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

[redbaron1982]

1 hour ago, George Braly said:

Please see the data in the image, posted with this message.   These are old parts removed from the Bonanzas which we remove and replace with newly manufactured parts when we install turbo systems.  The paint  is ~ 20 years or more old on each of these panels.   There are scratches and bare spots where paint had previously "flaked off" on each of them - - prior to beginning the soaking.  In particular, the flat head panel fasteners all exhibited some age from repeated removals and replacements over the years.  One cannot detected any difference from the "before" and "after" photographs.   We will try to post up those "before" photos as well as a time lapse photographic history of the previous seven days of soaking - - hopefully on Monday.   

This small data set represents about the fourth or fifth time, over the past 14 years, that we have conducted similar testing.  All with the same good results.   If you doubt the validity or integrity of this data - - you are invited to visit our facility in Ada, and see this testing, first hand. 

George Braly

How about changing the offer to visit your experiment to also including discussing other possible experiments that could be better aligned to real life scenarios. Such us a panel subject to wet/dry cycles?

That could help dissipate any "gossiping".

Edited December 29, 2024 by redbaron1982

[donkaye, MCFI]

9 minutes ago, redbaron1982 said:

And I want to add, your superiority attitude, where all your data is valid and everyone's else is gossip or rumors is just another expression of your arrogance.

@redbaron1982 have you met and spoken with George Braly?  Have you taken the Advanced Pilot Training Course?  If not, then my recommendation is to cut down on the disparaging rhetoric.  Talk like you have been rendering has lost this forum many valuable contributors.  I would like to see things remain civil and continue to have experts like George remain here.

[redbaron1982]

6 minutes ago, donkaye said:

@redbaron1982 have you met and spoken with George Braly?  Have you taken the Advanced Pilot Training Course?  If not, then my recommendation is to cut down on the disparaging rhetoric.  Talk like you have been rendering has lost this forum many valuable contributors.  I would like to see things remain civil and continue to have experts like George remain here.

You're are right, my bad. Just edited my message. 

[EricJ]

6 hours ago, tony said:

Finally someone who knows something about how an aircraft gets certified.  

SE-P-006.pdf 82.66 kB · 17 downloads

Well, that's...significant.   Lycoming engines are Textron products.   This letter is on Cessna and Beechcraft letterheard, though.   

[tony]

9 hours ago, EricJ said:

Well, that's...significant.   Lycoming engines are Textron products.   This letter is on Cessna and Beechcraft letterheard, though.   

Eric, what I have been trying to say and not so eloquently, is this is an airframe issue; not just and engine issue.  How can the FAA issue an STC for an alternative fuel, to an airframe?  Textron basically is saying the same thing in this letter.  

To certify an airplane, you take a certified propeller, a certified engine and then integrate that together which is all certified at the system level.  That's a type cert.  Saying here's a new fuel and it will work in your engine, doesn't say anything at the system level.  

[Z W]

I'd like to see a test where a painted "tank" with a Mooney-style SAF fuel sump is filled with G100UL and then made to slowly leak out the sump, or maybe from a leaking rivet, with a timelapse camera pointed at it for a week.  That would be the best real-world test.

I don't plan to soak any inspection panels in fuel, but I'm pretty sure at some point the above will happen again on my plane.

[Sabremech]

10 hours ago, EricJ said:

Well, that's...significant.   Lycoming engines are Textron products.   This letter is on Cessna and Beechcraft letterheard, though.   

Kind of think this says it all. Not approved by the engine manufacturer is significant. 

[Pinecone]

19 hours ago, Marc_B said:

I think this is one of the issues of pursuing an unleaded fuel independently outside of working with current airframe and engine manufacturers.  It also highlights that in order to go alone, GAMI should really be freely sharing their data and test findings. 

Remember that the engine and airframe manufactuers were asked to participate in testing.  GAMI even sent a number of barrels of fuel to Continental.  But everyone declained.

Cirrus did some testing.

So, they should freely share and have it stolen?

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Remember that the engine and airframe manufactuers were asked to participate in testing.  GAMI even sent a number of barrels of fuel to Continental.  But everyone declained.

Cirrus did some testing.

So, they should freely share and have it stolen?

So, should airframe manufacturers be forced to test any fuel that a potential unleaded fuel supplier sends them, for FREE?  And, if not, then they can't complain?  Is that your point?

