G100UL - fuel leak

[T. Peterson]

40 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Because this is not a hill to die on.  There are much bigger issues and this one has a direct path to it. That is closure of airports. Nothing else matters because once they close your airport, it's over. If they close a lot of airports, it is all over. The leading reason to close GA airports right now is lead pollution. We have to remove this issue if we are to survive and these inter-nicene battles will deliver us to our enemies hands. I understand your concern about "over-reach" but on the issue of lead in fuel  it is an insurmountable issue with the public that we cannot overcome no matter the data. Lead scares the h-e-double hockey sticks out of parents and when you start messing with the parent/child protectorate  you are talking about the most powerful bond in the universe (ask the Democrats in VA).   That is why I am cheer leading anyone who can solve the problem and we may have to accept some less than elegant solutions including resealing our tanks, changing seals, tubes and o-rings as well as paint protectants. We need lead behind us, and we need to do it fast if we are to survive.  

This is a very thoughtful and intelligent response.
I am not as convinced as are you that lead poisoning from aviation gas has taken such a high priority in the public mind. It would not surprise me that certain folks in government push that narrative as a short cut to to their dubious agendas, but I have not seen any handwringing in the general public. Having said that, I am not advocating for leaded gas and I am most certainly not advocating against GAMI. Where it starts to stink is when one fuel manufacturer corners the market due to government mandate, yet not even that is satisfactory. That manufacturer is further anointed with the privilege of charging for an STC for what is supposedly a drop-in fuel.

Maybe it’s not a hill to die on, but it is certainly government putting their thumb on the scale and little hills grow to big ones.

 I do very much appreciate your spirit and thoughtful opinion. I respect your view.

[Shadrach]

On 12/23/2024 at 1:51 PM, varlajo said:

Don, how do you plan to deal with fuel venting caused by thermal expansion in summer? 

Are you concerned that the vented vapors are going to stain the paint?

[Shadrach]

45 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

This is a very thoughtful and intelligent response.
I am not as convinced as are you that lead poisoning from aviation gas has taken such a high priority in the public mind. It would not surprise me that certain folks in government push that narrative as a short cut to to their dubious agendas, but I have not seen any handwringing in the general public. Having said that, I am not advocating for leaded gas and I am most certainly not advocating against GAMI. Where it starts to stink is when one fuel manufacturer corners the market due to government mandate, yet not even that is satisfactory. That manufacturer is further anointed with the privilege of charging for an STC for what is supposedly a drop-in fuel.

Maybe it’s not a hill to die on, but it is certainly government putting their thumb on the scale and little hills grow to big ones.

 I do very much appreciate your spirit and thoughtful opinion. I respect your view.

Have you ever had your lead levels tested? 
I have… While I am below the “safe” threshold, I am 99.9% sure that the lead present in my system is from exposure to TEL in avgas.  I have been around airplanes since birth and have certainly been careless with regards to PPE while exposed to things like exhaust stains on the belly or direct skin exposure to Avgas. It is nasty stuff. However, I don’t think it has a measurable affect on those not directly exposed to it (pilots, line personnel, mechanics etc.) the idea that overflying  airplanes are poisoning the public is pretty silly.

[MikeOH]

10 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Are you concerned that the vented vapors are going to stain the paint?

I read his concern that high temps will force liquid fuel out of full tanks onto the paint...no one there to clean it up.

[T. Peterson]

10 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Have you ever had your lead levels tested? 
I have… While I am below the “safe” threshold, I am 99.9% sure that the lead present in my system is from exposure to TEL in avgas.  I have been around airplanes since birth and have certainly been careless with regards to PPE while exposed to things like exhaust stains on the belly or direct skin exposure to Avgas. It is nasty stuff. However, I don’t think it has a measurable affect on those not directly exposed to it (pilots, line personnel, mechanics etc.) the idea that overflying  airplanes are poisoning the public is pretty silly.

No, I have not because I am afraid they will find a large deposit between my ears!

[Ibra]

4 hours ago, gabez said:

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/california-mechanics-tests-show-g100ul-paint-nitrile-o-ring-damage-under-some-circumstances/

 

I passed the video to the team at Gami that is on the email chain with my shop

To be fair GAMI has already provided an answer to such question, see George reply here,

https://mooneyspace.com/topic/50183-g100ul-thread-mia/#findComment-887934

It’s hard to get informed on pros & cons in middle of all the noise on this topic (will be gutted if it’s my paint) but again worth checking the specs of the sealants, checking for leaks, if one has “nitrile-O ring”…before using G100UL 

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 09:24 PM by Ibra

[FlyingDude]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

It is the reason why Constantinople is now called Istanbul.

