G100UL paint testing by YouTuber mluvara

[Marc_B]

@GeeBee also keep in mind that GAMI is an open voice against lead and has actively been pushing to escalate legislation banning lead.  There is a clear financial incentive for them with this and it’s not at all surprising.

But it also helps them to push narrative with concepts such as 100% drop in, Fleet wide approval, and no engine left behind.

At the end of the day it’s another product and money just like everything else in this industry that’s “good for 5 kts” or “guaranteed for 5hp increase.”  Advertising is always oversold.

[GeeBee]

1 minute ago, Marc_B said:

@GeeBee also keep in mind that GAMI is an open voice against lead and has actively been pushing to escalate legislation banning lead.  There is a clear financial incentive for them with this and it’s not at all surprising.

But it also helps the narrative with concepts such as 100% drop in, Fleet wide approval, and not engine left behind.

At the end of the day it’s another product and money just like everything else in this industry that’s “good for 5 kts” or “guaranteed for 5hp increase.”  Advertising is always oversold.

Of course they are. They are power plant people and they know what lead does to engines and especially turbos. The expungement of lead makes a lot of business sense not just from G100UL sales but for the rest of their business as well. 

[Aaviationist]

19 hours ago, MikeOH said:

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'?

What you are asking for doesn’t and will never exist. 
 

You are free to use whatever certified alternative there is out there. But you are in CA, and leaded fuel is not about to be available there much longer. 
 

alternatively, I hear trade a plane has good rates for new listings. 

[MikeOH]

2 hours ago, Aaviationist said:

What you are asking for doesn’t and will never exist. 
 

You are free to use whatever certified alternative there is out there. But you are in CA, and leaded fuel is not about to be available there much longer. 
 

alternatively, I hear trade a plane has good rates for new listings. 

Ah, yes, tell someone that doesn't agree with you to just, "GET OUT!" Very mature.

[201Steve]

Yall need to breathe

[Aaviationist]

Point is leaded Avgas is on its way out. Sooner rather than later.  
 

there is an alternative available that allows you to keep flying. 
 

You can either use and and keep flying, or not.  This magic drop in replacement that requires no additional work on the owner side will never exist. That’s just a fact. How long have companies been working on this?  This is likely as close as you’re going to get. 
 

the next step is redesigning engines and accessories. HOPEFULLY accessories and expendables can be developed to better accept new fuel alternatives. 
 

but a drop in replacement that requires no work or effort on the owner side, with no side effects?  I don’t see it happening. 
 

so again, you can either use it, or put your airplane up for sale. What you are asking for is magic fairy dust. 

[McMooney]

On 12/28/2024 at 4:53 PM, MikeOH said:

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'?

I see no reason the fuel should be more expensive than 100ll, except for profit taking by whoever makes it.

the fuel would be easier to blend,  handle, transport and store, it  would have uses other than aviation, ex. ( racing, auto, marine )  heck if you make enough of it could possibly ship it via pipelines.

[Marc_B]

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/reid-hillview-rhv-selling-g100ul-27209?start=20

interesting thread.  has one picture showing rather significant damage to paint, unsure of details; thread was locked.

[George Braly]

On 12/27/2024 at 10:23 PM, Marc_B said:

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.

Marc,

I am back in country.  Please feel free to contact me about follow up on this effort.

George

[GeeBee]

34 minutes ago, Marc_B said:

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/reid-hillview-rhv-selling-g100ul-27209?start=20

interesting thread.  has one picture showing rather significant damage to paint, unsure of details; thread was locked.

That is a fabric airplane and as was mentioned earlier by Mr. Braly, there has been no testing on fabric. Fabric airplanes have so many different finish methods it is impossible to know if the paint is even comparable with the fabric and it's underlying finish. Until the FAA put a stop to it, a lot of people would paint over PolyFiber with any paint they wanted rather than the PolyFiber approved paint. So without knowing what kind of paint and if it was the approved finish of the fabric manufacturer and STC holder nothing can be derived from the damage. 

[George Braly]

On 12/28/2024 at 4:53 PM, MikeOH said:

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'?

Mike,

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'?

What you state above is not unreasonable.  

Taking 2) (pricing) first:   GAMI has always said that the cost of the components to produce G100UL Avgas, at the initial and lower volumes,  will typically be about 80 cents to $1.10 more / gallon than the cost of the components to produce a gallon of 100LL.  As batch volumes  enlarge,  that differential will narrow.    Other than that differential - - there is absolutely no reason the price of G100UL avgas would be any higher than that original cost differential.  All of the other "mark-ups" in the supply chain remain unchanged - - cost of transportation,  insurance, etc.  Same same.  