[Pinecone]

So every possible fuel has to pay every engine maker and every airframe maker to test?

One would think it would be in the best interest for them to test.

But my point was, they were supplied the fuel to test for free, so saying they have not tested in sort of disingenuous. 

[MikeOH]

8 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

So every possible fuel has to pay every engine maker and every airframe maker to test?

One would think it would be in the best interest for them to test.

But my point was, they were supplied the fuel to test for free, so saying they have not tested in sort of disingenuous. 

I'm saying a new fuel product needs to be the responsibility of the new fuel supplier; NOT that of the users (engine, airframe, and owners).  That seems pretty rational.   I can't name a product where I'm responsible for the defects in a product I buy because I didn't fully test it!  Can you?

What's disingenuous?  Being given a sample for testing does NOT suddenly make me guilty of some nefarious act if I don't test it!

[Pinecone]

The point was that they were offered to test.  And IIRC, offered to come witness the testing.  But opted out.  And then are saying they were not involved, as if they were kept out.

Not that they decided not to.

But if you don't trust G100UL, don't buy it.  

[MikeOH]

25 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

The point was that they were offered to test.  And IIRC, offered to come witness the testing.  But opted out.  And then are saying they were not involved, as if they were kept out.

Not that they decided not to.

But if you don't trust G100UL, don't buy it.  

Ah, "as if they were kept out"...YOUR opinion.  I just re-read their document and came away with an entirely different opinion.  Namely, that they have chosen to expend their resources on the PAFI and EAGLE methodologies.  Not on 'stand-alone' potential suppliers.  That seems like a prudent corporate decision to allocate resources, not some dodge.

No, I don't trust G100UL and have no intention of buying it.

That is NOT the issue; as I've said multiple times, my issue is being FORCED to buy it!  Kalifornia, e.g. RHV, is on the ban 100LL path.  Other states will, no doubt, follow.  If it was not for that Consent Decree and the RHV ban I would not even be participating in this thread (or the other G100UL ones)!  I believe we should have a CHOICE.

Here are the pertinent sections so that other readers can draw their own conclusions about Textron's lack of G100UL testing:

"As a part of these ongoing efforts, Textron Aviation has been actively involved in and providing technical and in-kind support to both the FAA Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) and in the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) programs. Each of these programs seeks to provide comprehensive testing of candidate replacement fuels for engine performance, materials compatibility, and operational safety.
Textron Aviation is aware that there are certain aviation fuels that have been granted Supplemental Type Certification (STC) for use in certain aircraft engines through the FAA in a process that is separate and apart from the PAFI and EAGLE programs. For example, the GAMI G100UL fuel received such an STC approval. Because the STC process, unlike the PAFI and EAGLE programs, does not involve broad aviation industry coalition participation, neither Textron Aviation nor its engine suppliers, Lycoming and Continental Motors, have had the opportunity to conduct the type of comprehensive and wide-ranging performance, compatibility and operational testing with respect to that fuel needed to provide a basis for approval of the fuel for use in Textron Aviation’s current and legacy fleet of Cessna and Beechcraft aircraft."

[Marc_B]

It is obvious that @Pinecone is a fan, and that @MikeOH is not...and neither of you currently use G100UL.  But that's not the point of this thread or discussion.  The issue at hand is that major manufacturers, airframe and powerplant companies have said that G100UL is not approved in their products at the present time.  So it's beholden to GAMI and to the aircraft owner to assume any and all liability for detrimental effects, known and unknown, that such use has. 

Actually do we even know that Continental, Lycoming, Textron, etc haven't tested the fuel?  Don't assume just because they don't give details that they don't know the answer.  Just like I don't assume that just because Mr. Braly doesn't answer many of my questions that he doesn't know the answer.  I'm pretty sure he does.

@Pinecone your energy and efforts are better spent speaking with Continental, Lycoming, and Mooney to help facilitate testing.  There have been seemingly valid test cases of issues with G100UL that give pause to potential users.  The explanation doesn't need to come from you, but rather from GAMI.  It's also hard to stay neutral when you have questions and the response is just an advertisement (for either "side").  Data, field reports, and discussion of materials are the things most helpful to move our transition along.  i.e. what materials are at risk, what components see damage or leak, what sealant is good, where can existing equipment be improved.

The thing I've found most helpful from these threads in my own personal decision are field reports (both good and bad), discussion of failure modes, discussion of materials used in our aircraft, discussion of standard maintenance and timing of replacement of wear products, and preventative steps to insure that I can continue to fly safely today as well as tomorrow.

