Another reason not to run G100UL…

FPK1 said:
If G100UL is so bad, why hasn't the FAA suspended or cancelled the STC? Or is it just too soon and they are collecting data...?
Click to expand...
Prior to Nov 6, 2024, and even since, precisely who at the FAA do you believe is willing to risk their career by going against the GREENS and being the guy or gal to sign the order ending the leading alternative to TEL-based fuel? The only hope of that is finding someone who's willing to do so on the day they retire to begin collecting a CSRS pension.
 
WDD said:
So it doesn’t have 100 Octane???
Click to expand...
Swift says it's time to test it on high horsepower turbocharged engines. And the engine they selected is the only tsio- 550 already approved for use on 94 octane.

Could have swore I read the engines that really need it would need to be derated or have timing adjusted.

Either they're being overly careful, or 100r is the next step in planned obsolescence similar to 94ul
 
Lot's of speculation in this thread about G100LL and the politics and payoffs. It really is not that complicated. A few years ago, POA and a lot of other forums were screaming for effectively chopping off the heads at the FAA for failure to approve the G100UL STC. The FAA legally has to work with known data. At the time, if you listen to what the FAA stated, the FAA was resistant to approving a fuel via STC since it had not been done before, and the fleet had a largely unknown state making known conditions questionable which made it very difficult for the FAA to move forward.

GAMI brought known conditions and material testing, along with testing the harshest engine known to the FAA. From there, legally the FAA really had no choice.

Now, we are at the point where the FAA has approved the STC.

Owners are finding leaks which were previously ignored, and maintenance not done to standard. This is causing paint to peel is the most common complaint. Lab testing of O-rings, causing leaks that are NOT a safety of flight issue will not get the FAA's attention. When there is a safety of flight issue, which can be directly pointed to the fuel, the FAA will then start to really act. In the meantime, legally all the FAA can do is gather data (and this is all we would want them to do).

Think back to the Mobil 1 synthetic oil debacle. The market did a fine job of cleaning it up. The same thing will happen here.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Lot's of speculation in this thread about G100LL and the politics and payoffs. It really is not that complicated. A few years ago, POA and a lot of other forums were screaming for effectively chopping off the heads at the FAA for failure to approve the G100UL STC. The FAA legally has to work with known data. At the time, if you listen to what the FAA stated, the FAA was resistant to approving a fuel via STC since it had not been done before, and the fleet had a largely unknown state making known conditions questionable which made it very difficult for the FAA to move forward.

GAMI brought known conditions and material testing, along with testing the harshest engine known to the FAA. From there, legally the FAA really had no choice.

Now, we are at the point where the FAA has approved the STC.

Owners are finding leaks which were previously ignored, and maintenance not done to standard. This is causing paint to peel is the most common complaint. Lab testing of O-rings, causing leaks that are NOT a safety of flight issue will not get the FAA's attention. When there is a safety of flight issue, which can be directly pointed to the fuel, the FAA will then start to really act. In the meantime, legally all the FAA can do is gather data (and this is all we would want them to do).

Think back to the Mobil 1 synthetic oil debacle. The market did a fine job of cleaning it up. The same thing will happen here.

Tim
Click to expand...
Except fuels had been approved by stc previously.
 
FPK1 said:
If G100UL is so bad, why hasn't the FAA suspended or cancelled the STC? Or is it just too soon and they are collecting data...?
Click to expand...
There is an established procedure involved when issues are noted with any type certificate. Initially it starts with the STC holder as they must report to the FAA any failure, malfunction, or defect in any item they produced per Part 21.3. If warranted the FAA initiates its own inquiry which they have with the issue of SAIB 2025-04. However, if at any time the FAA believes there is a safety of flight concern, the proper procedural step would be the issuance of an AD vs a suspension or revocation of the STC.
 
WDD said:
CEO's can be great at running processes, but that doesn't mean they should be the company spokesman.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of Sonex and John Monnett. Great guy and very smart but a not so much a public relations sort of fella ... :dunno:
 
Apparently, 100R is amazing....



xxxxx From the Swift Website
S 100R SAFE FOR USE NOW?

