tommy
What a F—- up… this is par for the course. Yeah, we’ll get the lead out. What a fricking joke. And the clown show continues…
What a F—- up… this is par for the course. Yeah, we’ll get the lead out. What a fricking joke. And the clown show continues…
Getting more real world experience with G100UL is a good thing. I have the GAMI STC for my Maule but I haven’t run any G100UL since it’s not available in my area. Although GAMI did a huge amount of testing, running G100UL in a larger variety of aircraft, engines and flight operations over time will allow them to fine tune the fuel formulation, if necessary. I would like that to happen before I actually run G100UL in my Lycoming engine. I’m not worried about the manufacturer not honoring the warranty since my engine is long out of warranty. Most GA engines are out of warranty. According to the FAA, the average age of 150,000+ GA aircraft is over 50 years. We MUST get rid of the lead in aviation fuel just like we got rid of it in automobile fuel, which didn’t happen overnight. Getting G100UL into widespread use and closely monitoring engine health is the best way to gather more data about its effects and how to adjust the formulation to prevent engine damage. Instead of taking potshots at GAMI’s fuel effects, we should be trying to help them make it safer.
The difficult part now will be separating out all of the normal wear and tear aircraft go through from the issues that are actually related to the fuel.