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

[George Braly]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

@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.

In the case of the four airplanes we have run tests on,  the OEM elastomeric components were traditional nitrile. 

[MikeOH]

Just now, George Braly said:

In the case of the four airplanes we have run tests on,  the OEM elastomeric components were traditional nitrile. 

@George Braly

Thank you.

That is good news.

[McMooney]

2 hours ago, George Braly said:

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

would you mind elaborating? 

[Justin Schmidt]

15 minutes ago, McMooney said:

would you mind elaborating? 

The io360-a1a and io360-a3b6d are high compression engines. They require 100ll or 100/130 for detonation margin. Ul94 will not be friendly 

[GeeBee]

Nor will the Swift UL100R or the Lyondell fuel candidates work in the IO-360 engines. The only 100 unleaded with sufficient detonation margin is G100UL.

[PT20J]

3 hours ago, McMooney said:

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

The Lycoming IO-360-A series (200 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.7:1.

The Lycoming IO-390-A series (210 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.9:1.

The Lycoming 0-360-A series (180 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.5:1.

[McMooney]

2 hours ago, PT20J said:

The Lycoming IO-360-A series (200 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.7:1.

The Lycoming IO-390-A series (210 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.9:1.

The Lycoming 0-360-A series (180 hp) has a compression ratio of 8.5:1.

show me a document that says specifically these engines won't work,  only thing i've ever read was rhigh powered engines  may not work with the alternate 100s.   strange the 8.5 engine will work at ul94 but theres no way the 8.7  will work at 100/???   esp for products that are meant to be used by a significant portion of the fleet.   could be true  but  doesn't smell exactly right

[PT20J]

1 minute ago, McMooney said:

show me a document that says specifically these engines won't work,  only thing i've ever read was rhigh powered engines  may not work with the alternate 100s.   strange the 8.5 engine will work at ul94 but theres no way the 8.7  will work at 100/???   esp for products that are meant to be used by a significant portion of the fleet.   could be true  but  doesn't smell exactly right

I have no idea what fuel they can use beyond what is specified in the TCDS and the GAMI STC. If other fuels meet FAA airworthiness requirements, then I suppose they will get approved by STC or some other process.

[McMooney]

15 minutes ago, McMooney said:

show me a document that says specifically these engines won't work,  only thing i've ever read was rhigh powered engines  may not work with the alternate 100s.   strange the 8.5 engine will work at ul94 but theres no way the 8.7  will work at 100/???   esp for products that are meant to be used by a significant portion of the fleet.   could be true  but  doesn't smell exactly right

 

wow lycoming themselves have approved ul94

seems doubly strange i'd work on a higher octane fuel  for the same aircraft,.

[GeeBee]

Because and O-360-A (180 hp) is a carbureted engine with a C/R of 8.5. An IO-360-B is a fuel injected engine also producing 180 hp with a C/R of 8.5 so both can use lower octane fuel. An IO-360-A has a C/R of 8.7 and needs 100 octane fuel. It is all in the C/R numbers and for Lycoming it would appear the break is going beyond a C/R of 8.5 in their updated fuel list. Which make sense because C/R and detonation margin is naturally linked. Do not concern yourself with engine model, concern yourself with what C/R that model represents.

[T. Peterson]

18 hours ago, Schllc said:

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

Thank you for posting this link. I am 43 minutes into it and am both learning and enjoying.

[T. Peterson]

16 hours 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.

Wow! That is cynicism at its finest. Well done!

[Justin Schmidt]

12 hours ago, McMooney said:

show me a document that says specifically these engines won't work,  only thing i've ever read was rhigh powered engines  may not work with the alternate 100s.   strange the 8.5 engine will work at ul94 but theres no way the 8.7  will work at 100/???   esp for products that are meant to be used by a significant portion of the fleet.   could be true  but  doesn't smell exactly right

Well the most advanced test cell, which GAMI has shows actual empirical data. 

[Schllc]

2 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

Thank you for posting this link. I am 43 minutes into it and am both learning and enjoying.

Human nature is what it is, and it will never change. 
I think every generation starts out thinking that their technology and advancement makes them more enlightened, and while this may be true in many areas, with regard to human behavior, it will never change because one must gather experience to comprehend. 
Legal plunder is what we are living under and it is proving to be quite punishing. 

