G100UL - fuel leak

[PT20J]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

The solution is to use trucks for the G100UL.  I'm NOT onboard with paying more for G100UL and will continue to use 100LL for as long as it is available at lower cost.  If G100UL cuts into sales of 100LL sufficiently that refineries stop producing then so be it; at least I'll be forced to buy due to market forces NOT government mandate!  Hopefully, by then, G100UL will be sufficiently vetted that my concerns over valve wear, tank leaks, and paint damage will have been proven false.

The trucks are loaded from the larger storage tanks. 

I get it. You don't want the government to force you to pay more for an environmentally superior product when there is a cheaper alternative. That's OK. A lot of people will agree with you. But we should remember that one role of government is to moderate market forces which if left unchecked will tend to concentrate wealth to the detriment of the greater good. 

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, PT20J said:

The truck are loaded from the larger storage tanks. 

I get it. You don't want the government to force you to pay more for an environmentally superior product when there is a cheaper alternative. That's OK. A lot of people will agree with you. But we should remember that one role of government is to moderate market forces which if left unchecked will tend to concentrate wealth to the detriment of the greater good. 

Well, somehow RHV is managing to have a local fuel truck available...GAMI is going to have to tanker truck G100UL in order to distribute it to point of use: just fill the local smaller trucks at the airports.  Both fuels can coexist.

I'm confused with your government comment.  How is mandating G100UL going to moderate market forces and prevent unchecked concentration of wealth???  It seems more like the government is creating a MONOPOLY if G100UL is the only fuel available!

To be candid this eliminate lead in aviation fuel issue is entirely political with a very small basis in science; we are not talking about banning baby crib lead paint (which was a pretty damn good thing)!  IIRC, the NIMBYS/Karens/Real Estate Developers have already tried to show higher airborne lead levels around airports without success.  Yet here we are being fear mongered once again by our governments.  The idea of caving without resistance in hopes they'll leave us alone smacks of a Neville Chamberlain appeasement approach. No way those adversaries are going to stop trying to shut down GA airports (especially RHV) even if we all are using G100UL.

[donkaye]

16 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, somehow RHV is managing to have a local fuel truck available...GAMI is going to have to tanker truck G100UL in order to distribute it to point of use: just fill the local smaller trucks at the airports.  Both fuels can coexist.

I'm confused with your government comment.  How is mandating G100UL going to moderate market forces and prevent unchecked concentration of wealth???  It seems more like the government is creating a MONOPOLY if G100UL is the only fuel available!

To be candid this eliminate lead in aviation fuel issue is entirely political with a very small basis in science; we are not talking about banning baby crib lead paint (which was a pretty damn good thing)!  IIRC, the NIMBYS/Karens/Real Estate Developers have already tried to show higher airborne lead levels around airports without success.  Yet here we are being fear mongered once again by our governments.  The idea of caving without resistance in hopes they'll leave us alone smacks of a Neville Chamberlain appeasement approach. No way those adversaries are going to stop trying to shut down GA airports (especially RHV) even if we all are using G100UL.

For an airport that is supposedly going away in a few years, a whole lot of money was just spent upgrading the runways.

[PT20J]

14 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, somehow RHV is managing to have a local fuel truck available...GAMI is going to have to tanker truck G100UL in order to distribute it to point of use: just fill the local smaller trucks at the airports.  Both fuels can coexist.

I'm confused with your government comment.  How is mandating G100UL going to moderate market forces and prevent unchecked concentration of wealth???  It seems more like the government is creating a MONOPOLY if G100UL is the only fuel available!

To be candid this eliminate lead in aviation fuel issue is entirely political with a very small basis in science; we are not talking about banning baby crib lead paint (which was a pretty damn good thing)!  IIRC, the NIMBYS/Karens/Real Estate Developers have already tried to show higher airborne lead levels around airports without success.  Yet here we are being fear mongered once again by our governments.  The idea of caving without resistance in hopes they'll leave us alone smacks of a Neville Chamberlain appeasement approach. No way those adversaries are going to stop trying to shut down GA airports (especially RHV) even if we all are using G100UL.

