Based on the G100UL fuel leak thread what's your position?

[Pinecone]

On 12/25/2024 at 11:35 AM, A64Pilot said:

Paint I think isn’t a significant issue, but I have a LOT of experience with Jet-Glo, it’s one of the paints that tolerates chemicals used in Aerial application, and some of those even eat fuel tank sealer, we used fuel tank sealer in the chemical hopper and it would get eaten up and need replacing regularly, but we never found anything better, anything that dissolves or eats up Jet-Glo is something that will likely have adverse effects on just about anything.

Based on the video, it seems the paint is being attacked at edges.  I am wondering if it is the primer that is failing, not the paint itself.

I know in the past, lacquer primers were used with catalyzed paint systems on cars.  Not sure of the history of that on airplanes.

The result is still bad, but it can explain why it was not see in GAMI testing.  You need a leak that keeps the paint, at at edge, wet over time.

[Pinecone]

On 12/25/2024 at 11:35 AM, A64Pilot said:

Paint I think isn’t a significant issue, but I have a LOT of experience with Jet-Glo, it’s one of the paints that tolerates chemicals used in Aerial application, and some of those even eat fuel tank sealer, we used fuel tank sealer in the chemical hopper and it would get eaten up and need replacing regularly, but we never found anything better, anything that dissolves or eats up Jet-Glo is something that will likely have adverse effects on just about anything.

Based on the video, it seems the paint is being attacked at edges.  I am wondering if it is the primer that is failing, not the paint itself.

I know in the past, lacquer primers were used with catalyzed paint systems on cars.  Not sure of the history of that on airplanes.

The result is still bad, but it can explain why it was not see in GAMI testing.  You need a leak that keeps the paint, at at edge, wet over time.

[Pinecone]

21 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

When I joined the Army as an aircraft mechanic in 1982, we used Acetone regularly to wash parts.

Eventually due to testing done and the results of what Acetone’s effects on the body was it was prohibited and replaced with Methyl Ethyel Keytone.

Then years later due to testing that showed that MEK was bad for you it was replaced by Methyl Iso Ketone. MIK

Go back further and they were using 1,1,1 trichloroethane for cleaning parts.  And that was a "safe" replacement for things like benzene and toluene for cleaning.

"TCE can also damage the facial nerves, and it can cause skin rash. Heavy exposure can damage the liver and kidneys. TCE causes cancer in animals and may cause cancer in humans."

 

[toto]

48 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Based on the video, it seems the paint is being attacked at edges.  I am wondering if it is the primer that is failing, not the paint itself.

What I took from the video was that the fuel evaporated much differently than 100LL does, and the slow evaporation and pooling at the edges caused the G100UL to stay in contact with the edge paint for an extended period of time. So the effect was more pronounced at the edges only because the edges were in contact with the fuel longer. 

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Go back further and they were using 1,1,1 trichloroethane for cleaning parts.  And that was a "safe" replacement for things like benzene and toluene for cleaning.

"TCE can also damage the facial nerves, and it can cause skin rash. Heavy exposure can damage the liver and kidneys. TCE causes cancer in animals and may cause cancer in humans."

 

Actually we were still using Trich we called it up until I retired, mostly cleaning cannon plugs etc.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Actually we were still using Trich we called it up until I retired, mostly cleaning cannon plugs etc.

You can still get it. It’s call CRC red brake parts cleaner.

[GeeBee]

When I was in college we had a "vapor degreaser" that used heated Trich. It had a water fed cooling collar to condense the Trich back into the tank. Suspend a part in the vapor and wow! Cleaned like a white tornado! I still have a bottle of it I use sparingly and carefully when needed. 

[N201MKTurbo]

12 hours ago, GeeBee said:

When I was in college we had a "vapor degreaser" that used heated Trich. It had a water fed cooling collar to condense the Trich back into the tank. Suspend a part in the vapor and wow! Cleaned like a white tornado! I still have a bottle of it I use sparingly and carefully when needed. 

