GAMI G100UL STC available now

I'm just gonna carry some blue food coloring with me, and if I run into a place that has only this, top 'er off, and add the food coloring in case of ramp check.

An STC for this is ********. Just make the money on the sale of the fuel, like they're doing anyway. not going to pay for an STC where I *may* at some point use the fuel.

Especially after they buy out the STC from another company (not the fuel, but for fuel tanks) and then orphan it. **** you GAMI.
 
It's been forever since I've been on here, but I thought I would throw in a few thoughts.

1) As an incentive to adopt the STC before fuel is available, we'd like to offer free replacement engine STCs to the original purchaser for a period of 10 years. That offer is currently set to expire 1 June 2023.

2) We are offering a $100 rebate on the first tank of G100UL that you buy for STC purchases made this month (Jan 2023).

To the poster "NealRomeoGolf": Sorry, I'm the only one who looks at that data. Sometimes I may get 20-30 of those per day and 50-60 phone calls. it's easy for me to get lost. A gentle email reminder helps me out. Also, if you call me, I'll drop everything and go over your data with you on the phone. Even if you bought them 20 years ago, I'll still analyse your data for you.

John-Paul

GAMI
 
EdFred said:
I'm just gonna carry some blue food coloring with me, and if I run into a place that has only this, top 'er off, and add the food coloring in case of ramp check.

An STC for this is ********. Just make the money on the sale of the fuel, like they're doing anyway. not going to pay for an STC where I *may* at some point use the fuel.

Especially after they buy out the STC from another company (not the fuel, but for fuel tanks) and then orphan it. **** you GAMI.
Click to expand...

That's a little harsh, but I guess that's the kinda thing you get on a public forum where no one uses their real names.

Like I posted elsewhere, with or without our involvement, 100LL is going away. You could always develop and certify your own fuel. It took us 12 years and cost millions of dollars of non-taxpayer money. The idea is that the sale of the STC will pay for "some" of that past work PLUS fund the deployment of the fuel to places that are banning or threatening to ban 100LL. That isn't a cheap or easy prospect, and that money has to come from somewhere. It's true there are some "cents per gallon" to be made on the licensing of the fuel, but truthfully it probably isn't as much as you think, and it will be years before all the overhead is covered on the vast progress we've made up to this point. We figure most pilots would rather pay roughly the cost of filling up the aircraft one time for an STC vs the alternatives (being 1) No fuel for your aircraft or 2) having to develop your own alternative fuel). I could be wrong about all that, though.

John-Paul

(edited for a typo)
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Is an experimental aircraft....that has no type certificate....required to purchase an STC? o_O
Click to expand...

Experimental aircraft won't need an STC. You really don't need fuel filler placards, either, but you can get some from us if you'd like or print your own.

John-Paul

(Edited for odd wording)
 
John-Paul Townsend said:
That's a little harsh, but I guess that's the kinda thing you get on a public forum where no one uses their real names.

Like I posted elsewhere, with or without our involvement, 100LL is going away. You could always develop and certify your own fuel. It took us 12 years and cost millions of dollars of non-taxpayer money. The idea is that the sale of the STC will pay for "some" of that past work PLUS fund the deployment of the fuel to places that are banning or threatening to ban 100LL. That isn't a cheap or easy prospect, and that money has to come from somewhere. It's true there are some "cents per gallon" to be made on the licensing of the fuel, but truthfully it probably isn't as much as you think, and it will be years before all the overhead is covered on the vast progress we've made up to this point. We figure most pilots would rather pay roughly the cost of filling up the aircraft one time for an STC vs the alternatives (being 1) No fuel for your aircraft or 2) having to develop your own alternative fuel). I could be wrong about all that, though.

John-Paul

(edited for a typo)
Click to expand...

Everyone on this forum knows who I am, I'm not anonymous. And if it makes you feel better I'll say it in person. I'll be at Rough River in April. Especially since I have Osborne tip tanks which you bought out and according to your website dont even make/carry anymore because, well greed. Hope no one ever smashes into one and I have to replace it. But hey, **** everyone else in the name of money grubbing.
 