Every place I go there is only one fuel available at the airport, so it's effectively an monopoly now. There is nothing preventing a GAMI competitor from coming up with a competing product.  GA is the last major contributor of lead in the environment. There is no established safe amount of lead exposure. But even if it was not a health issue, it is not particularly good for engines. I'm looking forward to getting rid of it.

I'm familiar with RHV. I go back to when Zoe Lofgren was a council member representing that district. The airport is surrounded by low income housing with families that benefit none from the airport but are affected by the noise, fear of off airport "landings" and lead contamination. Yes, they would like the airport gone. It's the same everywhere that housing has developed near airports. Removing the lead won't make the issue moot, but it will at least remove on argument against the airport while improving the health of our engines.

[MikeOH]

8 minutes ago, donkaye said:

For an airport that is supposedly going away in a few years, a whole lot of money was just spent upgrading the runways.

Good to hear!  I hope it's FEDERAL grant money so that the locals can't shut it down!

[MikeOH]

25 minutes ago, PT20J said:

Every place I go there is only one fuel available at the airport, so it's effectively an monopoly now. There is nothing preventing a GAMI competitor from coming up with a competing product.  GA is the last major contributor of lead in the environment. There is no established safe amount of lead exposure. But even if it was not a health issue, it is not particularly good for engines. I'm looking forward to getting rid of it.

I'm familiar with RHV. I go back to when Zoe Lofgren was a council member representing that district. The airport is surrounded by low income housing with families that benefit none from the airport but are affected by the noise, fear of off airport "landings" and lead contamination. Yes, they would like the airport gone. It's the same everywhere that housing has developed near airports. Removing the lead won't make the issue moot, but it will at least remove on argument against the airport while improving the health of our engines.

Well, other 100LL suppliers are free to compete if they want.  I think the one supplier of fuel is really a one FBO problem!  Be it Signature or Atlantic

I believe there are lots of man-made chemicals in our environment that are unsafe at any level.  Lead being one of them.  It's a risk in modern society: benefit vs. risk (and cost).  It is my opinion that the amount and risk of airborne lead from aviation fuel is being overstated.  I would have no problem with G100UL if it was at a cost parity and field proven to be without downsides.  Neither of those is true at this time.

FACTS: 1) G100UL is more expensive 2) It is lead free

POSSIBLE BENEFIT: 1) Extended oil change intervals (once approved by Lycoming/Cont.)

POSSIBLE DOWNSIDES: 1) Engine/Valve problems 2) Damage/life reduction of tank sealants 3) Paint damage

I grew up in southern California in the '60s and '70s and know, first hand, how bad the smog was.  Thing is, the causes were unburned hydrocarbons, high-sulfur fuel, and nitrogen oxides; no one ranted about all the lead being dumped into the air.  Initial restrictions in the '70s and early '80s (EGR, lower compression ratios, sealed fuel tanks) helped.  But it was the advent of the microprocessor and low cost zirconia O2 sensors allowing feedback control of fuel injection along with two and three-way catalytic converters that solved the smog problem.  The lead had to go NOT for its health risks but because it would DESTROY the catalytic converters!  The elimination of the lead from the environment was a side benefit.

Older vehicles had big problems with their valves running the unleaded fuel.  Thus, both leaded and unleaded coexisted at the pumps for some time before the leaded fuel went away.  The older cars' engines were just NOT DESIGNED to run on unleaded fuel.

Since our engines were designed lifetime ago, I remain skeptical of claims that unleaded won't cause aviation engines problems.  Similarly, when ethanol automotive fuels were introduced there were problems with fuel system components (analogous to possible tank sealant concerns with G100UL, or some other new fuel).

[Sixstring2k]

8 hours ago, gabez said:

I agree 100% given I am the one with the issue. I think if they would have made stronger and more conservative disclaimers it would have raised more awareness. It is also advertised as having 2-3% more power and therefore you will see less fuel consumption relatively speaking. on 3 flights it was 13.1-13.3 all the way, same as 100LL. It also smells awful not that 100LL is roses but damn......