I worked at a place that had a vapor degreaser that was used to clean the flux off of circuit boards. It sprung a leak one day and I was asked to fix it. There I was laying in a 1 inch deep puddle of the stuff. It’s a wonder I’m still alive…

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I worked at a place that had a vapor degreaser that was used to clean the flux off of circuit boards. It sprung a leak one day and I was asked to fix it. There I was laying in a 1 inch deep puddle of the stuff. It’s a wonder I’m still alive…

You are propped up by pure character!

[tony]

Finally someone who knows something about how an aircraft gets certified.  

SE-P-006.pdf

[Marc_B]

I think this is one of the issues of pursuing an unleaded fuel independently outside of working with current airframe and engine manufacturers.  It also highlights that in order to go alone, GAMI should really be freely sharing their data and test findings.  The only stamp of approval for G100UL has been from the company selling it and the "court of public opinion" in terms of a fan base.

So if detrimental things happen, fingers are pointed not based on fact but based on assumptions.  The only people who know the data and what data was actually obtained, are the ones not openly sharing it.  And since this is outside of a third party consortium there are no other airframe and engine groups to review, audit, and approve the testing data and results/conclusions.

"If you want to go fast, go alone.  If you want to go far, go together."

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, tony said:

Finally someone who knows something about how an aircraft gets certified.  

SE-P-006.pdf 82.66 kB · 7 downloads

Well, damage to fuel tank sealant is a show stopper. 
im not putting a drop of that in my tanks until its ready. 

[Schllc]

I served on a local county board which helped evaluate changes related to our industry and make recommendations to our country commissioners. 
one of the issues was staff wanted to require use of a a new type of back flow preventer called an RPZ instead of the double backflow.  
The latter being what has always been used, and they wanted to require a new one that they claimed was safer. 
During one of the meetings when I was questioning the requirement, I pointed out the problems with the new type which in some instances would require a building owner to spend upwards of a million dollars to upgrade.  
i had researched this issue extensively prior to the public meeting so I knew the answer to my question prior to asking. 
When I started pointing out all of the pitfalls of the new requirement, one of the staff suggested that if a baby died because of contaminated water, it would be on my head. 
Which was the perfect opening for my question which was…

How many documented failures of the old back flow preventer had occurred, and as a result how many of those caused illness or death?

As his face turned purple he claimed he didn’t know the answer, to which I replied well I do!  The answer was zero!  It had never happened. 
The bureaucrats had made the rule already and imposed it on more than a few residents and it had to be rescinded. 
 

The moral to the story is that while there is no argument that lead is bad for us to ingest or be exposed to, the actual danger is poses as a byproduct of fuel consumption is more difficult to quantify.  It isn’t as if aviation exhaust is being pumped into schools. 
But the “save the children argument” is foisted and everyone’s hair is on fire. 
 

That being said, high pressure direct injection, and electronic ignition on engines would render this point moot, so if the FAA and EPA were actually interested in efficacy and an actual solution, they would get the f*$& out of the way and let some real progress In engine technology occur, rather than stifling innovation. 
 

I am of the opinion that the indirect mission of the FAA is to purge GA from existence, so endlessly harping on lead is much easier than admitting they want the whole mode of travel to go away. 
It’s a war of attrition with your own money being confiscated and used against you. 
government at its finest 
 

[T. Peterson]

2 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I served on a local county board which helped evaluate changes related to our industry and make recommendations to our country commissioners. 
one of the issues was staff wanted to require use of a a new type of back flow preventer called an RPZ instead of the double backflow.  
The latter being what has always been used, and they wanted to require a new one that they claimed was safer. 
During one of the meetings when I was questioning the requirement, I pointed out the problems with the new type which in some instances would require a building owner to spend upwards of a million dollars to upgrade.  
i had researched this issue extensively prior to the public meeting so I knew the answer to my question prior to asking. 
When I started pointing out all of the pitfalls of the new requirement, one of the staff suggested that if a baby died because of contaminated water, it would be on my head. 
Which was the perfect opening for my question which was…

How many documented failures of the old back flow preventer had occurred, and as a result how many of those caused illness or death?

As his face turned purple he claimed he didn’t know the answer, to which I replied well I do!  The answer was zero!  It had never happened. 
The bureaucrats had made the rule already and imposed it on more than a few residents and it had to be rescinded. 
 

