1% of automotive gas sales.  This will not attract a lot of companies wanting to spend years in development and seeking approval.

EXACTLY!

This is the crux of my angst/paranoia/concern...if no one else wishes to invest the R&D then GAMI will be able to materially affect the cost if they so choose.  And why wouldn't they want to maximize profit?

The unknown is what the demand elasticity will be when the price increases.  IOW, what is the price that maximizes GAMI's profit?  Will it be at a level that drives out private pilots like me?

[hammdo]

I’m happy there is an alternative, I want to wait and see how long it takes for wide scale availability. My concern is slow roll-out and 100LL outlawed before hand. This should have been solved years ago but it is what it is. As a business (myself), I want to provide a service/product - but at a profit. Can’t blame GAMI for that. Supply and demand drive that… Instead of flying 150 hrs a year, I may be forced down to a 100 or less - that would suck but, if G100UL helps on the maintenance side, maybe not.

The FAA really should buy the STC outright and pay GAMI for doing the FAA’s job - with a nice profit/royalties. It wouldn’t be the first time a private company innovated and the gov buy it.

Our aging certified aircraft will not last forever and home built will be the future - there mo-gas, diesel, etc. will be the options as they are now. For me, the Mooney will likely be my last plane - building/rebuilding - been there done that, I want to fly now ;o).

My guess is 3-5 years before we see wide roll-out - CA and states that are like minded and looking into banning 100LL will be the first group of states. 

I can see CA, OR, WA, CO, North East states being first groups to see G100UL, Swift may be right on GAMIs heals.

’May you live in interesting times’…

-Don

[carusoam]

OooooooK……

1) Looks like we have a winner here.

2) We have an unleaded fuel that will work in our planes….

3) Final costs to work with are unknown…. To even the people that know it best.

4) What is known… price is directly related to volume…

5) getting volume expanding is essential…

6) Looks like the left coast is the first market…

7) Who gets it next?  Is there a plan for the distribution expansion?

8) Europe likes the No-lead aspect…they don’t even like gasoline…

9) How many other markets can use the GUL100 fuel? (Race cars, boats, my corvette?)

10) Can this be used in a car with a catalytic converter if needed?

11) The lead additive in 100LL is pretty expensive chemistry, made by one resource… (GUL100 has expensive competition)

12) Are my Gami injectors going to need to be watched….?

If anything changes the flow of fuel through the distribution system… a few new Gami injectors may add to the expense…

 

13) I’m looking forward to the announcements of new partners in the GUL100 distribution business…

This could work out well for everyone…

 

Don’t rush…  we don’t want to see Exxon 100% synthetic oil issues resurface as a GUL100 fuel issue…

Hmmmmm… did somebody mention oils….  as lead goes away….

Tell us about the oil choices we are about to see coming….?

 

I feel Mike’s cost of aviation stress… I’m trying hard not to show it…   

PP thoughts only, not a fuels engineer…

Best regards,

-a-

 

 

[John-Paul]

16 hours ago, carusoam said:

OooooooK……

1) Looks like we have a winner here.

2) We have an unleaded fuel that will work in our planes….

3) Final costs to work with are unknown…. To even the people that know it best.

<snip>

 

 

I can answer some of those!

"9) How many other markets can use the G100UL fuel? (Race cars, boats, my corvette?)"

Yes to all! Race applications are particularly interesting.  The automotive octane is rated, G100UL comes in at ~110+ octane.  Also, the "supercharge" rating (rich rating) is in excess of 160 MON, which would be in excess of ~180 AKI or so (my estimate, you can't really measure that high).

"10) Can this be used in a car with a catalytic converter if needed?"

No real testing has been done to confirm or deny that, but there is nothing in the fuel chemistry which would make us suspect it would be anything other than transparent.  

"12) Are my Gami injectors going to need to be watched….?"

Fuel system components (including GAMIjectors) will use the fuel transparently.  There will be no need to adjust or change the nozzles.

Jpt

Edited January 18, 2023 by John-Paul
Typo . . . ugh.

[Pinecone]

As for oil change intervals, realize that full synthetic oils allow automobiles to triple the change interval.  Old days, change oil every 3,000 miles.   Modern oils and cars, oil change intervals over 15,000 miles.  Unlikely aircraft engines will see this, but 2 or even 2.5 times would nice.