I think that all this conversation is good but we have a big part of the puzzle missing. Unless I missed it when was your tanks last resealed?

I don’t want to make anyone feel like their being attacked but just looking at the factors that matter.

As someone with experience with big iron I can tell you that when the sealant  in the wet tank is basically about to fail because is at its end of live it does not take much to make them leak, anything from a drastic change in temperature, not so soft landing to looking at it the wrong way and it fails because it was over do for maintenance, it’s an airplane and when things go well and your pockets feel full it’s time to break. The plane could have being hinting at you it’s time and like we all do we push it or ignore the signs and in your case the tank said I am done and the blames falls on Gami feet but the signs might have being there all along and missed. 
Tank sealing is not an exact science by the way, again when applying sealant the proper temperature and cure times must be followed if not they don’t last, but if your tanks are past ten to fifteen years sense resealed not patch but full resealed they had a good run. Something maybe the change in fuel, maybe something external after all is getting cold and that change in temperature puts stress on the tank seals, flying at max weight might do it I mean something happened but I am not sure that Gami is at fault  because we would see way more reports not just 3. I am counting the baron during fuel testing and the 2 Mooney’s, more are using it and nothing has happened to there tanks so again, why these 2 Mooney’s? What do they have in common? The baron had old tank bladders so the age of the last resealed matters if this conversation is to lead to good information and not misleading information.

if had a plane with sub ten year tank resealed leaking like yours and the tanks where done by weep no more or the other two tank sealing shops that are know for good work then I think I  start to really worry. Maybe it’s was previously tank patch that fail (they never last)but if your plane like many Mooney’s had one that could be the failure point and not the fuels fault just my 2cents. 

[Z W]

I'll be glad to not splash liquid lead on my hands sumping tanks, and I'll be glad to get it out of my engine and oil too, when that becomes possible. I'll be even more glad if it keeps an overreaching government wanting to ban lead from grounding the fleet.

If a side effect is that some of the sealant in my fuel tanks, which is up to 42 years old at this point where it hasn't been patched, has to be replaced to run a new modern lead-free fuel, I will call it a cost of keeping a 42-year-old airplane in the air. I just hope I can find a shop to do the work.

If it seeps and causes my 12-year-old paint, applied by a reputable shop and still in excellent shape, to bubble off, then I'd say there's a problem. From everything I've read about GAMI's testing, I don't think it will. I expect by the time this fuel is available to me in the Midwest, if that's what it does, everyone will know about it. 

[Pinecone]

13 hours ago, MikeOH said:

What part of "G100UL needs to be in the field...alongside 100LL BEFORE 100LL is removed from the market" is so incomprehensible?  This is NOT complicated: have a truck with G100UL available at airports alongside existing 100LL tanks/pumps.  Don't just BAN 100LL and bring in G100UL (e.g. RHV).

And, no, it has NOT been beta tested IMHO.  How many planes have run G100UL, and for how many hours each?  NOT nearly enough to take away 100LL and FORCE me to use G100UL.

I'm glad you and, hopefully, MANY others will USE G100UL to prove it's actually an acceptable substitute.  Then ban the 100LL and FORCE me to pay more per gallon.

And who is going to pay for this truck at every airport???????   And how many will use it, if it is even 25 cents more per gallon??????

Well, you are arguing two separate things.  GAMI is not banning anything.  CA and the Fed EPA are.  GAMI just gave use the ONLY fuel that we can use and is unleaded.

You seem to not understand that 100LL is going away.  And without G100UL, your airplane (unless it will run on UL94 or MOGAS, which have their own set of issues) you WILL NOT BE FLYING

[Pinecone]

8 hours ago, Sixstring2k said:

I think that all this conversation is good but we have a big part of the puzzle missing. Unless I missed it when was your tanks last resealed?

I don’t want to make anyone feel like their being attacked but just looking at the factors that matter.

