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

[MikeOH]

Some random comments/questions:

1) GAMI should run the same evaporative tests as the YouTube guy.  I, too, think his tests better represent the 'real world' where fuel is spilled/leaked and then 'dries out'.  To become accepted, any experiment should be replicated by as many independent testers as possible. I would think @George Braly would be eager to do this.

2) My plane's paint has been exposed to untold number of different 'blends' of 100LL for the past 28 years of its 'inexpensive' paint job and I do NOT see ANY non-mechanical (chips/scratches) paint degradation; any blue stains have always easily wiped off with more 100LL

3) Does 100LL contain any meta-toluidine, or is it only in G100UL?

4) Can anyone buy meta-toluidine?  It would be interesting to test paint exposed only to that chemical.  (As would, as suggested by @Marc_B, G100UL absent meta-toluidine)

5) I agree with "If it is necessary to replace any components in an aircraft to operate G100UL, then I would argue it is NOT a drop-in replacement for 100LL". Nor, do I consider that to be a "commercially available" satisfactory fuel.

6) I also agree with "Given the test results (YouTube guy's) that I've obtained over the past several weeks, I can't come to a conclusion that this fuel is compatible with the aircraft that I operate".

[Marc_B]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

3) Does 100LL contain any meta-toluidine, or is it only in G100UL?

Judging from SDS, I don’t see meta-toluidine listed in 100LL. And the fact that Swift has been so adamant that they don’t want fuel mixed with theirs that contains meta-toluidine (without further testing) but say 100R is fungible with 100LL, leads me to believe this is accurate reflection that 100LL does not contain meta-toluidine.  (Of course there are other components in G100UL, as well as different concentrations of some components in common, not found in 100LL as well). 
 

100LL SDS:

G100UL SDS:

[MikeOH]

45 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Judging from SDS, I don’t see meta-toluidine listed in 100LL. And the fact that Swift has been so adamant that they don’t want fuel mixed with theirs that contains meta-toluidine (without further testing) but say 100R is fungible with 100LL, leads me to believe this is accurate reflection that 100LL does not contain meta-toluidine.  (Of course there are other components in G100UL, as well as different concentrations of some components in common, not found in 100LL as well). 
 

100LL SDS:

G100UL SDS:

I wonder how many 'batches' of G100UL have been brewed?  IIRC, GAMI had around 1 million gallons made, but no idea if that represents a single batch, or not.  Consequently, not clear if both Watsonville and Reid-Hillview are selling G100UL from the same batch.

I bring this up since the SDS shows a range of 0 to 6% meta-toluidine...which begs the question, does G100UL maintain all its desirable properties (e.g. anti-detonation) over that range of meta-toluidine?

Where I'm going with this: If, in fact, it is the meta-toluidine causing paint issues (and elastomer swelling), and G100UL can be made without it AND retain its properties...you can connect the dots

[PT20J]

I don’t believe GAMI ever identified the chemical component of G100UL that leaves brown stains, but according to this source m-toluidine turns brown when exposed to air and light.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/m-TOLUIDINE

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, PT20J said:

I don’t believe GAMI ever identified the chemical component of G100UL that leaves brown stains, but according to this source m-toluidine turns brown when exposed to air and light.

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/m-TOLUIDINE

Interesting that it freezes at around -23F.  No idea if any other fuel components have that high a freezing point, or if once mixed into a blend that fact is irrelevant.

[PT20J]

18 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I wonder how many 'batches' of G100UL have been brewed?  IIRC, GAMI had around 1 million gallons made, but no idea if that represents a single batch, or not.  Consequently, not clear if both Watsonville and Reid-Hillview are selling G100UL from the same batch.

I bring this up since the SDS shows a range of 0 to 6% meta-toluidine...which begs the question, does G100UL maintain all its desirable properties (e.g. anti-detonation) over that range of meta-toluidine?

Where I'm going with this: If, in fact, it is the meta-toluidine causing paint issues, and G100UL can be made without it AND retain its properties...you can connect the dots

I wouldn’t read too much into those percentage ranges. Most likely, the amount of each component is much more tightly controlled. Companies blur the ranges intentionally to avoid disclosing the formula which is a trade secret.

[gabez]

posting now as this is public. I was made aware Friday 

[Aaviationist]

5 hours ago, gabez said:

I think we can all agree G100 will attack the paint and seals. There is too much world evidence in 60 days to think otherwise, the next step is it attacking the sealant also and if so is it moving downstream? The SJ FDSO has sent a crew to KWVI to go through the evidence of now 3 planes, all 3 planes cannot fly right now.

