A California A and P who has been testing the effects of GAMI's G100UL on aircraft paint says a second round of testing has confirmed early results. But GAMI founder George Braly says his company has been unable to replicate Michael Luvara's results. Braly said immersion tests and allowing fuel to evaporate on painted surfaces haven't caused any of the kind of damage that Luvara has shown in the second of two videos posted on YouTube. Luvara says the second round of tests confirmed suspicions raised in the first video.
100LL avgas was introduced in the 70s. At that time, a fuel system lubricant called Fuel Lube was used to lubricate rotating components subject to fuel immersion (mixture controls, fuel valves, etc). In the 90s, Fuel Lube seemed to no longer be effective and would harden and ball up with the 100LL blend. At the same time, 100LL seemed to take on a different characteristic both in smell and evaporation rates. Small leaks no longer left stains on the hangar floor, for example.
Then EZ Turn was introduced as a âhigh octane fuel lubricant.â It worked better than what had been used previously. The old Fuel Lube became obsolete.
There is no doubt the industry can move past these hurdles, but testing and fact finding should really be in a controlled environment, not on the ramp.
â⌠but testing and fact finding should really be in a controlled environment, not on the ramp.â
Real world vs. a controlled environment to get the results you seek?
What could possibly go wrong?
Sometimes, some of the most innovative and/or accurate findings are by the âgarage mechanicsâ rather than industry, as they donât have a dog in the fight!
Surely someone has noticed the effect of 100LL on paint when it drips from a leaking fuel drain onto a wheel pant. The solution for paint damage from either 100LL or G100UL spills is to avoid spills and replace leaky drains.
Iâd like to see independent testing done. An impartial entity doing thorough testing would put a lot of minds at ease one way or another. Ideally it wouldnât be the manufacturer of the product nor someone who simply does not want the product. Just facts please.
This is why GAMI needs to get ASTM certification. Testing will be done the same, per a standard, in the same conditions, and same circumstances. This is the only way testing will be consistent, verifiable, and comparative.
Do we know for whom Michael Luvara works? Where is he based? Does he have a âdog in the fightâ that is hidden from obvious view? Did he create these videos as a marketing effort to drum up more business (knowing that most of his potential clients oppose change of any kind).
Even though Iâm an advocate for the small guy, Michaelâs sudden appearance on the scene does raise questions of its own. We know Bralyâs position and biases and can make a determination as to our trust in his work, but we have no such history with Mr. Luvara.
Yes, but G100UL is a new thing, so people are focused on every little thing they notice with it, even if itâs something theyâve seen before with 100LL. Itâs not a blue stain, itâs a yellowish stain, so thatâs newâŚ
Isnât the RAMP the best real world scenario there is?
And great, if thereâs an issue, call it out. But GAMIâs FAQ says: After extensive testing, no compatibility issues have been identified in any aircraft, engines, storage tanks or transportation systems. G100UL avgas is a âdrop-inâ fuel, fully fungible with 100LL and other aviation gasolines, and ready to be used within the industryâs existing infrastructure."
Did they not test with something so well known as the current iteration of Fuel Lube?
Wouldnât you want to know if there was an issue with todayâs âFuel Lubeâ aka âEZ-Turnâ like there was when 100LL was introduced?
I had never heard of either until it was mentioned here. No mechanic or pilot Iâve ever talked to has mentioned either product, and I donât recall seeing it mentioned in any of the usual aviation publications, so Iâm not sure how âwell knownâ it is.
My point being, thereâs no way any replacement for 100LL can be tested with every possible combination of engine/airframe modifications or additives, in the same way that airframe/engine STC modifications canât possibly be tested against every possible combination available.
I spent 34 years in the metal cleaning / coatings removal business. Some paints are less affected by solvents than others: for instance Alumigrip has better solvent resistance than Imron. Imron can be wiped off with MEK and a rag. Alumigrip is resistant to most solvents and is unaffected by MEK.
But Brian Hall, GAMI has detailed elements of the ASTM âstandardâ that are not appropriate, and pointed to omissions.
Swift may also have pointed to problems applying the present ASTM âstandardâ to its products.
Why arenât objectors pushing ASTM committee members to do their job?
(Honestly of course, Iâve seen defects in ARINC standards for avionics, some of them deliberately inserted to block new technology.)