We'll help us all though this, regardless of what product winds up being sold at the pump near you.  This forum, at its core, is about owners helping one another.  It's never been about companies giving us "the facts, just the facts, and only the facts."

Heck, I still haven't a clue how much aromatic content, xylene percentage, or composition G100UL has and I've asked that multiple times.

[Marc_B]

As an aside, given that we may be unlikely to get any robust airframe testing from Mooney (for obvious reasons), the next best thing is for us all to help each other...unfortunately for Mooneys, I think that the testing FOR ANY FUTURE UNLEADED FUEL that will be done on Mooneys, will be end user testing.  So sharing these lessons learned on a forum like this will be helpful and necessary.

[Marc_B]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

So, they should freely share and have it stolen?

That makes no sense.  What I'm saying is that we don't really know what tests were performed by GAMI, what the standards used, what materials, testing conditions, etc.  Some tests performed and "it all looks great" doesn't help an end user determine if this is a safe product to use.  There was a pathway for alternative fuel development.  GAMI felt it was in their interests to develop a fuel outside of this.  They have a product that is in early stages of end user use and testing.  They are marketing this fuel to me.

So just where are you wanting data to come from if not from GAMI??  GAMI has patented their intellectual property and currently sell rights for production to others.  What are you thinking will be "stolen" by publication of what works and what doesn't?  BUT...even if 150% well intentioned, there is NO way that they could have tested every airframe and engine on their AMLs...you can't know what you didn't test.

Nothing is perfect.  And likely nothing is 100% drop in fleet wide without some even minor modification.  So how are we supposed to find out issues if GAMI doesn't freely publish this?  The answer is solely from each other, if the manufacturer isn't willing to share.

Heck, every research paper I've read has abstract, methods, results, and discussion...and it's always best to read the methods first to make sure the results and conclusions are valid and applicable to the population you're seeing.

[A64Pilot]

An airframer or engine manufacturer has zero to gain from testing any non ASTM or other product manufactured under other means, all they have is something to lose, nothing to gain.

Now if the Government had approved it under existing protocols, Then Lycoming etc would likely test it to ensure their engine was OK with it just as I’m sure they have tested every possible combination of scenarios just like they have 100LL.

An STC is allowable, not required, but apparently California or parts of it maybe?, has made it required.

Your beef I think is with California.

[Pinecone]

23 hours ago, Marc_B said:

Actually do we even know that Continental, Lycoming, Textron, etc haven't tested the fuel?  Don't assume just because they don't give details that they don't know the answer.  Just like I don't assume that just because Mr. Braly doesn't answer many of my questions that he doesn't know the answer.  I'm pretty sure he does

Heck, I still haven't a clue how much aromatic content, xylene percentage, or composition G100UL has and I've asked that multiple times.

How did they test a fuel they did not have?

The formula is proprietary, so not available for them to blend their own.  George has stated several times that he sent several barrels to Continental for tested (I don't remember the particulars) but they returned the drums several years later, un opened.

Part of the testing was to test that fuel to see if it had degraded, which it had not.

For the last part, pay to be a blender and he will let you have the exact formula.  Why would he give it out for free?

[Pinecone]

22 hours ago, Marc_B said:

That makes no sense.  What I'm saying is that we don't really know what tests were performed by GAMI, what the standards used, what materials, testing conditions, etc.  Some tests performed and "it all looks great" doesn't help an end user determine if this is a safe product to use.  There was a pathway for alternative fuel development.  GAMI felt it was in their interests to develop a fuel outside of this.  They have a product that is in early stages of end user use and testing.  They are marketing this fuel to me.

So just where are you wanting data to come from if not from GAMI??  GAMI has patented their intellectual property and currently sell rights for production to others.  What are you thinking will be "stolen" by publication of what works and what doesn't?  BUT...even if 150% well intentioned, there is NO way that they could have tested every airframe and engine on their AMLs...you can't know what you didn't test.

Nothing is perfect.  And likely nothing is 100% drop in fleet wide without some even minor modification.  So how are we supposed to find out issues if GAMI doesn't freely publish this?  The answer is solely from each other, if the manufacturer isn't willing to share.

Heck, every research paper I've read has abstract, methods, results, and discussion...and it's always best to read the methods first to make sure the results and conclusions are valid and applicable to the population you're seeing.

