This is the biggest concern that I have; i.e. compatibility. I am at an airport that has banned 100LL and my engine cannot legally use UL94. My initial review of the known contents of G100UL suggest that there is healthy skepticism in the area of long term compatibility. Why are other fuel providers avoiding utilizing similar compositions (aside from patent issues)? And then there’s the fact that I have to have yet another major alteration (STC) to use a specific fuel. All of this just gets complex…
Clearly you know nothing about how ASTM standards are developed, or how its consensus processes work. An ASTM consensus standard is an imperfect compromise influenced by any and everyone who wants a say in the process, including lots of non-technical folks and lots of folks with competing interests.
If you have a tough technical problem to solve you would never go to ASTM and ask them to develop a standard for how to solve it, unless of course you don’t want the problem solved. Seems like that’s what been going on here.
1 Like
MikeFive,
In multiple different forums, we have covered the scope of the years’ long material compatibility testing completed for G100UL Avgas.
One of the early PAFI managers for their material compatibility program saw a 2013 presentation I did for the CRC group (affiliate of ASTM) and in the Q & A session stated it was a really good way to do that and asked if I would share the drawings and plans for the material compatibility test rig that the FAA had then already approved and which had been running for six months or more, at that time.
We agreed and did provide those drawings and plans to the PAFI program.
In addition, there were three other outside and independent entities that did substantial portions of additional material compatibility testing.
Our Cirrus, a TN SR22 (N223TN) first had G100UL Avgas placed in RH wing tank on January 27, 2010. 140 years ago. It has had G100UL in one or the other of the fuel tanks for most of the subsequent time. 18 months ago, the RH tank was topped off with G100UL and it has had G100UL in it continuously for the last year and a half.
In July, I flew it to Airventure and back.
It has never had any leaks and it has gone through 13 or 14 annuals and there has never been any reason to change out any fuel line nor any seals or O-rings.
Not sure what more we could do to resolve the pervasive doubts in the pilot community.
3 Likes
As a piston-engined helicopter owner, I am extremely eager for the G100UL STC to be extended to rotorcraft airframes (hopefully not just Robinson but Bell, Enstrom, Hiller, Hughes, etc., but thanks Robinson for doing the work) - I will buy the STC as soon as it is available (IFNOR than to support and encourage GAMI) and start using the fuel as soon as it becomes available (in NJ).
I have to admit I am humbled that my comments on this subject garnered any attention at all. I also willingly admit that I am no expert in the field of fuels, or in their sale and distribution either. And since someone asked; no, I have no personal interest in which fuel ultimately wins out, I do not work in the industry, and I fly behind a non-certificated, low octane engine that abhors lead. I am of the opinion that my ship would be far happier with G100UL in its tanks than 100LL. Also, I have no affiliation with ASTM, but customers in my industry do rely on ASTM testing to validate the functional quality of the products my industry produces.
I would like to make clear that my comments were, and are, in response to the wide range of posts from other contributors complaining about the slow pace of the process and not intended as a criticism of G100UL. My desire is simply to see as many fuels be fully developed as possible by the interested participants and that we standardize around the best suited formulation.
Also, let me make clear that my assertions are not an argument against GAMI, but rather are responses to a litany of comments from posters in the forum who express a frustration that we already have a solution in G100UL and why can’t we just go with it?
My opinion is that there are always more moving parts to a problem than is apparent to those of us watching from the outside. We need to be patient and allow the process to resolve the concerns of all the stakeholders, thereby providing the best chances of a good outcome for all involved. Depending on how difficult some of those concerns may turn out to be, there likely will be compromises that we hope will be minimal.
Recognizing that GAMI is far ahead of the other participants in this process, my recommendation was simply that GAMI take advantage of their position and create momentum by partnering with every heavy hitter in the industry/process to the point that they each can also add their voices and bless, recommend and praise G100UL to the industry at large. It would go a long way towards reassuring a worried and distrusting consumer base.
1 Like
George: You could either show existing data that proves that G100UL is safe for use in aircraft, storage tanks, fuel trucks, barges, pipelines, railroad cars, etc., or you could submit G100UL for extensive testing in this regard (something akin to what EAGLE is requiring). You really have no other options. I am afraid that anecdotal information about one plane or the other being okay with G100UL is not particularly convincing. That is not my opinion, but appears to be the opinion of the shippers who will not touch the fuel, as well as Cirrus and Lycoming.
