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

[varlajo]

46 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Hmm, but SO MANY lawsuits against the manufacturer for issues that they had nothing to do with. 

Yeah, definitely true. 

[A64Pilot]

8 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Hmm, but SO MANY lawsuits against the manufacturer for issues that they had nothing to do with. 

Lawyers often it seems aren’t motivated by truth, they are motivated by deep pockets

[N201MKTurbo]

I saw the AOPA Baron  today. I looked under both wings. There were G100UL stains under the left wing. GAMI’s #2 man was there, Taylor Hall, he asked what I was looking for. I said stains. He said “the bladders in this plane were 41 years old, what do you expect?” I said there were no stains under the right wing. He said it leaked worse than the left. I said there are no stains under the right wing. He shrugged his shoulders. 

[shawnd]

There’s no angry emoticon in this forum otherwise I would have clicked on that for the post above. This makes me angry - looks like they are clearly trying to hide the full truth. 

[MikeOH]

We seem to be in a lull...George hasn't posted recently and we await the outcome of both the FAA investigation and the court ruling in the California CEH fuel distributor consent decree.

I'm also curious about whether those that I have tried G100UL are continuing to use it.  We know at least one MS member here that tried it and didn't like it.  Is the AOPA Baron still running G100UL in one tank, or have they gone back to 100LL?

[N201MKTurbo]

7 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

We seem to be in a lull...George hasn't posted recently and we await the outcome of both the FAA investigation and the court ruling in the California CEH fuel distributor consent decree.

I'm also curious about whether those that I have tried G100UL are continuing to use it.  We know at least one MS member here that tried it and didn't like it.  Is the AOPA Baron still running G100UL in one tank, or have they gone back to 100LL?

It had G100UL signs next to it. I’m pretty sure it is burning G100UL in the left tank and 100LL in the right tank.

[shawnd]

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/november/pilot/unleaded-fuel-what-we-have-learned
 

Good article to read through about the test plane and their findings. They discuss the bladders near the end of the article.

[mluvara]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

I saw the AOPA Baron  today. I looked under both wings. There were G100UL stains under the left wing. GAMI’s #2 man was there, Taylor Hall, he asked what I was looking for. I said stains. He said “the bladders in this plane were 41 years old, what do you expect?” I said there were no stains under the right wing. He said it leaked worse than the left. I said there are no stains under the right wing. He shrugged his shoulders. 

Pretty sure AOPA's involvement ended with the Baron as the owner had listed it for sale and the demo was cut off at 200hrs. It was leased to AOPA for a dollar a year during their testing. So, this must be GAMI bringing it to Buckeye.

Would be curious for someone to match up the condition compared to the observations I pointed out in video #2.

3 hours ago, MikeOH said:

We seem to be in a lull...George hasn't posted recently and we await the outcome of both the FAA investigation and the court ruling in the California CEH fuel distributor consent decree.

I'm also curious about whether those that I have tried G100UL are continuing to use it.  We know at least one MS member here that tried it and didn't like it.  Is the AOPA Baron still running G100UL in one tank, or have they gone back to 100LL?

When I spoke to the owner of a second 421 at RHV last week, he said that when he brought up his issues to the airport staff, it was indicated that demand has dropped off significantly.  I know of at least 5 aircraft at RHV that told me they have stopped using the fuel.

[mluvara]

2 hours ago, shawnd said:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2024/november/pilot/unleaded-fuel-what-we-have-learned
 

Good article to read through about the test plane and their findings. They discuss the bladders near the end of the article.

Couple other relevant docs:

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

https://www.avweb.com/uploads/2024/08/AOPA-Baron-at-OSHKOSH-2024-Fuel-Blader-Leakage-Report.pdf

[Aaviationist]

I notice no paint damage other than the “staining” in that 9 month leaking bladder image. 

[N201MKTurbo]

The stains I saw were the same as in the report above. They are lighter now. The bladder repairs must have worked.

[gabez]

14 hours ago, MikeOH said:

We seem to be in a lull...George hasn't posted recently and we await the outcome of both the FAA investigation and the court ruling in the California CEH fuel distributor consent decree.

