G100UL - fuel leak

[exM20K]

14 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

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. 

This is where we disagree.  I am not a lawyer, and you are evidently not one, either.  I am, however, someone who is a litigant in two similar cases which were argued and won in the Illinois Supreme Court and the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  We are on the cusp of a 7th Circuit win on the State’s appeal next year, too. And the arguments are similar to what I present here…. Regulatory overreach which, according to the law, not public opinion, is impermissible.

-dan

[Pinecone]

On 12/24/2024 at 3:08 PM, 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.

A problem is, once the tactic works, anti airport groups will use it to bring the public into the fray, and there goes the airport.  

And, as mentioned, you will be fighting the "health of the children" argument.  And NO amount of logic or data will win that one.

[Pinecone]

On 12/24/2024 at 5:12 PM, toto said:

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.

Except that Swift has publicly said it will not work for ALL aircraft.  Only about 85% (IIRC) of the fleet.

 

 

[redbaron1982]

4 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Except that Swift has publicly said it will not work for ALL aircraft.  Only about 85% (IIRC) of the fleet.

 

 

Can you provide the link to such information?

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Except that Swift has publicly said it will not work for ALL aircraft.  Only about 85% (IIRC) of the fleet.

 

 

Ah, so they are honest and upfront about it.  And, 85% of the fleet is going to lower atmospheric lead emissions by a significant amount.

[Pinecone]

8 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:

"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

 

 

The problem with these studies is the lack of control groups.  Where do you find enough people with a demonstrated ZERO exposure?

[Pinecone]

4 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Ah, so they are honest and upfront about it.  And, 85% of the fleet is going to lower atmospheric lead emissions by a significant amount.

Unless it is the 85% of the fleet that burns less than 20% of the total fuel.

But then again, if you ground the ones burning the 85% of the 100LL, you will get reductions.

[Pinecone]

5 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

Can you provide the link to such information?

I looked, and did not see it. 

[redbaron1982]

1 minute ago, Pinecone said:

I looked, and did not see it. 

Yeah, right, I also read that GAMI recommends G100UL right before a paint job, as it is going to give you a head start on stripping the paint.

I can´t find now the link to that...

[gabez]

quick update, I talked to the airport manager today at KWVI. They have sold about 18000 gallons of fuel in about 30 days now and he has not heard any complaints. He was very supportive and asked me to keep him in the loop. He also contacted GAMI himself. He too has been using G100 but he has a BO and obviously has bladders. 

 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, exM20K said:

This is where we disagree.  I am not a lawyer, and you are evidently not one, either.  I am, however, someone who is a litigant in two similar cases which were argued and won in the Illinois Supreme Court and the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.  We are on the cusp of a 7th Circuit win on the State’s appeal next year, too. And the arguments are similar to what I present here…. Regulatory overreach which, according to the law, not public opinion, is impermissible.

-dan

Well since you are mentioning bona fides, I'll state mine. Been a party to litigation twice to the SCOTUS. One is the "Pruneyard Decision" and in the other, we bankrupted Continental Illinois Bank, the third largest bank in the United States (we also made a stop in the Illinois Supreme Court on the way to victory). I've also been to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia, and to Swiss courts. Also have a 1000 batting average.  So there, I've shown you mine too. I know how to fight, I also know when to settle.

 

 

[McMooney]

so now i have the opposite problem i had before, if gami becomes unviable and we're left with just swift, what prevents them from gouging my eyes out?

[redbaron1982]

3 minutes ago, McMooney said:

so now i have the opposite problem i had before, if gami becomes unviable and we're left with just swift, what prevents them from gouging my eyes out?

I'm not sure how the supply chain works with GA avgas, but I'm quite sure that most, as in 99.9% of airports, don't have the infrastructure to dispense two different fuel types.

So the key would be to have multiple formulations that can be mixed together so airports can switch from one to the other without major issues.

I don´t know how this works with 100LL, is there a free (as in beer) spec that any fuel manufacturer can follow? Or each fuel manufacturer have their own proprietary formulation that meets certain specs?

[T. Peterson]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

A problem is, once the tactic works, anti airport groups will use it to bring the public into the fray, and there goes the airport.  

And, as mentioned, you will be fighting the "health of the children" argument.  And NO amount of logic or data will win that one.

I think we have come to an impasse and will just agree to disagree. No malice and no heartburn. 
I do have a question: Do you and @GeeBee have any imagination that G100UL might possibly be a greater health hazard than 100LL?

[GeeBee]

16 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

I think we have come to an impasse and will just agree to disagree. No malice and no heartburn. 
I do have a question: Do you and @GeeBee have any imagination that G100UL might possibly be a greater health hazard than 100LL?

I don't think there is much that trumps lead. The only issue I see is one of VOC. It will happen long after I am gone from aviation, but look for a vapor recovery requirement. It has already hit boats.

[donkaye, MCFI]

I will not allow the fuelers to use the "protect matt" in the future.  I think there was fuel underlying it.  I will watch as they "carefully" insert the hose. 

