G100UL - fuel leak

[redbaron1982]

It looks like GAMI is acknowledging now that nitrile o-ring may swell if soaked in G100UL.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/gami-says-all-high-aromatic-gasolines-are-hard-on-paint/

[gabez]

14 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

It looks like GAMI is acknowledging now that nitrile o-ring may swell if soaked in G100UL.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/gami-says-all-high-aromatic-gasolines-are-hard-on-paint/

well the cat is our of the bag now. still nothing from my mechanic hopefully I get something late this week, beginning next

 

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, wombat said:

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.

I think that's a pretty decent summary of take-always.  And, agree, best to know about the negative aspects.  Which is why I maintain my position that we should not be forced to a single fuel solution until it is completely vetted in the field (years).

In regards to your last paragraph, would you have those same "someone trying their best" comments had one of Big Oil developed G100UL and these issues were now coming to light?

[wombat]

10 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

... would you have those same "someone trying their best" comments had one of Big Oil developed G100UL and these issues were now coming to light?

Probably not.

On the other hand, I would have expected Big Oil to have done significantly more testing and be less open about what testing they did.

[MikeOH]

49 minutes ago, wombat said:

Probably not.

On the other hand, I would have expected Big Oil to have done significantly more testing and be less open about what testing they did.

Thanks for your honest answer!

I have no inherent animus towards George or Big Oil; they are BOTH out to make a PROFIT.  I attempt to be objective regardless of who is providing a new product; either could be honest, or not, open with downsides, or not.  All should be held to the same standards.

I have no reason to believe one or the other is more likely to be 'less open'

[Larry]

In some municipalities, homes near the airports are old enough to have been painted with paint containing lead.  Does the testing for lead take this under consideration?

[Shadrach]

23 hours ago, FlyingDude said:

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.

 

Maybe it is due to the configuration of the three bay, 64 gal tanks, but I can say that I have never seen them leak fuel from the vents. 

[Shiroyuki]

7 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

It looks like GAMI is acknowledging now that nitrile o-ring may swell if soaked in G100UL.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/gami-says-all-high-aromatic-gasolines-are-hard-on-paint/

This is completely unacceptable response from GAMI.

In summary:

Yes we know our fuel is hard on paint, but 100LL is also hard on paint.

Yes we know O-ring will swell, but it still work fine.

I call these bullshit. We have issue with this fuel because it is way more harsh on paint to a point it strips the paint in 48 hours, and regarding the o-ring, you can't convince me a 10% larger diameter will work fine.

And what about the ultimate question? If this fuel is so harsh on everything, what is it going to do with PRC or tank sealant? If it eat tank sealant like paint or nitrile, no way in a million light year i would touch this fuel ever. There's no way to fix that!

I hope no one is going to find out that o-ring issue the hard way. Maybe one day someone got a small leak on a fuel line going to the engine, then dripped onto muffler... That would put an end to G100UL.

[Shiroyuki]

Just spent some time reading swift fuel's website and it mentioned:

"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."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Due to liability concerns, Swift Fuels avgas products may not be intermixed with G100UL which contains 3% – 4.5% m-toluidine (an aggressive solvent). Such solvents as found in G100UL (aka “aromatic amines”) are known to disturb certain aircraft fuel system elastomers, sealants, and anti-corrosive coatings."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Aromatic amines are very aggressive solvents that tend to disturb fuel-wetted aircraft fuel system components

Swift Fuels conducted extensive testing on aromatic amines between 2012 and 2022 and publicly announced our decision not to utilize aromatic amines as octane boosters in commercially available avgas.

Swift Fuels experience has been that aromatic amines can disturb aircraft fuel bladders, anti-corrosion coatings, sealants, epoxy coatings, servos, elastomers, hoses, aircraft fabric, and other critical components leading to flight safety issues.

Aromatic amines are also heavy and tend to freeze well above -58°C, thus requiring special blending with heavy aromatics. This can change the weight/balance of the aircraft. It can also trigger fuel maldistribution in certain carbureted engines."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So I suppose they are not wrong...

[Fly Boomer]

Ran across this article discussing the effect car gas can have on your car paint.  Car gas, as you know, is lower octane, can contain a percentage of (benign) alcohol, and likely has a lower percentages of aromatics.  Aircraft paint, as you know, is tougher than car paint because it has to stand up to abuses not experienced on our roads.  Anyway, the assertion is that car gas can stain your paint or, with enough exposure, can strip your paint.  Who knew?

https://paintloving.com/does-gas-ruin-car-paint/
 

[GeeBee]

Not just KRHV, Centennial in Arapahoe, CO and most recently KVNY have come under the lead gun. Look, we can argue about the validity of the studies, the numbers etc all we want, and it matters little. Like the drone scares in NJ, once the public is stampeded, you better have a plan to GTFOOTW.

[MikeOH]

12 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Not just KRHV, Centennial in Arapahoe, CO and most recently KVNY have come under the lead gun. Look, we can argue about the validity of the studies, the numbers etc all we want, and it matters little. Like the drone scares in NJ, once the public is stampeded, you better have a plan to GTFOOTW.

WOW!  Now you're resorting to vulgarity rather than logic?

