G100UL - fuel leak

[donkaye, MCFI]

3 hours ago, UteM20F said:

Marc, your animosity towards "Mr. Braly" seems unbounded.  

All of us on this forum that own Mooneys know of the problems with the Mooney wet wing, and its propensity to leak fuel.  And you know as well as the rest of us that the leakage over the years has not been from G100UL, but has in fact been from 100LL.  You can look at every one of the threads where someone asks about what to look for in a Mooney prebuy, and they all mention to check when the last time the tank was sealed (and by who) or if there are bladders.   Do you think every such thread on Beechtalk, "CessnaTalk", and "PiperTalk" give the same advise? 

I doubt you would have flamed any of the rest of us if we blamed the Mooney factory/design for the Mooney wet wing issue, even if we normally praised our Mooneys publicly as the truly remarkable airplanes that they are.

Do you admit, as George suggests, that YOU would be blaming GAMI in the Australian fatal Mooney crash if had recently used G100UL?  I have no doubt that in your book, that accident, being a fatal accident, would be front and center on your "evidence" of GAMI's evils.

Ute

I would love to happily use G100UL.  After all, I spent the money on the STC for that purpose.  For me the issue is not the leaking, but that even if extreme care is exercised, as I tried to do, I still got staining of the top surface of the wing that I could not remove.  At Reid Hillview the plane is fueled by the person who runs the truck, and although he seemed careful, at some point fuel ended up on the bottom of the "protective" cover and it stained the wing with the cover pattern.  I shouldn't have to worry about staining every time I get fuel.  In my opinion, at present, the fueling process staining uncertainty is not worth the risk of harming my paint.  For me it's just much harder to deal with than just filling up with 100LL.

[TangoTango]

11 hours ago, McMooney said:

just my opinion but leaking after 20 and 30 years in service, can't see how that would be labeled a defect.

Agreed. After all, the Beechcraft guys routinely have to replace fuel bladders after similar periods of time.

Is there even any truth to the claim of the factory ever putting out defective fuel tanks? I seem to recall some changes to how the sealant was applied during assembly in the early 2000s. Mine is original from 1993, and while I'm sure I am approaching the end of its reasonable service life, I certainly wouldn't call it "grossly improper workmanship at the factory production line". 

[Justin Schmidt]

@mluvara latest testing video is very concerning.  Do I think these tests should be done in a scientific setting with better controls and repeatability,  yes, but they point out very concerning issues.

If g100ul does in fact permeate like that, no amount of anything will keep it from destroying anything it is around in short order, or over time. It is also a fire and safety hazard.

@George Braly either didn't do due diligence in full testing, doesn't really understand materials science or has a materials engineer at gami, wanted to use the fleet as the test. OK, we are all human. Or the worst knew about it and did not let anyone know.

He had a chance to tackle this probably when issues started, become transparent and involve the aviation, science, and engineering community.  For blaming technology of 50, 60 years ago is not winning hearts or minds and is completely deflecting. If g100ul only works for the latest engineered parts, OK, own it. If more work needs to happen on the formula, OK own it.

I had high hopes for it and had strong respect for George until the constant deflecting.  Not sure he realizes,  he is digging the grave of gami, single handedly. Which actually takes talent and the desire to do so.

[Marc_B]

@UteM20F you're right, I've gotten too invested in this process and the rollout with unleaded expecting it to come to Colorado likely prior to 2030 if it's up to legislators here.  I take it more personally than I should when for some strange reason Mooney is being singled out by a fuel producer as inadequate and improper.  Not sure what that implies exactly?  (an expectation by the producer that Mooneys will be less tolerant of the fuel??)

I went to WeepNoMore in 2022 with some small (non-airworthy) leaks as I was planning on repainting.  25 years on original sealant, no prior patches, and I could have easily either left it until it was worse or gotten a simple patch repair.  Hard to say that is "grossly improper workmanship at the factory production line."

