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

[PT20J]

According to my paint guy, it’s the clear coat that gives extra UV protection and is resistant to Skydrol. I’m going to spring for an extra $3500 to get the new paint job clear coated. If it’s resistant to Skydrol, maybe it’s more resistant to G100UL staining and/or easier to polish out. He thinks it is also helps with corrosion. He paints the airplanes for a local flight school at Paine Field WA. They were having corrosion issues from deicing with isopropyl alcohol until he started clear coating them and there have been no issues since. 

[GeeBee]

6 hours ago, PT20J said:

According to my paint guy, it’s the clear coat that gives extra UV protection and is resistant to Skydrol. I’m going to spring for an extra $3500 to get the new paint job clear coated. If it’s resistant to Skydrol, maybe it’s more resistant to G100UL staining and/or easier to polish out. He thinks it is also helps with corrosion. He paints the airplanes for a local flight school at Paine Field WA. They were having corrosion issues from deicing with isopropyl alcohol until he started clear coating them and there have been no issues since. 

Yep, that is why corporate jets are unaffected by Skydrol and airliner have "paint melts" all over them. I wonder if a square of Scotchguard Paint protection film around the filler cap would work?

[Schllc]

On 1/8/2025 at 11:02 PM, T. Peterson said:

The reason this debate is so emotionally charged is not because G100UL is good or bad, but because it appears that this is going to be forced on the consumer by government fiat. The fact that some have a serious concern with the fuel certainly exacerbates the issue, but if no one felt they would be forced into it, most of the heat would dissipate. People would not be fuming on Mooneyspace, they just wouldn’t buy the fuel.

@GeeBee mentioned that it is probably time to field test this new fuel, and I agree. The FAA has anointed it and so let the market forces test it. Let the FBO’s decide what they want to sell. They don’t have to offer two choices. If they only have one tank or simply just want to deal with one fuel, their choice. If they think G100UL is their path to better profitability than so be it. If the next FBO at a neighboring airport feels different and sticks with 100LL, that’s their business choice. Let the market decide. 
Much heat has been leveled against GAMI which I think is misdirected. The real culprit is a weak  government that bowed to a special interest using junk science. I utterly reject the notion that we must bow and genuflect to the inevitable “Tsunami” coming our way. Especially with the coming change of administration, there may be a real window of opportunity to roll back some of this government overreach. Even if nothing changes, there is yet 5 years (if I correctly understand the mandate) to field test this fuel. If it proves to be the greatest thing since sliced bread, we will all race to buy our STC. But if the only place it sells is where state governments have prematurely banned 100LL, is that not in itself a pretty good indicator of where the field testing is going? And if the fuel proves to be a disaster that would certainly spark a further movement to delay the mandate. Per chance by that time there would be a real drop-in fuel or even some adult leadership at the EPA.

I do understand there is a real sense of urgency on the part of California owners as it certainly appears the steamroller is gearing up. I am very sorry for that and I can only encourage you to enlist the help of any sympathetic voices that may remain in your government.

 

Very well stated. 

[GeeBee]

Well stated but I would not count on this new administration changing anything. Indeed PAFI had been going on the entire 4 years of the first Trump administration and EAGLE was the brain child of FAA Administrator Steve Dickson who was Trump's nominee. Dickson created EAGLE to "buy time" because of PAFI's failures (setting 2030 deadline). Now that G100UL exists in the field, driven there by local regulations, given the propensity and indeed the fiscal imperative to cut costs I predict DOGE (aka Elon Musk) will close down EAGLE and PAFI and say, "problem solved, move on". No one, not even Trump wants to touch the tar baby called lead. I think most of you are completely misreading the political imperatives, the inertia and the gathering critical mass. With G100UL in the field, critical mass is rapidly approaching.

[Sabremech]

12 hours ago, George Braly said:

 

Please identify each sponsor of an Unleaded High Octane candidate replacement for 100LL who has not publicly stated or acknowledged that their candidate UL fuel will require modifications of the engines in order to pass detonation test requirements.

 

 

What does your question have to do with what I posted and you’re quoting? There are other companies working on a 100UL fuel is what I said. Is that not a true statement? Do you think another company is not capable of producing a product to compete with GAMI? 

[George Braly]

20 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

 

George Braly:  "Please identify each sponsor of an Unleaded High Octane candidate replacement for 100LL who has not publicly stated or acknowledged that their candidate UL fuel will require modifications of the engines in order to pass detonation test requirements."

What does your question have to do with what I posted and you’re quoting? There are other companies working on a 100UL fuel is what I said. Is that not a true statement? Do you think another company is not capable of producing a product to compete with GAMI? 