The validity of these 'studies' needs to be challenged in court.

Bizarre analogy with 'drone scare' but, maybe, the same outcome...the drone scare is already fading and will be in the news cycle rear-view mirror shortly.  If G100UL doesn't work out, and there are no other alternatives, then this, too, will fade until another contender appears.  GA isn't going to get 'shut down' over this.

[exM20K]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Not just KRHV, Centennial in Arapahoe, CO and most recently KVNY have come under the lead gun. Look, we can argue about the validity of the studies, the numbers etc all we want, and it matters little. Like the drone scares in NJ, once the public is stampeded, you better have a plan to GTFOOTW.

I agree with the emotional stampede but strongly disagree with getting out of the way.

One cannot reason someone out of a position they have been driven in a panic into. One can only work within the political and legal system to win.

I’m deeply involved in one of the great and current civil rights policy debates, and I used to engage with the other side in describing how the existing laws function in legal commerce. No more.  We now fight in court, where we win with the facts and reason. And we win.

I am far from fluent on environmental law and the regulatory state, but the 100LL thing will ultimately be decided there. I hope Million Dollar Mark has his experts queued up to push back against preposterous “studies” showing abnormal and elevated lead levels in children residing near GA airports, but I fear he hasn’t.
 

If the AOPA’s leadership wishes to stop the bleeding of membership and re-establish its relevance to grassroots GA, it has a window here to take an aggressive stand against the emotional tidal wave by side-stepping into the legal realm to protect our ability to fly. Else they will feed off the corpse of a once-great association while somebody else carries the fight.

Don’t fold.

-dan

[GeeBee]

Here is your fight and the cause of the stampede. You really think you or AOPA can overcome this kind of science? Carry on Don Quixote:

"Protecting children from exposure to lead is important to lifelong good health. No safe BLL in children has been identified. Even low levels of lead in blood have been shown to have effect. Low levels of lead can reduce a child's learning capacity, ability to pay attention, and academic achievement.

Some effects of exposure to lead can be permanent. If caught early, however, parents, healthcare providers, and communities can take actions to prevent further exposure. The most important step that anyone can take is to prevent lead exposure before it occurs."

https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/php/news-features/updates-blood-lead-reference-value.html

 

"Currently, the source
category with the greatest contribution to total U.S.
air emissions [ed: of lead] is piston-engine aircraft operating on
leaded fuel (EPA, 2018d; Task Force, 2016). "

 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/fedactionplan_lead_final.pdf

 

 

[tony]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Here is your fight and the cause of the stampede. You really think you or AOPA......

 

 

The AOPA is not on the side of 100LL.  

[GeeBee]

Because even they know it is a losing battle.

 

[Paul Thomas]

11 hours ago, exM20K said:

If the AOPA’s leadership wishes to stop the bleeding of membership and re-establish its relevance to grassroots GA, it has a window here to take an aggressive stand against the emotional tidal wave by side-stepping into the legal realm to protect our ability to fly. Else they will feed off the corpse of a once-great association while somebody else carries the fight.

Don’t fold.

-dan

Sadly AOPA is often worthless and if they offer an opinion, I think it would be in support G100UL. I often question why I belong to AOPA... I don't read the magazine and they've refused to even send an email to members in a State to let them know a group of hangar owners/lessee were taking a fight all the way to that state's Supreme Court. So much for power in numbers.

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Here is your fight and the cause of the stampede. You really think you or AOPA can overcome this kind of science? Carry on Don Quixote:

Your insult is unpersuasive. You are willing to concede against a zero-tolerance standard. You mis-read the political and legal landscape, which is the only substantial change recently here.

Until there is a viable alternative to 100LL, then, yes, the GA orgs should be prepared to push back against the use of this “science” to whip up the mob against GA. I agree that winning the PR battle here is not likely, but that is not where this protection will be won, which is my point.

The EPA operates under the Clean Air Act.  The Act has been amended many times, often to  broaden its scope. Whipping congressional support to keep 100LL outside the scope of the EPA’s enforcement pending a viable alternative is what a GA lobbying group should be doing. Maybe AOPA is doing so quietly and behind-the-scenes.

Moreover, post-Cargill, Judges no longer must defer to government “experts” and opinions. So an EPA study concluding that GA is the biggest producer of airborne lead and a zero-tolerance standard demanding no lead anywhere no longer are themselves controlling in court.

The orgs should be prepared to sue and to seek injunctive relief should the EPA move to ban 100LL in the absence of a functionally and economically viable alternative. Maybe the orgs are preparing in this way.

Or, if you wish to throw in with the mob, quit flying your plane.  If you believe that the lead produced by GA piston flying is harming children, then it is selfish and morally unacceptable to continue with this activity until a viable alternative fuel is available.

-dan

[N201MKTurbo]

I think cellphones do a lot more damage to our children's brains then the lead we put into their bodies, but that is just my opinion.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

Your insult is unpersuasive. You are willing to concede against a zero-tolerance standard. You mis-read the political and legal landscape, which is the only substantial change recently here.