Wet wings need maintenance just like anything else on our Mooneys.  Deficient maintenance is just that.  But I'm in a strange situation where I maintain my M20K very well, but can't tell you what o-rings or hoses I have throughout the fuel system...or what I should or shouldn't address preventatively.  My aux tanks have original sealant on them as Paul Beck said they looked great and he wouldn't touch them (after this I'm second guessing that decision...which seems crazy); mains resealed in 2022.  My fuel sumps were replaced in 2024 with sumps w/viton o-rings; I have fluorosilicone o-rings on my fuel caps.  Is my maintenance "modern"?  I'm not even sure what that means?

 

My perception is that there is a differential effect with G100UL, but I hear more of "high toluene 100LL" and "inadequate Mooneys".  I think that we've been fortunate to have very visible paint and materials issues that led to a huge slow down in a rollout that was poised to capture the entire state via legal action.  We've been fortunate that Mr. Luvara has documented the field testing that he has.  It's easy to have a vested interest in what may dramatically alter aviation in the near future. 

You CAN have different fuel effects as well as poor maintenance.  But poor maintenance isn't an excuse to discard need for further testing when differential effects are seen.

Less commentary, more facts, more flying....that's definitely the best option!

[MikeOH]

I hardly think Mooneys are 'poorly engineered '. Nor do I think they are any more 'poorly maintained' than any other aircraft.  As @Marc_B alluded, I think we are all very lucky that Mooneys and a few other aircraft have served as 'Canaries in the coal mine"!

IMHO, George made two fatal mistakes in his 'marketing' of G100UL:

1) Not being upfront and forthright in coming clean when problems arose rather than blaming others (it would really be egregious to find out he knew prior to releasing G100UL)

2) Supporting Kalifornia's draconian environmental system (CEH case) to try and ban the sale of 100LL and thereby force the purchase of his G100UL.  That is the strategy of greed by corporate executives not the sales rollout from someone portraying themselves as 'one of us'.

[Justin Schmidt]

13 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

greed by corporate executives not the sales rollout from someone portraying themselves as 'one of us'.

Perhaps George needs to hire the crisis firm aopa did lol. Some close parallels. 

[gabez]

19 hours ago, UteM20F said:

Marc, your animosity towards "Mr. Braly" seems unbounded.  

All of us on this forum that own Mooneys know of the problems with the Mooney wet wing, and its propensity to leak fuel.  And you know as well as the rest of us that the leakage over the years has not been from G100UL, but has in fact been from 100LL.  You can look at every one of the threads where someone asks about what to look for in a Mooney prebuy, and they all mention to check when the last time the tank was sealed (and by who) or if there are bladders.   Do you think every such thread on Beechtalk, "CessnaTalk", and "PiperTalk" give the same advise? 

I doubt you would have flamed any of the rest of us if we blamed the Mooney factory/design for the Mooney wet wing issue, even if we normally praised our Mooneys publicly as the truly remarkable airplanes that they are.

Do you admit, as George suggests, that YOU would be blaming GAMI in the Australian fatal Mooney crash if had recently used G100UL?  I have no doubt that in your book, that accident, being a fatal accident, would be front and center on your "evidence" of GAMI's evils.

Ute

please don't use we. I can guarantee that 40 gallons of G100UL broke through 4 fuel cells in my mooney. they were not leaking 10 days and 40 gallons into G100UL....all 4 are leaking......

[UteM20F]

@Marc_BThanks for you reply.  Your thoughts aren't that far off from mine.  I just took exception to you singling out George for saying something that many (but not all of us, sorry @gabez) would say about our wet wings, while we still love and proudly sing the praises of our Mooneys.

And @gabez, I take your last statement:

4 hours ago, gabez said:

I can guarantee that 40 gallons of G100UL broke through 4 fuel cells in my mooney. they were not leaking 10 days and 40 gallons into G100UL....all 4 are leaking......

to be an admission that you would have blamed George/GAMI if that Australian Mooney would have used G100UL in the 10 days previous to it crashing.  You would have listed that even before the twin Cessna and the Cirrus that you constantly bring up.  FWIW, I wonder about those planes also, and I would love for George to explain those fully.  Since he hasn't, I fully expect that he cannot speak about them because of pending litigation.  I may be wrong, but I think you even said you were going to sue him. 

