G100UL is available at Reid Hillview (RHV)

[Shadrach]

On 10/30/2024 at 9:10 AM, redbaron1982 said:

Also opens the possibility to use more modern, synthetic oils, AFAIK.

My main concern is about monopoly... if by an EPA determination, LL is banned, and we only have G100UL we are not going to be in a good position.

There are few market forces at work with regard to 100LL other than demand, it's mostly regulatory forces.  Innospec is currently the only TEL producer in the world.  If multiple refineries are able to license G100UL,  then buy and blend from readily available ingredients, it should make for a more competitive market, not less.

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Winchester, VA is closer and and cheaper...SS $5.47 FS $5.87.

Closer to you, but not me.

And not cheap enough to make the trip.  Burn 20 gallons round trip to save 53 cents per gallon.

[UteM20F]

Some nice freebies for those based at RHV and E16 (Morgan Hill) are coming on Saturday, Nov 2: Free STCs and free IA signoff on the 337.  And for those Bay area pilots who fly in on Saturday, they're giving away 25 gallons of G100UL.  I'm not seeing many drawbacks with this kind of promotion.

https://files.santaclaracounty.gov/exjcpb1466/2024-10/gami-incentive-notification-2024-10-29.pdf?VersionId=3.UKONJ6CIInkNQ4Lhxz3UYY.YfviuJi

Ute

[Ibra]

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Since there is no handling of TEL, ANY refinery can make G100UL

Indeed, someone in Total France told me about 0.2€/L is related to sourcing and handling TEL in Europe 

One interesting thing with G100UL is it’s not even an Avgas (ATSM), if one can make it out of banana juice, they can sell it and legally put it in an aircraft with FAA blessing, however, the tricky bit is managing the storage and distribution of that “banana juice” 

Does anyone know if Reid Hillview airport are planning to have G100UL storage on site? and what they will do if they plan transport by rail or boats managed by 3rd party as “fuel”? 

From the image, the truck delivering it at Reid Hillview looks like a homemade “fuel truck” from GAMI as well  

A ferry pilot told me the easy way to transport/store fuel with zero paperwork is to send an Aztec with two big turtle packs 

Edited October 30 by Ibra

[UteM20F]

14 minutes ago, Ibra said:

Does anyone know if Reid Hillview airport are planning to have G100UL storage on site? and what they will do if they plan transport by rail or boats managed by 3rd party as “fuel”? 
 

From the image, the truck delivering it at Reid Hillview looks like a homemade “fuel truck” from GAMI as well 

One photo I saw showed a large tanker truck emptying fuel into an underground tank, with the homemade GAMI truck sitting idle behind.  So it would seem there is on-site storage, and the little truck is only used to drive to the planes and fill them up.

Edited October 30 by UteM20F
Added photo

[toto]

8 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Eliminating lead removes the barriers to modern synthetic oils.  It will be a while before that happens, but it will. 

I have 40 cases of AV-1 in my hangar that are super excited about this 

[Shadrach]

1 hour ago, UteM20F said:

One photo I saw showed a large tanker truck emptying fuel into an underground tank, with the homemade GAMI truck sitting idle behind.  So it would seem there is on-site storage, and the little truck is only used to drive to the planes and fill them up.

Homemade tanker truck? What part of Utah are you from? I’ve seen some homemade set ups and that ain’t it. That looks like a small Howo fuel truck or a clone of one.

[Shadrach]

41 minutes ago, toto said:

I have 40 cases of AV-1 in my hangar that are super excited about this 

Did you buy those on close out? 

[Pinecone]

I have seen several airports with that exact same fuel truck.

[skykrawler]

20 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Laughable? 

https://www.lycoming.com/publications/service-letter-no-270

Eliminating lead removes the barriers to modern synthetic oils.  It will be a while before that happens, but it will. 

Doing away with the thick, toxic, grey film that accumulates on the belly is close to worth it. Being able to have my little ones help clean the belly would be worth it. 

I have been tested and I know that I have detectable lead levels in my system that are above average but still in the "safe range".  In my youth I was careless with my handling of 100LL and lead exposed, aircraft parts.   I think the threat of lead to the general public from 100LL is way overstated.  The real threat is to pilots, maintenance professionals and passengers that fail to take precautions or engage in risky behavior.  

I've never seen that service letter...but it seems a little hinky.   The time interval for change is still 4 months which, for me, means the oil will be changed before reaching 100hrs.  The 'transition' from leaded to unleaded must be made each time the fuel type changes.  Hmmmm.