George has mentioned several times, they test using standard ASTM methods to make sure each batch meets the GAMI (FAA approved) standards.  And G1100UL has tighter standards that 100LL.

[Marc_B]

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

George has mentioned several times, they test using standard ASTM methods

Let me be more clear. What o-rings, hoses, tank sealant were tested. What was the ages of the products tested? What paint brands were tested for damage or staining. Was damaged paint with chips and scratches tested on each? What surface preps were tested to attempt to prevent staining and how well did they work. Was it tested for cycling between 100LL back and forth with G100UL and cycling aromatics can have effects on elastomers.

Given ICA recommendations aren’t clear statement one way or the other and Mr Braly recommends “best practice” to prevent need for “change”…this leaves a LOT up for interpretation.

But if an owner or A&P had a better understanding of the exact testing performed, a lot of the speculation could be cleared up.

1 hour ago, Pinecone said:

For the last part, pay to be a blender and he will let you have the exact formula. 

I don't want the formula, but how much aromatic content vs 100LL would be informative. Mr. Braly doesn’t mind posting  a detailed hydrocarbon analysis for 100LL sample, but doesn’t share even generalities of 100UL. Eventually someone will post this. Why the secrecy?

[T. Peterson]

21 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

An airframer or engine manufacturer has zero to gain from testing any non ASTM or other product manufactured under other means, all they have is something to lose, nothing to gain.

Now if the Government had approved it under existing protocols, Then Lycoming etc would likely test it to ensure their engine was OK with it just as I’m sure they have tested every possible combination of scenarios just like they have 100LL.

An STC is allowable, not required, but apparently California or parts of it maybe?, has made it required.

Your beef I think is with California.

Imagine that!

[EricJ]

On 12/29/2024 at 12:40 PM, Marc_B said:

Actually do we even know that Continental, Lycoming, Textron, etc haven't tested the fuel?  Don't assume just because they don't give details that they don't know the answer. 

The letter pretty much says that they haven't tested it, and they also explain why they haven't.   They also say that they are concerned because of testing that has been done by two other OEMs that have shown concerns with use of the fuel in their airframe due to tank sealant issues.

They explain that they haven't tested G100UL because they (like most responsible industrial players in technology fields) participate in collaborative development, or "coalition participation" as they call it, to develop interoperational issues and standards development.   They specifically cite PAFI and EAGLE as forums that they do support for these reasons, and that the STC path specifically does not follow comparable processes.   

Having been in industrial standards development myself, and also having done a lot of technical due diligence on small innovating companies for capital investment purposes, this is pretty much how industries solve these kinds of problems together.   In standards development, things only move forward if there is agreement among the various participants that something has merit to proceed.   Often small startup companies participate, and sometimes they contribute heavily to a standard development if their input has merit as agreed on in the group.   Contributions from large companies get scrutinized as well and also have to get sufficient support from other participants to move forward.  Having personally been on all sides of that many times, I can tell you that this is an excellent process for weeding out bad ideas and assuring that whatever gets left in the standard has been thoroughly analyzed by many sides of the relevant industry and market players.   Consensus support from competive elements in a working group says a lot about the viability of the result in the marketplace.   

The other side of that is the lone "innovative startup" who thinks they don't need (or don't want, or won't be able to survive) the scrutiny and critical review of the other players in the standards body.   I've seen this many times both from within standards development as well as in technical due diligence for investment.   There are many such companies, and they usually have all sorts of "good answers" and "data" for why they will be successful and why their stuff is better than anybody else's.   They also usually have at least one charismatic promoter (often the founder) who has already managed to sell it through several rounds of funding already, and wants more from you or your client.   It is a very familiar playbook that has played out many, many times in many industries.    Think Theranos if you want an example of a particularly egregious and well-known case.    So players in large industries, particularly large players with big markets, or markets that are sensitive to field failures (like aviation), are generally unwilling to switch to a new key technology (like a fuel formulation) without a consensus-style development process.  This is because history has demonstrated numerous times that doing so is almost always not a good idea, and that consensus development nearly always does result in a good solution.

So it is not the least bit surprising the Textron has not tested a fuel formulation developed by a single (inexperienced) company outside of a recognized collaborative body.  The other fuel formulators with more industry experience have elected to follow the PAFI/EAGLE/coalition path because they know that that'll get a good result with broad industry (and usually also government) support.   

