Another reason not to run G100UL…

UngaWunga said:
Have there any reports of valve issues with aircraft engines run on Mogas? If no, then lead's main benefit in avgas is the anti-knock and octane boost properties?
Click to expand...

There was a POA thread last year about valve issues at UND from unleaded.
 
cowman said:
is it possible simply using a different paint would fix it?
Click to expand...

"Simply?!"

Painting my baby Beech last year cost $22,000. You expect me to use a fuel that will damage it and simply shrug my shoulders as though it's just a minor inconvenience?
 
Half Fast said:
"Simply?!"

Painting my baby Beech last year cost $22,000. You expect me to use a fuel that will damage it and simply shrug my shoulders as though it's just a minor inconvenience?
Click to expand...
For future paint jobs, it might be useful information. If I can, when I get my RV painted in another 3 years when I get to the front of that particular queue, I would choose a paint that works with unleaded fuels. But I would certainly be less than enthusiastic about having to paint a plane (especially a recently painted one) in order to keep flying due to changes in fuel availability.
 
Half Fast said:
"Simply?!"

Painting my baby Beech last year cost $22,000. You expect me to use a fuel that will damage it and simply shrug my shoulders as though it's just a minor inconvenience?
Click to expand...
Don’t repaint all of it, just where the leaks show!
 
EdFred said:
I think we all know this.…
Click to expand...
Knowing something and acknowledging that the fact is either a strength, weakness, opportunity, or threat are two different things. Each player (FAA, OEM, Braley, Swift, Owners, TLAs) gets to define this in their own terms, and there may be no crossover or alignment among/between stakeholders.

EdFred said:
…The issue seems to be that the GAMI solution isn't a solution - …
Click to expand...
Or it’s a solution for some. The fact is there’s a massive majority of airframes and, by extension, engines designed and optimized for 100LL. Performance equivalence doesn’t solve for compatibility, although the STC process (presumably) provides owners with a magical piece of paper that says it does.

I wish I had an answer, but the fact is 100LL’s demise is due to regulatory actions and a public perception that’s emotion based and doesn’t care about the impact to directly affected parties.

At least with a minimum of one STC in the wild, the FAA can unequivocally state the problem is solved from their perspective; the rest is just details.
 
Hang 4 said:
I find it fascinating that GAMI has been working on this for 10+ years. Including a Cirrus that ran G100UL for most of that time with no issues. I have no horse in this race, just not sure it's as bad as the interwebs make it out to be.
Click to expand...
Like killer clowns and drones? Truth is probably somewhere in between.
 
Hang 4 said:
I find it fascinating that GAMI has been working on this for 10+ years. Including a Cirrus that ran G100UL for most of that time with no issues. I have no horse in this race, just not sure it's as bad as the interwebs make it out to be.
Click to expand...

There has been very few problems reported in COPA with Cirrus. And so far, the couple of which I am aware, traced back to a bad sealant job (I forget the reason/where the "job" was).
The problem fundamentally is Cirrus is a fairly well known and established known quantity with effectively only a thirty year history. With the composite structure for the wet wing, there is significantly less issues with fuel tank sealants needing to bond and seal with metal structures, fuel bladders...
The result, the test platform was not very indicative of significant portions of the existing fleet.

Tim
 
cowman said:
It would seem like the hose and o-ring issue is not that hard to solve- unless I'm misunderstanding we do have compatible materials. So, unless I'm mistaken isn't that something that can be fixed with off the shelf generic replacement parts and a day or two of shop labor or less depending on the aircraft type? Then we'd just need to figure out a compatible material for fuel bladders/sealant for wet wings right?

Another annoyance/expense for aircraft owners but one that doesn't seem to me like that far out of bounds beyond what we normally deal with anyway. The FAA can just issue an AD and we can take care of that stuff I would think.
Click to expand...
I'm not an A&P/IA but my question to this logic is how many of those seals require partial or full engine disassembly? It's one thing to draft an AD, but I think if the AD effectively forces an engine overhaul on people there would be some serious pushback. Especially if it's in the interest to use a "better" fuel. My brain says you lose the better fuel argument when it requires work of that magnitude.
 
Will Kumley said:
I'm not an A&P/IA but my question to this logic is how many of those seals require partial or full engine disassembly? It's one thing to draft an AD, but I think if the AD effectively forces an engine overhaul on people there would be some serious pushback. Especially if it's in the interest to use a "better" fuel. My brain says you lose the better fuel argument when it requires work of that magnitude.
Click to expand...

