GAMI presentation from OSH '24

[M20F]

4 minutes ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Ethanol is a pure chemical, I'm not sure what it would degrade into. In most cases chemicals will decompose at higher temperatures. E85 is ethanol and gasoline mixture, I'm not sure what happens to that. Ethanol has a higher vapor pressure, it will evaporate more at higher elevations. 

I was googling E85 deteriorating and couldn't find much. It is amazing how many people think E85 is 85 octane... 

E85 to my understanding starts to have issues at 40F and below. 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Ethanol is a pure chemical, I'm not sure what it would degrade into. In most cases chemicals will decompose at higher temperatures. E85 is ethanol and gasoline mixture, I'm not sure what happens to that. Ethanol has a higher vapor pressure, it will evaporate more at higher elevations. 

I was googling E85 deteriorating and couldn't find much. It is amazing how many people think E85 is 85 octane... 

Storage matters, and keeping it in the barrel at reasonable temperatures apparently can make the difference from a  few months to a year.    Sunoco says there fuel will last a year if properly stored:

"Sunoco E85-R does not contain metallic additives and will not harm oxygen sensors. It should be stored in dark, tightly sealed containers where the temperature is stable. Handled under such conditions, shelf life is in excess of 1 year."

https://www.sunocoracefuels.com/fuels/fuel/e85-r

Another issue with random suppliers (as alluded on the Sunoco page), is that the blends aren't consistent.   My racing friends that use it that have tunes and setups for a particular blend, test the fuel every time it is drawn from the barrel, both to see what they got (initially) and how well it has aged.   If it gets too far out of the spec for their tune they'll make adjustments to the fuel.

I think the only reason we still have E15 (or so) at the pumps is left over from when the corn grower's lobby was still powerful and got the requirements changed.    Until somebody changes it back we're stuck with it.

[BlueSky247]

Well, since cars have already come up in this discussion….

 

The current generation miata runs an impressively high compression ratio thanks to direct injection and very good engine computers. 13-1. And it will even do so on regular unleaded. Yes, premium is recommended but it will adjust for lower octane.  And what’s more, there are tuners out there getting nice gains adjusting them to run on E85. Only downside there is the car already has a small fuel tank and E85 makes it even more so in practice. 
 

So back on topic, I hope the gami fuel makes it and that their assertions are true. I would love to have those much cleaner oil testing results and longer TBO’s. 
 

 

[Pinecone]

The problem with ethanol in aircraft fuel is that it absorbs water.  But, when it gets cooler, the capacity of the ethanol to hold the water decreases.  So the water starts to come out of solution.  And the water can now freeze.  It makes a water slush that can clog strainer screens and small lines/ports.

[Pinecone]

36 minutes ago, BlueSky247 said:

Well, since cars have already come up in this discussion….

The current generation miata runs an impressively high compression ratio thanks to direct injection and very good engine computers. 13-1. And it will even do so on regular unleaded. Yes, premium is recommended but it will adjust for lower octane.  And what’s more, there are tuners out there getting nice gains adjusting them to run on E85. Only downside there is the car already has a small fuel tank and E85 makes it even more so in practice. 
So back on topic, I hope the gami fuel makes it and that their assertions are true. I would love to have those much cleaner oil testing results and longer TBO’s. 

My 2002 BMW M3 is 11.5 to 1 compression ratio.

It will run on 87 but with reduced power.  But it will make more power, up to about 96 AKI fuel.   So at the track I try to arrive with 1/2 a tank of 93 pump premium, then top off with 98AKI unleaded.  You can tell the difference.

[T. Peterson]

On 7/30/2024 at 4:51 PM, Shadrach said:

Yes, a salesman that is an IA, A&P, ATP, DER and propulsion engineer. It’s certainly in his sales interest to get up at Oshkosh in front of the whole Aviation community and bullshit is way through a presentation with biased data. 
Did you watch it? I’m not saying that he doesn’t have a vested interest G1000UL, but the collected data is pretty compelling. When you can sample detonation traces in milliseconds, and have the ability to switch between three different fuels without changing any other parameters, and one of those fuels clearly induces detonation, it’s kind of hard to blame the messenger.
So either he cooked the data, or the engine parameters that he said he ran were falsified in order to induce detonation or perhaps, just maybe, 94 UL has fallen short of its goals.

I’d much prefer it if there were an independent third-party with a sophisticated test stand. Then the FAA wouldn’t have to rely on an interested party to test someone else’s fuel for free. 

I don’t think Eric was being critical. He was just reminding us of a salient fact: The gentleman in question does have a dog in the fight. Even if it is a very wonderful dog, it is still his dog.