[T. Peterson]

15 minutes ago, Schllc said:

Human nature is what it is, and it will never change. 
I think every generation starts out thinking that their technology and advancement makes them more enlightened, and while this may be true in many areas, with regard to human behavior, it will never change because one must gather experience to comprehend. 
Legal plunder is what we are living under and it is proving to be quite punishing. 

Exactly right. This is why men need God. Our human nature, no matter how educated, is not up to the task of building a non-plundering civilization.

[IvanP]

Thinking about the STC process for being able to use UL fuel in our current planes, regardless of who makes it. We now have the option to purchase STC for G100UL. If, hypothetically, other companies put out UL fuels that will become "commerically available" for use by GA fleet, will we have to purchase STC from each of the respective vendors? 

I have no issue paying for STC that involves parts and/or actual modification of the aircraft, e.g., Monroy tanks, GAMI injectors, etc., but I have an issue with paying hundreds of dollars for couple of stickers to the compay that also charging us for their fuel which is more expensive than other available fuel.  It seems that making the STC free would be a smart move from marketing standpoint. I know that few pilots got "free" STC at KRHV when they purchased enough G100UL. In the grand scheme of things, the company will make much more money from fuel sales than from the on-time STC sale and it would probably be received well by pilots.  

 

[T. Peterson]

14 minutes ago, IvanP said:

Thinking about the STC process for being able to use UL fuel in our current planes, regardless of who makes it. We now have the option to purchase STC for G100UL. If, hypothetically, other companies put out UL fuels that will become "commerically available" for use by GA fleet, will we have to purchase STC from each of the respective vendors? 

I have no issue paying for STC that involves parts and/or actual modification of the aircraft, e.g., Monroy tanks, GAMI injectors, etc., but I have an issue with paying hundreds of dollars for couple of stickers to the compay that also charging us for their fuel which is more expensive than other available fuel.  It seems that making the STC free would be a smart move from marketing standpoint. I know that few pilots got "free" STC at KRHV when they purchased enough G100UL. In the grand scheme of things, the company will make much more money from fuel sales than from the on-time STC sale and it would probably be received well by pilots.  

 

Clearing the Air: How Unleaded Aviation Fuel Is Gaining Approval - Part 1: Understanding the STC process and why it matters to pilots and aircraft owners
This is the title to another thread that will better answer your question. Apparently there are at least two avenues to approving a fuel. One is the STC, the other is an FAA fleet authorization. I won’t say more because it is well beyond my expertise, but some of the smart fellows will probably be along shortly that can better explain it to both of us.

[Marc_B]

48 minutes ago, IvanP said:

I have no issue paying for STC that involves parts and/or actual modification of the aircraft,

I'm torn with this...because the VAST majority of the expense involved in ANY STC is from the product testing, development, and approval...not at all the expense of the "equipment" sold to the aircraft owner. 

However, charging for STC paperwork plus having to pay extra at the pump above and beyond what comparable fuel would cost seems a combination of a "fixed revenue" up front + a "royalty revenue" in perpetuity.  Only GAMI knows their calculations and thought process for setting these two amounts...

For comparison, Swift's STC is $100 (IIRC) for their Forever STC. 

How many pilots got the G100UL STC at KRHV simply due to free STC/fuel vs how many would have paid for the STC without free STC or free fuel?  Of course if California outlaws 100LL and requires all pilots to pay GAMI for an STC that's a big chuck of immediate funds.  So charging for the STC is like taking your winnings while you're ahead...who knows what's coming around the corner.

Edit:  the million dollar question is what are the fuel STC owners going to charge when 100LL is banned??  I'm sure if they offered them all for free now, everyone would go ahead and jump on board the STC to have it...so this would cut into business later on.  So there's probably lots of thought in pricing from all the companies involved...

[donkaye, MCFI]

I'm a proponent of G100UL.  I'm on the side of the "Glass half full" rather than "Half empty" philosophy.  I don't have the patience or the inclination to become an expert on fuels, as some on this forum.  So, I'm with George on this.  I believe in his research.  Ironically, my Dad was a PHD chemist who specialized in rocket fuel research.  However, just as your tongue is constantly attracted to a problem with a tooth, so am I every time I do a preflight and see the light staining on both side of my fuel tanks.  It's annoying, so on Monday I'm going  to call a top notch paint shop in Salinas and set up an appointment to see if they can buff it out, and if not, I think I'll have my wing repainted.