[MikeOH]

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

[Pinecone]

18 hours ago, Marc_B said:

I don't want the formula, but how much aromatic content vs 100LL would be informative. Mr. Braly doesn’t mind posting  a detailed hydrocarbon analysis for 100LL sample, but doesn’t share even generalities of 100UL. Eventually someone will post this. Why the secrecy?

He has stated that over on BT.

What I recall is that some 100LL has as high or higher aromatic that G100UL, but another refinery may be a good bit lower.

I don't think this is Xylene or Toluene issue.  They both evaporate quickly.  And it would be easy to test, as both are readily available.

This seems to be something that evaporates slower, increasing the concentration on the surface as the aromatics and alkylate evaporate more quickly.

In the video (and GAMI testing) there was no degradation when the panels (Jet Glo ones for the video) were submerged in the fuel.  It was when he simulated a slow leak that there were issues.  The panel was not submerged, but he kept dowsing it with fuel.  And the fuel used to dowse it, was subject to evaporation, as he had to top it off occasionally.

I am pretty sure that @George Braly and GAMI noticed this.  But if not, that is why I am tagging it to George.

[T. Peterson]

18 hours ago, EricJ said:

The letter pretty much says that they haven't tested it, and they also explain why they haven't.   They also say that they are concerned because of testing that has been done by two other OEMs that have shown concerns with use of the fuel in their airframe due to tank sealant issues.

They explain that they haven't tested G100UL because they (like most responsible industrial players in technology fields) participate in collaborative development, or "coalition participation" as they call it, to develop interoperational issues and standards development.   They specifically cite PAFI and EAGLE as forums that they do support for these reasons, and that the STC path specifically does not follow comparable processes.   

Having been in industrial standards development myself, and also having done a lot of technical due diligence on small innovating companies for capital investment purposes, this is pretty much how industries solve these kinds of problems together.   In standards development, things only move forward if there is agreement among the various participants that something has merit to proceed.   Often small startup companies participate, and sometimes they contribute heavily to a standard development if their input has merit as agreed on in the group.   Contributions from large companies get scrutinized as well and also have to get sufficient support from other participants to move forward.  Having personally been on all sides of that many times, I can tell you that this is an excellent process for weeding out bad ideas and assuring that whatever gets left in the standard has been thoroughly analyzed by many sides of the relevant industry and market players.   Consensus support from competive elements in a working group says a lot about the viability of the result in the marketplace.   

The other side of that is the lone "innovative startup" who thinks they don't need (or don't want, or won't be able to survive) the scrutiny and critical review of the other players in the standards body.   I've seen this many times both from within standards development as well as in technical due diligence for investment.   There are many such companies, and they usually have all sorts of "good answers" and "data" for why they will be successful and why their stuff is better than anybody else's.   They also usually have at least one charismatic promoter (often the founder) who has already managed to sell it through several rounds of funding already, and wants more from you or your client.   It is a very familiar playbook that has played out many, many times in many industries.    Think Theranos if you want an example of a particularly egregious and well-known case.    So players in large industries, particularly large players with big markets, or markets that are sensitive to field failures (like aviation), are generally unwilling to switch to a new key technology (like a fuel formulation) without a consensus-style development process.  This is because history has demonstrated numerous times that doing so is almost always not a good idea, and that consensus development nearly always does result in a good solution.

So it is not the least bit surprising the Textron has not tested a fuel formulation developed by a single (inexperienced) company outside of a recognized collaborative body.  The other fuel formulators with more industry experience have elected to follow the PAFI/EAGLE/coalition path because they know that that'll get a good result with broad industry (and usually also government) support.   

I initially opposed this fuel because of the fundamental unfairness of the way it is being forced. I had no understanding of the technical concepts involved in development of a product like this. You gentlemen on both sides are obviously very knowledgeable with a professional understanding that I deeply admire and respect! But after reading all the posts on both sides of the issue, it seems to me that the way this fuel is coming to market is not only philosophically unsound, but also leaves much to be desired from the technical aspect.

Having said that, I have no criticism of Mr. Braly at all. I am grateful for great American entrepreneurs of which I believe him to be one. I understand he has blessed us with many wonderful innovations. My coming engine will be equipped with GAMI injectors. However in my opinion, the best policy toward G100UL is twofold:

1) DO NOT jam this down my throat.

2) WAIT until it can be examined as part of a “consensus development” as thoughtfully described by @EricJ.