For the record:

[Marc_B]

I think that the numbers that @Pinecone may be trying to quote is the often cited estimate that 80% of the piston fleet could run on a lower octane fuel, but the 20% that can't use 80% of the 100LL.  For what it's worth, Swift's website reports 100R designed to replace 100% of the US and global piston aircraft fleet in their FAQ.  But I do not have any knowledge if designed is synonymous with usable.

Fuel is bad for health.  I'd not recommend bathing in it, drinking it, or using it to wash your hands. Lead is also like radiation...impossible to have ZERO. 

The use of 100LL is tiny in comparison to the use of Jet A and is infintesimal compared to the use of mogas.  But the fact of the matter is that use of the "lead argument" has been more effective for those who would like to close airports or stifle GA.  It's also been used within our own industry to push environmental boards further towards eliminating 100LL.  But this isn't a litigation about health, and there are a sizeable number of people in GA community who feel that just accepting unleaded "pulls the rug out" under the litigation to close airports.  Unfortunately we'll find out soon enough that it wasn't only about the lead in the first place.

Do you think that GAMI is weighing in on the argument that G100UL is "commercially available in California" and 100LL should be banned?  How does GAMI feel that the "consent judgement" should be ruled?  Is this the truly best move for GA?

I'd wager that many of the airports looking to move to unleaded fuel are the ones under attack for closure...

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/transportation-fuels

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=62443

[redbaron1982]

10 minutes ago, donkaye said:

I will not allow the fuelers to use the "protect matt" in the future.  I think there was fuel underlying it.  I will watch as they "carefully" insert the hose. 

For the record:

Are these the stains you cannot remove with polishing?

[donkaye, MCFI]

1 hour ago, redbaron1982 said:

Are these the stains you cannot remove with polishing?

Yes.  It wasn't possible with all the rubbing compounds I tried.   I used 4 different plastic cleaners  that I usually use to clean the lenses on the lights and one heavier Turtle Wax rubbing compound.  I spent over an hour with the various products with very little improvement.  I didn't want to go further for fear of making things worse.

[T. Peterson]

5 minutes ago, donkaye said:

Yes.  It wasn't possible with all the rubbing compounds I tried.

Forgive me if I’m missing the obvious, but is this a new stain that was caused by G100, or an accumulative stain caused by fuel in general being trapped under the protective fueler mat?

[donkaye, MCFI]

16 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

Forgive me if I’m missing the obvious, but is this a new stain that was caused by G100, or an accumulative stain caused by fuel in general being trapped under the protective fueler mat?

I usually use self serve and there is no protective matt for 100LL.  I never noticed any staining before on the wing.  100LL stains blue and I have never had any issue removing it, but only occasionally does it overflow.  I immediately wipe the wing when that happens.  This color is the color of G100UL.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, I still intend to use G100UL, but will use extreme care with it.

[IvanP]

1 hour ago, donkaye said:

I will not allow the fuelers to use the "protect matt" in the future.  I think there was fuel underlying it.  I will watch as they "carefully" insert the hose. 

For the record:

Wow, that is quite substantial staining, considering that you just recently started using this fuel. 

Did you, by chance have the opportunty to borescope your cylinders since you started using G100UL? Any visible changes on the exhaust valves? I have heard that turbocharged engines do not like this fuel much (detonation and exhaus valves burning), but that is merely anecdotal report from unverified source. It would be nice to have first hand expeirence from a Bravo owner.  

[A64Pilot]

I keep bringing this up, but all this angst of “we must have an unleaded 100 Octane fuel” just isn’t the case, not at least for non forced induction aircraft anyway and I suspect turbo aircraft would be fine too in cruise.

It’s been done widespread since WWII, called ADI or anti detonation injection. It’s simple alcohol / water injection, trigger points for injection are often manifold pressure above 25” or cyl head temps above 400F

https://www.avweb.com/features/the-return-of-anti-detonation-water-injection-adi/

https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/05/22/adi-bridging-the-octane-gap/

https://www.autofuelstc.com/news.phtml/E2F118E7/anti-detonant_injection

With it you burn car gas, no big deal, no melting paint, swelling O-rings etc because people have been burning car gas for decades, I have anyway, but on low compression engines

OR just remove the lead from 100LL and burn it with ADI, why not do that?

Edited December 27, 2024 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

As a kid in Albany Ga, Turner Air Force base I used to watch them scramble B-52’s and they would do “wet” takeoffs, that is water injection, I don’t know why, but it did make them smoke like trains

 

[PT20J]

I mostly fuel with self serve. I very occasionally overfill and I never wipe the 100LL off -- I just let it evaporate -- and I have never had any staining or deterioration on the white wing paint.

Catalyzed polyurethane paint is pretty tough. I have used MEK on it to remove some paint splatters that got on it when it was in another shop and it only slightly dulled the paint where I rubbed hard. But, it polished out completely with Turtlewax polishing compound (which is less abrasive than rubbing compound).

The G100UL must be pretty aggressive if it permanently stains polyurethane and will not rub out.