The letter (copied in full below) said, in part, “At this time, without additional information regarding fuels that have undergone the STC approval process, such as GAMI G100UL, Piper cannot approve the use of these fuels in any Piper airplane. Piper has not evaluated any STC fuels, including GAMI G100UL, for use in any Piper airplane model. Piper does not have sufficient information to evaluate the chemical properties of the fuel and how it may interact with materials throughout the fuel system, including but not limited to: the airframe surfaces and structures, fuel tanks (materials, sealants, bladders, gaskets, etc.), fuel quantity gauging components, fuel lines, and other fuel system components (pumps, valves, sensors, etc.).”
Wow!!! This fiasco just gets better as the days go by… Lunacy on the loose… This is astounding.
Break out the ultra big bags of popcorn, or, cornpop depending on your persuasion.
When are we going to admit UL 94 is the answer to the lead problem in aviation. Let all the People that bought aircraft that need to use 100 octane fuel, modify their Aircraft to run on it and quit dragging the rest of us down that don’t need the 100 octane fuel. The 100 octane crowd has been dragging us down for the last 40 years on a product that cost more money and has done terrible damage to our engines costing us with more frequent oil changes, fouled spark plugs, damaged valves that are covered with lead deposits, and reduced TBO times. We should’ve never gotten rid of 80 octane fuel. That was a curse brought on us by the 100 octane crowd.
No.
The “one fuel” mentality is what got us to where we are today.
Yes.
Do UL 94 immediately without even thinking about it. Do it yesterday.
Then let to 100 crowd decide whether to convert to 94UL OR to let them use one of the new 100UL alternatives.
WHAT I DON’T WANT is a some new “one fuel” mentality with 100 octane only that costs us private pilots and extra $3/gallon and makes us change our engines and/or airframes. Have 94UL now for lot of us pilots and then let the 100LL users figure out a way to use 94UL or a way to us 100LL safely.
To be clear, does Piper “approve” of the use of any STC’d products in their airplanes? The whole point of the STC process is that it is a regulatory path to modify an existing type-certificated airplane by adding something that the original manufacturer did not supply or test. The creator of the STC is responsible for providing sufficient test data to demonstrate to the FAA that the modification is safe. GAMI did that with G100UL, and earned their STC.
Back to the Stone Age then. Of course no one ever questions why airplane makers cannot be bothered to make the actual engines…
And you can be sure they will not look for “additional information” – if it worked in the 1940s (sealing fuel tanks with gunk for example) it is good enough for 2025.
Quickly turning into a cluster. Add this to the BS that’s going on with paint (a very hard acrylic) damage by splash when soft fuel hoses and pump diaphragms soaking in G100UL are A-OK. No doubt Piper’s lawyers are behind this latest maneuver. Keep this up and environmentally conscious states like California will press the OFF button on GA. Maybe Piper should think about what happens to their company if a big chunk of their fleet and market disappears over night. Keep insisting on lead and that will happen. And soon. I spent a career in material science and would run G100UL in my aircraft tomorrow if I could get it. I’m far, far more concerned with rust on my cam than the effect of G100UL on my composite tanks. Just keep alcohol away and you’ll be fine.
Then with comments like your last 3 lines, I’d be very confident in saying that you have maybe 1 year of experience 30 to 40 times over and certainly not 30-40 years of experience, and i’m not being rude.
“At this time, … Piper cannot approve the use of these fuels in any Piper airplane.”
They are correct. Neither at this time, nor at any time, can they approve any fuel being used in their aircraft. Only the FAA can do that. Otherwise, what they are saying is that all STCs are invalid.
So what are you doing to make that a reality, if only at your local airport?
If you haven’t done anything to help make that a reality, then complaining about it here isn’t going to help. But if you have tried to make that a reality at your local airport (or beyond) and it succeeded, then let us know what you did so others can repeat it. Or if you failed, then you would have an understanding of the difficulty of making that a reality.
I don’t personally care enough about G100UL vs 94UL, so I’m willing to see how things work out with the former. As such, I have not been trying to pursue getting 94UL installed at my local airport.
No OEM manufacturer “approves” ANY STC, the approval comes from the FAA after data is provided showing it is safe to use. That’s the point of the STC process: to allow a modification to the aircraft the the original manufacturer did not include.
This is just Piper trying to write themselves a “get out of jail free card” if something happens to one of their aircraft as a result of using this fuel. With this letter, they appear to be throwing out the Peterson and EAA autogas STCs, and possibly the STC process in general.
This whole thing stinks, especially since the STC approval process for G100UL involved far more stringent testing than the ASTM approval process.
You missed my point. Everyone will need to fend for themselves. Government obviously has not been an answer and we have 40 years of proof that they are not going to be.
100 octane users will need to get off their duff and either modify their engines OR find a way to use a 100LL alternative that they feel safe with.
“I” have asked for 94UL but in the interim “I” will stock an easily available alternative.
Captain Obvious here. If Piper won’t fall in line with all the work that goes into an STC, I have two questions. Are their components made from other materials that go into any other aircraft, like unobtanium or unicorn hooves? And if they wanted to commit only to their own test results, why didn’t they get off their ass and do it already?
This is going on for long enough that if they should have shown up for the prom when the doors opened, not when the band is packing up their instruments.
Granted, lawyers ruin everything, but as pointed out in other posts here (with no rhymn or reason behind objections to GAMI G100UL), their letter would cover other alternatives to leaded fuel.