I don’t think we can all agree to that at all. 
 

I don’t think this “real world evidence” or unscientific and anonymous YouTube videos negates the 15 years of testing done by Gami and their partners - including Embry Riddle and AOPA.

 

What we have seen is that some airplanes with maintenance deficiencies including likely leaks that existed previously - have revealed themselves after the gummy solution and residue an evaporated 100ll was washed away after using a new fuel. 
 

What we have seen is paint that was likely already deteriorating has accelerated deterioration after coming into contact with a fuel nice again. 
 

we have not seen any failure of seals and have anecdotal evidence of different types of seals being used. 
 

we have not seen any evidence of seals deteriorating in a tank using approved methods and procedures for sealing a wet wing tank. 
 

what I’m interested in is REAL, SCIENTIFIC, data. 
 

Which none of this is. 

[redbaron1982]

5 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

I don’t think we can all agree to that at all. 
 

I don’t think this “real world evidence” or unscientific and anonymous YouTube videos negates the 15 years of testing done by Gami and their partners - including Embry Riddle and AOPA.

 

What we have seen is that some airplanes with maintenance deficiencies including likely leaks that existed previously - have revealed themselves after the gummy solution and residue an evaporated 100ll was washed away after using a new fuel. 
 

What we have seen is paint that was likely already deteriorating has accelerated deterioration after coming into contact with a fuel nice again. 
 

we have not seen any failure of seals and have anecdotal evidence of different types of seals being used. 
 

we have not seen any evidence of seals deteriorating in a tank using approved methods and procedures for sealing a wet wing tank. 
 

what I’m interested in is REAL, SCIENTIFIC, data. 
 

Which none of this is. 

I'm starting to have issues telling sarcasm from true believers. 

[Aaviationist]

6 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

6 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

I'm starting to have issues telling sarcasm from true believers. 

Next you’re going to tell us that it’s not a direct drop in replacement because they don’t taste the same and the UL gave you a tummy ache. 

[gabez]

17 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

I don’t think we can all agree to that at all. 
 

I don’t think this “real world evidence” or unscientific and anonymous YouTube videos negates the 15 years of testing done by Gami and their partners - including Embry Riddle and AOPA.

 

What we have seen is that some airplanes with maintenance deficiencies including likely leaks that existed previously - have revealed themselves after the gummy solution and residue an evaporated 100ll was washed away after using a new fuel. 
 

What we have seen is paint that was likely already deteriorating has accelerated deterioration after coming into contact with a fuel nice again. 
 

we have not seen any failure of seals and have anecdotal evidence of different types of seals being used. 
 

we have not seen any evidence of seals deteriorating in a tank using approved methods and procedures for sealing a wet wing tank. 
 

what I’m interested in is REAL, SCIENTIFIC, data. 
 

Which none of this is. 

I think you are missing the point....G100UL is a drop in replacement, it is supposed to behave like 100LL....it doesn't....otherwise our deficient airplanes would have experienced the same problems with 100LL. 

[philiplane]

Catalyzed paints (2-part polyurethane, acrylic urethane, or acrylic enamel topcoats like Acryglo, Imron, etc ) are normally immune to even the worst solvents. However, most primers are sensitive to lacquer thinner, and enamel reducers, which include toluene and xylene. My bet is that the paint damage shown started with the primer coats. With the primer corrupted, the top coat goes along with it. 

[Aaviationist]

7 minutes ago, gabez said:

I think you are missing the point....G100UL is a drop in replacement, it is supposed to behave like 100LL....it doesn't....otherwise our deficient airplanes would have experienced the same problems with 100LL. 

I’m not missing the point at all. 
 

no, it’s not supposed to behave like low lead. It’s supposed to be compatible with the engine and systems, and ideally be fungible (but that also wasn’t really a requirement)

 

A fuel that had an unexpected property of developing a gummy substance that hid your fuel leak because you never cleaned it off, cannot be expected of an alternative fuel. 

[redbaron1982]

19 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Next you’re going to tell us that it’s not a direct drop in replacement because they don’t taste the same and the UL gave you a tummy ache. 

You're are absolutely right! I was going to share my own analysis of G100UL taste: on the nose, G100UL makes an unforgettable entrance with bold, industrial undertones reminiscent of freshly cracked refinery vats, balanced by an edgy zing that might just remind you of the kind of paint stripper that could strip memories. The palate is daringly complex: it opens with a smooth, almost buttery ignition, followed by a volatile crescendo that dances between high-octane ambition and a faintly caustic whisper of "am I supposed to inhale this?" The finish? Crisp, clean-burning, and surprisingly engine-friendly, leaving behind only the faintest tingle of existential questioning.

