G100UL paint testing by YouTuber mluvara

[GeeBee]

5 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

Is that how the Mooney fuel system works?

If you read the Parker manual, swelling is expected and calculated in engineering. Using swelling is not new as I pointed out Granville Strut Seal works by swelling and guess what....FAA approved.

[Marc_B]

@GeeBee not arguing, I'm asking...  It's one thing to have swelling that is part of the spec.  It's another thing to have swelling where it's either not part of the spec or more swelling than spec.  But we see of a lot of generalizations that "it's known" or "don't worry about it" as well as "holy crap unleaded affects this WAY different than 100LL."  What we don't see a lot of are specific tests with specific airframes showing this is either within spec or outside of spec.  So what we're left with is conjecture on either side and irrefutable for both sides.

We need to see testing data from GAMI for more than just less detonation compared to UL94 on the test stand.

As another aside, over on BT there was a previous military publication suggesting harmful effects from cycling high and low aromatics...we've yet to see if there are detrimental effects from patchy coverage of an unleaded fuel that's routinely cycled between 100LL and high aromatic UL fuel.  I'm not aware of any such testing being done either...has this been tested by GAMI?

[EricJ]

3 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

@GeeBee not arguing, I'm asking...  It's one thing to have swelling that is part of the spec.  It's another thing to have swelling where it's either not part of the spec or more swelling than spec.  But we see of a lot of generalizations that "it's known" or "don't worry about it" as well as "holy crap unleaded affects this WAY different than 100LL."  What we don't see a lot of are specific tests with specific airframes showing this is either within spec or outside of spec.  So what we're left with is conjecture on either side and irrefutable for both sides.

We need to see testing data from GAMI for more than just less detonation compared to UL94 on the test stand.

Yes, some swelling is expected in many materials and is calculated into the design when sizing o-rings and materials for seals and gaskets, etc.   And, yes, there are assumed limits as well.   The issue in this case is that the swelling appears to be way beyond what is generally allowed.    For an o-ring used as a static gasket, 20-30% (you often hear 25% cited) is generally allowed, and for a dynamic seal, about 10%.   For a dynamic seal if swelling gets excessive the issues may result in resistance or seizure in the sealed shaft, or damage to the o-ring via a split or tear that results in a leak.   

[GeeBee]

The fact is we don't know. But I do know Mr. Braly offered us an invitation to ADA so why don't you all book it rather than conjecture here?

[Marc_B]

4 hours ago, GeeBee said:

But I do know Mr. Braly offered us an invitation to ADA so why don't you all book it rather than conjecture here?

I already reached out and he responded that he was out of the country for business over the holidays and wanted to have some owners on both side of the fence tour the facility.  I am planning on taking him up on the offer if we can work out the details  

But I feel the benefit of discussing things on the forum is that we all can learn and discuss.

[MikeOH]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The fact is we don't know. But I do know Mr. Braly offered us an invitation to ADA so why don't you all book it rather than conjecture here?

It's NOT on us to prove or disprove these 'items of conjecture'; nor should we have to go to GAMI for the answers; they are hardly an unbiased observer.

This should be proven, publicly, by GAMI and confirmed by independent testing.  It's shocking to me that you are so tacitly accepting, and actually vehemently defending GAMI.  It is NOT scientific.  ANY new product introduction should be carefully scrutinized and tested, preferably by multiple, independent labs/organizations. Repetition of experimental data by multiple, independent, testers is the hallmark of good science.  Not reliance upon "I am the science" bluster.

The animus you express towards those of those who are rightfully skeptical continues to amaze me.  I have NO problem with the introduction of unleaded avgas. My issue, consistently, has been the idea this product, G100UL, will be FORCED upon us before being fully vetted, by the banishment of 100LL with NO OTHER alternative.  Fully vetted is MORE than the manufacturer, GAMI, and the FAA (which has not been without credibility issues; e.g. Boeing).  It requires long-term field testing in the real world.  Only then should 100LL be removed from the marketplace.

This should NOT be an issue of what the masses of parents with pitchforks and torches thinks.  That is why we are a republic and not a democracy; our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that mob rule is not a good idea.

[Marc_B]

@GeeBee The other thing to note is that if there wasn’t a mandate to move away from 100LL, and G100UL wasn’t being used in California to attempt to escalate a ban on 100LL, I personally wouldn’t be commenting on these threads at all but rather just wouldn’t purchase the STC or fuel till it was proven reliable, safe, and any untoward effects were shown.