As someone with experience with big iron I can tell you that when the sealant  in the wet tank is basically about to fail because is at its end of live it does not take much to make them leak, anything from a drastic change in temperature, not so soft landing to looking at it the wrong way and it fails because it was over do for maintenance, it’s an airplane and when things go well and your pockets feel full it’s time to break. The plane could have being hinting at you it’s time and like we all do we push it or ignore the signs and in your case the tank said I am done and the blames falls on Gami feet but the signs might have being there all along and missed. 
Tank sealing is not an exact science by the way, again when applying sealant the proper temperature and cure times must be followed if not they don’t last, but if your tanks are past ten to fifteen years sense resealed not patch but full resealed they had a good run. Something maybe the change in fuel, maybe something external after all is getting cold and that change in temperature puts stress on the tank seals, flying at max weight might do it I mean something happened but I am not sure that Gami is at fault  because we would see way more reports not just 3. I am counting the baron during fuel testing and the 2 Mooney’s, more are using it and nothing has happened to there tanks so again, why these 2 Mooney’s? What do they have in common? The baron had old tank bladders so the age of the last resealed matters if this conversation is to lead to good information and not misleading information.

if had a plane with sub ten year tank resealed leaking like yours and the tanks where done by weep no more or the other two tank sealing shops that are know for good work then I think I  start to really worry. Maybe it’s was previously tank patch that fail (they never last)but if your plane like many Mooney’s had one that could be the failure point and not the fuels fault just my 2cents. 

And, to me, a big issue is if there was work done patching leaks or sealing that was improperly done.  The wrong product.  Used after the mixed pot life was exceeded.   Applied over non-compatible previous products.

Even the Cirrus is was due to improperly applied sealant.

I agree, that if the tanks were fully redone by a reputable shop and started leaking, I would be worried.  Even within 20 years.  But older, who knows what is really going on.

IMO, if you are worried about G100UL and your tanks.  Don't use it.  You will be in no different situation than if it did not exist.  The rest of us with fly and live with it.

MAYBE a reasonable competitor will be developed.  And then the market can choose.  But 100LL IS going away.

[Pinecone]

8 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Well, other 100LL suppliers are free to compete if they want.  I think the one supplier of fuel is really a one FBO problem!  Be it Signature or Atlantic

I believe there are lots of man-made chemicals in our environment that are unsafe at any level.  Lead being one of them.  It's a risk in modern society: benefit vs. risk (and cost).  It is my opinion that the amount and risk of airborne lead from aviation fuel is being overstated.  I would have no problem with G100UL if it was at a cost parity and field proven to be without downsides.  Neither of those is true at this time.

FACTS: 1) G100UL is more expensive 2) It is lead free

POSSIBLE BENEFIT: 1) Extended oil change intervals (once approved by Lycoming/Cont.)

POSSIBLE DOWNSIDES: 1) Engine/Valve problems 2) Damage/life reduction of tank sealants 3) Paint damage

I grew up in southern California in the '60s and '70s and know, first hand, how bad the smog was.  Thing is, the causes were unburned hydrocarbons, high-sulfur fuel, and nitrogen oxides; no one ranted about all the lead being dumped into the air.  Initial restrictions in the '70s and early '80s (EGR, lower compression ratios, sealed fuel tanks) helped.  But it was the advent of the microprocessor and low cost zirconia O2 sensors allowing feedback control of fuel injection along with two and three-way catalytic converters that solved the smog problem.  The lead had to go NOT for its health risks but because it would DESTROY the catalytic converters!  The elimination of the lead from the environment was a side benefit.

Older vehicles had big problems with their valves running the unleaded fuel.  Thus, both leaded and unleaded coexisted at the pumps for some time before the leaded fuel went away.  The older cars' engines were just NOT DESIGNED to run on unleaded fuel.

Since our engines were designed lifetime ago, I remain skeptical of claims that unleaded won't cause aviation engines problems.  Similarly, when ethanol automotive fuels were introduced there were problems with fuel system components (analogous to possible tank sealant concerns with G100UL, or some other new fuel).

Lycoming has already published an SB that doubles the oil change interval if you burn only lead free gas.