EdFred said:
Everyone on this forum knows who I am, I'm not anonymous. And if it makes you feel better I'll say it in person. I'll be at Rough River in April. Especially since I have Osborne tip tanks which you bought out and according to your website dont even make/carry anymore because, well greed. Hope no one ever smashes into one and I have to replace it. But hey, **** everyone else in the name of money grubbing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where Rough RIver is. I'll be at Sun N Fun, though. We don't yet have the PMA to reproduce the old Osborne parts, but we're very close to obtaining that. Once we do, those will be back in full production. Not that you probably care, but after John Osborne passed away we were in a position where we might not be able to get the tip tanks anymore. We really wanted to keep that option for our TN Bonanza installations. We were offered the opportunity to buy the STCs, and after a lot of deliberation, we accepted. Honestly, if it was all about "greed" or "money grubbing," we wouldn't be in aviation. I can tell you've probably never spent any real time talking to anyone who works here. Your claims would seem pretty foolish to anyone who had, and knew what kind of people we are.

John-Paul
 
Jeff Oslick said:
We have a little work to do to get our approval for G100UL. We have Pponk O-470-50 which, through the oddities of the FAA registration database, isn't on GAMI's initial STC list, but GAMI assured me the have a process for field approval, though I need to see if I want to deal with that or just wait for their next revision list for the STC.
Click to expand...

Jeff,

I have news on that. As of yesterday, the FAA told me that since your engine model was converted from an O-470-(R, S, etc) via the STC process, you'll just get the STC for that base model. Then, just like any aircraft with multiple STCs, it will be up to the installing IA to determine the STCs don't conflict with each other. We'll issue a SIL or something about that shortly to give the IAs in the field a document to point at.

John-Paul
 
John-Paul,

Thank you! Ours is a modified -U. I really appreciate your responsiveness!

Jeff
 
Not too bad for my baby Beech:

upload_2023-1-13_18-1-5.png​

I can't see flying all the way to the PRK for a tank of gas, though, so I'll wait until it's being sold in Florida. It might be years before I could claim the $100 rebate, if ever.
 
asicer said:
I wonder what's the formula? Weird that a B23 is more expensive than a PA28R but a O360 is cheaper than a IO360
Click to expand...


It's a percentage of the average net worth of the typical owner of that particular aircraft. Us po folk get a break...
 
Airframes and engines are divided into categories based on original certified HP. It's supposed to work out to less than $2 per HP but it's a sliding scale where higher HP engines get more of a break. I think it was originally way over complicated, then over simplified, then complicated again. I don't remember how it finally ended up.

JPT
 
John-Paul Townsend said:
Airframes and engines are divided into categories based on original certified HP. It's supposed to work out to less than $2 per HP but it's a sliding scale where higher HP engines get more of a break. I think it was originally way over complicated, then over simplified, then complicated again. I don't remember how it finally ended up.

JPT
Click to expand...


But why? Why not one flat price? Or why not scale it according to fuel capacity? Or the owner’s age? What’s the rationale?
 
Half Fast said:
But why? Why not one flat price? Or why not scale it according to fuel capacity? Or the owner’s age? What’s the rationale?
Click to expand...
I believe the Mogas STC is also based on horsepower
 
Because the larger engines will use more of that G100UL fuel, increase uplift, and increase revenues? ....clearly something to be discouraged. :D

It's also the big engines that are under actual threat of 100LL's loss with no viable replacement. The smaller ones can all run Mogas. The Experimentals can all run Karo syrup for all the feds care.

I wonder how much Lyc or Conti would want (in indemnity and treasure) to just add it to their assortment of TCDSs. Probably less in total over time than this whole paperwork boondoggle is gonna be.
 
Even just a penny per gallon of every gallon of fuel used by the GA fleet in perpetuity? Forgive me if I don’t cry a river about that one. Seems like more than enough payback. A license to use a fuel we will have no choice but to use? There’s a few bad words that describe that, and they aren’t describing a free society.
 
Salty said:
Even just a penny per gallon of every gallon of fuel used by the GA fleet in perpetuity? Forgive me if I don’t cry a river about that one. Seems like more than enough payback. A license to use a fuel we will have no choice but to use? There’s a few bad words that describe that, and they aren’t describing a free society.
Click to expand...

A penny per gallon is $1.5M per year. I suspect GAMI is also keeping in mind that at some point they could be sued, just because that is how our "free society" operates. Even assuming lawsuits are rare, the cost just to defend themselves is not at all insignificant.