I'm not an A&P either but I can't imagine any reason it would require an overhaul. I'm pretty sure everything internal to the engine that might get exposed to fuel is going to be metal. We're really just talking about fuel system and delivery components. Fuel tanks, lines, selector valves, pumps, carburetor/fuel injection components would be what we'd be looking at.
 
schmookeeg said:
Lyondell-Bassell is brain teflon
Click to expand...
I can actually remember that one, because Lyondell owned a chemical plant about 20mi down the road.

I don't know what to think. Braly claims to have done a lot of compatibility testing. He also claims that all the planes with paint damage showed signs of previous 100ll leaks. The paint damage seems to occur when the fuel is allowed to evaporate off the surface over a matter of weeks. The planes with issues all suffered from varying levels of neglect & deferred/ shoddy mx. Unfortunately, that describes many (most? ) of the planes in the fleet. There's a LONG thread that braly occasionally participates in over on beechtalk. That reminds me that I haven't checked in on it in a couple weeks. I can only take so much BT.

Otoh, the optics are REALLY bad, and frankly gami's response has also been lackluster. I am hopeful that the faa's efforts yield some fruit. Braly says that they are having good results with a couple of "ceramic" paint coatings that seem to be able to protect the paint against the fuel. It also seems that some paints are susceptible to damage and others aren't.

I don't trust swift any further than I can throw Chris d'costa. They, and all the others with candidate fuels have said that they will not be able to support all engines. As I said before, I'd rather fuel my plane with paint stripper than accept a decrease in performance.

Anyway, nothing I can do about it but watch and hope my airplane isn't reduced to the value of its weight in aluminum.
 
Jim K said:
Otoh, the optics are REALLY bad, and frankly gami's response has also been lackluster. I am hopeful that the faa's efforts yield some fruit. Braly says that they are having good results with a couple of "ceramic" paint coatings that seem to be able to protect the paint against the fuel. It also seems that some paints are susceptible to damage and others aren't.
Click to expand...

"Lackluster" is quite generous. Inventing conspiracy theories, playing "stump the chump" endlessly with the concerned public, and spending time pointing fingers at mechanics, sealants, hand-wavy "well you know cirrus changed sealants then changed back" nonsense is not remotely the sort of character I want from a fuel provider.

Discount ZZ Top needs to step aside and let the professionals in now. He got his roadblock cleared and his STC issued "despite all", now there is work to do. Much of it PR.
 
Jim K said:
I can actually remember that one, because Lyondell owned a chemical plant about 20mi down the road.

I don't know what to think. Braly claims to have done a lot of compatibility testing. He also claims that all the planes with paint damage showed signs of previous 100ll leaks. The paint damage seems to occur when the fuel is allowed to evaporate off the surface over a matter of weeks. The planes with issues all suffered from varying levels of neglect & deferred/ shoddy mx. Unfortunately, that describes many (most? ) of the planes in the fleet. There's a LONG thread that braly occasionally participates in over on beechtalk. That reminds me that I haven't checked in on it in a couple weeks. I can only take so much BT.

Otoh, the optics are REALLY bad, and frankly gami's response has also been lackluster. I am hopeful that the faa's efforts yield some fruit. Braly says that they are having good results with a couple of "ceramic" paint coatings that seem to be able to protect the paint against the fuel. It also seems that some paints are susceptible to damage and others aren't.

I don't trust swift any further than I can throw Chris d'costa. They, and all the others with candidate fuels have said that they will not be able to support all engines. As I said before, I'd rather fuel my plane with paint stripper than accept a decrease in performance.

Anyway, nothing I can do about it but watch and hope my airplane isn't reduced to the value of its weight in aluminum.
Click to expand...
Agree with everything including d'costa being a jabroni.

But suggesting a ceramic coating is weak sauce.

I've seen some say it softens and swells pro seal. The fuel lube test does look pretty damning as well.
 
EdFred said:
I think we all know this. The issue seems to be that the GAMI solution isn't a solution - well unless you're looking for a way to eat through bladders and paint. But the pro GAMI/Anti-100LL people seem to be saying "you don't need paint or fuel bladders and o rings! Just strip all the paint from your plane, and install some magical steel bladder and o rings in every airplane."

What I want presented as a legit solution:
About the same price as 100LL currently is/would be.​
Can be used from -60C to +50C and from -2000MSL to FL300​
Is a legit drop in for 100LL in ALL engines/aircraft.​
(I don't care that you fly a Cub and can burn 87 E15 from the Marathon at the corner.)​
Doesn't eat paint and dissolve bladders.​
Isn't reliant upon one single source to bring the non-kerosene sector to a halt if there's an issue.​
​

​
Click to expand...
Wow. Nothing like pie in the sky wishes.

But why not wish for under $2 a gallon price????