For some reason I have been lead (see the pun) to believe that others believe lack of lead will cause problems (an old argument).    I agree with all the points about eliminating lead.  I just don't believe my engine maintenance expenses will substantially change.   I don't accumulate a lot of lead on the belly from my IO360 but those Bravo and TLS machines accumulate a stunning amount.

[Shadrach]

2 minutes ago, skykrawler said:

I've never seen that service letter...but it seems a little hinky.   The time interval for change is still 4 months which, for me, means the oil will be changed before reaching 100hrs.  The 'transition' from leaded to unleaded must be made each time the fuel type changes.  Hmmmm.

For some reason I have been lead (see the pun) to believe that others believe lack of lead will cause problems (an old argument).    I agree with all the points about eliminating lead.  I just don't believe my engine maintenance expenses will substantially change.   I don't accumulate a lot of lead on the belly from my IO360 but those Bravo and TLS machines accumulate a stunning amount.

I fly an IO360 and the red belly of my plane is grey with exhaust residue from the exhaust pipe outlet to about where the spar carries through. 

[Fly Boomer]

22 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

My main concern is about monopoly... if by an EPA determination, LL is banned, and we only have G100UL we are not going to be in a good position.

Why?

[Fly Boomer]

13 hours ago, Ibra said:

From the image, the truck delivering it at Reid Hillview looks like a homemade “fuel truck” from GAMI as well

GAMI is not in the fuel business.  They are neither a refinery nor a distributor.  Hence the STC -- it is the only way they can recoup their investment.

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

GAMI is not in the fuel business.  They are neither a refinery nor a distributor.  Hence the STC -- it is the only way they can recoup their investment.

They have a patent on the fuel, so it cannot be produced without a license from GAMI.   STCs shouldn't be necessary to recoup their investment if the fuel is successful.

[UteM20F]

15 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Homemade tanker truck? What part of Utah are you from? I’ve seen some homemade set ups and that ain’t it. That looks like a small Howo fuel truck or a clone of one.

You'll notice that I was quoting @Ibra when I mentioned the homemade tanker.  According to his profile, he's from a small (and beautiful) backwater country in Europe that I visit on occasion.  Maybe that is how they refer to small tanker trucks across the pond.

[Shadrach]

22 minutes ago, UteM20F said:

You'll notice that I was quoting @Ibra when I mentioned the homemade tanker.  According to his profile, he's from a small (and beautiful) backwater country in Europe that I visit on occasion.  Maybe that is how they refer to small tanker trucks across the pond.

I was just teasing you a bit given my experience with the ingenuity of the people that populate the mountain states. I suppose I could’ve teased @Ibra about it, but it seemed more appropriate to aim at a fellow American…

[Fly Boomer]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

They have a patent on the fuel, so it cannot be produced without a license from GAMI.   STCs shouldn't be necessary to recoup their investment if the fuel is successful.

Just got off the phone with George and, you are correct regarding the revenue from licensing, but he says that revenue will amount to a few pennies per gallon over a very long time, while the revenue from the STC recoups some of their 10- or 12-year investment up front.  Not sure what you mean by "necessary".  Everyone who provides a product or service wants to get paid.

[Ibra]

3 hours ago, Shadrach said:

I suppose I could’ve teased @Ibra about it, but it seemed more appropriate to aim at a fellow American…

Happy to learn about those "trucks in Utah" 

[M20S Driver]

Does anyone know if there is any impact from the insurance side on engine/fuel related incidents while operating with a fuel not approved by engine manufacturers?  Do they even have a say since this is on an STC?

Driver

[Ibra]

24 minutes ago, M20S Driver said:

Does anyone know if there is any impact from the insurance side on engine/fuel related incidents while operating with a fuel not approved by engine manufacturers?  Do they even have a say since this is on an STC?

It's mostly an issue with engine or airframe manufacturer warranty or liability: a manufacturer may refuse engine or tank warranty if I use some fuel that is not recomanded or approved by them  even if such fuel is legal from FAA point of view. For aircraft insurance, I expect to get paid after crash with an engine failure using G100UL as it's legal under STC. 

The product warranty/liability and the flight legallity/safety don't have to overlap. My understanding, I can't sue Lycoming for warranty or damage (real or imagined) from G100UL, in the same way that I can't sue them for my flying past TBO as I purposefully ignore their recomandation for overhaul, however, I do expect my insurance to pay if I ever crash dead stick with an engine past TBO...

