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

[GeeBee]

12 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

And, how do you suppose this started with the Mobil AV-1 issue?  Exactly the same way: with reports from the field first labeled as mere opinions and accusations, then data that initially gets labeled as false or fabricated, then enough multiple examples that the data can no longer be ignored as wrong.  We can differ in opinion on where in this continuum we are, but to deny that parallels exist between the two situations is deliberately looking the other way.

I do agree with @A64Pilot's analysis on the likely outcome financially due to the size and structure differences between Mobil and GAMI.

But you asked "Please explain how this G100UL situation differs from the class action lawsuit claims paid when Mobil AV-1 synthetic aviation oil caused engine issues."

You are changing predicates. You wanted me to compare the present situation with G100UL in which there are accusations on social media to a situation of litigation. If you want to compare how the G100UL situation now compares to the situation of AV-1 before litigation was filed please say so. Please don't change predicates to denigrate the answer you got. 

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

But you asked "Please explain how this G100UL situation differs from the class action lawsuit claims paid when Mobil AV-1 synthetic aviation oil caused engine issues."

You are changing predicates. You wanted me to compare the present situation with G100UL in which there are accusations on social media to a situation of litigation. If you want to compare how the G100UL situation now compares to the situation of AV-1 before litigation was filed please say so. Please don't change predicates to denigrate the answer you got. 

LOL!  You are smarter than that; don't resort to acting like you don't know exactly the point of my post.  Thanks, captain obvious, for pointing out that the two situations differ because one has already made it through to claims payouts and the other hasn't had a claim filed; no kidding the "predicates" differ.

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, redbaron1982 said:

It seems that Mr Scott Iceberg is addicted to lawsuits: https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-brookstone-landscape-design-llc, https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-whole-foods-mkt-grp-inc?q=scott iceberg&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case, https://casetext.com/case/iceberg-v-martin?q=scott iceberg&sort=relevance&p=1&type=case, and many more...

That may be so, but he is scoring to some hits on brookstone landscape with his ADA claims. 

My point is it only takes one "Iceberg" to ruin your day. Ask Captain Edward John Smith. 

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

LOL!  You are smarter than that; don't resort to acting like you don't know exactly the point of my post.  Thanks, captain obvious, for pointing out that the two situations differ because one has already made it through to claims payouts and the other hasn't had a claim filed; no kidding the "predicates" differ.

It points to the lack of discipline and detail these kind of "internet" accusation and "trials" have. Right now accusations and suppositions are many, but facts and disciplined arguments are precious. 

[MikeOH]

9 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

It points to the lack of discipline and detail these kind of "internet" accusation and "trials" have. Right now accusations and suppositions are many, but facts and disciplined arguments are precious. 

And, as with the Mobil AV-1 issue, time will tell if the video, and other, evidence prove nothing more than lies and fabrication, or turn out to be facts on the path to legitimate damage claims.

Isn't that how things are suppose to work?  Or, do you advocate censorship of these videos and opinions that you don't agree with?

[GeeBee]

8 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

And, as with the Mobil AV-1 issue, time will tell if the video, and other, evidence prove nothing more than lies and fabrication, or turn out to be facts on the path to legitimate damage claims.

Isn't that how things are suppose to work?  Or, do you advocate censorship of these videos and opinions that you don't agree with?

Again you setting up predicates "Or, do you advocate censorship of these videos and opinions that you don't agree with?" that are neither in evidence or for that matter true. You need to be more disciplined than simply throwing bombs. 

[MikeOH]

12 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Again you setting up predicates "Or, do you advocate censorship of these videos and opinions that you don't agree with?" that are neither in evidence or for that matter true. You need to be more disciplined than simply throwing bombs. 

I was asking you a reasonable question based on your repeated skepticism of, it seems, anything presented that puts G100UL in a bad light; hardly "setting up a predicate."

And, suggesting I stop "simply throwing bombs" is a bit hypocritical given the 'bombs you've thrown' against the videos previously presented.  When, in fact, we both merely have opposite OPINIONS on the veracity of those videos.  As I stated, time will tell which of our opinions turns out to be correct.  The next year is going to be interesting here in Kalifornia regarding the elimination of 100LL.