[T. Peterson]

On 7/30/2024 at 6:40 PM, PeteMc said:

So you're saying George is trying to "push" or "sell" his company and its products.  I get that, and also get any CEO/Owner doing their job would do the same thing.  But are you also saying George is trying to sell snake oil?  And the data was massaged, doesn't show what he's saying or was out right falsified?  Or you do you just not like the dumbed down presentation for a room of non PhDs?  

I get that he's selling, but so what?  Something has to happen soon and if his v01 of his G1000 is a start, then so be it.  And to a non scientist, but I like to think usually gets the concept of these things, there seems to be years of data supporting his "sales pitch" to the point that maybe we should listen.

But always looking for facts to the contrary. 

 

Eric never said or implied that anyone was selling snake oil.

[MikeOH]

3 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I don’t think Eric was being critical. He was just reminding us of a salient fact: The gentleman in question does have a dog in the fight. Even if it is a very wonderful dog, it is still his dog.

Exactly!  You never talk about the bad things your dog does.

I don't think George is presenting 'faked' data, but I'll bet he's not presenting ALL the data.  He may not even have negative data if his testing was not thorough enough.   I spent a career as an engineer and there are ALWAYS downsides; you may not even know about them until after a design is in production!  THAT is the big worry, and the reason you try to break your product during testing.  Did George NOT try to do that, has data he's not sharing with those less than stellar results, or will it be unforeseen consequences?  Only a LOT of real world operation is going to prove that.  And, I maintain, we should NOT eliminate 100LL until that happens.

Remember, our engines were DESIGNED to use leaded fuel. Remember all the design changes made to auto engines, and their fuel systems, to get them to run on UL fuel? The idea that G100UL is some chemical engineering 'miracle' that will run without any issue because George says so?  Sorry, I'd prefer to wait for others to 'beta test'...i.e. I don't want it forced down my throat.

[PeteMc]

4 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Eric never said or implied that anyone was selling snake oil.

Hmm... I disagree.  Or, at least I'm not sure...   The way I read his message you could easily believe that is exactly what he was implying....  Which is why I asked the question.  

And I view G100UL as v01 of where we eventually need to be.  But you have to start someplace.

 

[dkkim73]

4 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I don’t think Eric was being critical. He was just reminding us of a salient fact: The gentleman in question does have a dog in the fight. Even if it is a very wonderful dog, it is still his dog.

"Monsieur, does your dog bite?"

"No."

(Growl, snap!)

"I thought you said your dog does not bite!"

"I did not say that was my dog."

[Shadrach]

7 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I don’t think Eric was being critical. He was just reminding us of a salient fact: The gentleman in question does have a dog in the fight. Even if it is a very wonderful dog, it is still his dog.

I respectfully disagree. I’ve worked with many “salesman” in my life. Having a personal and financial interest in a product that you’ve developed and being a salesman is not the same thing. Sales is a skill in which the product is fungible. Does referring to someone as an “attorney” without mention of their additional and relevant qualifications strike you as a “reminder” made in good faith?
 
If George was “essentially a salesman” then GAMI wouldn’t be turning away Lycoming operators with conforming engines that have good cylinder to cylinder air fuel ratios. They’d instead be claiming some unmeasurable benefit like superior atomization to push as many tuned injectors into the market as possible.

From Finewire plugs to speed mods to new prop designs, etc…the aftermarket is full of products with claims that offer little to no supporting published data. George presents a granular analysis with raw data collected using a very sophisticated test stand that demonstrates a repeatable result that is consistent with the results of the failed UND trial…and our biggest takeaway from that should be to remember that he is “essentially a salesman” and an “attorney”?  

 Seems like there’s an axe to grind.

[tony]

9 hours ago, Pinecone said:

The problem with ethanol in aircraft fuel is that it absorbs water.  But, when it gets cooler, the capacity of the ethanol to hold the water decreases.  So the water starts to come out of solution.  And the water can now freeze.  It makes a water slush that can clog strainer screens and small lines/ports.

that explains why I have a jelly goo in my lawn's carburetor bowl in the spring.

[tony]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Exactly!  You never talk about the bad things your dog does.

I don't think George is presenting 'faked' data, but I'll bet he's not presenting ALL the data.  He may not even have negative data if his testing was not thorough enough.   I spent a career as an engineer and there are ALWAYS downsides; you may not even know about them until after a design is in production!  THAT is the big worry, and the reason you try to break your product during testing.  Did George NOT try to do that, has data he's not sharing with those less than stellar results, or will it be unforeseen consequences?  Only a LOT of real world operation is going to prove that.  And, I maintain, we should NOT eliminate 100LL until that happens.

Remember, our engines were DESIGNED to use leaded fuel. Remember all the design changes made to auto engines, and their fuel systems, to get them to run on UL fuel? The idea that G100UL is some chemical engineering 'miracle' that will run without any issue because George says so?  Sorry, I'd prefer to wait for others to 'beta test'...i.e. I don't want it forced down my throat.

Exactly right!