Given the political mandate and currently no other UL option, I have a vested interest in a fully vetted and safe fuel. 

[MikeOH]

19 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

@GeeBee The other thing to note is that if there wasn’t a mandate to move away from 100LL, and G100UL wasn’t being used in California to attempt to escalate a ban on 100LL, I personally wouldn’t be commenting on these threads at all but rather just wouldn’t purchase the STC or fuel till it was proven reliable, safe, and any untoward effects were shown.

Given the political mandate and currently no other UL option, I have a vested interest in a fully vetted and safe fuel. 

EXACTLY!

You wouldn't be hearing anything out of me, either.

[GeeBee]

7 hours ago, MikeOH said:

It's NOT on us to prove or disprove these 'items of conjecture'; nor should we have to go to GAMI for the answers; they are hardly an unbiased observer.

This should be proven, publicly, by GAMI and confirmed by independent testing.  It's shocking to me that you are so tacitly accepting, and actually vehemently defending GAMI.  It is NOT scientific.  ANY new product introduction should be carefully scrutinized and tested, preferably by multiple, independent labs/organizations. Repetition of experimental data by multiple, independent, testers is the hallmark of good science.  Not reliance upon "I am the science" bluster.

The animus you express towards those of those who are rightfully skeptical continues to amaze me.  I have NO problem with the introduction of unleaded avgas. My issue, consistently, has been the idea this product, G100UL, will be FORCED upon us before being fully vetted, by the banishment of 100LL with NO OTHER alternative.  Fully vetted is MORE than the manufacturer, GAMI, and the FAA (which has not been without credibility issues; e.g. Boeing).  It requires long-term field testing in the real world.  Only then should 100LL be removed from the marketplace.

This should NOT be an issue of what the masses of parents with pitchforks and torches thinks.  That is why we are a republic and not a democracy; our founding fathers were smart enough to realize that mob rule is not a good idea.

I did not say I was accepting. I in fact said the video was "disturbing".  I have expressed no animus, I have told you how it is going to go down. I understand if you don't like it, but you can't stop a tsunami. Stand on the beach to prove your point, hope you are a good swimmer. There are five stages of grief, and some people are not past denial.

[AJ88V]

On 12/27/2024 at 8:19 AM, GeeBee said:

Swelling the O-rings is how Granville Strut Seal works.

 

Oh no, now you've got me thinking about soaking old Mooney landing gear shock discs in the stuff!  Maybe G100UL would be even better!

[MikeOH]

6 hours ago, GeeBee said:

I did not say I was accepting. I in fact said the video was "disturbing".  I have expressed no animus, I have told you how it is going to go down. I understand if you don't like it, but you can't stop a tsunami. Stand on the beach to prove your point, hope you are a good swimmer. There are five stages of grief, and some people are not past denial.

 Five stages of grief: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.

I'm not in denial; I agree that unleaded fuel is coming.  As I've stated multiple times, it should AFTER a fully vetted alternative is field PROVEN.
I'm more in the anger and bargaining stages (with HOPE that if enough issues with G100UL arise we wont' be FORCED to use it).

If you are not accepting, then the conclusion is you're just stuck in the depression stage
Please be careful as flying while depressed isn't recommended

[T. Peterson]

9 hours ago, GeeBee said:

I did not say I was accepting. I in fact said the video was "disturbing".  I have expressed no animus, I have told you how it is going to go down. I understand if you don't like it, but you can't stop a tsunami. Stand on the beach to prove your point, hope you are a good swimmer. There are five stages of grief, and some people are not past denial.

It seems there might be a real “Tsunami” brewing against G100UL.

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

 Five stages of grief: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.

I'm not in denial; I agree that unleaded fuel is coming.  As I've stated multiple times, it should AFTER a fully vetted alternative is field PROVEN.
I'm more in the anger and bargaining stages (with HOPE that if enough issues with G100UL arise we wont' be FORCED to use it).

If you are not accepting, then the conclusion is you're just stuck in the depression stage
Please be careful as flying while depressed isn't recommended

I believe you are bargaining. Nobody is going to test to your satisfaction 

[MikeOH]

42 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I believe you are bargaining. Nobody is going to test to your satisfaction 

Fascinating. Amazing how you know my testing requirements!