[Marc_B]

What we're seeing was:

1) discussed and brought forth by PAFI in their testing and development of fuels and was discovered and warned about with use of higher content aromatics (PAFI Lessons Learned); 

2) paint damage has been shown to occur in at least 7 aircraft that have been fueled with G100UL release in California, usually in response to marked leaks that show signs of escalation in leak location and amount of leak, but also paint damage has been shown in the form of staining with any spill/splash or drop not immediately cleaned with a product such as Windex;

3) GAMI/Braly has reacted defensively making initial comments that issues seen are due to high aromatic 100LL and not due to even higher aromatic G100UL; 

3a)  Cirrus finds that G100UL may not be compatible with their sealant and issues service advisories stating that G100UL is not approved to be run in their aircraft and this may void warranty.  GAMI releases a series of YouTube videos and commentary on their website in response;

3b)  Textron keeps G100UL off their approved fuel list;  Continental and Lycoming keep G100UL off their approved fuel list;

3c)  PAFI candidate reports that creating a truly "drop in fuel" (fuel without any requirements of modification) is likely impossible;

4) a video surfaces performed by an engineer/A&P where he uses G100UL initially from the pump, but then also tests that were from the affected aircraft that demonstrates the process shown in the affected aircraft (Luvara video 1)  (Luvara video 2);

5) GAMI releases a series of YouTube videos that don't use the affected aircraft, doesn't use various test cases, and solely focuses on one model of aircraft and paint to present "hard data" to make a statement that G100UL doesn't affect paint and shows how "easy" it is to remove staining from paint with "standard shop techniques for cleaning up paint" (G100UL soak test)  (G100UL drip test);

6) AOPA Baron makes the statement, "G100UL tends to stain paint, hangar floors, and anything else it touches. Pilots and aircraft owners can take precautions by applying protective coatings, but G100UL doesn’t wipe away or evaporate like avgas. Inadvertent and relatively small fuel spills must be cleaned immediately and thoroughly to avoid staining."  And in fact, if exposed to UV light the stains are very difficult to remove (AOPA Baron Lessons Learned);

7) FAA is investigating affected aircraft and have taken fuel, oil, and paint samples;

8) These test cases and issues seen have all occurred within about 2 months of the introduction of a new fuel to California;

9) Said fuel is still being sold and is currently marketed as "basically transparent to the engine, aircraft, and pilot. No mechanical modifications are required" other than placards;

10) some who haven't used the fuel are proponents of GAMI/Braly and have come to his defense out of faith that surely the proper testing and FAA certification means that the product should be trusted;

11) many who haven't used the fuel are fearful to use a new fuel without more testing and transparency to determine the merit of the issues shown in California.

12) This would be a simple case of vote with your wallet and either buy the new fuel or dont, however the current political climate (especially in California) has continued to escalate pushes to ban 100LL; due to this the apprehension to use this product is tempered with the fear that this will become a mandate to use this fuel if nothing is said.

 

Proponents of G100UL should fly to a location and fuel up.  We fly one of the best traveling, single engine piston aircraft in the world.  Either your help disproving the concern, or proving it, would be greatly helpful for the fleet!  Good luck!

[GeeBee]

5 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I was asking you a reasonable question based on your repeated skepticism of, it seems, anything presented that puts G100UL in a bad light; hardly "setting up a predicate."

And, suggesting I stop "simply throwing bombs" is a bit hypocritical given the 'bombs you've thrown' against the videos previously presented.  When, in fact, we both merely have opposite OPINIONS on the veracity of those videos.  As I stated, time will tell which of our opinions turns out to be correct.  The next year is going to be interesting here in Kalifornia regarding the elimination of 100LL.

If you note, I said the results in the Lavara video was "disturbing".  Go ahead, look it up. I'm not going to link to it because for once, you are going to do some actual research. I also said that aromatics are harmful to tank sealant. Again, look it up.

What I have maintained is an open mind. I know that bothers you but I understand the meaning of cyber-libel, and more important, fairness to all involved. 

[MikeOH]

If not for the truth of @Marc_B's comment #12 I would not even be participating in this thread.

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

If you note, I said the results in the Lavara video was "disturbing".  Go ahead, look it up. I'm not going to link to it because for once, you are going to do some actual research. I also said that aromatics are harmful to tank sealant. Again, look it up.

