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

[Pinecone]

13 hours ago, Brian2034 said:

Obviously, there is a minimum standard that would have to be adhered to and also it would have to be ethanol free mogas .  Wouldn’t it be easier for the major fuel manufacturers to provide non ethanol unleaded fuel (mogas) for the aircraft industry?

 

Right now, they are using ethanol to boost octane on lower quality alkylate.  So not that easy for them to do that.

[Pinecone]

10 hours ago, EricJ said:

This is discouraging, as there are two Mooneys and a third aircraft that have been reported here.   If there is also a twin Cessna then that's four. 

Who is the second Mooney?

[EricJ]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Who is the second Mooney?

 

 

[Brian2034]

6 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Right now, they are using ethanol to boost octane on lower quality alkylate.  So not that easy for them to do that.

There’s no ethanol in the premium grade mogas in my area

[A64Pilot]

2 hours ago, Brian2034 said:

There’s no ethanol in the premium grade mogas in my area

Are you sure? There usually is, it’s tough now days to get above 90 without it.

It’s easy to test, fill up a jar about 3/4 the way full of gas, put a significant amount of water in it, but leave room so you can vigorously shake it, mark the water level top when you out it in, shake the snot out of it and let it rest a minute, do it a couple of times, if the level of water rises it’s because the alcohol is combining with it, no alcohol = no rise in water level.

In Florida there is Rec 90 fuel available nearly everywhere, it’s 90 Octane alcohol free fuel. I assume it’s 93 Octane premium, without the alcohol. However it’s significantly more expensive, I guess because they can charge more so they do.

E85 is I believe 107 Octane, IF it’s 85% Ethanol, but E85 is allowed to be as low as 51% Ethanol

[Brian2034]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Are you sure? There usually is, it’s tough now days to get above 90 without it.

It’s easy to test, fill up a jar about 3/4 the way full of gas, put a significant amount of water in it, but leave room so you can vigorously shake it, mark the water level top when you out it in, shake the snot out of it and let it rest a minute, do it a couple of times, if the level of water rises it’s because the alcohol is combining with it, no alcohol = no rise in water level.

In Florida there is Rec 90 fuel available nearly everywhere, it’s 90 Octane alcohol free fuel. I assume it’s 93 Octane premium, without the alcohol. However it’s significantly more expensive, I guess because they can charge more so they do.

E85 is I believe 107 Octane, IF it’s 85% Ethanol, but E85 is allowed to be as low as 51% Ethanol

Yes

I’m located in Newfoundland Canada and we check regularly for ethanol. We also checked with the only current supplier of mogas and they have verified there is no ethanol in the premium mogas. It probably won’t be added because apparently when ethanol is added to the fuel it has a shelf life of 90 days. There isn’t enough of a demand in the area to turn the fuel over in 90 days.

[George Braly]

On 1/3/2025 at 7:09 PM, Brian2034 said:

I’m guessing at least half the aircraft fleet in the world are capable of running on mogas, wouldn’t it be easier for the powers that be to revisit the STC process for all aircraft and make whatever modifications are required for the use of mogas.

Then with the increased demand for non- ethanol mogas and its required use in general aviation ???

In our area we have thousands of hours on aircraft using mogas with no issues.  Clean running, no valve issues, 50 hour oil changes look like new oil, in some cases better performing engines, spark plugs come out perfect, much cleaner bellies on aircraft.

 

That "one-half the aircraft fleet in the world"  that are capable of operating on non-ethanol mogas - - only burn about 30% of the avgas.  The high performance engines consume about 70% of the total avgas consumption. 

[MikeOH]

16 minutes ago, George Braly said:

 

That "one-half the aircraft fleet in the world"  that are capable of operating on non-ethanol mogas - - only burn about 30% of the avgas.  The high performance engines consume about 70% of the total avgas consumption. 

30% is nothing to scoff at!