Let me spell it out so you don't have to assume what I want:

1) An unleaded fuel that has equal or better characteristics than 100LL.  Causing damage in excess of 100LL, in any regard, is not acceptable.
2) Priced the same...LOL!  I know that is unrealistic.  Question is, what is an acceptable premium, 'for the children, and all'?

We really haven't been discussing #2 but I am curious where the price is going to end up if 100LL is banned in, initially, Kalifornia.  It seems $6.99 at RHV is bearable; that's about a 20% premium over PAO.  It's also curious that $6.99 is the introductory price in a southern state (can't remember which one).  Seems more a 'try it out price' than market based.  Makes me wonder what the price will be when 100LL is banned and there is NO OTHER option.

So, I ask you (rather than assuming), at what premium are you going to cry, 'foul'?

[George Braly]

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

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, MikeOH said:

So, I ask you (rather than assuming), at what premium are you going to cry, 'foul'?

When the cost of the Mooney exceeds a NetJets card or a SE T-Prop

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

When the cost of the Mooney exceeds a NetJets card or a SE T-Prop

Well, let's hope GAMI doesn't set pricing based on your criteria

[T. Peterson]

24 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

When the cost of the Mooney exceeds a NetJets card or a SE T-Prop

That gives you quite a margin! Outstanding!
My margin is a bit less. I’m not exactly sure where I would draw the line, but it would probably be somewhere around twice the price of auto fuel. Exceeding 7.00 a gallon on a routine basis would probably get me thinking real hard about selling out.

[Fly Boomer]

8 hours ago, T. Peterson said:

That gives you quite a margin! Outstanding!
My margin is a bit less. I’m not exactly sure where I would draw the line, but it would probably be somewhere around twice the price of auto fuel. Exceeding 7.00 a gallon on a routine basis would probably get me thinking real hard about selling out.

You are closer to selling out than you think.  Average price for 100LL by region:

Alaska          10.44
Northwest Mtn    6.65
Western Pacific  6.94
New England      6.99

and so on.  And fuel prices are lower now than they have been in recent history.  Time to start composing your advertisement.

https://www.globalair.com/airport/region.aspx
 

[T. Peterson]

4 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

You are closer to selling out than you think.  Average price for 100LL by region:

Alaska          10.44
Northwest Mtn    6.65
Western Pacific  6.94
New England      6.99

and so on.  And fuel prices are lower now than they have been in recent history.  Time to start composing your advertisement.

https://www.globalair.com/airport/region.aspx
 

I live in Texas and most of my flying destinations are MO, AR, AL, KS and IN. I am currently paying less than 5.00 for most of my fuel. 
 

[AJ88V]

On 12/28/2024 at 6:18 PM, 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

Thanks, George.  I genuinely believe you have developed G100UL to help keep our fleet flying in the face imminent government-mandated requirements to phase out lead additives in fuel, and that you have been very forthright during the entire process about the development of G100UL and testing you have done.  That you are willing to post here on our Mooney owners forum is a further testament to your openness and service.

I'm a long-time scientist near the end of my career and learned long ago that you need to understand the experiment to understand the result.  The tests posted online by YouTuber mluvara seem to do a good job of replicating the effects of a seeping fuel tank on a wet-wing bird like our much-loved Mooneys.  There does seem to be a difference between soaking panels in a large volume of G100UL and mluvara's test letting the more volatile components evaporate leaving behind components that more aggressively attack paint.  Perhaps you could replicate mluvara's test?

Again, I believe your intentions are altruistic and you truly want to find a solution.  I heartily thank you for your multiple contributions to the welfare of general aviation.

- v/r, AJ

[GeeBee]

I am beginning to think we can't get to UL fuel without some pain.

Recall the introduction of ethanol into gasoline. In tank electric pumps failed by the thousands. Boats were especially vulnerable as fiberglass fuel tanks turned to goo and aluminum tanks corroded to the point of leaking. I had to replace all the fuel lines in my 2 year old boat, because ethanol would cause them to sweat fuel. 

Equally so when ULSD came out, thousands of diesels with mechanical injection pumps failed. When ULSD came out with 10% bio-diesel (so the suppliers could get their federal subsidy) it gelled easily in cold temps. 

We on this very board have for some time  encouraged the use of fluorosilicone O-rings on fuel caps. Indeed not a fuel cap thread goes by here without that admonishment. 