Leaded auto fuel went away because newer cars could not use it at all, so the market for leaded slowly went away.  To the point that few stations carried it.  IIRC, it was no long made or sold in the US well before it was actually banned.

[N201MKTurbo]

9 hours ago, donkaye said:

For an airport that is supposedly going away in a few years, a whole lot of money was just spent upgrading the runways.

The runways were federal money, I would like to see the city or county fix the roads on the city side. They were embarrassing last time I was there.

[Pinecone]

9 hours ago, MikeOH said:

How is mandating G100UL going to moderate market forces and prevent unchecked concentration of wealth???  It seems more like the government is creating a MONOPOLY if G100UL is the only fuel available!

G100UL is not mandated.  You are free to run any fuel meets your TDCS, as amended by STC, and that you can buy.  Feel free to develop a competing fuel with G100UL and become a millionaire.

BTW you do know that there is only ONE manufacturer of TEL in the world.  That is a real monopoly.

And what happens if that plant burns down or is shut down?

[redbaron1982]

15 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

IMO, if you are worried about G100UL and your tanks.  Don't use it.  You will be in no different situation than if it did not exist.  The rest of us with fly and live with it.

That's assuming that the government does not ban the competition (in this case, 100LL), which in commie Kalifornia is already happening.

There is no free market if the government intervenes to limit competition or favor one alternative.

[Pinecone]

No, they are not banning competition.  ANY UL fuel can be sold, but just not 100LL.

As I said before, you are free to develop a UL AVGAS and become a millionaire.  But it might take billions to do so.

[varlajo]

A flight school at KSQL has a fuel truck with Swift 100R servicing its 172 fleet. 

One day that STC will be expanded beyond IO-360-L2A. 

[redbaron1982]

7 minutes ago, varlajo said:

A flight school at KSQL has a fuel truck with Swift 100R servicing its 172 fleet. 

One day that STC will be expanded beyond IO-360-L2A. 

By the way, Swift was already aware of the issues that G100UL generates with paints and coatings:

Does Swift Fuels allow G100UL to be mixed with Swift Fuels UL94 or 100R in an approved piston aircraft?

No. G100UL must not be used at this time in aircraft approved for a Swift Fuels STC, and furthermore G100UL must not be intermixed with any Swift Fuels’ avgas product in any aircraft. This is because G100UL contains an aromatic amine “meta-toluidine” – an aggressive solvent that smells like turpentine – that testing shows is particularly prone to damaging paint/coatings, sealants, bladders, diaphragms, and various elastomeric parts in aircraft fuels systems. 

[Pinecone]

14 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

By the way, Swift was already aware of the issues that G100UL generates with paints and coatings:

Does Swift Fuels allow G100UL to be mixed with Swift Fuels UL94 or 100R in an approved piston aircraft?

No. G100UL must not be used at this time in aircraft approved for a Swift Fuels STC, and furthermore G100UL must not be intermixed with any Swift Fuels’ avgas product in any aircraft. This is because G100UL contains an aromatic amine “meta-toluidine” – an aggressive solvent that smells like turpentine – that testing shows is particularly prone to damaging paint/coatings, sealants, bladders, diaphragms, and various elastomeric parts in aircraft fuels systems. 

And we know that Swift would never say anything that was not true about G100UL.  (sarcasm off)

 

[Pinecone]

I contacted Scott Dyer and am posting the following with his permission.

"

The Consent Decree states as initially put into effect in 2014, that the Settling Defendants (e.g., the distributors and the FBOs) could still sell avgas with lead content of not more than 0.56g/l. This is the maximum lead content of 100LL.