Until there is a viable alternative to 100LL, then, yes, the GA orgs should be prepared to push back against the use of this “science” to whip up the mob against GA. I agree that winning the PR battle here is not likely, but that is not where this protection will be won, which is my point.

The EPA operates under the Clean Air Act.  The Act has been amended many times, often to  broaden its scope. Whipping congressional support to keep 100LL outside the scope of the EPA’s enforcement pending a viable alternative is what a GA lobbying group should be doing. Maybe AOPA is doing so quietly and behind-the-scenes.

Moreover, post-Cargill, Judges no longer must defer to government “experts” and opinions. So an EPA study concluding that GA is the biggest producer of airborne lead and a zero-tolerance standard demanding no lead anywhere no longer are themselves controlling in court.

The orgs should be prepared to sue and to seek injunctive relief should the EPA move to ban 100LL in the absence of a functionally and economically viable alternative. Maybe the orgs are preparing in this way.

Or, if you wish to throw in with the mob, quit flying your plane.  If you believe that the lead produced by GA piston flying is harming children, then it is selfish and morally unacceptable to continue with this activity until a viable alternative fuel is available.

-dan

Okay. Let's have a trial. Who are you going to get that says, "some lead is ok". Please give me the study that says, the lead from fuel burning is not a problem. Please show me the studies and the scientists willing to testify that "a little bit of lead" is not a problem to children. 

What most of you don't realize is that Administrator Dixon, AOPA and EAA did us a favor with EAGLE. They bought us time to get our act together. Not time to resist further. I will grant you some people on the EAGLE committee have been grinding their own axes, but the reality is, this is happening and we need to use the time wisely, and not trying to stop leaded fuel.

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, exM20K said:

Or, if you wish to throw in with the mob, quit flying your plane.  If you believe that the lead produced by GA piston flying is harming children, then it is selfish and morally unacceptable to continue with this activity until a viable alternative fuel is available.

I am going to answer this separately. It does not matter what I believe. It only matters what the public who influences Congress at large believes and right now you have nothing and nobody to convince them otherwise. If you want to invoke "Cargill" go ahead, put this before Congress. Even if you had all of K Street working on your behalf you would lose because nobody is going to vote for lead in the atmosphere.

[T. Peterson]

3 hours ago, exM20K said:

Your insult is unpersuasive. You are willing to concede against a zero-tolerance standard. You mis-read the political and legal landscape, which is the only substantial change recently here.

Until there is a viable alternative to 100LL, then, yes, the GA orgs should be prepared to push back against the use of this “science” to whip up the mob against GA. I agree that winning the PR battle here is not likely, but that is not where this protection will be won, which is my point.

The EPA operates under the Clean Air Act.  The Act has been amended many times, often to  broaden its scope. Whipping congressional support to keep 100LL outside the scope of the EPA’s enforcement pending a viable alternative is what a GA lobbying group should be doing. Maybe AOPA is doing so quietly and behind-the-scenes.

Moreover, post-Cargill, Judges no longer must defer to government “experts” and opinions. So an EPA study concluding that GA is the biggest producer of airborne lead and a zero-tolerance standard demanding no lead anywhere no longer are themselves controlling in court.

The orgs should be prepared to sue and to seek injunctive relief should the EPA move to ban 100LL in the absence of a functionally and economically viable alternative. Maybe the orgs are preparing in this way.

Or, if you wish to throw in with the mob, quit flying your plane.  If you believe that the lead produced by GA piston flying is harming children, then it is selfish and morally unacceptable to continue with this activity until a viable alternative fuel is available.

-dan

Wow! That is a well written piece!  …..and compelling.

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Okay. Let's have a trial. Who are you going to get that says, "some lead is ok". Please give me the study that says, the lead from fuel burning is not a problem. Please show me the studies and the scientists willing to testify that "a little bit of lead" is not a problem to children. 

That is not the argument.  The argument is: "Sorry, Mr. EPA.  You don't get to do that under this Act." 

Imagine the Agency arrogates further reach to create and enforce noise standards. "Your little planes make too much noise and are impeding children's study time."  Same argument.

It's the Zero Tolerance stuff that is problematic here.

-dan 

[exM20K]

2 hours ago, GeeBee said:

What most of you don't realize is that Administrator Dixon, AOPA and EAA did us a favor with EAGLE. They bought us time to get our act together. Not time to resist further. I will grant you some people on the EAGLE committee have been grinding their own axes, but the reality is, this is happening and we need to use the time wisely, and not trying to stop leaded fuel.

I don't think anyone is trying to stop (un)leaded fuel. I certainly am not.  I would like the GA advocacy groups to lobby to work to protect our ability to fly at least until such time as there is a replacement fuel that won't harm our engines or airframes.  It is not obvious right now that G100 is that solution.

-dan 

[GeeBee]

10 minutes ago, exM20K said:

That is not the argument.  The argument is: "Sorry, Mr. EPA.  You don't get to do that under this Act." 

Imagine the Agency arrogates further reach to create and enforce noise standards. "Your little planes make too much noise and are impeding children's study time."  Same argument.

It's the Zero Tolerance stuff that is problematic here.

-dan 

But that is not how it is going to "go down". You either go to court or you go to Congress. Either way, you will lose.