Last week's blog was more of an update on progress so far on the replacement of 100LL with unleaded high octane aviation fuels. In the comments section a reader who uses the title BestGlideSpeed gave a long list of questions and criticisms of General Aviation Modifications Inc.'s (GAMI's) G100UL.
Russ, thanks for continuing this important discussion and for giving GAMI a forum to refute this mound of unsubstantiated criticismsâŚ
Why do I get the sense that BestGlideSpeed stands to lose if GAMI succeeds?
Would be useful to know BestGlideSpeedâs name and affiliations.
my name: Wayne McClelland (DA40 KSBA)
full disclosure: Iâm a PPL/IR and owner of the G100UL STC, and not affiliated with any party to this issue
As an outsider (PPL), it seems half the issue is the fuel, the other half is the (mis)information being spread. The interests are big enough for the various players to bend the arguments one way or any other, often in good faith, but not always. Reminds me of all the things in life I want to avoid getting into. The very little I do know : 1. GAMIjectors are very much proven by the results in hard data (spread graphs). 2. Pelican Perch John Deakin was involved w GAMI and Advanced Pilot Seminars. Didnât get to meet him personally but still : I donât think he would have stood for any BS, so another point for GAMI. 3 FAA blanket STC approval, another point for GAMI. Haters better come with strong arguments, and with aliases who knows what interests the haters have.
Iâm sorta w Russ : I hope someone breaks the deadlock, a black swan so to speak, and just says enough BS this is our solution we go for it now.
One more thing Russ, 1 more GAMI input line needs to be boldfaced "GAMI has never claimed it is âperfect.â ⌠". Thank you AVWEB for trying to untangle this mess.
From the outside (Germany), it appears that too many parties involved earn too much money by preventing a solution that seems to be working from being successful. That unfortunately happens very often in this strange world. What a pity!
I want a no lead fuel, period. I only have two questions. When will I be able to call up my FBO and request fuel knowing when it arrives I will be able to fill up my plane with a no lead fuel for my IO 540 K1J5s?
When will I be able to fly my plane to pretty much any airport in the US, uncontrolled primarily, knowing when I get there I will be able to fill up with a no lead fuel?
I want everything I have now without the lead. When will that happen?
Go get them George !! SAY IT ! Youâre MY hero fighting the âgoodâ fight !
George: We all believe that G100UL has good detonation characteristics. What about the other side of the problemâŚmaterials compatibility? You donât say much about that. G100UL utilizes m-toluidine as an octane booster. That stuff does not get along well with rubber. SHOW US THE DATA on your materials compatibility testing.
For comparison, EAGLE requires testing on some 160 different materials. How many materials were tested by GAMI? How were they tested? SHOW US THE DATA!
I desperately want lead out of AvGas if for no other reason than the damage lead deposits does to engines.
What do you mean by ârubberâ? The real thing, the natural stuff? Gasoline of any sort will destroy that. In terms of synthetics, you can get formulas that will resist any of the common chemicals such as those found in G100UL.
In most light airplanes, there arenât all that many rubber fuel lines to replace, and those are a replacement item in any case.
Iâd buy G100UL if I could get it ! The foot dragging seems to be in distribution, not so much in the area of demand.
I would also buy G100UL today if I could, but itâs not available at my airport (or as far as Iâm aware, at any airport in the northeast). My question is, what is preventing the fuel from being distributed? And also, what can I do to try and get the fuel available at my airport?
Thankyou!
Braley makes some particularly good points, besides rebutting those who fail reading comprehension or are too lazy to read GAMIâs G100UL web pages or whine about paying to licence a GAMI G100UL STC. And indirectly conspiracy theorists.
And he educates flappers as to the different roles of ASTM standards, FAA, engine manufacturers, and aircraft manufacturers.
GAMI must ensure compatibilityâfor shipping, for storage, for mixing in ground and air tanks. ASTM seems to be the way forward on this. As ASTM is an entirely volunteer organization with standards formed by consensus, GAMI needs to get volunteering and forming a consensus.
It only takes one chess move to screw all of us aircraft owners, and here it is: 1) GAMI refuses ASTM and ends up being the âonlyâ unleaded choice,
2) With no choice (driven by government regulation), FBOs convert tanking and distribution to carry G100UL
3) The next competitor comes along and says, âI have a great unleaded fuel!â But without ASTM, thereâs no way for that future competitor to prove compatibility. So, weâve just handed GAMI a monopoly on our fuel supply. You thought the TEL supplier was a problem? Just wait.
This is entirely a self-own on the part of GAMI. If they donât like ASTM, theyâre welcome to build consensus and rewrite the standard. Otherwise, this is just a barrier to entry that theyâve known about since the beginning. Having the FAA approve the fuel is obviously only step #1. Distributing, storing, and dispensing the fuel was obviously step #2. Taking steps that ensure GAMI owns the distribution indefinitely and selling it as, âbut we donât like ASTM and refuse to playâ is the definition of gaslighting.
I have no sympathy for an organization who refuses to play by the well stated rules of the game since the beginning. Itâs not like trucking, distribution, and FBOs are a surprise problem that no one ever thought of.
Lazies should get up and read FAQ - G100UL high octane unleaded avgas
FAQ - G100UL high octane unleaded avgas.
I think it would be best if we could go back to two grades of fuel. This would actually help in getting the lead out and might create a lower cost fueling option. The G 100 UL is going to be an expensive fuel because of the additional costs of making this high octane product. A lower octane product such as UL94 or UL91 should be available to those aircraft that do not need 100 octane. By doing this, we will get relief from a higher cost product that we donât need. The lower octane product is also environmentally less damaging.
You seem to connect ASTM and IP concerns. I donât see how they are connected.
GAMI doesnât have infinite IP protection. They have patents that eventually expire. And their STC would provide a bit of protection, but if they go crazy with it, someone else can submit for their own STC.
And my understanding is that GAMI has specific concerns about ASTM members violating ASTM secrecy rules. So maybe they should play ball anyway, but it doesnât seem like getting an ASTM spec would necessarily unlock the distribution issue. The incumbents still wonât want their trucking partners distributing a fuel they donât want to exist and will have the same leverage over them.
This seems to be what is actually holding up distribution. Theyâre currently using the lack of an ASTM spec as an excuse, but itâs just that: an excuse. If GAMI were to get an ASTM spec, it wouldnât surprise me that the distributors then say they âcanâtâ distribute it because it didnât go through the PAFI/EAGLE process.
GAMI actually started their work on G100UL before PAFI 1.0 even existed. From their website, they state that PAFI didnât have any mechanism to provide credit for work and testing that they had already performed.
Ever since the beginning of PAFI, and then EAGLE/PAFI 2.0, it had the scent of an incumbents-only game.