[Brian2034]

10 hours ago, George Braly said:

 

That "one-half the aircraft fleet in the world"  that are capable of operating on non-ethanol mogas - - only burn about 30% of the avgas.  The high performance engines consume about 70% of the total avgas consumption. 

And how much more of the fleet could have minor modifications to run non-ethanol mogas?

[George Braly]

13 hours ago, MikeOH said:

30% is nothing to scoff at!

For airports that only have one fuel tank - -  then the 30/70 split becomes a very large economic infrastructure cost to build out multiple fuel tanks at all of the airports.    It typically takes a couple of years to get a permit to put in a new fuel tank at an airport in California.  Before you can start construction.   Who is going to pay for that infrastructure ?   What is the ROI for that investment ?   As compared to continuing with the existing infrastructure that is 90+ %  one tank / one airport / one fuel chemistry. 

[MikeOH]

23 minutes ago, George Braly said:

For airports that only have one fuel tank - -  then the 30/70 split becomes a very large economic infrastructure cost to build out multiple fuel tanks at all of the airports.    It typically takes a couple of years to get a permit to put in a new fuel tank at an airport in California.  Before you can start construction.   Who is going to pay for that infrastructure ?   What is the ROI for that investment ?   As compared to continuing with the existing infrastructure that is 90+ %  one tank / one airport / one fuel chemistry. 

Buy another truck; that's what you're using at RHV, correct?

Sure, it's going to cost more; so does YOUR fuel!

Sure, the ROI will suck, but that's what you get with an overreaching government!  "Saving the children" from threats, real or perceived, tiny or large, is EXPENSIVE.  As goes Kalifornia, so goes the rest of the Country.

[George Braly]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

Buy another truck; that's what you're using at RHV, correct?

Sure, it's going to cost more; so does YOUR fuel!

Sure, the ROI will suck, but that's what you get with an overreaching government!  "Saving the children" from threats, real or perceived, tiny or large, is EXPENSIVE.  As goes Kalifornia, so goes the rest of the Country.

Mike,

You can't just "get another truck."   

Your casual comment / solution is rather informing with respect to the lack of serious thought & planning that is required to comply with the existing regulations and ASTM fuel handling requirements. 

The "economics" dictate that there be a local storage tank that can hold at least one transport load of fuel (~ 7,500 to 8000 gallons) and preferably 10K.

Most airports do not allow truck to truck transfers.   Further, for a number of practical reasons, truck to truck transfers would be hugely impractical from an economic point of view.   

Consider a typical 1,000 gallon airport refueler truck.   It sells 800 gallons a couple of times a week and calls a refueler before it runs dry filling up the next one or two aircraft.   Each time, a 7,500 gallon transport truck has to be called up from "somewhere"  where it has been sitting "idle" and accumulating daily / hourly "demurrage" charges (which get added to the delivered price of the fuel.   Maybe 100 miles away where it is refueling another 1000 gallon airport truck. 

That would, likely, end up making your "Mo-gas" solution cost more than 100LL does now.  

All suggestions for a "better way forward" are welcome and encouraged.  But it would help if the suggestions were better thought out, rather than just throwing stuff against the side of the FBO windows and hoping it will stick. 

George

 

[MikeOH]

32 minutes ago, George Braly said:

Mike,

You can't just "get another truck."   

Your casual comment / solution is rather informing with respect to the lack of serious thought & planning that is required to comply with the existing regulations and ASTM fuel handling requirements. 

The "economics" dictate that there be a local storage tank that can hold at least one transport load of fuel (~ 7,500 to 8000 gallons) and preferably 10K.

Most airports do not allow truck to truck transfers.   Further, for a number of practical reasons, truck to truck transfers would be hugely impractical from an economic point of view.   

Consider a typical 1,000 gallon airport refueler truck.   It sells 800 gallons a couple of times a week and calls a refueler before it runs dry filling up the next one or two aircraft.   Each time, a 7,500 gallon transport truck has to be called up from "somewhere"  where it has been sitting "idle" and accumulating daily / hourly "demurrage" charges (which get added to the delivered price of the fuel.   Maybe 100 miles away where it is refueling another 1000 gallon airport truck. 