What I have maintained is an open mind. I know that bothers you but I understand the meaning of cyber-libel, and more important, fairness to all involved. 

You are correct, you did say the Lavara video was "disturbing".  And, yes, we are in agreement that aromatics are harmful.  Thing is, 100LL's aromatics have not evidenced the damage purported by G100UL.

However, with the above exception, you do seem to hide your "open mindedness" rather well.  My opinion, of course

[Kelpro999]

 I wonder if the dye or tetraethyllead left behind during evaporation of 100LL is providing a protective barrier that g100ul does not possess? 

[GeeBee]

4 hours ago, Kelpro999 said:

 I wonder if the dye or tetraethyllead left behind during evaporation of 100LL is providing a protective barrier that g100ul does not possess? 

Interesting idea

[A64Pilot]

4 hours ago, Kelpro999 said:

 I wonder if the dye or tetraethyllead left behind during evaporation of 100LL is providing a protective barrier that g100ul does not possess? 

I doubt it, 100LL leaves very little residue. Experiment would be to put some on a mirror, let it evaporate and see what’s left, do the same with the Gami fuel. I’ve never seen the stuff but suspicion that they way it stains is from whatever is left behind being concentrated, so a leak keeps concentrating something that doesn’t flash off as quickly as the rest. The mixture doesn’t stain if cleaned off quickly? It stains if left on?

If I had to guess and it’s absolute speculation with zero evidence, but I’d guess that the Gami fuel mostly evaporates, but leaves some liquid behind and it’s whatever is left that causes the problem, maybe why soaking in the mixture doesn’t cause a problem but intermittent wetting and letting it dry does, it’s similar to a leak.

The same way a tiny 100LL leak leaves a very concentrated blue dye.

Wasn't that pretty much what was done in the test? The Youtube test, Gami’s test was I believe different?

Again pure speculation it could be the difference in temp, humidity, what kind of wax was on the paint or who knows.

 

Edited January 22 by A64Pilot

[philiplane]

On 1/18/2025 at 12:28 AM, Gary0747 said:

I think polyurethane paints and sealants will better resist aromatic chemical attack than acrylic paints and polysulfide sealants  

Let's set the paint issue straight. Catalyzed paints such as polyurethane or acrylic urethane, and even acrylic enamel, use hardeners to accelerate the cure process. Non-catalyzed enamels can achieve the same hardness if they are heated to 140-150 df for several hours. The catalysts (hardeners) replace the baking process and both achieve the same results. All will be equally resistant to solvents. However, there are many primers that are not catalyzed, or cured by baking. Those primers will always be susceptible to solvent attack, regardless of the topcoat. In short, most planes that are experiencing softening, blistering, or stripping of paint after exposure to G100UL may have substandard paint jobs consisting of improperly cured substrates or top coats.

[GeeBee]

20 minutes ago, philiplane said:

n short, most planes that are experiencing softening, blistering, or stripping of paint after exposure to G100UL may have substandard paint jobs consisting of improperly cured substrates or top coats.

That is my suspicion too.

[Marc_B]

19 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

If I had to guess and it’s absolute speculation with zero evidence, but I’d guess that the Gami fuel mostly evaporates, but leaves some liquid behind and it’s whatever is left that causes the problem, maybe why soaking in the mixture doesn’t cause a problem but intermittent wetting and letting it dry does, it’s similar to a leak.

What follows would need to be confirmed by GAMI; given the secrecy with the formula and composition of G100UL, it's hard to do more than speculate.

This is the part that really GAMI would have to share more information to really determine what exactly is in G100UL.  Aromatic amines are toxic in general, and produce nitrogen oxides when burned.  In the SDS there's mention of meta-toluidine but in the patents GAMI mentions the difficulty in getting this produced as a single isomer; so usually it's proportions of o-toluidine, p-toluidine, and m-toluidine.  Ortho- isomers are even more toxic/carcinogenic, para- isomers have a high freezing point (+44C) and caused clouding of fuel at lower temps, and meta-toluidine was what they were trying to isolate.  It seems like GAMI tested and developed the use of co-solvents to allow development of an "additive concentrate" of m-toluidine and p-toluidine that apparently avoiding clouding of fuel at temps similar to 100LL.  Boiling point of these aromatic amines is just under 400F and it looks like evaporation is "negligible" at room temperature.  UV light causes photodegradation of toluidine which can cause browning and development of more harmful byproducts.  This may be the reason that you have to clean off G100UL from the wing with windex rather than just wipe away which would just smear this component and not remove but rather expose more surface area.  Any residue left behind can potentially cause staining of paint or other surfaces.  The solution to pollution is dilution.