If 100LL gets banned, I suspect the roll out to accelerate.   And the nice thing about G100UL is, it can be blended and shipped by just about any refinery without needing segregation and dedicated trucks.  And no special ingredients sourced from a single source world wide. So, if required and a market, a lot more sources and faster roll out.

And remember, the US EPA is not the only thread to 100LL.  The ONLY tetraethyl lead plant is in the UK, and could be shut down tomorrow due to mishap, fire, or government intervention.  No TEL, no 100LL

I can see the auto racing market as a good size add on based on those specs.  98 AKI unleaded race fuel is running over $8 per gallon at the track. And anything over 98 AKI is leaded.  A lot of turbo cars would love to be able to have a supply of this fuel

[hammdo]

I race with E-85 right from the pump (well,75% anyway) and that is pretty cheap. 100+ octane too…

-Don

[A64Pilot]

Ref oil change intervals, vast majority of us time out on months not hours anyway, but automobiles burn very clean and have very little blow-by, so they don’t garbage up their oil, we don’t change oil because the oil is beginning to break down, but because it’s full of junk, lead of course is part of it, but at least as important carbon. So we shouldn’t use autos as an example as our motors are quite different.

Carbon is abrasive and you don’t want it in your oil.

Yes I’m aware Rotax allows a longer OCI if you run unleaded, but how many of us fly over 50 hours in three months?

I think I’m typical and fly 100 hours a year, changing oil every three months has me changing it at 25 hours.

Now I’m a fan of synthetic oil, I’ve until recently run Mobil -1 in everything for decades, but quite a bit of its advantages just aren’t really useful for most of us N/A guys, we just don’t abuse oil very much, our bottom ends are overbuilt, we turn low RPM and don’t get oil very hot, average auto’s oil temp is well over 200, sporty cars with oil coolers use the 200 degree coolant to cool oil, so how hot is it if your using 200 degree coolant to cool it?

You Turbo guys however are a little different, a turbo center section does run quite hot, it’s quite likely you guys would benefit from a REAL synthetic oil. Real is capitalized because not all oil labeled synthetic is what is considered synthetic by many, but specially treated much cheaper regular oil.

 

[Pinecone]

Lycoming already has an SB allowing 100 hour oil changes with UL fuel.

I run synthetic oil (mainly Mobil 1, but some Castrol in certain engines), and have for years.  And when the cars get older, I have let the intervals go even longer.

Yes, aircraft engines have more blowby.  But the main reason for the oil change intervals is the lead.  

[PT20J]

Next time you cut open a filter, take the media out, cut it into quarters and squeeze them in a vice. Besides getting the media really dry which makes any metal flakes easier to spot, you will get to see all the gray lead ooze out.

[A64Pilot]

On 1/19/2023 at 10:50 PM, PT20J said:

Next time you cut open a filter, take the media out, cut it into quarters and squeeze them in a vice. Besides getting the media really dry which makes any metal flakes easier to spot, you will get to see all the gray lead ooze out.

You really see it when you pull a prop, because the prop oil flow is a dead end and it accumulates there, but doesn’t cause harm, but the area is full of what looks like grey grease. I cycle the prop three times on each run up hoping to slow down the accumulation, but it likely doesn’t do anything much.

Carbon however is abrasive, there have been discussions forever on what size particle is destructive, though a large reason OCI is 25 hours without a filter is carbon, filter takes it to 50. Lead particles are apparently too small to be trapped in a filter or the crank wouldn’t be full of it.

But unless Lycoming has doubled the calendar life of the oil 100 hour OCI won’t have any effect on very many at all, maybe flight schools? 

With a real Synthetic oil and a good enough filtration system OCI could be exceedingly long, possibly only changed when analysis indicated it. But I wouldn’t expect it, like a modern electronic fuel injection, certainly possible, but don’t hold your breath.

We will see if there are any unintended consequences of the new fuel, because without flying a couple of fleets that burn it and doing so for an extended time, you really don’t know for certain. I say a couple because you need some in cold Wx and some in hot and humid etc.