That would, likely, end up making your "Mo-gas" solution cost more than 100LL does now.  

All suggestions for a "better way forward" are welcome and encouraged.  But it would help if the suggestions were better thought out, rather than just throwing stuff against the side of the FBO windows and hoping it will stick. 

George

 

Well, I certainly understand your desire to disparage any alternate solution; it's NOT in your financial best interest, for certain!

I'm pretty sure I saw a photo of a small dispensing TRUCK with G100UL plastered on the side at RHV.  How are you managing THAT solution WITHOUT costing a fortune?  If it works for YOUR fuel, I struggle to see why the same approach can't be used for other fuels.  You have indicated that your fuel is more expensive, yet with all the 'costs' you've outlined above you mange to get G100UL delivered to the customer for "only" 20% above the cost of nearby 100LL.

I fully recognize that ANY 'solution' other than the present status quo is going to cost more.  I blame out-of-control government for that.  Going forward we need 100LL UNTIL your fuel, or any other unleaded, is field proven. That is going to REQUIRE some kind of multiple tank/truck solution.  The fact that offering multiple fuels has been done before kind of negates all of your arguments to the contrary.  My suggestion is hardly 'throwing something at FBO windows'. Yeah, it's going to cost us, regardless.

Despite your previous answer to my question regarding banning, I am beginning to believe you are really hoping Kalifornia succeeds in banning 100LL.  All these 'other solutions' can then be conveniently 'swept under the rug' using Kalifornia's 'laws' as the reason.

[redbaron1982]

15 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Well, I certainly understand your desire to disparage any alternate solution; it's NOT in your financial best interest, for certain!

I'm pretty sure I saw a photo of a small dispensing TRUCK with G100UL plastered on the side at RHV.  How are you managing THAT solution WITHOUT costing a fortune?  If it works for YOUR fuel, I struggle to see why the same approach can't be used for other fuels.  You have indicated that your fuel is more expensive, yet with all the 'costs' you've outlined above you mange to get G100UL delivered to the customer for "only" 20% above the cost of nearby 100LL.

I fully recognize that ANY 'solution' other than the present status quo is going to cost more.  I blame out-of-control government for that.  Going forward we need 100LL UNTIL your fuel, or any other unleaded, is field proven. That is going to REQUIRE some kind of multiple tank/truck solution.  The fact that offering multiple fuels has been done before kind of negates all of your arguments to the contrary.  My suggestion is hardly 'throwing something at FBO windows'. Yeah, it's going to cost us, regardless.

Despite your previous answer to my question regarding banning, I am beginning to believe you are really hoping Kalifornia succeeds in banning 100LL.  All these 'other solutions' can then be conveniently 'swept under the rug' using Kalifornia's 'laws' as the reason.

Do you have any doubts that GAMI is lobbying to get 100LL banned?

With this story of "the infrastructure can handle only one fuel type at any given airport" the only way for G100UL has a chance to succeed is by banning 100LL. 

[UteM20F]

51 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

I'm pretty sure I saw a photo of a small dispensing TRUCK with G100UL plastered on the side at RHV.  How are you managing THAT solution WITHOUT costing a fortune?  If it works for YOUR fuel, I struggle to see why the same approach can't be used for other fuels.  You have indicated that your fuel is more expensive, yet with all the 'costs' you've outlined above you mange to get G100UL delivered to the customer for "only" 20% above the cost of nearby 100LL.

Mike, I'm guessing you and Mr. Baron are a joy to be around at parties.

I thought George did a very good job explaining why it isn't simple (and therefore inexpensive) to offer two fuels at the same airport, even if they purchase a shiny new 1000 gallon fuel truck.  Yes, RHV has one of those new trucks with "GAMI" plastered on the side, but they ALSO have a tank to store an entire semi load of fuel.  You should re-read George's comment about how that makes all the difference vs. having to call a tanker and doing a "truck to truck" transfer, which is very expensive.