There is also a decent chance that GAMI will not be the only player for long, so their share could easily be cut in half or less. They need to recoup their development costs and a nice profit before that happens.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
There is also a decent chance that GAMI will not be the only player for long, so their share could easily be cut in half or less. They need to recoup their development costs and a nice profit before that happens.
Click to expand...

Interpreted as ... "make money today, make friends tomorrow!"
 
Jeff Oslick said:
A penny per gallon is $1.5M per year. I suspect GAMI is also keeping in mind that at some point they could be sued, just because that is how our "free society" operates. Even assuming lawsuits are rare, the cost just to defend themselves is not at all insignificant.

There is also a decent chance that GAMI will not be the only player for long, so their share could easily be cut in half or less. They need to recoup their development costs and a nice profit before that happens.
Click to expand...
They are making plenty more than a penny a gallon.
 
Much better to have taxpayer funded efforts run by the FAA and other fuel suppliers **** away God only knows how many million dollars over a couple decades with no results.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Much better to have taxpayer funded efforts run by the FAA and other fuel suppliers **** away God only knows how many million dollars over a couple decades with no results.
Click to expand...


Hmmm.....

Why not shut down EAGLE and give their money to GAMI in the exchange for no-cost STCs?
:devil:
 
Jeff Oslick said:
I frankly wouldn't care if they got $0.10/gallon. Their efforts will likely be responsible for saving several airports in California alone.
Click to expand...

How do you figure? Because of the notion that taking the lead away from the NIMBYs would de-claw them? I suppose that would be true if the argument against lead was being made in good faith. For the record, I'm not intending to endorse the preservation of TEL by saying that, I'm just pointing at the notion it'd just as easy for the NIMBYs to merely shift goal posts once you remove the TEL pretense.
 
It's $350 for my plane, 1966 Piper Cherokee 140 with the 160 HP STC. I think I once saw a map with all the airports that have GAMI g100ul fuel but I can't find it anymore. Does anyone have a link to a map of such airports or a list of airports that carry that fuel?
 
Half Fast said:
But why? Why not one flat price? Or why not scale it according to fuel capacity? Or the owner’s age? What’s the rationale?
Click to expand...

As someone else said, it was similar to how the mogas STCs used a HP based pricing. I'm not sure why, maybe it was just inertia. The idea of fuel capacity is one we thought about. The idea was that you would have a one time fee equal to about what you'd pay for filling your plane up one time (at $5-6/gal, which is what fuel was at the time). It turns out the two formulas came to about the same amount for a wide variety of aircraft, so we left it as it was.

Jpt
 
hindsight2020 said:
How do you figure?
Click to expand...

Because the State of California doesn't have to follow Federal environmental laws when the state laws are stricter. There is likely a very limited window before the State bans 100LL.

You can argue all you want that the risk doesn't warrant that extreme measure, but that has never stopped California before.

So, while that alone might not close an airport, it would make many non-viable if they can't support planes that require a 100 octane fuel.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Because the State of California doesn't have to follow Federal environmental laws when the state laws are stricter. There is likely a very limited window before the State bans 100LL.

You can argue all you want that the risk doesn't warrant that extreme measure, but that has never stopped California before.

So, while that alone might not close an airport, it would make many non-viable if they can't support planes that require a 100 octane fuel.
Click to expand...
Once the lead is out, they'll complain about noise...despite pressure washers and leaf blowers being louder for longer periods.

Or come up with something about how dangerous airports are. Despite cars being more hazardous.

Come up with some bogus claim and then make up a stat to attempt to substantiate it. Once lead is gone, the Karen's of the world will figure out a different narrative.
 
Yup....let's just give California back to Mexico....and let the snowflakes figure out how to get their avocados. o_O
Racerx said:
Once the lead is out, they'll complain about noise...despite pressure washers and leaf blowers being louder for longer periods.

Or come up with something about how dangerous airports are. Despite cars being more hazardous.