If Mehmed 2 hadn't conquered Istanbul, the illumination would not have started in Italy by the escaping Greek scholars. So no world exploration, no industrial revolution... Most probably your great grandfather would have died in a plague or in yet another endless turf war within Europe. Another side fact: Byzantium was weakened a lot by the plundering crusaders, which helped its demise. So they were screwed worse by the passing Christians than the invading Muslims. 

I'm all for unleaded gas. 

[Shadrach]

24 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I read his concern that high temps will force liquid fuel out of full tanks onto the paint...no one there to clean it up.

Has your F ever puked fuel out of the vents? I’ve managed to do that with other makes, but never the Mooney. Even if I did, it would end up on the ground not on the paint. Did Mooney have an alternative vent design that deposit fuel onto paint?

[toto]

I’m sure this is a bit premature, but has anyone seen any commentary from 172 operators who are running Swift 100R?

Maybe this is just the one flight school in San Carlos?

If 100R turns out to be a viable fleetwide replacement, we’ll have to invest in a lot more popcorn.

[varlajo]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Are you concerned that the vented vapors are going to stain the paint?

I am concerned that vented liquid will strip the paint... 

My tanks lose up to a gallon per side on hot summer days when topped off to the brim.

Edited Tuesday at 11:45 PM by varlajo

[FlyingDude]

2 hours ago, Shadrach said:

Has your F ever puked fuel out of the vents?

I asked chatgpt to calculate the expansion of 360 liters (90 gallon) of avgas from 0* Celsius while receiving 2kW power which would be the full sun load on 2 m2 surface area which is oversized for the above wing surface at 45th parallel and assumes full absorption, which means the wings are pitch black.  16mL per second. That's pretty nothing for the fuel vents to drain.

 

[donkaye]

I've got over 20 hours on the mixture of 100LL and G100UL.  There does appear to be some minor staining at the fuel openings as indicated previously.  As to operations, it performs well.  I will continue to use it, monitoring carefully fueling and inspect drains and vents more carefully.  I choose to put more weight on the positives as opposed to the potential negatives at this time, but each to his own.

[NickG]

12 minutes ago, donkaye said:

I've got over 20 hours on the mixture of 100LL and G100UL.  There does appear to be some minor staining at the fuel openings as indicated previously.  As to operations, it performs well.  I will continue to use it, monitoring carefully fueling and inspect drains and vents more carefully.  I choose to put more weight on the positives as opposed to the potential negatives at this time, but each to his own.

Thanks Don! Keep us posted!

[Marc_B]

22 minutes ago, donkaye said:

I've got over 20 hours on the mixture of 100LL and G100UL.

Don, do you have a rough idea of how many gallons of 100LL vs how many gallons of G100UL in each side?

curious the same for @gabez and @larryb

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, varlajo said:

I am concerned that vented liquid will strip the paint... 

My tanks lose up to a gallon per side on hot summer days when topped off to the brim.

The vents on my 67F are pointed tubes that protrude straight down from underside of the outermost tank. Any spillage would have to defy gravity on the ground and would evaporate almost immediately in the air. Are you getting blue stains aft of your vents?

[varlajo]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

Are you getting blue stains aft of your vents?

Yep. No pointed tubes on my E. 

[donkaye]

14 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Don, do you have a rough idea of how many gallons of 100LL vs how many gallons of G100UL in each side?

curious the same for @gabez and @larryb

I bought G100UL 3 times since November 2, 2024 when I got the STC signed, balanced on both sides.  That day I got 25 gallons free.  I estimate I had 40 gallons prefueling.  The 2nd time was November 8th and I bought 38.9 gallons.  I topped it off so 50 gallons prefueling.  Finally, I bought 21 gallons on December 19th and topped it off again in preparation for a long trip on the 23rd.  So 68 gallons prefueling.

So,  approximate % G100UL total fuel after each refueling;  Fuel 1: 25/65 = 38% ; Fuel 2: 38.9/89 = 44% ; Fuel: 3 21/89 = 24%

The above is approximate for 2 and 3, since I don't know how much G100UL remained in the tank before refueling 2 and 3.

[PeteMc]

11 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

I am not as convinced as are you that lead poisoning from aviation gas has taken such a high priority in the public mind.

I believe it is a major issue if you live near an airport and have children.  Or your children go to a school that is near or under an approach to an airport.  And yes, regardless of the number of parents and children that are directly impacted, you are not going to find a government official that is not going to make a big deal about it. 

And yes, in many cases where they are actually close to the airport, there is a major health issue.  So a small number that have a BIG voice. 