I'm also curious about whether those that I have tried G100UL are continuing to use it.  We know at least one MS member here that tried it and didn't like it.  Is the AOPA Baron still running G100UL in one tank, or have they gone back to 100LL?

I am not longer using G100UL. plane went back to 100LL

[Pinecone]

Hmm, it seems that Beech paint has no issues with G100UL.   Cessna and Mooney may have issues.  It may be related to which paint system (from bare metal up) what used in various years.

Need to find out how Beech paints their planes.

[MikeOH]

3 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

Need to find out how Beech paints their planes.

Why?

I own a Mooney that does NOT need to be repainted.

[Pinecone]

That is the other part of it, to see what Mooney used in which years and compare to paint issues from G100UL and what Beech did.

That way, people could have an idea if that paint issue will happen to their airplane or not.

[ragedracer1977]

11 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

That is the other part of it, to see what Mooney used in which years and compare to paint issues from G100UL and what Beech did.

That way, people could have an idea if that paint issue will happen to their airplane or not.

Unless Mr. Luvara is lying, the beech paint isn’t any better when tested in similar conditions to any other paint

[mluvara]

43 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

Unless Mr. Luvara is lying, the beech paint isn’t any better when tested in similar conditions to any other paint

Here's how I would summarize:

Some paints are more resistant on the surface. The Beech panels I tested (of unknown origin) seemed to be tough, along with Randolph Ranthane and JetGlo. However, I think most issues are from fuel getting underneath the paint and causing failures. It happens at seams, cracks, or if leaks occur inside and weep out, such as the Cirrus, Gabe's Mooney, the two Cessna 421's,etc. I don't see this happening with 100LL. And as noted, I'm pretty sure it's because the aggressive stuff that interacts with the paint/primer is left behind.

For example, it's been about 2 weeks since I shut off the pumps on the Beech panels.

This is a shot of the Beech G100UL panel tray from the 10th of Feb. The brown stuff is remnants of G100UL (about 48 oz over a couple weeks) that was applied to the panels. There is no residue other than blue dye in the 100LL tray.

After taking the above photo, I poured some of the remnants on the panel and it quickly caused an area near a rivet to start peeling, along with the attachment screw area. That rivet is where the tube runs by in the above shot. Anywhere this residue is left to sit on the paint (on top, edges,etc) is where issues are seen. The following photos were an hour or so later.

Below is the overall panel this morning. Anywhere the tube was laid and any fuel resided, is where the paint was most affected.

Here's a direct link to the testing of the Beech panels if one has not seen it. 

 

 

Edited Monday at 08:01 PM by mluvara

[Marc_B]

This seems to suggest the hypothesis that it may be the low volatility compounds that concentrate and contribute to longer dwell time and more risk.

But it also makes me wonder what happens in separate Aux tanks that aren’t used frequently or the fuel tank sealant that is up top of the tank that gets wetted but not typically soaked with fuel.

Leaks aren’t the only time fuel components get wetted and then allowed the dry and concentrate. 

[ragedracer1977]

3 hours ago, mluvara said:

Here's how I would summarize:

Some paints are more resistant on the surface. The Beech panels I tested (of unknown origin) seemed to be tough, along with Randolph Ranthane and JetGlo. However, I think most issues are from fuel getting underneath the paint and causing failures. It happens at seams, cracks, or if leaks occur inside and weep out, such as the Cirrus, Gabe's Mooney, the two Cessna 421's,etc. I don't see this happening with 100LL. And as noted, I'm pretty sure it's because the aggressive stuff that interacts with the paint/primer is left behind.

For example, it's been about 2 weeks since I shut off the pumps on the Beech panels.

This is a shot of the Beech G100UL panel tray from the 10th of Feb. The brown stuff is remnants of G100UL (about 48 oz over a couple weeks) that was applied to the panels. There is no residue other than blue dye in the 100LL tray.

