G100UL thread MIA?

[Shiroyuki]

1 hour ago, IvanP said:

Now, that a thread dealing with a very relevant topic for all Mooney owners sudenly disappeared, the conspiracy theories can start....  

Indeed, it is quite upsetting seeing such an important thread got deleted.

I saw you replied me something in notification but when I clicked on it, it shows the thread is no longer avalible. well... I'm curious what did you reply?

[IvanP]

12 minutes ago, Shiroyuki said:

Indeed, it is quite upsetting seeing such an important thread got deleted.

I saw you replied me something in notification but when I clicked on it, it shows the thread is no longer avalible. well... I'm curious what did you reply?

I just voiced my opinion that it was not OK under any circumstances for a "safe drop-in" replacement fuel to cause damage to fuel tanks and paint that would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair. While the damage can arguably be mitigated by new sealants and paints, I do not want to be the one paying for it. I am all for developing new, cleaner and better fuel, but it needs to be safe. Fuesl that causes deterioration of tank sealant is arguably not safe in my book.

Of course, this is merely hypothetical as we do not have sufficent data to conclude with any reasonable degree of certainty tha the new fuel does, in fact, adversely affect the sealant and paint. George's post (now also missing) was very information and had some good points in it. Nevertheless, I am of teh pinion that indepenent testing done by somene else than the inventor/supplier fo teh fule is warranted here before the new fuel becomes teh only available optino for the piston fleet.   

[Shiroyuki]

23 minutes ago, IvanP said:

I just voiced my opinion that it was not OK under any circumstances for a "safe drop-in" replacement fuel to cause damage to fuel tanks and paint that would cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair. While the damage can arguably be mitigated by new sealants and paints, I do not want to be the one paying for it. I am all for developing new, cleaner and better fuel, but it needs to be safe. Fuesl that causes deterioration of tank sealant is arguably not safe in my book.

Of course, this is merely hypothetical as we do not have sufficent data to conclude with any reasonable degree of certainty tha the new fuel does, in fact, adversely affect the sealant and paint. George's post (now also missing) was very information and had some good points in it. Nevertheless, I am of teh pinion that indepenent testing done by somene else than the inventor/supplier fo teh fule is warranted here before the new fuel becomes teh only available optino for the piston fleet.   

I totally agree with you, and that's what I was saying. If the fuel have problem or potential issue we owners deserve to know, instead of being blindsided with a sudden fuel tank leak.

I just thought if they made it clear to owners that their fuel will cause old sealant to leak, and we are not forced to use it, then it is fine. Then we can make an informed decision.

[IvanP]

Well, it seems that the decision will be made for us by the government(s). The bureaucrats do not give a s^%$ about what it will cost us. They are only interested in checking the box that satisfied the environuts mandate. There have been more than few "new and improved" things that were forced onto the public that would not survive on the open market if it were not for government mandates or subsidies.  

Edited yesterday at 02:04 AM by IvanP

[wombat]

11 hours ago, IvanP said:

... we do not have sufficent data to conclude with any reasonable degree of certainty tha the new fuel does, in fact, adversely affect the sealant and paint.

... I am of teh pinion that indepenent testing done by somene else than the inventor/supplier fo teh fule is warranted here ...

I think we have data to conclude with some reasonable degree of certainty that the new fuel does not adversely affect sealants at the very least.   While @George Braly certainly does have incentives to show his fuel in the best light, he has described and shown data from testing on several sealant samples.  While there is always room for more testing I think what he's done provides a reasonable degree of certainty on the sealants. 

 

While it is possible that his results are not representative of the fleet through either his deliberate influence or chance, I have a really hard time thinking it would be deliberate.   More likely in my opinion is that a number of fuel tanks are sealed with inappropriate materials installed by 'hangar gnomes' because that was cheap and quick and seemed to work.   Although what materials G100UL could degrade in a week that 100UL wouldn't degrade after months or years would seem to me to be a very small list.

 

It could be that similar testing has been done for paints and I'm just not aware of it.

 

 

I'll also restate something I said in another thread:  If we were switching the other way (From G100UL to 100LL) and even not counting the health effects of the TEL, the entire community would be against the switch.    I don't believe that G100UL is a flawless product, but I do believe that it's better than the one we have now.  And while pointing out any flaws that G100UL might have is potentially good because this might lead to a 'fix' for them, preventing adoption until all possible flaws are fixed is not good in my opinion.

 

 

 

[Marc_B]

@George Braly out of curiosity, what is the standard percentage of xylene and toluene in G100UL? Kb value (solvent "aggressiveness") for xylene is lower (98 vs 105) compared to toluene, but the evaporation time is over three times longer.  Also, according to G100UL SDS there’s up to 40% xylene.

Curious if this makes a difference in paint staining or issues…..dwell time vs solvent "strength" vs concentration? You seem to feel that 29% toluene from Borger Phillips is high?

Certainly understand fuel containing solvents, but many use 100LL to clean painted areas (i.e. soot/lead/oil on belly). Trying to understand the refueling hygiene required with G100UL vs typical practice with 100LL; especially wrt not wiping or smearing spilled G100UL.

[PT20J]

Craig says original thread was deleted by its creator.

[IvanP]

3 hours ago, wombat said:

I think we have data to conclude with some reasonable degree of certainty that the new fuel does not adversely affect sealants at the very least.   While @George Braly certainly does have incentives to show his fuel in the best light, he has described and shown data from testing on several sealant samples.  While there is always room for more testing I think what he's done provides a reasonable degree of certainty on the sealants. 