The moral to the story is that while there is no argument that lead is bad for us to ingest or be exposed to, the actual danger is poses as a byproduct of fuel consumption is more difficult to quantify.  It isn’t as if aviation exhaust is being pumped into schools. 
But the “save the children argument” is foisted and everyone’s hair is on fire. 
 

That being said, high pressure direct injection, and electronic ignition on engines would render this point moot, so if the FAA and EPA were actually interested in efficacy and an actual solution, they would get the f*$& out of the way and let some real progress In engine technology occur, rather than stifling innovation. 
 

I am of the opinion that the indirect mission of the FAA is to purge GA from existence, so endlessly harping on lead is much easier than admitting they want the whole mode of travel to go away. 
It’s a war of attrition with your own money being confiscated and used against you. 
government at its finest 
 

Outstanding! Well said!!

[McMooney]

7 minutes ago, Schllc said:

I served on a local county board which helped evaluate changes related to our industry and make recommendations to our country commissioners. 
one of the issues was staff wanted to require use of a a new type of back flow preventer called an RPZ instead of the double backflow.  
The latter being what has always been used, and they wanted to require a new one that they claimed was safer. 
During one of the meetings when I was questioning the requirement, I pointed out the problems with the new type which in some instances would require a building owner to spend upwards of a million dollars to upgrade.  
i had researched this issue extensively prior to the public meeting so I knew the answer to my question prior to asking. 
When I started pointing out all of the pitfalls of the new requirement, one of the staff suggested that if a baby died because of contaminated water, it would be on my head. 
Which was the perfect opening for my question which was…

How many documented failures of the old back flow preventer had occurred, and as a result how many of those caused illness or death?

As his face turned purple he claimed he didn’t know the answer, to which I replied well I do!  The answer was zero!  It had never happened. 
The bureaucrats had made the rule already and imposed it on more than a few residents and it had to be rescinded. 
 

The moral to the story is that while there is no argument that lead is bad for us to ingest or be exposed to, the actual danger is poses as a byproduct of fuel consumption is more difficult to quantify.  It isn’t as if aviation exhaust is being pumped into schools. 
But the “save the children argument” is foisted and everyone’s hair is on fire. 
 

That being said, high pressure direct injection, and electronic ignition on engines would render this point moot, so if the FAA and EPA were actually interested in efficacy and an actual solution, they would get the f*$& out of the way and let some real progress In engine technology occur, rather than stifling innovation. 
 

I am of the opinion that the indirect mission of the FAA is to purge GA from existence, so endlessly harping on lead is much easier than admitting they want the whole mode of travel to go away. 
It’s a war of attrition with your own money being confiscated and used against you. 
government at its finest 
 

the writing has been on the wall for 50 years, they could've made the damn things use pump gas by now but here we are, still stuck at 0 waiting on miracles. 100ll will go away someday, no idea when but it'll go and we'll be standing here holding our fuel caps 8) remembering the days we could fly.  honestly,  considering the volume, i can't see how avgas isn't already considered anything but an annoyance to refiners/blenders/shippers

[redbaron1982]

I know an STC is a looooot of work, but I wonder why we are not seeing more Diesel engines in general aviation. Delta Hawk seems to have a pretty nice line up of engines: https://www.deltahawk.com/engines/

The weight is about 40lb heavier than an IO360. And there is a version that goes up to 235HP. How cool would it be to have a J model with a 235HP turbocharged diesel engine?! No more lead, better fuel economy, no sparkplugs.

There is definitely the water cooling system, which is another thing to look after, but when it comes to road motors, diesel are usually way more reliable than gasoline.

[McMooney]

Just now, redbaron1982 said:

I know an STC is a looooot of work, but I wonder why we are not seeing more Diesel engines in general aviation. Delta Hawk seems to have a pretty nice line up of engines: https://www.deltahawk.com/engines/

The weight is about 40lb heavier than an IO360. And there is a version that goes up to 235HP. How cool would it be to have a J model with a 235HP turbocharged diesel engine?! No more lead, better fuel economy, no sparkplugs.

There is definitely the water cooling system, which is another thing to look after, but when it comes to road motors, diesel are usually way more reliable than gasoline.

if the cost to switch to a diesel was the same as an overhaul that would probably work but unfortunately, it'll probably be priced so high it'll only make sense of rthings like brand new cirrus/mooneys etc..