I’m skeptical, it’s my nature, 100LL has issues and short comings, but they are known. I hope the new fuel becomes available soon, before 100 LL is banned and then over time there will be experience with it accumulated.

Crazy comparison at first glance, but I see it like the Government meddling with electric cars, they shouldn’t, if an EV is a superior technology people will buy them without government intervention.

If a new fuel is a superior technology, then people will buy it, if it reduces maintenance, keeps plugs and oil cleaner, fewer combustion chamber deposits etc. , pretty quickly engine overhaulers and mechanics etc will get behind it and recommend it and the demand for 100LL will shrink and FBO’s will no longer keep it because the demand isn’t there, like 87 Octane fuel, it went away from lack of demand and the desire not to have to supply two kinds of fuel.

If the new stuff is superior, 100LL will join 87 Octane, without a mandate

[Fly Boomer]

23 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

If a new fuel is a superior technology, then people will buy it, if it reduces maintenance, keeps plugs and oil cleaner, fewer combustion chamber deposits etc. , pretty quickly engine overhaulers and mechanics etc will get behind it and recommend it and the demand for 100LL will shrink and FBO’s will no longer keep it because the demand isn’t there, like 87 Octane fuel, it went away from lack of demand and the desire not to have to supply two kinds of fuel.

I think most buying decisions hinge on price alone -- no other considerations.

[1980Mooney]

6 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I think most buying decisions hinge on price alone -- no other considerations.

That is why municipal airports and counties will make the decision to ban the sale of any fuel with TEL. 

[A64Pilot]

18 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

I think most buying decisions hinge on price alone -- no other considerations.

IF that were true, then the only auto oil sold would be that cheap re-refined stuff etc. There would be no premium oil sales. Yet I think Premium oil sales are a large portion of oil sold.

I think many buy “premium” parts and products, for instance go buy brake pads for your car, there are usually three levels of pads, even NAPA and others have different levels of oil filters, the NAPA gold made by Purolator is an excellent filter for example, clearly better than their lower grade.

Personally I use K&N oil filters and now Rotella 5W-40 synthetic, I now use Diesel oil as the newer gas formulations have removed some of the anti wear packages as they are detrimental to pollution controls, but the older Diesel formulations still have it, but the newest Diesel oil has gone the way gas oil did, because Diesels now have pollution control devices.

It cost me more money to change my own oil than it does to go to a quickie oil change place, but your right average car person had essentially zero knowledge and only shops price, but doesn’t do their own work.

But I think pilots are different, many seem to be motor heads, many have mechanical and high performance vehicle backgrounds, or maybe not, but I think enough do that if something superior comes along that costs more but makes their engines last longer, or burn cleaner etc even if it costs more they will go for it.

[1980Mooney]

Timely article in Flying online. Some new information:

”Early estimates show a March or April initial rollout focused on a limited number of airports in California. GAMI intends to utilize the existing distribution network.

Avfuel and GAMI will issue a license to produce G100UL. Production and distribution will be in multiple locations based on demand.”

https://www.flyingmag.com/g100ul-avgas-replacement-set-to-soon-hit-pumps/

[A64Pilot]

25 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

That is why municipal airports and counties will make the decision to ban the sale of any fuel with TEL. 

Some places certainly, California and some others will jump on it like a cat on a mouse, some others will not.

In short the States that have banned gasoline Auto’s will most likely ban 100LL, many other States won’t.

IF the Fed’s don’t get involved, I think they will, great photo op for the masses.

I hope however they won’t, one things for certain they won’t subsidize it like EV’s and Solar panels though.

However if enough States jump on it, the reduced sales volume will first push up the price of 100LL and eventually kill it

[1980Mooney]

38 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

However if enough States jump on it, the reduced sales volume will first push up the price of 100LL and eventually kill it

Exactly and you have overlooked the additional cost of litigation which continuing manufacturers and distributors of leaded gas will face. 
 

As said before leaded avgas is a boutique fuel which has to be produced in refineries. Batch runs at refineries will get smaller and economics will suffer. Quantities are too small and contamination too great to ship by pipeline - everything has to be by truck. Distribution economics will get worse and worse. 
 