Respectfully,  I think the request to identify any candidate fuel that even, now, remotely, claims to be suitable for use for the fleet - - without significant individual modifications to the engines - - is rather important to your questions.

Someone can be "... working on a fuel"  - -  but if that fuel is not going to meet the goal as being useful for the entire fleet of airplanes and engines - - then the significance of each of those efforts is rather seriously diminished.  

" Do you think another company is not capable of producing a product to compete with GAMI? "

What I think is likely irrelevant.  What I know is that the P66, Shell, and others have claimed to be working towards that goal for the last 30 years.   Both P66 and Shell failed - - miserably - - during their participation in the PAFI program and formally withdrew any further participation in that program. 

[GeeBee]

George Braly knows the organic chemistry better than anyone I've ever seen. He knows combustion dynamics and he is a recognized world class expert. He knows what the others are doing, probably even evaluated those concepts in his own test cell himself before discarding them. He knows the chemistry, he knows what is required, he has patented those concepts himself (why else would people on the ASTM committee try to steal them) and that leaves everyone else without a viable chemistry. You can't repeal the laws of physics. The fact that people and companies have tried to impinge and steal his patents tells you something. Everyone else has bupkis otherwise why steal?

[Sabremech]

35 minutes ago, George Braly said:

Respectfully,  I think the request to identify any candidate fuel that even, now, remotely, claims to be suitable for use for the fleet - - without significant individual modifications to the engines - - is rather important to your questions.

Someone can be "... working on a fuel"  - -  but if that fuel is not going to meet the goal as being useful for the entire fleet of airplanes and engines - - then the significance of each of those efforts is rather seriously diminished.  

" Do you think another company is not capable of producing a product to compete with GAMI? "

What I think is likely irrelevant.  What I know is that the P66, Shell, and others have claimed to be working towards that goal for the last 30 years.   Both P66 and Shell failed - - miserably - - during their participation in the PAFI program and formally withdrew any further participation in that program. 

Thank you for not answering my questions. 

[Ryan ORL]

2 hours ago, Sabremech said:

What does your question have to do with what I posted and you’re quoting? There are other companies working on a 100UL fuel is what I said. Is that not a true statement? Do you think another company is not capable of producing a product to compete with GAMI? 

There are only a handful of companies working on 100UL fuels and, as far as we can tell from their public statements, the formulations they are targeting involve significant compromises on detonation margins such that modifications to engines and in-flight procedures will be required.

Maybe someone comes out of left field with a new as-yet-unannounced candidate fuel (probably unlikely because these take a long time to develop), but for now the situation, based on public statements and evidence, seems to be:

• G100UL - Potential (or actual) materials compatibility issues with sealants and o-rings, but superior-to-100LL detonation margins
• Swift 100R and Lyondell/VP UL100E - Maybe (??) better materials compatibility (but with potentially ethanol-related complications) but significantly-inferior-to-100LL detonation margins

I think George's point, which is fair, is that if we're talking about unleaded 100LL replacement fuels, your choice is those two buckets.  There aren't any magic miracle fuels coming.  So which basket of complications would you rather have?

Personally, I can't buy any of these fuels in my area and I'd rather not be an early adopter anyway.  But if 100LL does eventually get banned (which many feel is inevitable), I know which set of complications I would rather deal with, and it is not remotely a tough call.

[T. Peterson]

4 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Well stated but I would not count on this new administration changing anything. Indeed PAFI had been going on the entire 4 years of the first Trump administration and EAGLE was the brain child of FAA Administrator Steve Dickson who was Trump's nominee. Dickson created EAGLE to "buy time" because of PAFI's failures (setting 2030 deadline). Now that G100UL exists in the field, driven there by local regulations, given the propensity and indeed the fiscal imperative to cut costs I predict DOGE (aka Elon Musk) will close down EAGLE and PAFI and say, "problem solved, move on". No one, not even Trump wants to touch the tar baby called lead. I think most of you are completely misreading the political imperatives, the inertia and the gathering critical mass. With G100UL in the field, critical mass is rapidly approaching.

I don’t discount any of your speculations. It would be foolish to do so as I could only provide speculations of my own or other’s. I don’t know what will happen, but I am thoroughly convinced of what OUGHT to happen. I stated those convictions in my last post and many former, so I will not go over them again now.

It doesn’t matter to me one whit that conventional wisdom, as you have summarized it quite nicely, is against the handful of us that have our heels dug in against this abusive mandate. History is replete with conventional wisdom that was discovered to be flawed. History is also filled with a plethora of examples where abject lies were foisted on a culture and became accepted as truth because no one stood against them.