Ute

[Marc_B]

@UteM20F Maybe give those on the front line in California as early adopters grace as they tried a product in good faith and we’re all learning from them. It has to be horrible to have your paint and tanks deteriorated in a completely unexpected and previously unseen way. I had leaks. The paint was unchanged when I picked up from WeepNoMore. I did not see any of the issues @gabez saw and I had leaks…

[Schllc]

12 hours ago, TangoTango said:

Agreed. After all, the Beechcraft guys routinely have to replace fuel bladders after similar periods of time.

Is there even any truth to the claim of the factory ever putting out defective fuel tanks? I seem to recall some changes to how the sealant was applied during assembly in the early 2000s. Mine is original from 1993, and while I'm sure I am approaching the end of its reasonable service life, I certainly wouldn't call it "grossly improper workmanship at the factory production line". 

His only reference points are his work at Aerostar when he was a young man, and what he has been told about mooney’s.
He says Aerostar applied sealant before assembly. 
Whether this is true or not, I do not believe it’s particularly relevant. Mooney wing skins are not structural. At least not like an Aerostar. The skins on an Aerostar are maybe three times the thickness and are a large part of the structure. 
it was explained to me that the sealant between skins is not as effective when the material flexes, as it does in the Mooney,  because it is squeezed out unevenly under pressure, and deforms the skin. 
The only Mooney fuel leak I ever had was under the nonskid material on the top and only leaked when it was topped off so I didn’t fill up until leaving and never had staining. 
I have actually had more nuisance leaks with the Aerostar. 
To think the assumption that wet wings should never need servicing is a bit silly.   If you think about the movement they all have, it’s amazing they don’t leak more!  
I think it’s a valid argument that poorly maintained tanks, or tanks that have been repaired improperly may be more vulnerable to any new solution of aromatics. 
Failure of the components of the fuel system as a result of the fuel is a whole other issue.  
Have any of those gami planes been monitored for o-ring or fuel hose failures?

seems like there has to be a chemical or perhaps paint solution to the staining.  Coming up with a better fuel nozzle and cap seems easy, the venting areas are a bigger challenge. 

[EricJ]

15 hours ago, MikeOH said:

1) Not being upfront and forthright in coming clean when problems arose rather than blaming others (it would really be egregious to find out he knew prior to releasing G100UL)

I saw him speak at the Buckeye Air Fair two years ago, and at that time he was saying, "Don't get it on your paint."   He was indicating that it'd damage the paint if you spilled it.    So he at least knew about that.   Whether he knew about the o-ring/seal/tank/materials issues is another question.   If he knew about that, I'd agree that's even worse.  
 

[Marc_B]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

I saw him speak at the Buckeye Air Fair two years ago, and at that time he was saying, "Don't get it on your paint."   He was indicating that it'd damage the paint if you spilled it.

That may have been out of stain avoidance aka "fueling hygiene."  Unsure if they were aware of the concentration of low volatility compounds that strip paint at that point or not.

[redbaron1982]

13 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

That may have been out of stain avoidance aka "fueling hygiene."  Unsure if they were aware of the concentration of low volatility compounds that strip paint at that point or not.

To this day, Mr Braly denies that G100UL is any different than MoGas or 100LL in respect to paint.

[Marc_B]

[Slick Nick]

There’s some pretty empirical evidence out there that this G100UL is nasty stuff and has no place being on the market. Why hasn’t its sale been pulled by the FAA? 

[Will.iam]

1 hour ago, Slick Nick said:

There’s some pretty empirical evidence out there that this G100UL is nasty stuff and has no place being on the market. Why hasn’t its sale been pulled by the FAA? 

Because that would be another embarrassment of the faa. The boeing fiasco is still too fresh.