After taking the above photo, I poured some of the remnants on the panel and it quickly caused an area near a rivet to start peeling, along with the attachment screw area. That rivet is where the tube runs by in the above shot. Anywhere this residue is left to sit on the paint (on top, edges,etc) is where issues are seen. The following photos were an hour or so later.

Below is the overall panel this morning. Anywhere the tube was laid and any fuel resided, is where the paint was most affected.

Here's a direct link to the testing of the Beech panels if one has not seen it. 

 

 

That’s really good info.

 Tells us extra attention needs to be paid to places that are occasionally wetted, not immersed.  Like o-rings in the fuel caps, aux bladders, etc.  

another question it brings.  If I don’t use an aux tank often and fuel evaporates and leaves behind those aromatics, what happens when I add new fuel?  What happens to the composition of the newly added fuel?

Edited Monday at 11:07 PM by ragedracer1977

[A64Pilot]

I believe what’s different with Beech “paint” may have nothing to do with paint. 

I believe Mooney never alodined their aircraft, but Beech did, Cessna only alodined aircraft that were built as float planes, one of the real benefits of alodine is that it’s an excellent paint prep, paint adheres much better to alodined aluminum.

‘Or it could be that the small samples tested aren’t enough to draw a conclusion from too, but I’m betting alodine

Edited yesterday at 01:17 AM by A64Pilot

[Pinecone]

19 hours ago, mluvara said:

Here's how I would summarize:

Some paints are more resistant on the surface. The Beech panels I tested (of unknown origin) seemed to be tough, along with Randolph Ranthane and JetGlo. However, I think most issues are from fuel getting underneath the paint and causing failures. It happens at seams, cracks, or if leaks occur inside and weep out, such as the Cirrus, Gabe's Mooney, the two Cessna 421's,etc. I don't see this happening with 100LL. And as noted, I'm pretty sure it's because the aggressive stuff that interacts with the paint/primer is left 

 

This is what I said after your first video.  It appeared that the failure was at the primer layer.

And also, I was saying that it seemed to be an issue with low volatility components concentrating.

What would be good now it to test using your methods some parts over various primers and top coats, where the actually product used for each layer is known.

My suspicions are that single part primers are the issue and why some airplanes have paint issues, and others (like the AOPA Baron) do not, even with leaks.

[Pinecone]

15 hours ago, ragedracer1977 said:

That’s really good info.

 Tells us extra attention needs to be paid to places that are occasionally wetted, not immersed.  Like o-rings in the fuel caps, aux bladders, etc.  

another question it brings.  If I don’t use an aux tank often and fuel evaporates and leaves behind those aromatics, what happens when I add new fuel?  What happens to the composition of the newly added fuel?

Fuel does not evaporate that much in tanks.  Think of the planes that sat for over 10 years and the tanks still had fuel.

If you had a tank with 10 gallons of G100UL and it evaporated down to that part that does not evaporate, and you filled it with 10 more gallons, the resulting fuel would have twice as much of that chemical that did not evaporate in it.

But if you ran that tank dry, it would have what?  A cup of fuel or less?  So even after evaporation, minimal change. 

[Pinecone]

13 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

I believe what’s different with Beech “paint” may have nothing to do with paint. 

I believe Mooney never alodined their aircraft, but Beech did, Cessna only alodined aircraft that were built as float planes, one of the real benefits of alodine is that it’s an excellent paint prep, paint adheres much better to alodined aluminum.

‘Or it could be that the small samples tested aren’t enough to draw a conclusion from too, but I’m betting alodine

That could also be an issue.  But I am betting on the primer.

 

[Marc_B]

I'm not entirely sure that Mooney didn't alodine their parts...when we toured the factory at MooneyMax, there was actually a series of tanks for processing.  I don't know what parts were put through this, but there WAS tank for alodine.

@Pinecone I saw you posted that on BT...do you or @A64Pilot know what Mooney did or didn't treat??  or was this just a guess?

[shawnd]

Here's a picture of the empennage and an incomplete wing from MooneyMax last year - fuel area is alodined from the looks of it. 

And look both Dons are in the picture