As for the infrastructure at the vast majority of airports only supporting one type of fuel, that is also true.  I don't argue that in the olden days, when I started flying, many airports did have multiple types of fuel.  But that is not the case today, since almost all planes can get by just fine with 100LL.  When the demand for the alternate fuels went away, so did the pumps and the tanks.  Sure, those airports could put in new tanks and either a pump or a truck, but who will pay for that?  What is the incentive for those small airports to invest that much money?  The other problem with a truck is that you have to pay someone to operate it, and it wouldn't be open 24x7, which most municipalities try to offer.

And 20% higher cost for G100UL???  I think the two airports that sell both 100LL and G100UL (Tupelo and Watsonville) have the price differential around 50 cents, which is closer to a 9% increase.  Comparing the price vs "other nearby airports" is patently unfair.  We can all find a nearby airport that charges more than 20% more than we are paying for 100LL.

I'm still surprised you guys dislike George and GAMI so much, when I don't think you are claiming it is your planes that have been damaged by G100UL.  I'm happy they are trying to solve the lead problem, and if I decide I don't want to try it in my plane, I won't try it.  If 100LL is banned, and G100UL is the only option, then yes, I'll use it and be happy that I still have an option to use my plane.

Ute

 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, UteM20F said:

Mike, I'm guessing you and Mr. Baron are a joy to be around at parties.

I thought George did a very good job explaining why it isn't simple (and therefore inexpensive) to offer two fuels at the same airport, even if they purchase a shiny new 1000 gallon fuel truck.  Yes, RHV has one of those new trucks with "GAMI" plastered on the side, but they ALSO have a tank to store an entire semi load of fuel.  You should re-read George's comment about how that makes all the difference vs. having to call a tanker and doing a "truck to truck" transfer, which is very expensive.

As for the infrastructure at the vast majority of airports only supporting one type of fuel, that is also true.  I don't argue that in the olden days, when I started flying, many airports did have multiple types of fuel.  But that is not the case today, since almost all planes can get by just fine with 100LL.  When the demand for the alternate fuels went away, so did the pumps and the tanks.  Sure, those airports could put in new tanks and either a pump or a truck, but who will pay for that?  What is the incentive for those small airports to invest that much money?  The other problem with a truck is that you have to pay someone to operate it, and it wouldn't be open 24x7, which most municipalities try to offer.

And 20% higher cost for G100UL???  I think the two airports that sell both 100LL and G100UL (Tupelo and Watsonville) have the price differential around 50 cents, which is closer to a 9% increase.  Comparing the price vs "other nearby airports" is patently unfair.  We can all find a nearby airport that charges more than 20% more than we are paying for 100LL.

I'm still surprised you guys dislike George and GAMI so much, when I don't think you are claiming it is your planes that have been damaged by G100UL.  I'm happy they are trying to solve the lead problem, and if I decide I don't want to try it in my plane, I won't try it.  If 100LL is banned, and G100UL is the only option, then yes, I'll use it and be happy that I still have an option to use my plane.

Ute

 

Well, let's take your points one at a time:

1) Please tell me how you find parties where everyone there agrees with you all the time? I guess that's a 'joyful' party for you?

2) Please explain, as I asked in my rebuttal to George, how is he then managing to fill his truck from a tanker truck with all these rules, obstacles, and costs?  Yet, it's impossible to do the same for 100LL??

3) Odd, I must be the only pilot that 'patently unfairly' compares pricing at my airport with prices at nearby airports before deciding where to buy!  Your choice to pay "only" 9% more for G100UL vs. flying to a nearby airport and saving 20% by purchasing 100LL there.

4) I have nothing against George; I'd be questioning any supplier of a new fuel that has drawbacks and a higher price that I am likely to be FORCED to use in the future.

5) I am confused that while you say you don't want to try it in your plane (seems prudent), you are then going to be HAPPY if you are forced to???

