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

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Andy95W said:

Is that the study @George Braly said they pulled out of because somebody there was attempting to infringe on the G100UL patent?

I’m not pro or con anything here, but I’m definitely against theft of intellectual property and patent infringement. 

There has been attempts to steal GAMI's intellectual property both at PAFI and at ASTM. A member of the ASTM committee in fact tried to file a patent and it is know they tried because there is a record of it being rejected because GAMI already had filed and granted earlier. Lots of subterfuge out there. 

[A64Pilot]

3 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

There has been attempts to steal GAMI's intellectual property both at PAFI and at ASTM. A member of the ASTM committed in fact tried to file a patent and it is know they tried because there is a record of it being rejected because GAMI already had filed and granted earlier. Lots of subterfuge out there. 

I’m no chemist, but a few questions.

This intellectual material essentially can only be the blend of chemicals or possibly the way the are combined etc?

Isn't that common knowledge? At least by any of the fuel blenders anyway, and how many people do you suppose that is? 

What other secrets could there be?

[GeeBee]

29 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I’m no chemist, but a few questions.

This intellectual material essentially can only be the blend of chemicals or possibly the way the are combined etc?

Isn't that common knowledge? At least by any of the fuel blenders anyway, and how many people do you suppose that is? 

What other secrets could there be?

Have no idea. I'm not a patent attorney, but it is clear there is IP involved otherwise patents would not have been issued.

[sdmideas]

Well I would buy @George Braly a beer. I sure think he has earned it.

 

Thank you George for investing time, effort and thick skin into helping keep aviation going. I think if our Mooney’s keep drinking fuel for 10years we will look back and say - Thank goodness we are still able to use our anti-gravity machines;)

[Marc_B]

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

As has been pointed out time and time again, 100LL is not the same from refinery to refinery.  Those that put out a lower quality (for our purposes) alkylate need to use more aromatics to meet the spec.

Alkylate varies for G100UL as well and the amounts of Xylene and aromatics may vary in G100UL as well.  Heck, the SDS for G100UL shows a range of 20-40% xylene. But taking a fuel that met an ASTM spec and just adding more toulene to it just to try to estimate a suspected range of toluene may not result in a fuel that still meets that spec.  When testing fuel for comparative testing it should be pump to pump comparison.  But again, none of the Youtube videos have been structured to have repeatable scientific data.  They're observational anecdotal evidence.

What would have happened if Mr. Braly took an extra 15% of xylene and added it to the G100UL sample?

[PT20J]

12 hours ago, George Braly said:

Those panels were from aircraft that had been repainted in the field by various different paint shops.   

Further - - we know - - with certainty - -  that  various production runs of 100LL will do exactly the same thing to the paint as is depicted in the Mooney example - -  if the paint quality is poor.  

Can we use that fact as a baseline ?     

                                                                  ************************

Our job was to develop a fuel that could replace 100LL.   Without the lead.   In all of the engines and airplanes.  Without modifications.   At the time, that was the goal of the PAFI project, also.

But that PAFI goal never included creating a replacement for 100LL that did not degrade "inexpensive" paint as 100LL often does, and has for fifty years. 

 

George @George Braly, forgive me if I misunderstood the test. The G100UL.com website FAQ states in pertinent part, "Those three Beechcraft painted louvre panels were immersed in:" Upon review, I see that the text is somewhat ambiguous. I took "Beechcraft painted" to mean "painted by Beechcraft." From your response, I believe you intended it to mean "painted panels removed from a Beechcraft."

[PT20J]

Let's see:

GAMI has over ten years of research, development and testing. Some testing was witnessed by FAA personnel and the results were approved by the FAA resulting in an STC. Much of this is described on the G100UL.com website.

The Youtuber was not vetted by anyone. His test was not observed by anyone. We don't know his motivations. Maybe he was paid by Swift. Maybe he dosed the 100LL with paint stripper. Probably not, but the point is that WE DO NOT KNOW.

Yet some seem to give high regard to the Youtuber while denouncing every argument George puts forth to explain the G100UL testing and certification process as tainted by self interest.

George has offered to share the contents of the certification file with anyone interested in visiting Ada to view it. That's pretty unusual. I know of no STC I can purchase that comes with certification and test data to support the FAA's decision to approve it.

If anyone has a beef with the approval process for G100UL, I respectfully suggest that you should take it up with the FAA. 

I continue to support continued independent testing. But the results of the Youtuber need to be repeated and confirmed by others before they are taken seriously. Anyone remember cold fusion? It looked promising until it proved unrepeatable by peers.

[MikeOH]

29 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I continue to support continued independent testing. But the results of the Youtuber need to be repeated and confirmed by others before they are taken seriously. Anyone remember cold fusion? It looked promising until it proved unrepeatable by peers.

EXACTLY!  The YouTube results definitely need to be repeated by others.

I don't give 'high regard' to the YouTube guy, but nor do I just dismiss his results, either.  It is interesting how some here accuse the YouTuber of fraud/ulterior motives with no evidence.