In the present case, I will continue to point out that the honest and fair way to implement any product is through free market principles and not government intervention. I well understand you think that is a lost cause, but I am writing this to hopefully influence those that may be open to a different perspective. If one more pilot will raise his or her voice or pen to rally against this assault on liberty, I will be gratified.

Many think we will fail and I don’t resent them for that, but I have till 2030 to fight, and I have zero inclination to surrender 5 years prior. I urge my fellow pilots to stand against this government over-reach. You all know the whole premise that GA is poisoning the public is ridiculous. If you truly believe that deception, it must be awfully awkward to rail against lead spewing machines while flying one. 

I want to reiterate that I do not disparage or belittle in any way those who disagree. I also admire and respect George Braly. I am not against G100UL. I don’t care if the Angel Gabriel submitted a fuel. It needs to be a free market choice.
 

 

[GeeBee]

25 minutes ago, T. Peterson said:

In the present case, I will continue to point out that the honest and fair way to implement any product is through free market principles and not government intervention.

Honest and fair? Really?

[birdofjoy]

This thread is a minefield and I have been avoiding posting here because of that but I believe I have relevant data to share. I am one of the Mooney owners based on KRHV that has the STC and have been using G100UL since its inception there on 11/2/24. I am just a normal guy with a Mooney so I don't fly it every day but rather on most weekends or nights if weather/wife allows. Since getting the STC I have flown 24.1 hrs according to my logbook. Out of those I'd estimate at least 2~3 full tanks on G100UL. So far, I haven't had any issues with paint or sips in the aircraft but I am very dilligent about cleaning spills after refueling and also after sipping tanks on pre-flight. I have seen more of the black powder in the exhaust, as expected, but those are easily wiped away.

For context, I only have this plane for the past 2 years so I don't know all the details from previous work other than what has been documented in the logbooks. My paint looks fairly new as the plane was completely repainted in 2017 and it also had O&N fuel bladder cells installed in 2011, so I don't expect to be subject to wet wing issues. If fuel leaks on my plane it'd have been from corroding or leakage of the cells. 

I'll continue to use the fuel whenever I can as I have seen the other expected benefits in performance and wear. My latest oil sample for example came cleaner than usual and the only variable that has changed since my previous one was the fuel. 

One more interesting statistic: on the latest KRHV news letter the airport Director, Eric Peterson, mentioned that they have sold over 3K gallons in the previous month. [First paragraph of page 2 of link above.]

 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Honest and fair? Really?

And, you believe that having our government FORCE unleaded fuel down our throats is the "honest and fair" path?  GMAB!

[Schllc]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

Honest and fair? Really?

I don’t think you are as far apart from @T. Peterson as you may think. 
what I hear him saying is rooted in these types of writings  

give it a listen  

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-law/id1759998666?i=1000663696988

[Sabremech]

5 hours ago, Ryan ORL said:

There are only a handful of companies working on 100UL fuels and, as far as we can tell from their public statements, the formulations they are targeting involve significant compromises on detonation margins such that modifications to engines and in-flight procedures will be required.

Maybe someone comes out of left field with a new as-yet-unannounced candidate fuel (probably unlikely because these take a long time to develop), but for now the situation, based on public statements and evidence, seems to be:

• G100UL - Potential (or actual) materials compatibility issues with sealants and o-rings, but superior-to-100LL detonation margins
• Swift 100R and Lyondell/VP UL100E - Maybe (??) better materials compatibility (but with potentially ethanol-related complications) but significantly-inferior-to-100LL detonation margins

I think George's point, which is fair, is that if we're talking about unleaded 100LL replacement fuels, your choice is those two buckets.  There aren't any magic miracle fuels coming.  So which basket of complications would you rather have?

Personally, I can't buy any of these fuels in my area and I'd rather not be an early adopter anyway.  But if 100LL does eventually get banned (which many feel is inevitable), I know which set of complications I would rather deal with, and it is not remotely a tough call.

Sounds like you’ve been communicating with George as this is almost a carbon copy of what he sent me. If GAMI came up with an acceptable blend, what makes you think some other company with bigger pockets can’t do the same or better? I’m betting that there will be competition for GAMI in the future. They may be the first but won’t be the only. Give it time. 

[McMooney]

6 hours ago, Ryan ORL said:

There are only a handful of companies working on 100UL fuels and, as far as we can tell from their public statements, the formulations they are targeting involve significant compromises on detonation margins such that modifications to engines and in-flight procedures will be required.