 

[PT20J]

@MikeOH we get your point: You want 100LL and G100UL in place simultaneously everywhere you buy fuel until 100LL ceases production and G100UL has been proven to cause no harm. That's not going to happen. There is no infrastructure to support it. And no business person is going to put in a second tank (or truck) at great cost for a situation that will only last a few years.

This continued harping on this point is distracting from the very real concerns that have been raised and need to be addressed regarding o-rings, tank sealant, and paint. I understand that GAMI has done years of testing. Some testing may have included third parties; I don't know. The FAA reviewed it all and approved the STCs. But, that was only testing in a limited number of circumstances. The test matrix of all possible combinations in the field is immense. I spent my career in tech product development and I saw many instances where well tested products had unexpected problems when released to the field. Those of us that frequent this forum (or Beechtalk) need only recall Garmin's pains with the GFC 500.

If I were GAMI, I would avoid trying to explain everything with "we tested that and found no problem" or "100LL should be worse" and aggressively investigate every report of issues while G100UL distribution is still small and manageable. It doesn't take many issues in this day of the internet to get a population down on a product. Some of those pilot/owners will have their elected representatives on their speed dial. Just my $.02.

[Aaviationist]

5 hours ago, MikeOH said:

Well, I certainly understand your desire to disparage any alternate solution; it's NOT in your financial best interest, for certain!

I'm pretty sure I saw a photo of a small dispensing TRUCK with G100UL plastered on the side at RHV.  How are you managing THAT solution WITHOUT costing a fortune?  If it works for YOUR fuel, I struggle to see why the same approach can't be used for other fuels.  You have indicated that your fuel is more expensive, yet with all the 'costs' you've outlined above you mange to get G100UL delivered to the customer for "only" 20% above the cost of nearby 100LL.

I fully recognize that ANY 'solution' other than the present status quo is going to cost more.  I blame out-of-control government for that.  Going forward we need 100LL UNTIL your fuel, or any other unleaded, is field proven. That is going to REQUIRE some kind of multiple tank/truck solution.  The fact that offering multiple fuels has been done before kind of negates all of your arguments to the contrary.  My suggestion is hardly 'throwing something at FBO windows'. Yeah, it's going to cost us, regardless.

Despite your previous answer to my question regarding banning, I am beginning to believe you are really hoping Kalifornia succeeds in banning 100LL.  All these 'other solutions' can then be conveniently 'swept under the rug' using Kalifornia's 'laws' as the reason.

Reading your comments is like watching a merry-go-round with broken seats. 
 

As much as you think you are making g a good argument, it’s the same tired thing over and over again. And it doesn’t lead to any resolution of anything. 

Edited 17 hours ago by Aaviationist

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, PT20J said:

@MikeOH we get your point: You want 100LL and G100UL in place simultaneously everywhere you buy fuel until 100LL ceases production and G100UL has been proven to cause no harm. That's not going to happen. There is no infrastructure to support it. And no business person is going to put in a second tank (or truck) at great cost for a situation that will only last a few years.

@PT20J No, I NEVER said I wanted both in place everywhere I buy fuel.  My desire is simply for 100LL to be reasonably available until unleaded high-octane fuel is proven to cause no harm.

Since both Tupelo AND Watsonville have both available simultaneously at the present time, your argument that "no business person is going to put in a second tank (or truck) at great cost" seems to be contradicted by reality.

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, Aaviationist said:

Reading your comments is like watching a merry-go-round with broken seats. 
 

As much as you think you are making g a good argument, it’s the same tired thing over and over again. And it doesn’t lead to any resolution of anything. 

Perhaps my repetition will lead others to complain to their congress critters, AOPA, EAA, and others leading to a meaningful pushback on government overreach.

Watching your tired repetitive comments that "it's over", "give up", "nothing you can do", "inevitable", ...ad nauseam is just plain defeatist and, frankly, very sad.