Taking up your first point: 

1) There is convincing contrary evidence that exposure to G100UL avgas does not  "strip paint" or otherwise compromise the basic adhesion of the paint to the aircraft structure.  

A) Consider:  Independently of GAMI - - G100UL Avgas was tested by Embry Riddle for over a year.  That was done under their complete control.  The FAA did also supervise that testing.  ERAU engineers and pilots did all of the work and wrote the test plans and the reports - - which the FAA approved.   

There were no dips, leaks, nor any evidence of any damage to any paint.   At the conclusion of the test program, the (1400 hour engine - - with a year of additional flying on G100UL Avgas - - was torn down and found to be in as good or better condition than when it started.  Noticeably - - with no evidence of any lead deposits or spark plug fouling. 

The only (paint) "damage in excess of 100LL" that is being claimed is the report damaged paint on a Mooney.  

However,  extensive testing reveals that G100UL does not strip paint, or damage the paint. 

At least not aircraft paint that was applied in the manner in which normal aircraft paint is typically applied.    

When that report first appeared, I was headed to Europe to meet with some aviation people in Europe about deployment of G100UL there.   Before I left, I organized the small experiment whose results you see in the photograph documenting the results of the test that was conducted while I was gone.  Those (20+ year old) painted panels have been soaking in G100UL Avgas for over a week.  There is not the slightest hint of any damage to the paint.  Even the paint at the edges of the pre-existing scratches in the paint remains fully bonded. 

Any comments and questions are always welcome.

George   (gwbraly@gami.com) 

 

[MikeOH]

@George Braly

Thank you for your detailed response.

I am encouraged after reading your pricing comments.  However, my concern is really one of monopolistic pricing (out of your control) should 100LL be banned by government mandate. Currently there are several 100LL manufacturers to keep that concern in check; I would prefer to see G100UL compete head-to-head with other unleaded offerings and let the best fuel win BEFORE 100LL is banned.

While I do not discount your testing in regards to paint and o-ring issues, I don't discount the issues raised by others, either.  It matters not to me whether their 'paint' was proper if it was NOT a problem with 100LL but is with G100UL.  It is interesting that you provide 'special handling' information to prevent staining; so, there is something more aggressive with G100UL.  Similarly, I will not be very happy with the expense of changing out O-rings if problems arise with G100UL when I have had none with 100LL.

My contention is that the scope and degree of these problems will ONLY be fully known after a year or two in the field with all types of GA piston aircraft, not just 'lab' testing by you or others.  One or two planes is just not a sufficient sample size for valid statistics.  I assume the Embry-Riddle fleet was homologous and of recent vintage; perhaps with better paint and other than nitrile O-rings? That is not, IMHO, representative of the GA fleet in toto.

Was there any evidence of valve issues?  Given the valve problems older automobiles encountered when unleaded fuel was introduced, combined with our ancient aviation engine design technology forms the basis of concern.

While I believe that the 'ban lead' mandate is based more on politics than science, the realist in me recognizes that it is inevitable.  You have invested time and money developing G100UL based on that inevitablility.  From a purely business perspective you want that ban to come as soon as possible.  From my POV as a user I don't want 100LL ban to happen until there are multiple unleaded fuels competing for my business after being field proven.

Thanks again for your response 

[Pinecone]

How will you have multiple 100UL candidates on the market at the same time?  Especially since the other main candidate says that their fuel cannot be mixed with G100UL.

PAFI has been around for 10 years.  They now say they may have a winner in 20255, but that it may not work in all aircraft.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/eagle-projects-approval-for-pafi-unleaded-fuel-in-2025/

[Paul Thomas]

Would ceramic coating provide effective protection for paint against the effects of G100UL? At least the staining that's been reported?

While it's important to know the potential drawbacks, let's also talk about solutions. Lots of people were, and still are, against ethanol in mogas but it's been introduced and is here to stay. For the most part, we have adapted to it. If G100UL becomes the prevalent fuel, it would be good to find solutions to the issues that are being presented.

I suspect many people would still be willing to adopt G100UL even under the worst case scenarios that are being presented here.

[McMooney]

looking at my poh, it seems mooney at the time tested against 91/96 octane fuel, don't remember exactly what the poh says but ti was 90 something.  as in never put fuel lower than 90 something octaine.

 

just thinking what minimum changes would we need to make to just run on ul94 ?

[Marc_B]

36 minutes ago, McMooney said:

just thinking what minimum changes would we need to make to just run on ul94 ?