  • ENGINE TEST - Swift Fuels has completed over 350-hours of very high stress engine endurance testing on the Lycoming IO-360-L2A – well beyond the minimum required 150-hour FAA certification test. PAFI and Lycoming endorsed our longer duration operability test and Hartzell endorsed using a propeller to instill realistic vibration stresses. Physical wear of key engine parts was measured before and after the test and found to be well within the recommended wear limits, most were within “NEW” wear limits, spark plugs ran clean, intake and exhaust valves were clean, and there was no valve seat recession. There was no loss of compression in the cylinders at 78/80 psi after 400 stressful test hours. Detonation testing was completed in an FAA-conforming Lycoming’s test facility in Williamsport, PA and reported adequate detonation margin. The overall results were excellent and were fully endorsed by our FAA certification team. This information has also been presented to ASTM International.
 
WDD said:
Apparently, 100R is amazing....



xxxxx From the Swift Website
S 100R SAFE FOR USE NOW?

  • ENGINE TEST - Swift Fuels has completed over 350-hours of very high stress engine endurance testing on the Lycoming IO-360-L2A – well beyond the minimum required 150-hour FAA certification test. PAFI and Lycoming endorsed our longer duration operability test and Hartzell endorsed using a propeller to instill realistic vibration stresses. Physical wear of key engine parts was measured before and after the test and found to be well within the recommended wear limits, most were within “NEW” wear limits, spark plugs ran clean, intake and exhaust valves were clean, and there was no valve seat recession. There was no loss of compression in the cylinders at 78/80 psi after 400 stressful test hours. Detonation testing was completed in an FAA-conforming Lycoming’s test facility in Williamsport, PA and reported adequate detonation margin. The overall results were excellent and were fully endorsed by our FAA certification team. This information has also been presented to ASTM International.
Click to expand...
As long as you are running an engine that works fine on 94UL or mogas.
 
Hang 4 said:
As long as you are running an engine that works fine on 94UL or mogas.
Click to expand...
I swear they are in phase 3 testing with a high compression engine. Claim they are testing with the 100 octane drinking 20% of the fleet that uses 80% of the avgas, etc.

Is that wrong?
 
WDD said:
I swear they are in phase 3 testing with a high compression engine. Claim they are testing with the 100 octane drinking 20% of the fleet that uses 80% of the avgas, etc.

Is that wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's the one turbo engine that can run 94UL. TSIO 550K. No evidence of testing on a engine that requires 100 octane, unlike G100UL.
 
WDD said:
Apparently, 100R is amazing....



xxxxx From the Swift Website
S 100R SAFE FOR USE NOW?

  • ENGINE TEST - Swift Fuels has completed over 350-hours of very high stress engine endurance testing on the Lycoming IO-360-L2A – well beyond the minimum required 150-hour FAA certification test. PAFI and Lycoming endorsed our longer duration operability test and Hartzell endorsed using a propeller to instill realistic vibration stresses. Physical wear of key engine parts was measured before and after the test and found to be well within the recommended wear limits, most were within “NEW” wear limits, spark plugs ran clean, intake and exhaust valves were clean, and there was no valve seat recession. There was no loss of compression in the cylinders at 78/80 psi after 400 stressful test hours. Detonation testing was completed in an FAA-conforming Lycoming’s test facility in Williamsport, PA and reported adequate detonation margin. The overall results were excellent and were fully endorsed by our FAA certification team. This information has also been presented to ASTM International.
Click to expand...
How is it working on a TIO-540 at a simulated altitude of 25,000ft?
 
WDD said:
Now why aren’t they testing that?
Click to expand...
I don't know. If I was looking for a replacement for everything 100LL, I would work with the most difficult ones first. If it works for that in a low wing, I would think that most everything else should work without much/any issue.
 
ateamer said:
Different methods are used to rate knock resistance in avgas and automotive gas. 93 auto gas is basically the same as 100LL, and 100LL would be 105 or more on the automotive scale.
Click to expand...

AVGAS rating is similar to Auto MON. Auto fuels are listed on the pump as AKI in the US, where AKI = (RON + MON)/2 In most fuels, the MON is about 10 points below the RON. So 93 AKI auto fuel is an MON of around 88. WAY below 100LL.