[EricJ]

9 hours ago, PeteMc said:

Hmm... I disagree.  Or, at least I'm not sure...   The way I read his message you could easily believe that is exactly what he was implying....  Which is why I asked the question.  

Nope.   George has done some work, and has a product that obviousy "works" (at least in a fundamental, first-order sense), but we are highly unlikely to be seeing all of the data he has, and, having been in very similar plays from multiple angles myself, he likely doesn't know everything, either.   Even when you have a highly skilled team with state-of-the-art equipment and do all the testing you can possibly think of, when you start to bring it in front of standards bodies, regulators, potential partners, customers, other competitors, etc., you can suddenly find out stuff you didn't think of.    I've been there many times from multiple sides.

George is not a fuel industry insider.   He is not a petroleum or chemical engineer.   He makes himself out to be a victim of the FAA.   He's just not what a lot of people make him out to be.   That takes nothing away from what he has accomplished, which is impressive considering the credentials he doesn't have.  When you hear from or talk to other players in this particular pageant, you hear about different factors that matter that you don't hear about from George.   He's promoting a product, he's essentially a salesman of that product, and he's selected a particular strategy to promote it and he's executing that fairly successfully so far.

There's a lot more to the story, though, and we see through a glass darkly because most of what happens is not in front of us, it's in front of the decision makers in the FAA, ASTM, distributors, etc., etc.    We don't matter much at this point, so we don't hear much from the other sides and don't know details of the issues that are the actual barriers right now.   If G100UL was really everything all the decision makers think it needs to be it would likely have been in distribution by now.

I don't think it's snake oil, but I don't think it's been anything close to proven to be a complete solution.   That includes factors beyond whether it'll run in a motor or not, it also includes production and distribution and insurability factors.

And it's pretty normal in a forum like this to say this and just be accused of being a negative Nancy, or accusing George of something bad, but when you've been through similar processes enough times to know the drill it's just the way things work.   Sometimes players invovled really are snake oil salesman or selling a pig in a poke, and I don't think that's what's happening here at all.  

[redbaron1982]

15 hours ago, BlueSky247 said:

Well, since cars have already come up in this discussion….

 

The current generation miata runs an impressively high compression ratio thanks to direct injection and very good engine computers. 13-1. And it will even do so on regular unleaded. Yes, premium is recommended but it will adjust for lower octane.  And what’s more, there are tuners out there getting nice gains adjusting them to run on E85. Only downside there is the car already has a small fuel tank and E85 makes it even more so in practice. 
 

So back on topic, I hope the gami fuel makes it and that their assertions are true. I would love to have those much cleaner oil testing results and longer TBO’s. 
 

 

Something I can't understand is why airplane engines are considered "high compression ratio"  when they are (give it or take it) 8.5:1, and all modern cars are at least 9:1. Even old engines, like the Ford 302, were, I think, 8.7:1 without the help of any ECU.

So is the problem a combination of compression ratio + CHT? Hypothetically, if we had better cooling and an airplane engine would run at the temperature a regular car engine runs, could we use regular mogas?

[Will.iam]

19 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

Something I can't understand is why airplane engines are considered "high compression ratio"  when they are (give it or take it) 8.5:1, and all modern cars are at least 9:1. Even old engines, like the Ford 302, were, I think, 8.7:1 without the help of any ECU.

So is the problem a combination of compression ratio + CHT? Hypothetically, if we had better cooling and an airplane engine would run at the temperature a regular car engine runs, could we use regular mogas?

Porsche thought the same thing. We make best car engine surely our car engine would work better with its ecu controlled fuel mixture and timing than that dinosaur relic lycoming or Continental with fix tractor mags. But the reality when put in the mooney frame showed the porsche didn’t go as fast as the lycoming so why would customers buy somethibg that is more expensive upfront and didn’t go as fast. 
 

[Shadrach]

15 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Exactly!  You never talk about the bad things your dog does.

I don't think George is presenting 'faked' data, but I'll bet he's not presenting ALL the data.  He may not even have negative data if his testing was not thorough enough.   I spent a career as an engineer and there are ALWAYS downsides; you may not even know about them until after a design is in production!  THAT is the big worry, and the reason you try to break your product during testing.  Did George NOT try to do that, has data he's not sharing with those less than stellar results, or will it be unforeseen consequences?  Only a LOT of real world operation is going to prove that.  And, I maintain, we should NOT eliminate 100LL until that happens.

Remember, our engines were DESIGNED to use leaded fuel. Remember all the design changes made to auto engines, and their fuel systems, to get them to run on UL fuel? The idea that G100UL is some chemical engineering 'miracle' that will run without any issue because George says so?  Sorry, I'd prefer to wait for others to 'beta test'...i.e. I don't want it forced down my throat.

It’s not a chemical engineering miracle, have you bothered to look at the MSDS? 