The Consent Decree, at Section 2.3.1(d), specifically contemplates the Court, on motion, lowering the lead content allowed to be sold:
---------------------------------
At any time after 100VLL or any other lower lead alternative to 100LL Avgas that is
approved for aviation use becomes Commercially Available for the California market, any
Party may file a motion to modify the terms of Section 2.3.1(a) on the basis that either:
. . .
(b) Avgas with a lead concentration at a level of 0.45 is more than 10 percent over the lead concentration level in fuel that is approved for aviation and that is Commercially Available such that the level should be adjusted downward. The Party seeking a modification pursuant to this Section shall provide written notice to all affected Parties and shall meet and confer with all interested parties for a period of not less than 30 days before filing any such motion. The Party bringing a motion to modify this consent judgment shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the concentration limit in Section 2.3.1(a) should be modified pursuant to this Section 2.3.1(d).
-----------------------------------

G100UL as a maximum lead concentration of 0.013g/l (edited to proper value as per George Braly), and the 0.013g/l (edited) lead concentration of G100UL is more than 10% less than the 0.45g/l concentration specified in the Consent Decree. Thus, as a matter of contract given G100UL’s commercial availability, the court is empowered by all the settling parties to reduce the lead concentration of any avgas that may be sold by the settling distributors and the settling FBOs, and the court is giving effect to the parties’ settlement terms from 2014. It's the deal that the distributors and FBOs in the case made 10 years ago, assuming commercial availability.

The court enforcing the terms of the Consent Decree will ultimately be a judgment, I think you are imbuing the term with a meaning it doesn’t have."

[donkaye]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

The runways were federal money, I would like to see the city or county fix the roads on the city side. They were embarrassing last time I was there.

The road and traffic going by KRHV is terrible now as the result of a new construction project bring apparently overhead rail to the South Bay.  The project is massive and looks to continue for several years.

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Lycoming has already published an SB that doubles the oil change interval if you burn only lead free gas.

Leaded auto fuel went away because newer cars could not use it at all, so the market for leaded slowly went away.  To the point that few stations carried it.  IIRC, it was no long made or sold in the US well before it was actually banned.

Can you cite the SB, please?

Your second paragraph is how this should work: "leaded SLOWLY went away. To the point that few stations carried it".  Because the market went away as car technology advanced.

Sadly, that won't happen here; we are stuck with antiquated and stagnant development of our GA piston engines.  Yes, 100LL is going to go away and we will be FORCED to accept both higher cost and, very likely, downsides.

What surprises me is the number of individuals that seem to perfectly fine with THAT!

[Marc_B]

It’s a Service Letter from 2017. 
https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SL270%20Extended%20Maintenance%20Intervals%20for%20%20Engines%20Operated%20on%20Unleaded%20Fuels_0.pdf

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

G100UL is not mandated.  You are free to run any fuel meets your TDCS, as amended by STC, and that you can buy.  Feel free to develop a competing fuel with G100UL and become a millionaire.

BTW you do know that there is only ONE manufacturer of TEL in the world.  That is a real monopoly.

And what happens if that plant burns down or is shut down?

I don't believe I ever said G100UL was government mandated by decree; what I said is that it is effectively mandated if the government bans 100LL and G100UL is the only other fuel available.  The government is turning a blind eye to their creation of a defacto monopoly (GAMI) by the ban of 100LL.  Sorry that I didn't realize my point needed such a detailed explanation.

Ah, the "TEL monopoly"  Well, somehow those greedy monopolistic bastards have managed to price their product at such a point that 100LL is much cheaper than G100UL.

And, if their factory 'burns down' it's not like how to make TEL is as secret as the formula for Coca-Cola!  Another manufacturer would fill the void.

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

It’s a Service Letter from 2017. 
https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/attachments/SL270%20Extended%20Maintenance%20Intervals%20for%20%20Engines%20Operated%20on%20Unleaded%20Fuels_0.pdf

If I'm reading the SB correctly, the increase in oil change interval to 100 hours from 50 hours is rendered moot for most of us by the UNCHANGED requirement of no more than 4 months between changes!

I'd also point out that advantage is going to be quite costly at the present difference in price between 100LL (I pay about $5.50 near me, although $4.90 is available at KSZP) and G100UL ($6.99 at KRHV?). At 150 hours per year (minimum needed to benefit from the increased oil change interval), estimating 10 gph, that advantage is going to cost you $2,235.

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, Pinecone said:

And we know that Swift would never say anything that was not true about G100UL.  (sarcasm off)

 

Then GAMI should sue for slander/libel if there is NO truth to Swift's statements.