[GeeBee]

6 hours ago, MikeOH said:

EXACTLY!  The YouTube results definitely need to be repeated by others.

I don't give 'high regard' to the YouTube guy, but nor do I just dismiss his results, either.  It is interesting how some here accuse the YouTuber of fraud/ulterior motives with no evidence.

Because he posted it in a restricted method. The video was not made available on YouTube.com general, only through  Reddit. When you do that it gives rise to innuendo. Further, the results are not repeatable. Because the paint test he did is only valid on the airplanes he used. We don't know if the paint job was correctly prepped with etching and alodine and I bet twenty bucks, he does not know either. It is rare to see a GA airplane correctly repainted with good underlying prep. When that is done, the owner strokes a check to reflect that quality. As to the O-rings, that question has been answered. 

GAMI has been through two certifications. After Wichita was ready to sign off, Washington demanded a second and independent certification test through the Atlanta certification office. Both times G100UL passed all tests by wide margins. We could do more tests in a better test cell, but the fact is, GAMI's test cell is the best in the world, even better than the FAA's or the factory test cells. 

So there is nothing to do but field the fuel. It has been fielded and what we have discovered is 3, 40 year old airplanes with paint and tank seals of equal vintage have leaked and the fuel stains easy. Beyond that, there is nothing. 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Because he posted it in a restricted method. The video was not made available on YouTube.com general, only through  Reddit. When you do that it gives rise to innuendo.

It's always been on YT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeQ6T3vB2E

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Further, the results are not repeatable. Because the paint test he did is only valid on the airplanes he used. We don't know if the paint job was correctly prepped with etching and alodine and I bet twenty bucks, he does not know either. It is rare to see a GA airplane correctly repainted with good underlying prep. When that is done, the owner strokes a check to reflect that quality.

Testing available field samples to attempt to duplicate reported field failures is a totally legitimate thing to do, since it represents what can happen to articles in the field.   His methodologies were good, his control method and processes were perfectly fine for a field test, and he demonstrated that there are conditions in which paint, and primer, can fail in the field in the presence of G100UL as had been previously reported.   So what he did was reasonably confirm that the field failures reported by others weren't necessarily flukes and that there is reasonable cause for concern.   GAMI had previously stated that the fuel could be expected to be harsh on paint, and o-rings and seals, and the field failures and the video suggest that that may have been significantly understated, which is to be expected from the promoter of the fuel.
 

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

So there is nothing to do but field the fuel. It has been fielded and what we have discovered is 3, 40 year old airplanes with paint and tank seals of equal vintage have leaked and the fuel stains easy. Beyond that, there is nothing. 

Within weeks of the initial field of the fuel there are multiple failures that are cause for concern, and further evidence that there may be cause for concern of latent failures.   I've not seen anything yet that dissuades those concerns.

[MikeOH]

@GeeBee

I’d rebut each of your points but @EricJ beat me to it.

[Marc_B]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Because he posted it in a restricted method. The video was not made available on YouTube.com general, only through  Reddit. When you do that it gives rise to innuendo. Further, the results are not repeatable.

GAMI's video was the same.  You can't find it on GAMI's youtube channel. Not that I think that this is an "important" thing to point out.

Neither one of these videos are scientific "proof" of anything.  They're how you develop hypothesis, not how you test them.  They don't help identify causation.  They just develop concern for more testing.  Both tests are simple observational, anecdotal evidence.  Neither are how you run a scientific study to find usable, repeatable data.

GAMI said enough testing has been done; these aren't issues you will face.  If that's true, nothing to see.  If that's not true we will continue to see more issues.

My issue is that all along we've heard conflicting information that makes speculation easy.  We tested with nitrile and it was fine and no issues...but we recommend Viton to just be sure.  We haven't seen paint damage, but you need to use very thorough paint hygeine to be sure.  We haven't seen paint damage, but if you do it's the old Mooney wet wings and paint that's not properly applied and the "corrosive" 100LL that has high amounts of toluene.

I think that there is probably some truth in the cases we've seen.  But we don't know all the details and probably never will.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

he demonstrated that there are conditions in which paint, and primer, can fail in the field in the presence of G100UL as had been previously reported.

I can make any number of paint jobs, especially on aluminum fail even using premium paint with as little as Isopropyl alcohol. Painting aluminum is a process which requires an intermediary. I see very few paint jobs, even factories that accomplish that. I am guessing, because I know Beechcraft does it right (using etch and alodine) that those panels GAMI is testing are doing so much better. I regularly paint marine outdrives for friends because even the factories do not etch and alodine their units. My paint jobs last 5 times as long as Mercruiser's. Without knowing how the surface was prepared there is no way of knowing if Luvela's test was valid. I will say right up front, that panel off the 182 is over coated and probably a result of trying to get adherence without proper prep. That is the first tell in a "quickie" paint job.

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

It's always been on YT.

As to the video, I will quote the OP on this site

"The video is not marked as not publicly available so only way to watch it is by click the link."

Apparently the video is now public, but again apparently in the beginning it was not

 

 

[GeeBee]

9 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@GeeBee

I’d rebut each of your points but @EricJ beat me to it.