The interesting thing about GAMI's drip test is that they used a glove with several holes poked in it and when they'd fill up the glove it would cause drips to quickly form and under the sped up camera speed looked like it rinsed off the surface with fresh fuel.  GAMI also kept adding fresh fuel to glove which then ran completely off the surface, as opposed to just adding more fuel to a container with access panel which may have resulted in higher amounts of partially evaporated fuel in the Luvara testing.

My WAG is that GAMI's drip test was continually rinsing the surface with fresh fuel to dilute the partially evaporated "concentrate" of low volatility components.  Whereas Luvara's test had addition of fuel for sloshing then evaporation; so my suspicion is that at the end of Luvara's test there was a higher amount and concentration of low volatility components.  As opposed to GAMI's test where the total AMOUNT of low volatility compounds on the surface was much lower, and only reached higher concentration when the drips were actually stopped.

I would have also like to see if GAMI then took that panel at the end of their test and left it outside exposed to sunlight/UV light how easy that staining would be to clean off.  Still curious what "standard shop techniques" for cleaning the panel was.

Not sure if anyone has tested G100UL staining indoors and away from UV vs outside to dry in sunlight/high UV to see what the difference in clean up and removal of staining would be??

Toluene evaporates quickly.  Xylene doesn't evaporate as quickly.  And toluidine likely doesn't evaporate much at all.

Of course from earlier discussions, aromatics are known to affect elastomers and this is likely the root of the cause of increased o-ring swell vs 100LL.  Hard to stay how much Xylene + Toluene is in G100UL...maybe up to 45+%??? (below from G100UL spec sheet).

(edit: which major OEM aircraft manufacturers was this? Cirrus?)

[Kelpro999]

8 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Toluene evaporates quickly.  Xylene doesn't evaporate as quickly.  And toluidine likely doesn't evaporate much at all.

 We all have open atmosphere ventilation on our tanks. Combine that with nearly empty tanks when parked a month outside.
 My mind won’t let go of one of those videos showing the viton o-ring growth, that’s what our tank sealant top coat is. 

[donkaye]

The good news and the bad news.  After nearly 3 hours of buffing and wet sanding and other things, Mark, at Top Gun was able to nearly eliminate the staining on my wing.  If you really look closely you can still see it a little bit, but I am happy with the result.  The bad news on the other hand is that it cost me nearly $500 of his time.  Still less than repainting, but I'm not thrilled about it.  As much as I want to support G100UL, I won't be using it.  Mark confirmed it was the matt used by the fueler that caused the damage, as indicated by the pattern it left on the wing.

Mark and his Dad, Tom, have maintained my airplane since I bought it 32  years ago.  He personally upgraded my first engine to the Bravo, and changed out the other two himself.  Needless to say he really knows engines.  We talked today.  I told him how well G100UL performed.  He commented that it was probably great for the engine itself, but maybe not so great for other parts of the airplane.  He was surprised at the difficulty he had in removing the stains, as he thought he could remove it more easily.  He apologized for how long it took.

There have been times when I have accidentally overfilled a tank and fuel ran all the way down the wing.  I don't want to chance that happening with G100UL.  It's just too easy to screw up.

And so ends my experiment for now.

[Jeff Uphoff]

4 hours ago, donkaye said:

He personally upgraded my first engine to the Bravo, and changed out the other two himself.

I was just musing the other day, "I wonder how many overhauls Don has had done on his Bravo by now?"

--Up.

[Aaviationist]

14 hours ago, Kelpro999 said:

 I wonder if the dye or tetraethyllead left behind during evaporation of 100LL is providing a protective barrier that g100ul does not possess? 

When 100ll evaporates it leaves behind a sticky, gooey residue which can act as a barrier for further leak until wiped off. Often it gets covered with dirt and then becomes this brown, sticky substance. 
 

this is in fact a leak. 
 

I suspect the airplane that is the start of this topic likely had several pre existing leaks that were likely there for years but had become temporary clogged with this dirt. 
 