[GeeBee]

With regard to paying for the GAMI STC, George Braly can correct me if I am wrong but GAMI is allowing any refiner to blend G100UL royalty free. What I see is GAMI  monetizing G100UL via the STC and not at the pump so as to allow as many refiners as possible to make it providing it passes GAMI's QA protocol. The monetizing model makes sense if you want the producer side to easily make a steady supply without tracking royalties and licensing. In essence like the IBM PC he has open sourced the production and made the user buy the license. Just as anyone could produce a PC but the end user would have to buy a license for the operating system.

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, donkaye said:

I'm a proponent of G100UL.  I'm on the side of the "Glass half full" rather than "Half empty" philosophy.  I don't have the patience or the inclination to become an expert on fuels, as some on this forum.  So, I'm with George on this.  I believe in his research.  Ironically, my Dad was a PHD chemist who specialized in rocket fuel research.  However, just as your tongue is constantly attracted to a problem with a tooth, so am I every time I do a preflight and see the light staining on both side of my fuel tanks.  It's annoying, so on Monday I'm going  to call a top notch paint shop in Salinas and set up an appointment to see if they can buff it out, and if not, I think I'll have my wing repainted.

Shouldn’t GAMI repaint your wing? The damage to paint is a known and disclosed problem. Does that mean it’s acceptable for you to incur the damage caused by a vendors product? That’s setting a new precedent which should not be acceptable. I hate to say it Don, but this is the difference between those who don’t have a budget and those who do. The care level meter swings quite a bit depending on which end of the spectrum you’re on. Still unacceptable. 

[McMooney]

3 hours ago, Justin Schmidt said:

Well the most advanced test cell, which GAMI has shows actual empirical data. 

where do they have testing 100R or Lydon won't work

[Sabremech]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

I'm torn with this...because the VAST majority of the expense involved in ANY STC is from the product testing, development, and approval...not at all the expense of the "equipment" sold to the aircraft owner. 

However, charging for STC paperwork plus having to pay extra at the pump above and beyond what comparable fuel would cost seems a combination of a "fixed revenue" up front + a "royalty revenue" in perpetuity.  Only GAMI knows their calculations and thought process for setting these two amounts...

For comparison, Swift's STC is $100 (IIRC) for their Forever STC. 

How many pilots got the G100UL STC at KRHV simply due to free STC/fuel vs how many would have paid for the STC without free STC or free fuel?  Of course if California outlaws 100LL and requires all pilots to pay GAMI for an STC that's a big chuck of immediate funds.  So charging for the STC is like taking your winnings while you're ahead...who knows what's coming around the corner.

Edit:  the million dollar question is what are the fuel STC owners going to charge when 100LL is banned??  I'm sure if they offered them all for free now, everyone would go ahead and jump on board the STC to have it...so this would cut into business later on.  So there's probably lots of thought in pricing from all the companies involved...

Who are the STC police at the fuel pumps? What’s to stop you or anyone else from pumping GU100LL into your plane and using it? I don’t know how you can police whether you have the paperwork that gives you the privilege  to pay more for your fuel or not!   ????

[Ryan ORL]

21 hours 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? 

Because you were quite transparently implying that I am some kind of shill for GAMI or G100UL.  Even now-- "the script", as if I am not capable of independent thought.

[redbaron1982]

11 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

With regard to paying for the GAMI STC, George Braly can correct me if I am wrong but GAMI is allowing any refiner to blend G100UL royalty free. What I see is GAMI  monetizing G100UL via the STC and not at the pump so as to allow as many refiners as possible to make it providing it passes GAMI's QA protocol. The monetizing model makes sense if you want the producer side to easily make a steady supply without tracking royalties and licensing. In essence like the IBM PC he has open sourced the production and made the user buy the license. Just as anyone could produce a PC but the end user would have to buy a license for the operating system.

If that would be the case (GAMI not charging a fee for each gallon of G100UL sold or blended) it would change how I perceive all this.