And I rebutted those.

[MikeOH]

10 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

And I rebutted those.

Very poorly.

The most important point is that the same paint did NOT fail with 100LL.

Your argument also seems to hinge on having ‘perfect’ paint. Not all of us do and you expect us to deal with paint issues with G100UL when we have had none with 100LL?

You seriously think that’s ok??

[Marc_B]

Braly didn't show where 100LL has caused paint damage in his video even when adding an extra "14-15%" toluene, although he's said several times that 100LL has high toluene and that's important.  And each batch of fuel for any fuel likely varies to some degree.  The issue is that there may be a conforming fuel mix that is more harmful to paint than others.  There may be a formulation that is more likely to stain.

More importantly there may be a way to help prevent this, preferable materials and elastomers to use, and certain aircraft to avoid use in until proper catch up maintenance has been done.

Mr. Braly mentioned, the PAFI fuel spec didn't include playing nice with paint and elastomers.  So any new unleaded fuel may have harmful effects...these early cases are the test cases that will help shape and mold further testing to see what is at risk and what is preventative.  It's not blame...it's discovery of mitigation.  But first you have to accept that there may be an issue.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/PAFI_Fuel_Development_Testing_Lessons_Learned.pdf

[GeeBee]

13 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Very poorly.

The most important point is that the same paint did NOT fail with 100LL.

Your argument also seems to hinge on having ‘perfect’ paint. Not all of us do and you expect us to deal with paint issues with G100UL when we have had none with 100LL?

You seriously think that’s ok??

Ever seen what the ordinary and every day use of Skydrol which is used in most jet aircraft does to paint? One hydraulic leak and you are repainting a lot of area. 

 

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Ever seen what the ordinary and every day use of Skydrol which is used in most jet aircraft does to paint? One hydraulic leak and you are repainting a lot of area. 

Huh?

That ‘analogy’ isn’t remotely relevant to our debate.

[Marc_B]

12 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Ever seen what the ordinary and every day use of Skydrol

I'm not sure I follow your point here.  Do we use Skydrol for hydraulic fluid in our Mooney's?

Chemicals can be caustic.  Not surprising.  But if the statement is that 100LL is more dangerous for your paint/sealant/elastomers than G100UL, and that's not the case...that's a different issue.

I think that a lot of pilots have used 100LL on their belly's to degrease, to clean the engine, etc.  In the past I think that no one thought twice about a fuel splash on the top wing.  And a seeping wing was  something to monitor and consider patching when we "get to it" and and not cause for immediately addressing due to concern for paint damage.

For the fuels of the future, I don't think this will be the case.

[Marc_B]

I'd be interested in hearing more from the people who have used and are using G100UL and haven't had any issues.  What type of paint do they have, what type of surface prep/wax/ceramic to they use, what is their fueling hygiene that they've found works, what's the age of the sealant and anything unique in their fuel system.

That might help as well.

[GeeBee]

14 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

I'd be interested in hearing more from the people who have used and are using G100UL and haven't had any issues.  What type of paint do they have, what type of surface prep/wax/ceramic to they use, what is their fueling hygiene that they've found works, what's the age of the sealant and anything unique in their fuel system.

That might help as well.

I think we have if you listened to Don Kaye or read Aviation Consumer's latest article. 

[GeeBee]

46 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Huh?

That ‘analogy’ isn’t remotely relevant to our debate.

Pretty simple. With Skydrol, if it leaks, it peels paint....period. Apparently, that is ok with everyone. If you walk down the concourse at any major airport you can spot all the leaking PCUs on the control surfaces. 

[Marc_B]

8 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I think we have if you listened to Don Kaye or read Aviation Consumer's latest article. 

Which article?  I don't think I saw that. 

Of course Don said he's had staining even despite following refueling.  And I believe he said he couldn't get it to buff out using various compounds.  I spoke with the AOPA staff and they said they didn't know if there was or wasn't any paint damage on the Baron leaks.  But they said that you have to be very careful with fueling as G100UL stains pretty easily.  Their fuel cap was yellow brown for the G100UL side from fumes and fuel.

Haven't heard if anyone say if ceramics, wax or any particular products help mitigate this and more importantly, to what degree.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/november/pilot/unleaded-fuel-what-we-have-learned

[GeeBee]

1 minute ago, Marc_B said:

Which article?  I don't think I saw that. 

Of course Don said he's had staining even despite following refueling.  And I believe he said he couldn't get it to buff out using various compounds.  I spoke with the AOPA staff and they said they didn't know if there was or wasn't any paint damage on the Baron leaks.  But they said that you have to be very careful with fueling as G100UL stains pretty easily.  Their fuel cap was yellow brown for the G100UL side from fumes and fuel.

Haven't heard if anyone say if ceramics, wax or any particular products help mitigate this and more importantly, to what degree.

Aviation Consumer January 2025. Page 14.

[Marc_B]

Just now, GeeBee said:

Aviation Consumer January 2025. Page 14.

do you have a link or the highlights?  Looks like it requires a subscription.