You apparently chose a very reactive octane booster for G100UL, maybe one that others have considered but have avoided. To compound this, you chose the STC/no-ASTM route, which, with little doubt, has less rigorous requirements for proving materials compatibility than the other routes. Again, I emphasize that EAGLE is requiring materials testing on some 160 different materials. Why are you surprised by some skepticism in regard to the materials compatibility of G100UL?
1 Like
I commend George for his composure in his reply and I disagree with BGS and that line of argument entirely, his post sounds like a series of sound bites. The fact is that the availability of G100UL will create winners and losers, and the potential losers see this coming. The fact that this solution was created here in the US, to me, is a huge win for all of us. That it was created in time to avoid additional costly and lengthy legal battles and potential airport closures is even more impressive. This argument is pure politics in my opinion but, unlike politics, the rules for this game were written down a long time ago with the goal, processes, requirements and testing clearly stated. If this G100UL has met those standards, then it should be available and let pilots and owners make their choice, thus creating winners and losers with respect to FBOs, fuel transport, fuel manufacturing and all the rest. Change is tough for some people, but that should not stop progress. If an FBO within an hour of me here in the NE had this fuel, I would fly to get it. If we want to whine about the cost of the STC and the potential unknowable risks, then maybe be consistent. If we apply that same thought process to the moment you line up on centerline and push the throttle, we may find the risks and costs too great and stay in the hangar instead.
1 Like
I know this questions is a bit “in the weeds” - but as the owner of an Experimental Vans RV, would I need an STC? Further, assuming G100UL became widely accepted/available, what would stop owners of non-certified planes from using a self-serve pump to put it in one tank for a trial before getting an STC?
What irritates me about this whole project is the EPA & FAA have in essence mandated at drop in replacement for 100LL. Why then should the GA fleet have to pay for an STC? The Feds (taxpayers) have dumped untold millions into this and we’d still have to pay for an STC? GAMI and others did the work because the Feds demanded it. The “winner” should get paid a lump sum by the Feds for the R&D and be done with it. That puts it on equal footing as access is to 100LL.
I think lead reduction is a good thing.
The process us long.
I think also the topic of implementation that GAMI keeps ignoring is cost.
They have done well in government funding development.
But as an end user, are GA pilots who have already seen a large increase in operating costs be able to weather a huge increase in fuel costs?
The increased fuel and insurance costs have already greatly shrank general aviation.
GAMI should sue in federal court for defamation.
The cost of the G100UL STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) varies depending on the aircraft’s engine and horsepower. Generally, it is priced at around $2 per horsepower. For example, for aircraft like the Cessna 210, Cirrus SR22, and Piper PA-32, the STC costs approximately $600
The price of G100UL avgas is estimated to be about $0.70 to $1.15 more per gallon than 100LL avgas. This price difference is expected to decrease as G100UL becomes more widely available. Additionally, the higher fuel cost may be offset by lower maintenance costs due to the absence of lead.
1 Like
[quote=“MikeFive, post:26, topic:22949, full:true”]
George: You could either show existing data that proves that G100UL is safe for use in aircraft, storage tanks, fuel trucks, barges, pipelines, railroad cars, etc., or you could submit G100UL for extensive testing in this regard (something akin to what EAGLE is requiring). You really have no other options. I am afraid that anecdotal information about one plane or the other being okay with G100UL is not particularly convincing. That is not my opinion, but appears to be the opinion of the shippers who will not touch the fuel, as well as Cirrus and Lycoming.
You apparently chose a very reactive octane booster for G100UL, maybe one that others have considered but have avoided. To compound this, you chose the STC/no-ASTM route, which, with little doubt, has less rigorous requirements for proving materials compatibility than the other routes. Again, I emphasize that EAGLE is requiring materials testing on some 160 different materials. Why are you surprised by some skepticism in regard to the materials compatibility of G100UL?
********************
Mike,
I am not surprised by any skepticism by almost anyone about a fuel issue.