If what you ask is possible, don't you think someone over the past 20 plus years of trying to develop a replacement for 100LL would have done it?????
 
kaiser said:
This right here. I mean - we're at Ford Pinto bad at this point! And once it sets... culture eats strategy for lunch.
Click to expand...
Two likes for this. I'm afraid they've already lost the PR war.

It seems to have reached the point that all the "i haven't been following it" people have turned into "it eats anything made of rubber and maybe aluminum too".
 
Jim K said:
I can actually remember that one, because Lyondell owned a chemical plant about 20mi down the road.

I don't know what to think. Braly claims to have done a lot of compatibility testing. He also claims that all the planes with paint damage showed signs of previous 100ll leaks. The paint damage seems to occur when the fuel is allowed to evaporate off the surface over a matter of weeks. The planes with issues all suffered from varying levels of neglect & deferred/ shoddy mx. Unfortunately, that describes many (most? ) of the planes in the fleet. There's a LONG thread that braly occasionally participates in over on beechtalk. That reminds me that I haven't checked in on it in a couple weeks. I can only take so much BT.

Otoh, the optics are REALLY bad, and frankly gami's response has also been lackluster. I am hopeful that the faa's efforts yield some fruit. Braly says that they are having good results with a couple of "ceramic" paint coatings that seem to be able to protect the paint against the fuel. It also seems that some paints are susceptible to damage and others aren't.

I don't trust swift any further than I can throw Chris d'costa. They, and all the others with candidate fuels have said that they will not be able to support all engines. As I said before, I'd rather fuel my plane with paint stripper than accept a decrease in performance.

Anyway, nothing I can do about it but watch and hope my airplane isn't reduced to the value of its weight in aluminum.
Click to expand...

I immediately think of my tanks- they don't "leak" in the sense that there's no fuel dripping from them and if I leave the plane parked with full tanks for a month they'll still be full. However, there are multiple rivets stained with seepage along the bottom. My mechanic and I have been monitoring the situation for several years without seeing any change. On my mechanic's advice and not being in a hurry we've been holding off on sending the tanks off for a re-seal. I bet this situation is not uncommon. I also bet if I filled up these same tanks with G100UL I'd be seeing a leaky/paint peely situation too.

And now, not knowing what may happen with G100UL I have even more reason to defer it as I don't know if they might come out with a different tank sealant or some other tank retrofit down the line.

My first choice is to just keep running 100LL but if it becomes unavailable I'll absolutely throw a pile of money at getting whatever is required done to the airplane so it can burn the available fuel. I'm hoping that doesn't happen- I think there's surely enough of a demand for TEL someone will still make it. If not I think we'll figure out how to make G100UL or something else work. Five years is still a decent chunk of time for something to happen- TEL production extended, G100UL issues ironed out, some other fuel option, etc.
 
cowman said:
G100UL issues ironed out
Click to expand...
I'm hopeful they can figure something out. But when's the last time a product has **** the bed and was able to win back public perception? At least one that wasn't repurposed.

That's a tough road to hoe.
 
Last edited:
cowman said:
TEL production extended
Click to expand...
That seems to be the least likely option. No one in the west is going to do it. I'm honestly a little shocked the British government hasn't forced Innospec to "cease and desist"....yet.

I could see MAYBE China doing it. China already makes some, but @PaulMillner says the quality is really bad. We know the Chinese can make most anything at any quality level you're willing to pay for, but they also have a habit of cutting corners if they're not being watched. Otoh, they also have a history of slipping lead into products that aren't supposed to have it, so maybe it'd work out okay. We'll probably be at war with them over Taiwan by then anyway though.

Maybe India, after they get the iPhone production squared away.

Racerx said:
I'm hopeful they can figure something out. But when's the last time a product has **** the bed and was able to win back public perception?
Click to expand...
The government's monopoly on violence has a funny way of making consumers accept things they don't really want.
 
Jim K said:
…The government's monopoly on violence has a funny way of making consumers accept things they don't really want.
Click to expand...
While true, it seems everyone in this boat has settled on some version of hope as the strategy.

The topic at hand is a depressing one to me because I see little incentive by or motivation for FAA to solve the problem of satisfactory backwards compatibility since it’s not their job to do; FAA’s role is to define the game. In a way, it’s not unlike ruddervator skins. It’s not a problem for anyone until it is; then it’s existential.

Meanwhile, Rotax built a different mousetrap. Too bad they top out at 160hp and retrofit isn’t an option for many/most.
 
Racerx said:
I'm hopeful they can figure something out. But when's the last time a product has **** the bed and was able to win back public perception? At least one that wasn't repurposed.

That's a tough road to hoe.
Click to expand...
Easy, change the name when it goes mainstream. Most people won't know the difference.
 