There will be out-of-state litigation against those companies, still producing and distributing leaded avgas. He’s generally large corporations that won’t want the liability and hassle.

And then think of the potential liability that a pilot faces if he flies a plane (with leaded  Avgas in the tanks) into a state that has banned leaded Avgas. If for any reason the tanks need to be defueled by a mechanic or an airport. I bet the pilot/owner will face big hazardous waste, cleanup, cost, and potential fines. 

[A64Pilot]

Was it on here or somewhere else?

I seem to remember a story of someone whose aircraft required 100LL had to have some kind of work done where the fuel was outlawed. He wanted to bring in a few 5 gl cans of fuel but wasn’t allowed to so he took off short of fuel and didn’t make it?

I don’t know the validity of the story, but it sounds plausible 

Plenty of possible unintended consequences, I doubt the intent was to kill pilots.

But what do people do now in California where 100LL is banned if they have an engine that requires it? 

I have heard but do not know that in places it’s banned

[1980Mooney]

16 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

But what do people do now in California where 100LL is banned if they have an engine that requires it? 

I have heard but do not know that in places it’s banned

Isn’t every engine certified in the STC? Once distribution starts at those airports it’s just a matter of paying for the STC. Right?

[jaylw314]

On 1/17/2023 at 7:47 PM, MikeOH said:

EXACTLY!

This is the crux of my angst/paranoia/concern...if no one else wishes to invest the R&D then GAMI will be able to materially affect the cost if they so choose.  And why wouldn't they want to maximize profit?

The unknown is what the demand elasticity will be when the price increases.  IOW, what is the price that maximizes GAMI's profit?  Will it be at a level that drives out private pilots like me?

Absolutely there will only be one or at most two players in such a small market. Yes, it could absolutely drive out private pilots like you, and you should fear that with no possibility of changing the outcome.  That's just life in a free market--small markets beget few or one supplier.  Why would one expect otherwise?  The only alternative is lots and lots of government regulation and intervention (not a free market, IOTW).

To take that argument ad absurdum, you should absolutely be afraid for many things you buy in a 'free market'.  Eyeglasses, for example, are made by one supplier (they sell through different named suppliers, but they're all actually the same company and a monopoly).  You should absolutely fear being priced out of eyeglasses.  If you poke around, you'll find most things in the market are actually produced, sold or controlled by a monopoly or near monopoly, so you should pretty much be afraid all the time.

The question is (like most things in life), are you able to live with that anxiety, deal with it and enjoy/maximize the opportunities you have while they last?  Or do you carry angst about it indefinitely when there's nothing material or constructive you can do about it, and allow it to minimize your opportunities?

 

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Was it on here or somewhere else?

I seem to remember a story of someone whose aircraft required 100LL had to have some kind of work done where the fuel was outlawed. He wanted to bring in a few 5 gl cans of fuel but wasn’t allowed to so he took off short of fuel and didn’t make it?

I don’t know the validity of the story, but it sounds plausible 

Plenty of possible unintended consequences, I doubt the intent was to kill pilots.

But what do people do now in California where 100LL is banned if they have an engine that requires it? 

I have heard but do not know that in places it’s banned

I think you should clarify your claim.  The sale of 100LL is banned in certain airports, and its sale in various counties may be in question.  The use of 100LL, though, is not banned right now AFAIK, and if you know of an airport or locality that does ban its use, I would expect citations.

[1980Mooney]

Once G100LL rolls out (as Flying says will start in California in the next 2-3 months) isn't it really "Game Over" for Swift 100R which is not yet even approved?

• Why would pilot/owners want to buy 2 STC's so that they can potentially run either GAMI or Swift 100UL?
• What airports are going to spend material capital investment on additional fuel trucks and additional tanks and pumps so that owners have the luxury of choosing between 2 different "100UL" avgas?
• This creates even worse manufacturing and distribution costs by splitting a relatively small market into smaller pieces.  
• Perhaps the best that Swift can do is once Swift 100R is approved (if ever) and available then likely they will convert their 94UL distribution and the existing FBO fuel trucks, tanks and pumps to 100R - and just stop selling 94UL and just sell one grade (100R UL).  Then you will might have the choice to 2 competing 100UL at some airports.