 

Most of the data that we have appears to be from a single source - the purveyor of the fuel. Don't interpret my concerns as a resistance to adoption of new fuel. I am all for improvement, but I also want some reasonable assurances, other than those made by the manufcaturer or government, that the change will not have signifcant adverse impact on safety and utility of my aircaft. In the ideal world, the market forces would determine the outcome, i.e, if the new fuel is better and safer than what we have, pilots will cheerfully adopt it and 100LL will go the way of the rotary telephone. I do not recall that the old phones were banned or that the govt would madate adoption of smartphones (by Apple or othewise). The market forces simply worked in favor of better products and consumer safety was not affected in any way (not getting into the theories of cellphones causing brain cancer here  ).    

When it comes to fuel, the logistical issues with adoption of new products are much more complicated and thus it is more than likely that some form of government mandate will replace the current fuel and there will be little, if any, choice the consumer can make. Hence, I believe that the safety of the replacement product in such crcumstances needs to be tested with much greater scrutiny before it is unilaterally forced upon the public. While I aplaud George Braly and his team for developing the new fuel and I do not mean to imply in any way that his claims are false or unfounded, I am somewhat reluctant to blindly accept the claims without independent verification. The old proverb "Trust, but verify" comes to mind here.     

[gabez]

wait my thread got deleted? I have been very civil in all my posts and have reached out first thing to Gami...this is ridiculous we don't even know yet the extent of the damage or if G100 was involved. we are still in exploratory phase. 

[varlajo]

The plot thickens... 

[gabez]

21 hours ago, EricJ said:

It's possible the OP may be pursuing legal action and counsel asked to delete the thread.

If my airplane was damaged like that, it'd definitely be a consideration.

I did not delete the thread. 

[gabez]

2 minutes ago, varlajo said:

The plot thickens... 

it's ridiculous, I could have gone to AOPA, I could have emailed the airport manager, I could have reached to the FSDO, I could have posted on X and I could have posted on Linkedin (find me there)...I didn't...I emailed GAMI and let them know and message the forum to let everyone know. Now I am really going to be up in this unless that thread resurfaces 

[IvanP]

4 minutes ago, gabez said:

I did not delete the thread. 

Perhaps the forum moderator could shed some light on who and why deleted the original thread. 

[toto]

17 minutes ago, gabez said:

it's ridiculous, I could have gone to AOPA, I could have emailed the airport manager, I could have reached to the FSDO, I could have posted on X and I could have posted on Linkedin (find me there)...I didn't...I emailed GAMI and let them know and message the forum to let everyone know. Now I am really going to be up in this unless that thread resurfaces 

You should probably connect directly with @mooniac58

[gabez]

1 minute ago, toto said:

You should probably connect directly with @mooniac58

done

[gabez]

2 hours ago, PT20J said:

Craig says original thread was deleted by its creator.

I did not delete the thread. 

[gabez]

reposting pics of the damage just in case 

Edited 10 hours ago by gabez

[PT20J]

4 minutes ago, gabez said:

I did not delete the thread. 

I'm not doubting you. But, I asked @mooniac58 and here's his reply:

 The person that created the thread decided to delete it apparently.  The person that starts a topic "owns" that topic and can remove it if they choose to.

Since you have contacted him, perhaps he can explain the discrepancy.

Skip

[gabez]

3 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I'm not doubting you. But, I asked @mooniac58 and here's his reply:

 The person that created the thread decided to delete it apparently.  The person that starts a topic "owns" that topic and can remove it if they choose to.

Since you have contacted him, perhaps he can explain the discrepancy.

Skip

let's see what he/she says. 

[gabez]

thread is back up 

[wombat]

59 minutes ago, gabez said:

I have been very civil in all my posts and have reached out first thing to Gami..

I agree and commend you for being extremely professional about how you are dealing with this.

In my opinion, I think that everybody on this thread and the other has been really grown-up about this.

 

[toto]

6 minutes ago, gabez said:

thread is back up 

Link back to the original

[Justin Schmidt]

17 minutes ago, wombat said:

I agree and commend you for being extremely professional about how you are dealing with this.

In my opinion, I think that everybody on this thread and the other has been really grown-up about this.

 

Compared to usual discourse lol

[George Braly]

 

First:  We (GAMI) had nothing to do with the deletion of the thread.    I was as surprised as everyone else. 

However, let me repeat something posted in the deleted thread:

We have soaked painted aircraft parts in G100UL avgas for extended periods.  The paint remained fully intact without any visual evidence of any degradation. 

I am a bit time constrained with ongoing certification work - -  but when I get time - - I will try to find some pictures.

So - - how to explain the difference in the results on the bottom of the wing of the Mooney?  

The paint on the parts removed from the Bonanzas was no more than about 20 years old.  But it was in visibly good condition.

Before and after soaking.   

The surrounding paint on the bottom of the Mooney wing ?   You can evaluate that for yourself. 

George  

 

[Shiroyuki]

8 minutes ago, George Braly said:

 

First:  We (GAMI) had nothing to do with the deletion of the thread.    I was as surprised as everyone else. 

However, let me repeat something posted in the deleted thread:

We have soaked painted aircraft parts in G100UL avgas for extended periods.  The paint remained fully intact without any visual evidence of any degradation. 

I am a bit time constrained with ongoing certification work - -  but when I get time - - I will try to find some pictures.

So - - how to explain the difference in the results on the bottom of the wing of the Mooney?  

The paint on the parts removed from the Bonanzas was no more than about 20 years old.  But it was in visibly good condition.

Before and after soaking.   

The surrounding paint on the bottom of the Mooney wing ?   You can evaluate that for yourself. 

George  

 

A time lapse video is all the proof that's necessary.