Come up with some bogus claim and then make up a stat to attempt to substantiate it. Once lead is gone, the Karen's of the world will figure out a different narrative.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NealRomeoGolf said:
I got a ping on Flightaware yesterday from my plane. I thought maybe all the sudden they were done and test flying (yeah right). I'm guessing they did first power on and the ADSB tower got a ping from my transponder. But they haven't given me an update lately. As you can see above, I don't like pestering people. Character flaw of mine.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Get over that. Not sure I’d ever see my plane again without pestering. The again…not sure the pestering is helping all that much either.
 
How's this shake out eventually? Two pumps at most GA airports? The new stuff and Mogas? If Mogas is available, and your engine can use it, why buy the no lead? Airports not wanting to add tanks and pumps, maybe? Head hurt. . .
 
Sundancer said:
How's this shake out eventually? Two pumps at most GA airports? The new stuff and Mogas? If Mogas is available, and your engine can use it, why buy the no lead? Airports not wanting to add tanks and pumps, maybe? Head hurt. . .
Click to expand...

It is very expensive to permit, install, monitor, insure, etc., a fuel tank. This is why we only see Jet A and 100LL at most airports. The transition will be to G100UL (or a future competitor) and Jet A.
 
If a pilot owner chooses to fill their (non-experimental) aircraft with G100UL or UL94 without also having the appropriate STC and subsequently the aircraft has an insurance claim even if the reason for the claim is unrelated to a fuel issue would the insurance company have a solid footing for refusing payout based on the aircraft being out of compliance?
 
John-Paul Townsend said:
Airframes and engines are divided into categories based on original certified HP. It's supposed to work out to less than $2 per HP but it's a sliding scale where higher HP engines get more of a break. I think it was originally way over complicated, then over simplified, then complicated again. I don't remember how it finally ended up.

JPT
Click to expand...

It is strange that a C-182 with 230 HP is less expense than my Mooney, with originally 210 HP. :D

Maybe because I need 4 filler port stickers.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
It is very expensive to permit, install, monitor, insure, etc., a fuel tank. This is why we only see Jet A and 100LL at most airports. The transition will be to G100UL (or a future competitor) and Jet A.
Click to expand...
How are guys with Mogas STCs fueling? I wouldn't be big on driving around with eight 5 gal jugs of high explosive/flammable liquid. Or buying a portable tank and pump, either. Are many GA airports "friendly" to folks lugging in their own fuel? Are Mogas pumps at all common on GA airports? I don't recall seeing them in MD/VA/PA/WV when I was flying up there, and not around here in NC now - then again I usually fuel at my home-drome, so maybe I just didn't notice?
 
Sundancer said:
How are guys with Mogas STCs fueling? I wouldn't be big on driving around with eight 5 gal jugs of high explosive/flammable liquid. Or buying a portable tank and pump, either. Are many GA airports "friendly" to folks lugging in their own fuel? Are Mogas pumps at all common on GA airports? I don't recall seeing them in MD/VA/PA/WV when I was flying up there, and not around here in NC now - then again I usually fuel at my home-drome, so maybe I just didn't notice?
Click to expand...

There are some airports with Mogas, it's just rare. I suspect most of them are tankering fuel to their planes, the legality and safety of which will surely vary. Some may have their own tanks at private fields that few know about. I don't hear about planes burning up often due to mogas fueling mistakes, so I'm going to assume that most of these guys aren't interested in visiting their local burn ward (don't google "defenestration"). Mogas isn't that time-stable, and the demand is fairly low, so storage can be an issue for small volume users.
 
hindsight2020 said:
How do you figure? Because of the notion that taking the lead away from the NIMBYs would de-claw them? I suppose that would be true if the argument against lead was being made in good faith. For the record, I'm not intending to endorse the preservation of TEL by saying that, I'm just pointing at the notion it'd just as easy for the NIMBYs to merely shift goal posts once you remove the TEL pretense.
Click to expand...

Racerx said:
Once the lead is out, they'll complain about noise...despite pressure washers and leaf blowers being louder for longer periods.

Or come up with something about how dangerous airports are. Despite cars being more hazardous.

Come up with some bogus claim and then make up a stat to attempt to substantiate it. Once lead is gone, the Karen's of the world will figure out a different narrative.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure they will come up with something else. But if for years all they did was use leaded fuel as their excuse to close the airport (which I agree with... not the airport closure, but the harmful effects of lead), then when the lead goes away and they pivot all of a sudden to something else, it really casts a dim light on their motivation. Not that that will stop them, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top