2024 the year of GAMI - finally?

Hengelo

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
486
Display Name

Display name:
Hengelo
Longtime lurker on this topic; it’s incredible to me how long this is taking.

 
Short of a nation-wide ban on leaded fuels, they won't gain any traction if they can't get the prices at current avgas levels or lower.

Worse will be when 100LL goes away and we are left with maybe one supplier. Without the price competition, who knows what the price could be. Sadly, only time will tell.
 
Short of a nation-wide ban on leaded fuels, they won't gain any traction if they can't get the prices at current avgas levels or lower.
So true. Given a choice most people will go with the cheapest option all the time.
 
Worse will be when 100LL goes away and we are left with maybe one supplier. Without the price competition, who knows what the price could be. Sadly, only time will tell.
I thought GAMI was planning to license others to do production and distribution.
 
So true. Given a choice most people will go with the cheapest option all the time.
What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?

My impression was that lead builds up in the engine, can foul plugs, and shortens the overhaul interval. Am I missing something? I don't see it adding up to $1/gal, but there is some benefit, right?
 
What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?

My impression was that lead builds up in the engine, can foul plugs, and shortens the overhaul interval. Am I missing something? I don't see it adding up to $1/gal, but there is some benefit, right?
Agreed, but most don't think that far into it. Or are pilots a race of superior thinkers?
 
What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?

My impression was that lead builds up in the engine, can foul plugs, and shortens the overhaul interval. Am I missing something? I don't see it adding up to $1/gal, but there is some benefit, right?

Yes, all speculated benefits, but not yet quantified.
 
Agreed, but most don't think that far into it. Or are pilots a race of superior thinkers?
No, just more stubborn than the average population.

$1/gal amounts to $500-750 more in fuel between oil changes. 20-30K over the theoretical lifetime of the engine. I doubt switching to unleaded gas will benefit me enough to justify half to two thirds of the overhaul price in extra fuel costs.
 
No, just more stubborn than the average population.

$1/gal amounts to $500-750 more in fuel between oil changes. 20-30K over the theoretical lifetime of the engine. I doubt switching to unleaded gas will benefit me enough to justify half to two thirds of the overhaul price in extra fuel costs.
Let's think of it this way:

8 gal/hr @ $1/gal price premium, thus:
$8/hr additional cost

TBOH: 2,000 hr, thus:

$16,000 extra fuel cost per overhaul. That's about 53% of a $30K IO-360 overhaul.
It seems doubtful that those numbers make the change to 100UL self-funding, unless you eliminate a bunch of
maintenance downtime for fouled plugs or similar.

What I wonder, though, is whether a wholesale change to UL would allow a swap to closed-loop fuel management similar to that used in modern automobiles (O2 sensors don't tolerate lead). That could improve the fuel efficiency and power output markedly, which might pay for itself.
 
Didn't a university flight school switch to one of the unleaded fuels? Then took careful analysis of some wear and maintenance items, then decided to go back to 100ll.

Yep here it is.

They were running Swift 94UL, not the GAMI 100UL. They also did not cite any base data to show that the change was attributable to the UL, or if it even was a change from normal.
 
What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?
What is it? Theoretical

As to this $1/gallon being thrown about, that's an increase in production cost, not cost at the pump. That'll multiply at each step until, at the pump, it's an increase of $2, $3, $5. . . . I'll be shocked if G100UL gets sold anywhere for less than $10/gallon, and I won't be surprised if it's $15.
 
Worse will be when 100LL goes away and we are left with maybe one supplier. Without the price competition, who knows what the price could be. Sadly, only time will tell.
GAMI is not a supplier of fuel. They developed the fuel. ANYONE can make it under license.
 
What is the cost reduction in maintenance and engine longevity from removing the lead from AvGas?

My impression was that lead builds up in the engine, can foul plugs, and shortens the overhaul interval. Am I missing something? I don't see it adding up to $1/gal, but there is some benefit, right?
Lycoming already allows double the interval for oil changes with UL fuel.
 
What is it? Theoretical

As to this $1/gallon being thrown about, that's an increase in production cost, not cost at the pump. That'll multiply at each step until, at the pump, it's an increase of $2, $3, $5. . . . I'll be shocked if G100UL gets sold anywhere for less than $10/gallon, and I won't be surprised if it's $15.
Braly’s speculation is the cost increase to the consumer.
 