Take the example of uncertified or homebuilt (experimental) they can fly using G100UL without having to loop anyone in their business and they are well insured as reflected in their premiums, however, they should not ask engine manufacturers for liability or warranty, they tend to buy engines "as is" and operate "at own risk" 

Edited October 31 by Ibra

[Shadrach]

13 minutes ago, Ibra said:

It's mostly an issue with engine or airframe manufacturer warranty or liability: a manufacturer may refuse engine or tank warranty if I use some fuel that is not recomanded or approved by them  even if such fuel is legal from FAA point of view. For aircraft insurance, I expect to get paid after crash with an engine failure using G100UL as it's legal under STC. 

The product warranty/liability and the flight legallity/safety don't have to overlap. My understanding, I can't sue Lycoming for warranty or damage (real or imagined) from G100UL, in the same way that I can't sue them for my flying past TBO without overhaul when I purposefully ignore their recomandation, however, I do expect my insurance to pay if I ever crash dead stick...

They could only deny claim (in the US) if the use of the unapproved item (fuel in this case) is determined to be the cause of the failure.  Now, we all know that the what's is determined to be causal in a court of law and what is actually causal in the real world are not necessarily the same thing. If you were running G100U in a new engine and the main bearings failed due to an oil blockage due to contaminants introduced during assembly or a defective oil pump, the use of G100UL would not be grounds for denying the warranty claim. They might try to make a case for it, but that's a heavy lift.

I personally think this has become political and I am deeply disappointed by the public statements made by several manufacturers. If you dig deeper, you will see that none of the manufacturers give a specific definition of approved fuel.  That is likely because manufacturers are not in the business of approval.  They are in the business of seeking approval.   However, the FAA is in the business of approval and they have approved G100UL for use in all certified, spark ignition recips, via STC. 

Much of what is said in the previously mentioned aircraft and engine manufacturer statements is just legal noise and has no teeth.

 

 

 

[wombat]

How many people here actually have any manufacturer warranty on their airframe or engine?

 

 

[Shadrach]

12 minutes ago, wombat said:

How many people here actually have any manufacturer warranty on their airframe or engine?

 

 

I know of people that have tried. Results are a mixed bag.

The late great John Deakin had this to say about field reps from both companies.

"Lycoming and TCM field tech reps seem to me to serve but two purposes. First, if the engine is running at all, no matter how badly, they must be able to look you right in the eye and keep a straight face and say, "Oh, that's normal." Second, if the engine has failed catastrophically, it is their job to find any scrap of evidence that will allow them to say: "Pilot abuse, not covered by warranty."

I’ll never forget the Lycoming “Tech Rep” at the Arlington WA airshow somewhere around 20 years ago whose sole contribution to the discussion was literally screaming, “I wouldn’t recommend lean of peak to my worst enemy!” He said this over and over as if bombast and volume made his point.

As with any rule, there are exceptions -- and I suspect the good field tech reps will mostly agree with the above."

 

[rahill]

On 10/29/2024 at 11:50 PM, donkaye said:

This is the first I have heard that KRHV has the G100UL.  No lead is supposed to mean a cleaner engine that implies better longevity.  I would consider using it even if it cost more just for the engine benefit alone.  Does anyone know how the fueler knows whether you have bought the STC from Gami or, if they check, can you get it from them?  Or do you have to contact GAMI to buy it?

OTOH, right now Reid Hillview is an absolute mess, as is it undergoing a massive improvement process.  For a small airport, if you are not based there, just getting to the runway involves a clearance as long as one for a cross country.  Even thought I asked them to read it slowly, the Controllers there just rattle it off so fast that I finally just told them that I wanted "Progressive" to the runway.

I am base at San Jose, 5 miles from Reid Hillview, and the fuel price is higher than at Signature in San Diego, a Class B airport,  by a significant amount.  I haven't bought fuel there in years.

It's fun isn't it?  Z-Z1-Y1-cross 31R-A1-to 31L.  Which replaced "taxi via Z" more or less.  Z1, Y1, and A1 are not much more than one plane length.  One day they'll finish the construction, hopefully.

[donkaye]

Unleaded fuel is inevitable.  To minimize the entry cost I bought the STC today.  Even though I am based at KSJC, the local airport pilots get 25 gallons free this Saturday.

The discounts seems to vary depending on when you bought or buy the STCs and whether you are based at KRHV or E16.  I've attached the  program for those interested and near RHV.  Your entry cost totals $620.

Edit: STC Cost apparently varies with engine HP, so my cost is in the upper region.

GAMI Reid Hillview 10 28 2024.pdf