[Aaviationist]

2 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

Perhaps my repetition will lead others to complain to their congress critters, AOPA, EAA, and others leading to a meaningful pushback on government overreach.

Watching your tired repetitive comments that "it's over", "give up", "nothing you can do", "inevitable", ...ad nauseam is just plain defeatist and, frankly, very sad.

No. 100ll is on its way out the door. It has been for a long time. 
 

your merry-go-round comments aren’t going to convince anyone of anything. 
 

it IS all over. All I want to m wins what fuels can I use and what must I do to use them safely. If it means I need to replace seals and I-rings to ensure I can fly into the foreseeable future, that’s what I’m going to do. 
 

it’s not helpful to ANYONE to demand what you have demanded above. It’s just not going to happen. 
 

personally I’m keeping an eye on the delta hawk and hope there will be a retrofit option and convert to Jet-A. 

[MikeOH]

@Aaviationist

And, it can continue to be 'on its way out' for a lot longer if that's what it takes to provide an acceptable unleaded alternate.

Amazing that you can determine what other people can and can't be convinced of.

I'm not demanding anything.  I'm proposing how a proper, low risk, transition should be accomplished.  It is the government that is going to be doing the demanding.

[Aaviationist]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

@Aaviationist

And, it can continue to be 'on its way out' for a lot longer if that's what it takes to provide an acceptable unleaded alternate.

Amazing that you can determine what other people can and can't be convinced of.

I'm not demanding anything.  I'm proposing how a proper, low risk, transition should be accomplished.  It is the government that is going to be doing the demanding.

That’s not how laws with deadlines work. 
 

it IS on its way out and there IS a deadline. 
 

it’s not going to take a lot longer because you’re unwilling to do the maintenance required to use what has been approved. You can go kicking or screaming all you want but it’s going to end one of two ways. 
 

You will be stuck on the ground, or we will see your aircraft listed on trade-a-plane with a lot of work required to be done to meet the fuel needs to become airworthy. 
 

it’s not reasonable to expect after all these years and failed attempts at an alternative fuel that you won’t be required to do anything to keep your airplane airworthy and use an unleaded fuel. 
 

especially on an abandoned airframe with no factory support. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Aaviationist

[T. Peterson]

2 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

No. 100ll is on its way out the door. It has been for a long time. 
 

your merry-go-round comments aren’t going to convince anyone of anything. 
 

it IS all over. All I want to m wins what fuels can I use and what must I do to use them safely. If it means I need to replace seals and I-rings to ensure I can fly into the foreseeable future, that’s what I’m going to do. 
 

it’s not helpful to ANYONE to demand what you have demanded above. It’s just not going to happen. 
 

personally I’m keeping an eye on the delta hawk and hope there will be a retrofit option and convert to Jet-A. 

Maybe @MikeOH is wrong. But he’s the guy I would want in my foxhole.

[donkaye]

I wasn't going to post to this thread anymore because of its negativity, but I've decided to post one more time.

George, I wouldn't respond anymore to those who are sure you're in it only for the money and are out to try to cause G100UL to fail whether deliberately or other reasons.  Having the determination to get FAA approval over a period of 12 years show an interest that's not only financial, but for the general betterment of General Aviation in my opinion.

Without trying to be arrogant, i've seen this mentality before when I was an Electrical Engineer.  I got interested in Real Estate and buying homes in particular.  After a few years and seeing the benefits of buying rental homes, I suggested to others in my engineering circle that they should consider doing the same.  The pushback was immense and I just stopped talking about it.

Fast forward 50 years and everything I tried to relate to my cohorts have come true for me.  I have no idea how my other engineering friends are handling their later years, but for me, I have been able to devote my time in service to others by flight instructing full time, and I have't had to work for anyone since 1974.

While a real estate program from technical standpoint is not on the same level as bringing an aviation fuel to market, it does prove that it's not always wise to listen to the naysayers.

Outside of the staining issue there may be other issues that develop over time.  I'll deal with them as they may develop.  Meanwhile, I won't shy away from using G100UL.