What would you have done if you were 3 years into an STC application when a Collective of alphabet bureaucracies, developers and general aviation “stakeholders” started an initiative to develop a replacement fuel but provided no method of consideration for the testing and certificationh work you had done up to that point?  Would you have abandoned your previous efforts and started over?

Can you site a specific example of where the STC process is less rigorous than PAFI/EAGLE program? Can you site one parameter where G100UL falls short of ASTM D910 specifications other than the absence of TEL?  I am always open to alternative views based on evidence, data or even under certain circumstances unsubstantiated rumors. However, you’re not doing any of that, you’re throwing philosophical rocks from the cheap seats with no actual evidence. 

No one is asking you to beta test or buy anything…yet…when/if that happens, it will likely start with your state and the Fed will follow.

Also, it’s pretty clear that you’ve not read the FAQ section of the G100UL website. You may think it is biased or contains lies by omission. Either way, with your engineering background, you may find some actual bones to pick that would help to steel-man your argument which up to this point seems to be limited to “it’s to good to be true so it’s not”.  I’m here for it and would love to see well fleshed out contradictory opinions rather than just contrarian comments for the sake of contrarian comments and pejoratives.

[Will.iam]

2 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Porsche thought the same thing. We make best car engine surely our car engine would work better with its ecu controlled fuel mixture and timing than that dinosaur relic lycoming or Continental with fix tractor mags. But the reality when put in the mooney frame showed the porsche didn’t go as fast as the lycoming so why would customers buy somethibg that is more expensive upfront and didn’t go as fast. 
And that was with 100LL  it would be even slower with mogas  

you can fly now with mogas just not in a mooney. Get a cub or any other low power engine airplane.   

 

[redbaron1982]

7 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

Porsche thought the same thing. We make best car engine surely our car engine would work better with its ecu controlled fuel mixture and timing than that dinosaur relic lycoming or Continental with fix tractor mags. But the reality when put in the mooney frame showed the porsche didn’t go as fast as the lycoming so why would customers buy somethibg that is more expensive upfront and didn’t go as fast. 
 

That's not was not my thought, I'm just wondering why a 1960's Ford 302, with a compression ratio of 8.7:1 can run mogas and a Lycoming IO360, with a compression ratio of 8.5:1 cannot.

[Will.iam]

5 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

That's not was not my thought, I'm just wondering why a 1960's Ford 302, with a compression ratio of 8.7:1 can run mogas and a Lycoming IO360, with a compression ratio of 8.5:1 cannot.

It can if you change the timing and thus reduce the power. Then change the charts to reduce the useful load etc. 

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, tony said:

Exactly right!

There is nothing exact in his statement… It is non-specific, philosophical speculation being thrown from the cheap seats. There is no substantive argument. Its all feelings…Oddly emotional for an engineer…

[BlueSky247]

19 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

That's not was not my thought, I'm just wondering why a 1960's Ford 302, with a compression ratio of 8.7:1 can run mogas and a Lycoming IO360, with a compression ratio of 8.5:1 cannot.

Our engines are air-cooled while most cars are liquid-cooled. Our are also expected to perform in much thinner air, which greatly lessens the heat transfer coefficient. 

[Pinecone]

7 hours ago, Shadrach said:

If George was “essentially a salesman” then GAMI wouldn’t be turning away Lycoming operators with conforming engines that have good cylinder to cylinder air fuel ratios. They’d instead be claiming some unmeasurable benefit like superior atomization to push as many tuned injectors into the market as possible.

Also Continental customers.  They will not sell me GAMIjectors  for my TSIO-360.  The spread is low enough.

[N201MKTurbo]

I read a book many years ago about motor fuels. It was written in 1923. 101 years ago! There is little we are talking about now that isn't in that book, including the ingredients in G100UL. 

It's not that we have some new modern chemical technology that will save the day, it comes down to what compromise we can live with.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Motor_Fuels.html?id=DHBBAAAAIAAJ

[Shadrach]

41 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

That's not was not my thought, I'm just wondering why a 1960's Ford 302, with a compression ratio of 8.7:1 can run mogas and a Lycoming IO360, with a compression ratio of 8.5:1 cannot.

Firstly, the CR for your IO360 is 8.7:1 not 8.5:1

I’m not going to do a real deep dive into the specs of the 5L Ford V8, but there are a number of factors at play.

The shape and size of the combustion chamber as well as the stroke (piston speed) all have an effect on detonation margins. The combustion chamber for the 302 is less than half that of an IO360 and it is liquid cooled. Furthermore, it has variable ignition timing and while I have not looked at the timing map for the early 302, I would bet that at 2500 RPM it’s more conservatively timed than the IO360. No one runs a car the way that we run our aero-engines, to do so would require using gear ratio to limit speed for a given throttle setting…ostensibly selecting the highest gear possible that allows the engine to just maintain the desired speed