[McMooney]

I have an idea,  i know some of you are uhmm deep pocketed connected folks,  someone get the new administration to let us move our Ancient antique birds to an experimental status so we can maintain them without the FAA's interference.  frick can't  even make simple  back springs, gears, other stuff  due to their rules

[N201MKTurbo]

19 minutes ago, McMooney said:

I have an idea,  i know some of you are uhmm deep pocketed connected folks,  someone get the new administration to let us move our Ancient antique birds to an experimental status so we can maintain them without the FAA's interference.  frick can't  even make simple  back springs, gears, other stuff  due to their rules

The rules for certified airplanes have been in place for a long time. You must have known that when you bought your plane. 
 

It sounds like you would be happier with an experimental. A nice RV6 or something like that. 

[A64Pilot]

18 minutes ago, McMooney said:

if the cost to switch to a diesel was the same as an overhaul that would probably work but unfortunately, it'll probably be priced so high it'll only make sense of rthings like brand new cirrus/mooneys etc..

Yes, because everything forward of the firewall has to be replaced then include instrumentation, fuel system etc and I bet the cost to modify an aircraft is likely to exceed the value of the average general aviation aircraft.

The “Damn” things can run on pump gas, have always been able to, just We haven’t wanted to burn pump gas. It really is that simple. ADI works, it’s not snake oil, has been around longer than any of us, but for some reason the industry keeps chasing Diesels and now apparently blends of chemicals to make a fuel. 

Maybe that will change. or maybe it won’t. A LOT has to do with marketing and who is a social influencer etc and what they have to sell.

This GAMI fuel has for instance almost spurred a religious furor, some think it’s the anti christ, some think it’s the best thing going and we need it now.

Neither side has much if any real experience with the stuff, especially those that decry it, it’s always been that way, the biggest haters of anything usually have no experience with it, never have understood why so many Rednecks in pickup truck hate the Toyota Prius for example.

I’m just a risk adverse person, it’s just my nature, what I did for a living for nearly 40 years made me that way.

[Shiroyuki]

19 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

I know an STC is a looooot of work, but I wonder why we are not seeing more Diesel engines in general aviation. Delta Hawk seems to have a pretty nice line up of engines: https://www.deltahawk.com/engines/

The weight is about 40lb heavier than an IO360. And there is a version that goes up to 235HP. How cool would it be to have a J model with a 235HP turbocharged diesel engine?! No more lead, better fuel economy, no sparkplugs.

There is definitely the water cooling system, which is another thing to look after, but when it comes to road motors, diesel are usually way more reliable than gasoline.

What aircraft is currently using deltahawk engines? It's still very early to say if it a good engine or not. It is also a two stroke diesel so fuel efficiency will suffer a bit.

However Austro AE330 is a proven engine used in the diamond twins. Max power 180hp, max continous 171hp. However this thing is 410 lbs, comparing to IO360-A3B6's 300 lbs, that's 100lbs of extra weight on the nose. It's also a very bulky engine with air inlet in different location. 

However it is ridiculously efficient. Diamond claims fuel burn at 100% power is 10.3GPH, and 60% is 5.5 GPH. Thus the 110 lbs of extra weight is offseted by significantly reduced fuel burn.

With 64 gallon tank for standard J, that's roughly 5.5 hour at cruise power. AE330 consume 7.4 GPH at 75% according to DA62 AFM, that's 41 gallon, that's 275 lbs of Jet A. That's 110lbs lighter for the same endurance, just enough to compensate for the heavier engine. Granted 75% power of AE330 is 15hp short from 75% of IO360, but a turbocharged engine can go higher thus it's really not losing any speed, will even get more speed above 10k ft.

Fuel saving is siginificant as well. At this moment at CYTZ, 100LL is listed as 2.27$/L. Jet A 1.7$/L, in Canadian dollar. Using 10gph for IO360 and 7.5gph for AE330, between one overhaul (TBO 1800h for AE330), IO360 will cost 145.4K, while AE330 incurr a fuel cost of 86.7k, thats $67000 CAD in fuel saving for canadian operator. That's almost enough to overhaul your engine.