 

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, PeteMc said:

I believe it is a major issue if you live near an airport and have children.  Or your children go to a school that is near or under an approach to an airport.  And yes, regardless of the number of parents and children that are directly impacted, you are not going to find a government official that is not going to make a big deal about it. 

And yes, in many cases where they are actually close to the airport, there is a major health issue.  So a small number that have a BIG voice. 

 

Maybe this is all true and I have just missed it. I watch very little news so I am probably uninformed.

Outside of Mooneyspace I have not encountered anyone concerned about lead in Avgas. On the contrary, many are eager to go for an airplane ride. Some of my friends live very close to airports and not one as ever bemoaned the threat of lead in aviation fuel. Neither do I see families fleeing Airparks or hangar availability skyrocketing as airplane owners escape the dreaded Avgas plague. This is just my personal experience and yours may be different. 
I am certain there are studies pointing to certain disaster, but the longer I live the more skeptical I become. Folks with agendas are particularly astute at providing “studies”. It is also my personal observation that some are prone to surrender their own “sense making” when confronted with the claims of academia. I have also observed that the law of unintended consequences is very real, particularly when observed in the context of government policy. I have a gut feeling this law is going to raise its head once again in this fuel mandate. …….and it may go a lot deeper than peeling paint…..

 

 

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, PeteMc said:

..., there is a major health issue.

I guess I must plead ignorance to this 'major health issue'.  Yes, I'm fully aware that lead is bad but please provide some demonstrative evidence that airborne lead from aviation fuel is causing a 'major health issue'.

[Hank]

5 hours ago, PeteMc said:

I believe it is a major issue if you live near an airport and have children.  Or your children go to a school that is near or under an approach to an airport.  And yes, regardless of the number of parents and children that are directly impacted, you are not going to find a government official that is not going to make a big deal about it. 

And yes, in many cases where they are actually close to the airport, there is a major health issue.  So a small number that have a BIG voice. 

The most recent studies I've seen on this were done in the 2010s, and found higher airborne lead concentrations at random locations than near GA airports.

What bothers me is when I ride the giant aluminum tubes, and return several days later to find a scummy film on my car at the giant airport parking lot. Haven't heard much complaining or negative news reports about that stuff . . . . But the car generally needs a good bath once I get home, and I must wash the windshield to see good on the return trip.

[tony]

On 12/23/2024 at 5:26 PM, T. Peterson said:

This is exactly right! The entire notion of an STC is that something is being done to the airplane. In this case nothing is being done to the airplane. It’s a drop in fuel that is abusing the STC system to allow GAMI to milk the cow from both ends. Utterly irrelevant that this may have happened with other products in the past. If it did, it was wrong. 
This is also why the semantics matter. It’s not silly, it’s dishonest.

I'd love to see the compliance checklist for the STC.  Specifically how did GAMI show compliance to 23.961 for entire population of aircraft using an STC .  I can't see how they could have.  Which means it was pencil whipped by the FAA.  

Edited 11 hours ago by tony

[wombat]

My take-away from all of this is:

#1: Based on the independent testing shown in this video: https://youtu.be/sPeQ6T3vB2E the negative effects that the OP @gabez and @larryb are probably caused by the G100UL they used.  No testing was done to determine if this fuel was contaminated or if it met the manufacturer's specifications.

#2:  There are a lot of people that have very strong opinions about how much testing should be done prior to both making a new product available for use and making a new product a defacto requirement (such as prohibiting other options).

#3: There are a lot of people that have very strong opinions about how bad the TEL from avgas is for people in the quantities and concentrations created by piston GA use.

 

Personally, I'm disappointed that @George Braly's product seems to have this side effect and would love to hear back from him about this.   This makes me less excited about the fuel, but I would still be willing to use it.    I'm much happier knowing about the negative aspects than being unaware of them.

This not disappointment in George or in GAMI; I don't have any evidence to indicate anything other than someone trying their best to bring a product to market legally and safely.

[Jeff Uphoff]

4 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Maybe this is all true and I have just missed it. I watch very little news so I am probably uninformed.

Outside of Mooneyspace I have not encountered anyone concerned about lead in Avgas. 

Having once been based at KRHV, where all the G100UL action has been taking place lately, I can verify the concern voiced by locals re leaded avgas. There's a school immediately adjacent to the field, and of course there's California politics.

--Up.

[T. Peterson]

55 minutes ago, Jeff Uphoff said:

Having once been based at KRHV, where all the G100UL action has been taking place lately, I can verify the concern voiced by locals re leaded avgas. There's a school immediately adjacent to the field, and of course there's California politics.

--Up.

I don’t doubt you for a moment. If that’s the way the KRHV locals feel, than KRHV is a very good place for “all the G100UL action” to take place.