8 gal/hr @ $1/gal price premium, thus:
$8/hr additional cost

TBOH: 2,000 hr, thus:

$16,000 extra fuel cost per overhaul. That's about 53% of a $30K IO-360 overhaul.
It seems doubtful that those numbers make the change to 100UL self-funding, unless you eliminate a bunch of
maintenance downtime for fouled plugs or similar.

Lycoming already allows double the interval for oil changes with UL fuel.
OK, so we go from 50 hours to 100 hours. That drops us from 40 changes between overhauls to 20. 20 oil changes @$250 is $5K. That's significant - enough to offset about a third of the extra cost of the UL fuel.
 
So we are now starting to "rationalize" the fuel cost increases with fewer oil changes and extra BTUs per gallon and extended TBO's?....this is just cray cray. o_O
 
So we are now starting to "rationalize" the fuel cost increases with fewer oil changes and extra BTUs per gallon and extended TBO's?....this is just cray cray. o_O

No more cray-cray than worrying about theoretical fuel cost increases.

Like most changes, there will be pluses and minuses, but what they will be and which will be greater or lesser is mere speculation at this point.
 
Braly’s speculation is the cost increase to the consumer.
From the AvWeb article: The costs of the components in a gallon of G100UL avgas is between 85 cents and $1.15 per gallon more than the cost of those components used in making a gallon of 100LL. That’s overhead, not consumer cost.
 
OK, so we go from 50 hours to 100 hours. That drops us from 40 changes between overhauls to 20. 20 oil changes @$250 is $5K. That's significant - enough to offset about a third of the extra cost of the UL fuel.
I change my own oil. Cost of oil and filter is half of what you mentioned. That's not enough (cost-wise) to make me switch. And as OCT mentioned above, if the extra $1 is their production cost, not price at the pump, then the math becomes even more unfavorable for them.

At that point, we ethanol-proof our fuel systems, figure out a safe additive to handle water in fuel (I hear some people mention isopropyl alcohol?) and we convince airport managers to fill their tanks with mogas instead.
 
From the AvWeb article: The costs of the components in a gallon of G100UL avgas is between 85 cents and $1.15 per gallon more than the cost of those components used in making a gallon of 100LL. That’s overhead, not consumer cost.
Not what Braly has said.
 
So true. Given a choice most people will go with the cheapest option all the time.
In the US, IPhone has 57% of the sales and is not the cheapest. The same thing could be said for Foreflight and Tide detergent……

If some of the positive claims for this fuel prove true, (less fouling, longer spark plug life, longer TBOs, ect) pilots will pay the premium.
 
As soon as it's available at the first couple of California airports, they'll ban lead statewide, and the rest of the country will follow. Just like cars, there used to be cars with "California" or "49 states" emissions controls, now there's just one version.
 
, there used to be cars with "California" or "49 states" emissions controls
Whoa... memories of watching "the price is right" and Rod Roddy saying "a newww caaaarrr....features, blah blah ... and California emissions..." :D
 
At that point, we ethanol-proof our fuel systems, figure out a safe additive to handle water in fuel (I hear some people mention isopropyl alcohol?) and we convince airport managers to fill their tanks with mogas instead.
Having lost an engine due to mis-labeled pump gas, I would strongly suggest that this is a TERRIBLE idea.

The range of inconsistency in automotive pump gasoline is extreme, and the type of fuel you get in different locations can be massively different, based on differences between supplier, local blend regulations, and a whole lot of other stuff.

I have zero interest in trusting my life to it.
 
At that point, we ethanol-proof our fuel systems, figure out a safe additive to handle water in fuel (I hear some people mention isopropyl alcohol?) and we convince airport managers to fill their tanks with mogas instead.

Waiting to hear how you plan to address that vapor pressure problem with some low-wings....
 
There's already only supplier of TEL
I have heard this over and over and seems not to be true. A couple of examples:
 
That added a lot to the conversation.
Not meant to…just clarifying a misconception. I have been following George Braly’s comments in various public forums and the final cost is to be determined by the retailer but expected to be about $1 (give or take) at the pump more than 100LL. If the components cost $.85-1.15 more per gallon to produce that would end up costing quite a bit more at the pump compared to current fuels.
 
I have heard this over and over and seems not to be true. A couple of examples:
To clarify, there is one worldwide approved supplier of TEL. I doubt Shell, ExxonMobil and others are willing to go through qualifying any Chinese suppliers of a product with the environmental footprint and handling issues of TEL. Not talking about impact of flying, but rather the supply chain impact upstream of the airport fuel pump. It just doesn't work that way.
 
Back
Top