The tanks were likely already leaking for some time but due to poor cleaning and maintenance might not have actively been showing. 
 

this is often found when owners take their “non leaking” planes to be painted only to find after being cleaned and stripped that there are in fact leaks that need to be addressed. 

[A64Pilot]

Does anyone know the person who posted the Youtube video of problems? Is the video still up? Has he received a letter?

You can test 16 ways from heck, but until the aircraft / product is out in the wild for a significant period of time you just don’t know, and even then sometimes it takes years. For example do we know how well this stuff stores in aircraft? We have several in my neighborhood that leave for about half the year and of course there is fuel in their tanks. Will they need to drain their fuel systems? Flush?

Environmental conditions come into play, I’ve maintained aircraft in the Deserts of South West Asia in Summer, Winter in Bosnia and Korea and those extremes in temp caused completely but very significant problems, even requiring different types of oil, not viscosity, but types. What was different? I’ve forgotten but it was purple and we called it triple nickel because it had 555 in its name. Normally we used 23699 of course.

 So until this fuel is fielded in the great white North and the Desert heat for significant time we won’t know about that too, I suspect it will evaporate quicker in Desert heat whatever that means I don’t know. 

Sometimes mixtures of liquids or gasses having different vapor pressures etc over time the more volatile compounds flash off or being smaller molecules leak out at a higher rate and over time you end you with a different chemical compound. Auto fuel comes to mind. And or even if in a sealed container some things just change properties over time. What’s the storage life of this stuff if let in vented containers?

[gabez]

6 hours ago, donkaye said:

The good news and the bad news.  After nearly 3 hours of buffing and wet sanding and other things, Mark, at Top Gun was able to nearly eliminate the staining on my wing.  If you really look closely you can still see it a little bit, but I am happy with the result.  The bad news on the other hand is that it cost me nearly $500 of his time.  Still less than repainting, but I'm not thrilled about it.  As much as I want to support G100UL, I won't be using it.  Mark confirmed it was the matt used by the fueler that caused the damage, as indicated by the pattern it left on the wing.

Mark and his Dad, Tom, have maintained my airplane since I bought it 32  years ago.  He personally upgraded my first engine to the Bravo, and changed out the other two himself.  Needless to say he really knows engines.  We talked today.  I told him how well G100UL performed.  He commented that it was probably great for the engine itself, but maybe not so great for other parts of the airplane.  He was surprised at the difficulty he had in removing the stains, as he thought he could remove it more easily.  He apologized for how long it took.

There have been times when I have accidentally overfilled a tank and fuel ran all the way down the wing.  I don't want to chance that happening with G100UL.  It's just too easy to screw up.

And so ends my experiment for now.

borescope your tanks and sealant for damage, borescope your intake valves 

[A64Pilot]

I think possibly that Rejex may help with staining, use two coats, of course the increase in benefits decrease with each additional coat, reaching all you’re going to get at three from what I have read but there is very little difference between two and three. It seems to work best if you go over the paint with machine glaze or other very fine polish, I suspicion that’s cleaning the paint is all. Be very sure the polish you pick does NOT have silicone in it, many do and many don’t tell you, but if it claims to “rejuvenate” the paint or leaves the paint feeling very slick it almost certainly does,of course silicone prevents any quality wax or polymers from adhering to the paint. I got a deal on Meguirs, unfortunately it had silicone so I tossed it and spent the extra money on 3M, I knew better, but it was priced so much better and Meguirs does have a following.

It even prevents what is called “pinstriping” on my Jeep, pinstriping is when your running overgrown trail and the brush and broken limbs etc drag down the side of the vehicle leaving horizontal marks all down the side of the Jeep, pinstriping can be polished out as I suspect it’s mostly material deposited onto the paint and rarely dug into the paint, But a couple of coats of Rejex and no more pinstriping on the paint, the plastic fender flares and mirrors still get scratched though.

[donkaye]

3 hours ago, Jeff Uphoff said:

I was just musing the other day, "I wonder how many overhauls Don has had done on his Bravo by now?"

--Up.

I'm on my 3rd engine.  With the avionics upgrade, prop and engine replacement a few years ago as the result of a maintenance issue (all zero time remans), GAMI injectors, and the new Surefly Mag, the plane is better than new.