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

[Jackk]

31 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

Aren't all airliners wet wing designs? Are those flawed designs as well? 

 They have their pluses and minuses like any design 

 

They also have a team of full time mechanics 

[Ibra]

1 hour ago, redbaron1982 said:

Aren't all airliners wet wing designs? Are those flawed designs as well? 

Turbine or turbofan fuels don't have lot of odd aromatics?

Maybe the new stuff like SAF or bio-ethanol would have required careful compatibility teste and monitoring. Anyway for their tank or rivet reseal, they send someone inside to inspect, scratch and patch every year 

Edited August 30 by Ibra

[gabez]

the latest GAMI FAQ: https://www.g100ul.com/news/g100ul-unleaded-avgas-the-facts/
GAMI is really desperate 

note:
4. Does not require any physical changes or modifications to any aircraft.

 

"Given the current regulatory approval for a high octane unleaded avgas for use in nearly all piston engine aircraft - - One is compelled to ask the following question: “Is it, now, any longer morally or ethically acceptable, for any airport governing body to allow aircraft to continue to pollute the air around the airports with lead and thereby increase the blood lead levels of the neighborhood children?"

[IvanP]

43 minutes ago, gabez said:

the latest GAMI FAQ: https://www.g100ul.com/news/g100ul-unleaded-avgas-the-facts/
GAMI is really desperate 

note:
4. Does not require any physical changes or modifications to any aircraft.

 

"Given the current regulatory approval for a high octane unleaded avgas for use in nearly all piston engine aircraft - - One is compelled to ask the following question: “Is it, now, any longer morally or ethically acceptable, for any airport governing body to allow aircraft to continue to pollute the air around the airports with lead and thereby increase the blood lead levels of the neighborhood children?"

Ahhh...yes. The universal "it is for the children" argument that we are all supposed to buy without questions. 

By the same respect, it is morally or ethically acceptable for any airport governing body to allow or mandate sale of a product that has been misrepresented as "safe" while causing damage to aircraft? I guess it is, so long as it is "for the children".  

[gabez]

 

[jetdriven]

22 hours ago, IvanP said:

Ahhh...yes. The universal "it is for the children" argument that we are all supposed to buy without questions. 

By the same respect, it is morally or ethically acceptable for any airport governing body to allow or mandate sale of a product that has been misrepresented as "safe" while causing damage to aircraft? I guess it is, so long as it is "for the children".  

That "for the children" study was that kids who lived within 500 meters  of an airport had blood lead levels slightly higher than normal. 

[IvanP]

Summary of Scott's video posted above - G100UL is completely safe, provided that all gaskets, hoses, diaphragms, etc., made from anyting else than Vitol are replaced, planes are rapainted or get magic"ceramic" coatings installed  

Yet another attempt to gloss over the known compatibility issues of this fuel. 

[Marc_B]

Scott Perdue wrote:  “I have to add a mea culpa- I got the AOPA Baron Fuel Leak at Oshkosh wrong. There was a 100LL leak, but there was also a G100UL leak and the culprit was an overfill and the cork gasket failed. Just wanted to correct the record. Once a video is up I can't really edit it without taking it down completely. I also made a note in the video description.”

It was highly public with the G100UL leak on the Baron with the black goo under the wing as Osh24. I’m not sure where Perdue obtained his background research for this video. I suspect GAMI? Certainly makes it appear that Flywire is GAMI’s new advertising spokesperson. 
 

https://flyeagle.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AOPA-Baron-Fuel-Cells-Report.pdf

"Given the areas of stain and stickiness observed during the receiving inspection, we expected the left hand auxiliary cell to leak as well. However, the stickiness could have been caused by seepage into that cavity. The stickiness of the leaking main cells was in keeping with the number of leaks found. There is no doubt the patch may have been partially loose given its location however, the extent of the detachment in situ is in question. The removal and subsequent handling would have further separated the repair. The important question is why the repair began to detach. It may be possible that the missing internal rubber may have allowed the solvents in the fuel to penetrate the fabric and the exterior rubber coating and then getting beneath the external repair. This is most likely the reason given how the repairs are bonded."

 

There’s more to the story than “move along folks nothing to see here” that Mr Braly likes to suggest. It’s striking that Mr. Perdue would suggest in a video that “surprise, it was only 100LL that leaked.” This suggests that his video isn’t researched and educated but just parroting support. 