If someone can develop an STC to install AE330 in short and mid body mooney, it would be a worthy investment in my opinion.

[George Braly]

Please see the data in the image, posted with this message.   These are old parts removed from the Bonanzas which we remove and replace with newly manufactured parts when we install turbo systems.  The paint  is ~ 20 years or more old on each of these panels.   There are scratches and bare spots where paint had previously "flaked off" on each of them - - prior to beginning the soaking.  In particular, the flat head panel fasteners all exhibited some age from repeated removals and replacements over the years.  One cannot detected any difference from the "before" and "after" photographs.   We will try to post up those "before" photos as well as a time lapse photographic history of the previous seven days of soaking - - hopefully on Monday.   

This small data set represents about the fourth or fifth time, over the past 14 years, that we have conducted similar testing.  All with the same good results.   If you doubt the validity or integrity of this data - - you are invited to visit our facility in Ada, and see this testing, first hand. 

George Braly

[redbaron1982]

20 minutes ago, George Braly said:

Please see the data in the image, posted with this message.   These are old parts removed from the Bonanzas which we remove and replace with newly manufactured parts when we install turbo systems.  The paint  is ~ 20 years or more old on each of these panels.   There are scratches and bare spots where paint had previously "flaked off" on each of them - - prior to beginning the soaking.  In particular, the flat head panel fasteners all exhibited some age from repeated removals and replacements over the years.  One cannot detected any difference from the "before" and "after" photographs.   We will try to post up those "before" photos as well as a time lapse photographic history of the previous seven days of soaking - - hopefully on Monday.   

This small data set represents about the fourth or fifth time, over the past 14 years, that we have conducted similar testing.  All with the same good results.   If you doubt the validity or integrity of this data - - you are invited to visit our facility in Ada, and see this testing, first hand. 

George Braly

How come that this is hard data and the AP that did the YouTube video is not?

Also, the YouTube video already showed this, but also showed that letting the fuel dry and then reapply several times did the most damage.

[Schllc]

 @George Braly

I for one appreciate your participation in this forum and willingness to enter the debate.   
the challenge as an airplane owner is the repercussions for having “old paint” and “old sealant”, are not trivial  

The consequences for the experiment have a significant downside. 

I am actually planning a paint job and Craig with scheme designers has told me that he is going to start a thread with you and Sherwin Williams regarding this issue. 
the last thing I want to see is a sealant and paint failure after a major investment in painting an aircraft. 
I have no idea what is involved with dealing with FAA approval for something as significant as a new fuel but it cannot be easy, pleasant, or cheap and I commend your efforts. 
 

I just don’t want to be a guinea pig to see how it works out.  I’m thankful that there a plenty of others willing to roll the dice. 

[Shiroyuki]

59 minutes ago, George Braly said:

Please see the data in the image, posted with this message.   These are old parts removed from the Bonanzas which we remove and replace with newly manufactured parts when we install turbo systems.  The paint  is ~ 20 years or more old on each of these panels.   There are scratches and bare spots where paint had previously "flaked off" on each of them - - prior to beginning the soaking.  In particular, the flat head panel fasteners all exhibited some age from repeated removals and replacements over the years.  One cannot detected any difference from the "before" and "after" photographs.   We will try to post up those "before" photos as well as a time lapse photographic history of the previous seven days of soaking - - hopefully on Monday.   

This small data set represents about the fourth or fifth time, over the past 14 years, that we have conducted similar testing.  All with the same good results.   If you doubt the validity or integrity of this data - - you are invited to visit our facility in Ada, and see this testing, first hand. 

George Braly

This is a nice experiment to see. However this is not sufficient to discredit Luvara's experiment.

Would it be possible for you to find a Mooney Panel, and spary G100UL and 100LL at set interval repeatedly to simulate Luvara's experiment? It is possible paint damage only happen under specific condition, which Luvara had a hypothesis. It would end the debate if you can do the test on a mooney with the exact same method.

Also, a test with PRC and tank sealant would be another assuring test. Maybe you can find a piece of aluminum, spray it with whatever mooney, or weepnomore uses to seal our wet wing, and see if submerging such material in G100UL cause the sealent to dissolve or expand?