You may be unaware, but GAMI collaborated with a major 100LL distributor and installed an entire airport 10,000 gallon storage tank with airport / industry standard plumbing, filters, seals, gaskets, etc… etc… etc… Then used that to produce an 8,000 gallon conforming batch of G100UL Avgas on the ramp at Ada. There are pictures of that facility in various places and presentations about G100UL Avgas. Maybe you missed those.
We did that three years ago .
That airport fuel delivery system has had G100UL Avgas in that system continuously with hundred thousands+ gallons of fuel circulated through that system. All of the components in the standard airport fuel delivery system are included. All have been continuously exposed to G100UL avgas through multiple winters and summers.
The worlds largest producer of airport fuel system filters (FACET) has had their laboratory evaluate the filters after two years of fuel exposure and they wrote a report finding the standard airport fuel system filters to be completely compatible with the use of G100UL Avgas.
ASTM does not do testing. Period.
I am not sure why you keep suggesting they do. An ASTM fuel specification is EXPLICITLY STATED to have one purpose and one purpose only: To be used by “Purchasing Agents”. It is a document whose primary purpose is to facilitate commercial transactions between a buyer and a seller.
Comment: ASTM does an enormous amount of extremely valuable work when they are creating test specifications. For such things as D2700 Motor Octane Number; D86 Distillation tests, etc etc.
When they involve themselves into the arena of “products” then there is an enormous and inherent conflict of interest between the major participants that control the “levers of power” within ASTM. We have already been the victim of that inherent set of conflicting financial interests - - once. Which, after consulting with FAA General Counsel, is why we decided to proceed with the FAA specification.
1 Like
Since it is an experimental aircraft, you are running an experiment. So you decide what fuel to put in it just like you decide what avionics to put in it and what door latches to use. After flight testing it for long enough, if you’re still alive, the FAA says you can take passengers!
Putting a different fuel in would probably be a major change and require a trip to the FSDO and additional flight testing and a logbook entry at the end, just like when the plane was first built.
All that said, I know the EAA is working on the issue. So it’s possible they’ll get a special route approved somehow that avoids every experimental aircraft owner in the country having to repeat their flight testing…and bog down every FSDO with the paperwork required.
1 Like
You’re not wrong…but the STC is a few hundred dollars, once in the life of the airplane. So I’m not going to hold my breath for such a solution, though it would be fair.
I believe that it is time for the politics to come to a complete stop. Everything that GAMI has done is what needs to be done to have an unleaded 100 aviation fuel out on the market. There will be no more need for low lead trailers anymore, so this should actually open up the distribution methonds. Let’s get licenses sold to the fuel manufacturers and get this fuel flowing. This is damn ridiculous.
1 Like
Keep fighting the good fight, George. You have a LOT of us out here pulling for you.
2 Likes
George - Thank you for a well written explanation of G100UL. My question is why are we not getting access to it? What is the holdup? What must be accomplished in order to get this to the “drop in” to replace 100LL?
So, we’ve just handed GAMI a monopoly on our fuel supply.
GAMI owns a patent on its G100UL fuel. The purpose of a patent is to grant a monopoly for a limited time to the inventor of a useful innovation.
So yes, GAMI has a monopoly on G100UL. That is not a problem. GAMI will not be the only producer of G100UL, because they are NOT a fuel producer. GAMI licenses fuel producers to manufacture G100UL. There is no reason for there to be only one producer of G100UL. It’s likely that most of the companies currently producing 100LL will become producers of G100UL.
The patent simply ensures that GAMI can get paid for its work of inventing the fuel.
The reason there is only one TEL supplier has nothing to do with patents or monopolies or ASTM. It’s because the market for TEL is very small, and no one else considers the expense of starting TEL production to be worth the reward.
ASTM does not do what you think it does.
2 Likes
The FBOs all have contracts with (primarily ? 90% 90+% ) a small group (3-4) of “Distributors.”
In general, the FBO - Distributor contracts forbid the FBOs from selling any fuel that does not come from their contracted Distributor.
If the Distributors refuse to bring their FBOs G100UL - - the FBOs are unable to stock and sell G100UL avgas.
So, that very small group of Distributors who have a classic (choosing words carefully) “dominant” market position - - have decided not to bring G100UL Avgas to any of their FBOs.
3 Likes