[hazek]

I recently interacted with Scott, also privately and I will never again nor will I watch his content. I did watch this video just to see what he had to say and it's more of the same from him. He is not a truth seeking individual, is arrogant and presumptuous and unwilling to hear, really listen to, the other side. That's my opinion of him.

And this video confirms it for me. He will not admit that yeah sure G100UL is way worse on certain materials than 100LL. No, he seems to think that it's either us dealing with whatever the fallout to switching to G100UL will be or not flying at all. Well ok, sir, have that position. But at least be honest about it and don't pretend getting a new paint job, o rings, gaskets and sealants is just easy peasy and super cheap to do and everyone will be able to continue to fly. Be honest and say that all GAMI did was test on a single 172. Be honest and say that your tiny leak became a major leak very quickly. Say it how it is. G100UL eats most of the materials used until now and most of the planes will need extensive investment to make them compatible with G100UL, if at all. And no, 100LL doesn't have the same effect. It's present but way way less.

Bah it's all just so stupid.

Someone in the comments of his video says it well:

"This problem would have been solved 30 years ago if the EPA and FAA had simply told the industry back when lead was removed from auto fuels that leaded avgas would be sunset in 20 years and they thus had that long to find a solution. This would have forced the airframe, engine and fuel makers to work together aggressively to find a solution and I am 100% confident a solution would have been found."

This is the real problem. We were let down by regulations. But more on the side of certification. Hopefully stuff like this will be a solution (although I'm not holding my breath): 

 

[IvanP]

1 hour ago, Marc_B said:

It was highly public with the G100UL leak on the Baron with the black goo under the wing as Osh24. I’m not sure where Perdue obtained his background research for this video. I suspect GAMI? Certainly makes it appear that Flywire is GAMI’s new advertising spokesperson. 
 

There’s more to the story than “move along folks nothing to see here” that Mr Braly likes to suggest. It’s striking that Mr. Perdue would suggest in a video that “surprise, it was only 100LL that leaked.” This suggests that his video isn’t researched and educated but just parroting support. 

Follow the money....  

[Kelpro999]

On 9/1/2025 at 8:46 AM, jetdriven said:

That "for the children" study was that kids who lived within 500 meters  of an airport had blood lead levels slightly higher than normal. 

 That’s from children chewing on window sills while watching cool airplanes fly by.

[gabez]

G100UL Sales YTD KWVI

[varlajo]

38 minutes ago, gabez said:

G100UL Sales YTD

So, essentially, 10-ish fill ups per month nationwide, i.e. potentially as few as 5 or 6 planes using the fuel?.. Wow...  

[MikeOH]

Wonder why it went up by 200 gallons (67%) in August?

[varlajo]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Wonder why it went up by 200 gallons (67%) in August?

Didn't they start selling at one more airport recently? Somewhere in TX? 

[MikeOH]

10 minutes ago, varlajo said:

Didn't they start selling at one more airport recently? Somewhere in TX? 

I did not know that. Makes sense there'd be a spike.

[redbaron1982]

I wonder how many "active" consumers are vs one or two times consumers. 

I haven't heard anyone using it on a regular basis. 

[gabez]

1 hour ago, varlajo said:

So, essentially, 10-ish fill ups per month nationwide, i.e. potentially as few as 5 or 6 planes using the fuel?.. Wow...  

this is KWVI. I should clarify 

[gabez]

this is august by event again KWVI only 

[PT20J]

10 hours ago, gabez said:

this is august by event again KWVI only 

Can you get data for the 100LL pumps for comparison?

[gabez]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

Can you get data for the 100LL pumps for comparison?

yeah. I will put the ask in now. 

[201Mooniac]

2 hours ago, PT20J said:

Can you get data for the 100LL pumps for comparison?

Unfortunately I can give you that answer for KRHV, zero, due to the very unfortunately state of affairs with the county.

[PT20J]

5 hours ago, 201Mooniac said:

Unfortunately I can give you that answer for KRHV, zero, due to the very unfortunately state of affairs with the county.

That’s why WVI is a better data point. 

[gabez]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/september/04/swift-earns-astm-approval-of-100-octane-unleaded

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, gabez said:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2025/september/04/swift-earns-astm-approval-of-100-octane-unleaded

That seems to be a positive development.  I hope it winds up being broadly applicable.