Yes, 100LL would be around 105 AKI.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
Let all who wanna run G100UL also get to opt in to Experimental if they wanted. That way they wouldn’t have to suffer the other cost consequences (oring, bladders, paint) and the baked-in costs of certified plane compliance. Give em an option, with all the good and bad that comes with it.
Click to expand...
Experimental what? There is no catch-all "Take any airplane and do whatever you want" Experimental category. It's not amateur built, and most of the rest of the options are either related to certifying modifications or exhibition/air racing which comes with other restrictions and requirements.

So, sure, you could call it Experimental R&D for a limited amount of time, but then you'd have to spend the money to get an STC for the modifications you made and put it back in the Normal category, which is WAY more expensive than the normal "baked-in costs of certified plane compliance" in the form of buying modifications that someone else STCed.
 
Not sure which thread to put this in. Ethanol and aviation don’t mix for me so I’m surprised to see this:

e360.yale.edu

The ‘Green’ Aviation Fuel That Would Increase Carbon Emissions

The U.S. agriculture lobby has long promoted ethanol for cars. If President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law, the industry would be given tax credits for producing crop-based fuel for planes, too, despite evidence it would spur deforestation and increase emissions.
e360.yale.edu e360.yale.edu
 
Randomskylane said:
Not sure which thread to put this in. Ethanol and aviation don’t mix for me so I’m surprised to see this:

e360.yale.edu

The ‘Green’ Aviation Fuel That Would Increase Carbon Emissions

The U.S. agriculture lobby has long promoted ethanol for cars. If President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law, the industry would be given tax credits for producing crop-based fuel for planes, too, despite evidence it would spur deforestation and increase emissions.
e360.yale.edu e360.yale.edu
Click to expand...
This is specific to Jet fuel. Think bio diesel.
 
Randomskylane said:
Not sure which thread to put this in. Ethanol and aviation don’t mix for me so I’m surprised to see this:

e360.yale.edu

The ‘Green’ Aviation Fuel That Would Increase Carbon Emissions

The U.S. agriculture lobby has long promoted ethanol for cars. If President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law, the industry would be given tax credits for producing crop-based fuel for planes, too, despite evidence it would spur deforestation and increase emissions.
e360.yale.edu e360.yale.edu
Click to expand...
Eh.... too many leading modifiers, such as "egregious", "devastating", etc. It is an editorial IMHO. OK, nothing wrong with an editorial, but I choose not to rely on editorials as an unbiased source of facts.

My editorial - making jet fuel from agriculture is a gimmick, it can't possibly be cheaper, more reliable, and be able to supply the demand vs what we currently use. Somewhat cynical - I've seen airlines put this out for what I believe is PR. It's not capable of actually ever doing anything substantial.
 
I was able to speak to the Beech Baron owner and included it in my recent video update.

 
Been a few months and have heard crickets on this. Has this been addressed? Was it a few isolated incidents?
 
I suspect GAMI's strategy of "blame the customer's sheisty maintenance for all teething issues" strategy is paying off handsomely in sales volume.
 
Racerx said:
Been a few months and have heard crickets on this. Has this been addressed? Was it a few isolated incidents?
Click to expand...

I heard an unsubstantiated rumor that GAMI had instituted a program wherein any aircraft owner who has had paint damaged by G100UL can submit a form and photos of the damage. GAMI will in turn send out a payment for an undisclosed amount on the condition that the owner delete the photos and keep his mouth shut.

Naturally, I doubt the veracity of the story, but it might explain why you've heard nothing but crickets.
 
Add to that Swift changing their FAQ's for their barely existing product to highlight that they don't have material compatibility issues while at the same time removing any reference to actually working in engines that have detonation issues. There's multiple groups peeing in this pool.
 
Hang 4 said:
There's multiple groups peeing in this pool.
Click to expand...

But don't worry - EAGLE is going to solve the whole thing for us. Of course, they might have to ask for an additional ten years and another gazillion bucks,....
 
  • Haha
Reactions: WDD
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top