Maybe someone comes out of left field with a new as-yet-unannounced candidate fuel (probably unlikely because these take a long time to develop), but for now the situation, based on public statements and evidence, seems to be:

• G100UL - Potential (or actual) materials compatibility issues with sealants and o-rings, but superior-to-100LL detonation margins
• Swift 100R and Lyondell/VP UL100E - Maybe (??) better materials compatibility (but with potentially ethanol-related complications) but significantly-inferior-to-100LL detonation margins

I think George's point, which is fair, is that if we're talking about unleaded 100LL replacement fuels, your choice is those two buckets.  There aren't any magic miracle fuels coming.  So which basket of complications would you rather have?

Personally, I can't buy any of these fuels in my area and I'd rather not be an early adopter anyway.  But if 100LL does eventually get banned (which many feel is inevitable), I know which set of complications I would rather deal with, and it is not remotely a tough call.

question, what are these high compression egines that aren't compatible, i doubt it's my 200 hp mooney 

[Ryan ORL]

50 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

Sounds like you’ve been communicating with George as this is almost a carbon copy of what he sent me. If GAMI came up with an acceptable blend, what makes you think some other company with bigger pockets can’t do the same or better? I’m betting that there will be competition for GAMI in the future. They may be the first but won’t be the only. Give it time. 

I have never met or communicated with George in any way and frankly the implication is insulting.

Why can't other companies make a good blend?  You would need to ask them.  The fact, however, is that these other companies aren't holding these things under wraps... there have been public statements on their composition and the likely limitations.  These are well along the path towards certification.

Whether or not it may be possible to create a 100UL blend that has no drawbacks and the exact same (or better) performance characteristics as 100LL, the fact is that nobody has done so and there is nothing like this currently in the pipeline anywhere in the world.

[George Braly]

31 minutes ago, McMooney said:

question, what are these high compression egines that aren't compatible, i doubt it's my 200 hp mooney 

Actually - - a Lycoming IO-360 is one of those engines.  

[MikeOH]

@George Braly

Still awaiting an answer on what the seals and O-rings in your two test aircraft are made from.

[George Braly]

6 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

@George Braly

Still awaiting an answer on what the seals and O-rings in your two test aircraft are made from.

I thought I had made that clear.   If not, my apologies.

They were the OEM designated O-rings and seals.  They were not replaced or "upgraded" before any of the testing.  

 

[Sabremech]

15 minutes ago, Ryan ORL said:

I have never met or communicated with George in any way and frankly the implication is insulting.

Why can't other companies make a good blend?  You would need to ask them.  The fact, however, is that these other companies aren't holding these things under wraps... there have been public statements on their composition and the likely limitations.  These are well along the path towards certification.

Whether or not it may be possible to create a 100UL blend that has no drawbacks and the exact same (or better) performance characteristics as 100LL, the fact is that nobody has done so and there is nothing like this currently in the pipeline anywhere in the world.

Well the script is almost identical from you and George. I don’t know why you’d feel insulted? Is it because someone else thinks the same as you? 

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

And, you believe that having our government FORCE unleaded fuel down our throats is the "honest and fair" path?  GMAB!

You missed the satire and incredulity. There is nothing here or anywhere in this matter that is "honest and fair" and that is why I am incredulous that anyone would think that it could exist anywhere at anytime under any circumstance. "Honest and fair" in the context of the subject of environmental regulation is like an ice cube in hell because all of it has nothing to do with the environment.

[GeeBee]

1 minute ago, Sabremech said:

Well the script is almost identical from you and George. I don’t know why you’d feel insulted? Is it because someone else thinks the same as you? 

With all due respect Sabremech I've found your knowledge of the current circumstances wanting. You make claims about Shell, when Shell dropped out years ago. You made claims about 100VLL which has been withdrawn from the market, even in the EU. Ryan ORL is saying the same thing as Braly because both are up to date on the current events of who and what is happening in EAGLE/PAFI. Again I would suggest you read the October issue as well as previous issues of Aviation Consumer and in particular the reporting of Rick Durden to bring yourself up on the situation as it currently exists.

[MikeOH]

7 minutes ago, George Braly said:

I thought I had made that clear.   If not, my apologies.

They were the OEM designated O-rings and seals.  They were not replaced or "upgraded" before any of the testing.  

 

@George Braly

Yes, you did state that.

I would like to know the actual material; Viton, buna-n, nitrile, other, or unknown?

I would have thought you would know the specific material, but maybe not.

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

You missed the satire and incredulity. There is nothing here or anywhere in this matter that is "honest and fair" and that is why I am incredulous that anyone would think that it could exist anywhere at anytime under any circumstance. "Honest and fair" in the context of the subject of environmental regulation is like an ice cube in hell because all of it has nothing to do with the environment.

@GeeBee

My apologies; the satire went right over my head.