I don't think you "get there from here" without some modifications to 50 year old machines. Guys with classic cars understand that. That means some of you will likely have to hunt down all your nitrile seals and change them, like I had to change the fuel lines in my new boat. We don't know where all the nitrile seals are in our machines, but as we say in the South, "We're a fixin' to find out".

Personally if I end up with using a re-formulated fuel before I call it quits in aviation, I plan to fuel my airplane, run it up so I get the fuel fully introduced through out the fuel system. Let it sit for 7 days and then inspect. I think that is prudent because like the ethanol introduction, it is not going to be a smooth "drop in" process and it never has for any new fuel.

GAMI has enjoyed a Stirling reputation in this industry. I don't think Mr. Braly would jeopardize that by price gouging or knowingly selling a defective product. He knows as much about the chemistry and science as anybody out there and I think his efforts are  genuine in trying to get GA where it has to go under immense public pressure that will not go away as much as some think it could.

[Pinecone]

21 hours ago, MikeOH said:

 Five stages of grief: Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.

I'm not in denial; I agree that unleaded fuel is coming.  As I've stated multiple times, it should AFTER a fully vetted alternative is field PROVEN.
I'm more in the anger and bargaining stages (with HOPE that if enough issues with G100UL arise we wont' be FORCED to use it).

If you are not accepting, then the conclusion is you're just stuck in the depression stage
Please be careful as flying while depressed isn't recommended

The problem is, it will not happen on its own.  It will be by mandate.  And thus in the hands of the government (local, state, and Federal) and they will move on whether there is ANY substitute.

[Pinecone]

7 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

I am beginning to think we can't get to UL fuel without some pain.

Recall the introduction of ethanol into gasoline. In tank electric pumps failed by the thousands. Boats were especially vulnerable as fiberglass fuel tanks turned to goo and aluminum tanks corroded to the point of leaking. I had to replace all the fuel lines in my 2 year old boat, because ethanol would cause them to sweat fuel. 

Equally so when ULSD came out, thousands of diesels with mechanical injection pumps failed. When ULSD came out with 10% bio-diesel (so the suppliers could get their federal subsidy) it gelled easily in cold temps. 

We on this very board have for some time  encouraged the use of fluorosilicone O-rings on fuel caps. Indeed not a fuel cap thread goes by here without that admonishment. 

I don't think you "get there from here" without some modifications to 50 year old machines. Guys with classic cars understand that. That means some of you will likely have to hunt down all your nitrile seals and change them, like I had to change the fuel lines in my new boat. We don't know where all the nitrile seals are in our machines, but as we say in the South, "We're a fixin' to find out".

Personally if I end up with using a re-formulated fuel before I call it quits in aviation, I plan to fuel my airplane, run it up so I get the fuel fully introduced through out the fuel system. Let it sit for 7 days and then inspect. I think that is prudent because like the ethanol introduction, it is not going to be a smooth "drop in" process and it never has for any new fuel.

GAMI has enjoyed a Stirling reputation I this industry. I don't think Mr. Braly would jeopardize that by price gouging or knowingly selling a defective product. He knows as much about the chemistry and science as anybody out there and I think his efforts are  genuine in trying to get GA where it has to go under immense public pressure that will not go away as much as some think it could.

Well said.  And I agree.

Also, with ethanol in fuel, there was a movement to increase it from 10% to 20%.  That would have been a mess because about 1/2 the cars on the road would have fuel system problems.

[Marc_B]

42 minutes ago, Pinecone said:

The problem is, it will not happen on its own.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. There are plenty in the fan base that don’t mind working with GAMI for end user testing.

But this requires open sharing of issues, wrinkles and failures. That is how we help the “fleet.”

But the wrinkle with this is that GAMI doesn’t seem to feel there are any issues and the fan base is less likely to share negative information so will write off as “just due to an old seal or old sealant”.

For fleet success, why doesn’t GAMI have direct to STC holder mechanism for feedback to help develop ICA revision. Only this requires the mentality that there may be items at risk of damage so I’m not sure that it would get done.

Is G100UL truly a drop in fuel? And if not how can we determine what issues need to be addressed before use?

So far we’ve just heard from GAMI that G100UL has tested without issue in 14 years. I’ve not heard any explanation of any detrimental effects from GAMI.

What I mean is that it seems the helpful information needed for users of G100UL will likely come from USERS of G100UL (field reports and lessons learned) >> from GAMI via modifications to ICA, and in the form of AD from FAA.

Field reports help us all much faster moving forward.