I think that M20A, B, C, D, and G? may be on the AML for UL94.  Not sure details.

[MikeOH]

7 hours ago, Pinecone said:

How will you have multiple 100UL candidates on the market at the same time?  Especially since the other main candidate says that their fuel cannot be mixed with G100UL.

PAFI has been around for 10 years.  They now say they may have a winner in 20255, but that it may not work in all aircraft.

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/eagle-projects-approval-for-pafi-unleaded-fuel-in-2025/

The same way 100LL is offered alongside 94UL, Jet A, and, in the past, higher octane fuels.  The idea that FBOs can't offer multiple fuels is absurd.

As to if they aren't mixable with G100UL, well I guess I won't be buying G100UL.

As far as your reference to the AVWEB article here are some pertinent excerpts:

"In addition to engine tests in static cells and in aircraft, the fuel has to be tested for its interaction with other parts of the aircraft from the all-important O-rings to paint."

That sure seems like a good idea to me!

"Owen said for the vast majority of aircraft engines, including those made by Continental, Lycoming and Rotax, the transition will be seamless. But he said for some of the 143 other makes of engines making up 9% on the FAA registry there "may have to be modifications" to the engines or operating procedures."

So, sounds like those of us with Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax engines will be fine.

And then there's this:

"In the meantime, the EAGLE reps said it's important that 100LL remain constantly available until the transition to new fuels is complete and they warned against local and state governments prematurely trying to eliminate leaded avgas."

Which is what I have been advocating all along.

[Will.iam]

On 12/29/2024 at 10:29 AM, T. Peterson said:

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. 
 

$3.78 at KRFI just south of KGGG where Maxwell is at. 

[Pinecone]

12 hours ago, MikeOH said:

The same way 100LL is offered alongside 94UL, Jet A, and, in the past, higher octane fuels.  The idea that FBOs can't offer multiple fuels is absurd.

As to if they aren't mixable with G100UL, well I guess I won't be buying G100UL. - Or don't buy 100R.

As far as your reference to the AVWEB article here are some pertinent excerpts:

"In addition to engine tests in static cells and in aircraft, the fuel has to be tested for its interaction with other parts of the aircraft from the all-important O-rings to paint."

That sure seems like a good idea to me!

"Owen said for the vast majority of aircraft engines, including those made by Continental, Lycoming and Rotax, the transition will be seamless. But he said for some of the 143 other makes of engines making up 9% on the FAA registry there "may have to be modifications" to the engines or operating procedures." Thank you for finding and posting this.

So, sounds like those of us with Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax engines will be fine.

_{They do say FOR THE VAST MAJORITY.  NOT ALL, Continental and Lycoming and Rotax will be fine.  But, if you own on the of the 9% that need "modifications," as yet not reveled, it it might be problematic.}

And then there's this:

"In the meantime, the EAGLE reps said it's important that 100LL remain constantly available until the transition to new fuels is complete and they warned against local and state governments prematurely trying to eliminate leaded avgas."

Which is what I have been advocating all along. - And most everyone with a brain.  Which does not include many people, especially as government entities.

Replies above in RED

Oh, as for the multiple fuels, there is the issue of costs for another fueling/billing/storage setup.  That is why it seems currently, it is only being sold as full service, so they use the fuel truck instead of a whole new fueling rig.

[MikeOH]

3 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Replies above in RED

Oh, as for the multiple fuels, there is the issue of costs for another fueling/billing/storage setup.  That is why it seems currently, it is only being sold as full service, so they use the fuel truck instead of a whole new fueling rig.

Certainly there are costs which, of course, we will pay for through the cost of the fuel. The odd thing is that seems to bother you, but paying 20%, or more, for G100UL doesn't bother you.

As to engine compatibility, you should go back and reread the section I quoted.  There were NOT exceptions for Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax, "the vast majority, including L,C, and R, transition will be seamless...but OTHER makes..may have to have modifications".

It is interesting that you agreed with my last statement regarding the continued availability of 100LL until this unleaded fuel transition settle out.  Your previous posts seemed to be all for shutting down 100LL and going with G100UL; glad to hear that's not true

[Pinecone]

My point was how many FBOs will front some $100K (IIRC) for another tank/pump/etc setup for another fuel?

How many pilots will buy it, even if it is 10% more than 100LL?  So how long is the payback on that fueling rig?

No, I read it.  THE VAST MAJORITY (no percentage) will not need mods. But the others will require unspecified mods.  At what cost?

And at no point have I advocated shutting down 100LL production.  I am saying that just offering it will not result in wide range availability.