Racerx said:
I'm hopeful they can figure something out. But when's the last time a product has **** the bed and was able to win back public perception? At least one that wasn't repurposed.

That's a tough road to hoe.
Click to expand...
Not exactly the same, but there was the "Doctor Killer" ruddervator.
 
Now, slight deviation - I understand 94UL is not suitable for the entire fleet, but for those that could burn it, are hardened valve seats available to alleviate any potential concerns?
 
Racerx said:
I'm hopeful they can figure something out. But when's the last time a product has **** the bed and was able to win back public perception? At least one that wasn't repurposed.
Click to expand...
Tylenol. Original Malibu when not run LOP and Va disrespected. Original MacBook Air. C4 (3?) Corvette. Comet. Pete Rose and Tiger Woods.
 
AV8R_87 said:
Now, slight deviation - I understand 94UL is not suitable for the entire fleet, but for those that could burn it, are hardened valve seats available to alleviate any potential concerns?
Click to expand...
According to Mike Busch, Lycoming has been using hardened valve seats for decades. Continental since like 2012 or something.
 
Steamflyer said:
Tylenol. Original Malibu when not run LOP and Va disrespected. Original MacBook Air. C4 (3?) Corvette. Comet. Pete Rose and Tiger Woods.
Click to expand...
Squarebodu Chevy pickups. Remember when 60 minutes blew one up for a story about them exploding in crashes?
 
The automotive industry has gone through massive fluid changes and should be seen as an example of how to handle this. take air conditioning, the gas used in the compressor has changed two or three times and now it's known what o-rings go with what type of " freon ". Ditto for ethanol and fuel. they seem to have overcome any issue in a matter of 1 to 2 development cycles on a vehicle. Marine and small engines are different because they are around so much water, but ethanol has been you safely in aircraft for decades.

if all it requires is o-rings to be changed then start changing o-rings. The money you save in spark plugs and valves not fouling and oil not sludging up should easily offset the cost of a few dollars worth of o-rings. as for fuel bladders well reformulating the lining is an issue, but just like ADSB people paid the price and got the upgrade and now realize the outstanding benefits of the horrible ADSB that was forced upon them.
 
Jim K said:
I don't trust swift any further than I can throw Chris d'costa. They, and all the others with candidate fuels have said that they will not be able to support all engines. As I said before, I'd rather fuel my plane with paint stripper than accept a decrease in performance.
Click to expand...

Under EAGLE, and so far, the position of the other companies, including Swift, is they are not going to reduce performance of airplanes. Instead, possible limitations of the fuel will be due to material compatibility problems. Hence, it may not be a full drop in replacement. After 50 years of companies trying to make a complete drop in replacement, I do not think it will happen.

Tim
 
pfarber said:
The automotive industry has gone through massive fluid changes and should be seen as an example of how to handle this. take air conditioning, the gas used in the compressor has changed two or three times and now it's known what o-rings go with what type of " freon ". Ditto for ethanol and fuel. they seem to have overcome any issue in a matter of 1 to 2 development cycles on a vehicle. Marine and small engines are different because they are around so much water, but ethanol has been you safely in aircraft for decades.

if all it requires is o-rings to be changed then start changing o-rings. The money you save in spark plugs and valves not fouling and oil not sludging up should easily offset the cost of a few dollars worth of o-rings. as for fuel bladders well reformulating the lining is an issue, but just like ADSB people paid the price and got the upgrade and now realize the outstanding benefits of the horrible ADSB that was forced upon them.
Click to expand...

The problem is one of economies of scale along with certification. Aviation does not have the economics along with a much higher barrier on certification. Makes it very hard to apply automotive processes and thoughts to aviation. You can potentially adopt some of the material insights, but not really the processes.

Tim
 
Steamflyer said:
Tylenol. Original Malibu when not run LOP and Va disrespected. Original MacBook Air. C4 (3?) Corvette. Comet. Pete Rose and Tiger Woods.
Click to expand...

I don't think tylenol is a good example. Nobody is tampering will the fuel.
 
tspear said:
Under EAGLE, and so far, the position of the other companies, including Swift, is they are not going to reduce performance of airplanes. Instead, possible limitations of the fuel will be due to material compatibility problems. Hence, it may not be a full drop in replacement. After 50 years of companies trying to make a complete drop in replacement, I do not think it will happen.

Tim
Click to expand...
That's not exactly correct. The latest version from Swift requires derating some of the higher HP engines to avoid detonation. G100UL does not. G100UL appears to be a full solution for the octane requirement and fully fungible with 100LL, but potentially has material compatibility challenges.
 
Random wondering...

If you mix G100UL 50/50 with 100LL does it still strip the paint and cause the other issues? Curious if there is a dilution that would work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top