Edited January 15 by redbaron1982

[gabez]

23 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

I’m not missing the point at all. 
 

no, it’s not supposed to behave like low lead. It’s supposed to be compatible with the engine and systems, and ideally be fungible (but that also wasn’t really a requirement)

 

A fuel that had an unexpected property of developing a gummy substance that hid your fuel leak because you never cleaned it off, cannot be expected of an alternative fuel. 

G100ul.com

Edited January 15 by gabez

[Aaviationist]

8 minutes ago, gabez said:

G100ul.com

That’s the dumbest response you could have posted. 
 

If your airplane previously developed a leak that was then hidden by the residue left by evaporated 100ll, there is nobody in the world that is going to agree that the replacement needs to have the same poor maintenance hiding properties as 100ll happened to have. 

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, Aaviationist said:

That’s the dumbest response you could have posted. 
 

If your airplane previously developed a leak that was then hidden by the residue left by evaporated 100ll, there is nobody in the world that is going to agree that the replacement needs to have the same poor maintenance hiding properties as 100ll happened to have. 

Topped by your post being the dumbest!  Congrats!

If my weeping/seeping tanks were NOT damaging my paint with 100LL and the replacement fuel now strips it off only you would think that represents "transparent to the aircraft".

[Aaviationist]

6 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Topped by your post being the dumbest!  Congrats!

If my weeping/seeping tanks were NOT damaging my paint with 100LL and the replacement fuel now strips it off only you would think that represents "transparent to the aircraft".

Show me scientific proof of that. 

[Marc_B]

The issue is that there obviously needs to be some third party testing. There has been more issues seen in the last month that have raised concerns, and unless the allegation is that these are all fabrications, it’s hard to discount something different is occurring. It’s not more YouTube videos from GAMI that are needed. It’s review by an outside neutral third party.

The issue here is it’s clear that GAMI chose not to go through PAFI, possibly has required NDA for testing at least from Lycoming, has concerns that intellectual property will be stolen, and sent data to the FAA, with approval of such data, but that is not open source or independently reviewable by anyone in the industry, nor myself  

The response of GAMI so far has been 100LL damages paint and wet wings are poor technique; nothing to see here.  But they’ve never offered an explanation of what’s been shown here.  Mr. Braly stated he’s never seen paint damaged by G100UL.

So as a potential customer and user of G100UL, how can I reconcile use of a fuel that we don’t have an answer as to why in certain circumstances it appears to damage paint?  It may not be a “requirement” from PAFI that no paint damage or even staining is seen…but as long as I have a choice in fuel, it does matter to me.

[LANCECASPER]

13 minutes ago, Aaviationist said:

Show me scientific proof of that. 

You have to come up with at least three more screen names before you're entitled to proof . .lol

[Kelpro999]

1 hour ago, Aaviationist said:

what I’m interested in is REAL, SCIENTIFIC, data. 

 After watching both videos, I too want real scientific data. Until then it’s going to be existing videos setting the course in the real world.

[redbaron1982]

It would be great if a renowned and requested third party could do some tests. But all this mess is such a hot potato that nobody wants to get involved. 

[gabez]

4 minutes ago, Kelpro999 said:

 After watching both videos, I too want real scientific data. Until then it’s going to be existing videos setting the course in the real world.

you are given the same data as i/we were given. Since you are in SD just fly to KWVI and put some G100UL in your plane. Shouldn't be a problem right....but you won't because ultimately you trust our experience, videos and pic more than GAMI's

[ragedracer1977]

1 hour ago, Aaviationist said:

Show me scientific proof of that. 

I don’t think you understand the scientific method.

It’s in this thread. There’s 2 videos, both using a very clear scientific method, showing paint damaged by G100UL.  There’s photos from multiple aircraft taken at different locations by different people, including the AOPA.

There’s really only two options.

#1: G100UL can strip paint and may have an adverse effect on fuel system components and materials.

#2: this is just another part of a vast conspiracy to “silence” G100UL.

 There is no in between.

Edited January 15 by ragedracer1977

[Marc_B]

https://g100ul.com/patents
One can look these up on Google Patents. Composition of fuel may not be accurately reflected by SDS. 

Still would be interesting to see the detailed hydrocarbon analysis of the California G100UL.