GAMI G100UL STC available now

I've heard that the leaded fuel requires more frequent spark plug cleaning or replacement than will be the case with unleaded. Not sure how big a factor that it, though.
For me, the bigger deal is no longer have lead plug up the ring lands and valve guide. Between that and synthetic oil, I bet it will be commonplace for a lyco 320/360/540 to go 4000+ hours. Unfortunately it will probably come too late to benefit my current mid time engine. The plug fouling thing will be huge for training aircraft as well.
 
What will be interesting is if a new industry fuel standard is created or the old one is revised to include G100UL which will then make all STCs moot and not required similar to what happened with the 1st multi-grade oils STCs.

That’s what I suspect will eventually happen. Or the aircraft and engine manufacturers eventually get their aircraft approved for the new fuel. At a minimum, Lycoming has taken some steps in that direction by issuing documentation that lists some versions of unleaded fuel as approved in some of their various engines. They’ll likely follow up with doing the same thing for G100UL. Where the OEM approval may fail is with the unsupported airframes and engines. Those applications may still require an STC for compliance.

I’m really hoping there’s an eventual blanket approval of some sort that doesn’t involve STCs. I’m going to be spending a lot of money on paperwork if that doesn’t happen.
 
I’m really hoping there’s an eventual blanket approval of some sort that doesn’t involve STCs.


I think there will be, eventually. If there are several UL fuels available, there will be many many instances of a pilot landing at an airport, needing fuel, and not having whatever STC is needed for the gas at that particular airport. If he knows it's all fungible and approved for his plane, he'll likely say "screw it" and fill up regardless.

Multiply that a few thousand times over and it's obvious that enforcement becomes impossible, and unneccessary as far as safety goes. The FAA isn't in the business of protecting IP, so they'll find a way to make the whole issue go away.

Which would, sadly, leave GAMI short of an STC revenue stream. I'm sure they're motivated to make hay while the sun shines, and cash in on the STC market as early and quickly as possible.
 
I think there will be, eventually. If there are several UL fuels available, there will be many many instances of a pilot landing at an airport, needing fuel, and not having whatever STC is needed for the gas at that particular airport. If he knows it's all fungible and approved for his plane, he'll likely say "screw it" and fill up regardless.

Multiply that a few thousand times over and it's obvious that enforcement becomes impossible, and unneccessary as far as safety goes. The FAA isn't in the business of protecting IP, so they'll find a way to make the whole issue go away.

Which would, sadly, leave GAMI short of an STC revenue stream. I'm sure they're motivated to make hay while the sun shines, and cash in on the STC market as early and quickly as possible.

My concern exactly: the fragmentation of the fuel market with G100UL, Swift fuel and its STC, and whatever comes out of EAGLE. I wonder why GAMI didn't pursue getting their revenue from licensing the fuel producers. Others could do the same, it would be much easier to police, and the market wouldn't be fragmented with the need for multiple STCs. Cost recovery to GAMI might be delayed this way, however.
 
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.

Hmm, you already are driving around with 4 - 5 gallons jogs worth. And probably even store it in your house. :D
 
I wonder why GAMI didn't pursue getting their revenue from licensing the fuel producers. Others could do the same, it would be much easier to police, and the market wouldn't be fragmented with the need for multiple STCs. Cost recovery to GAMI might be delayed this way, however.

John Paul already posted that is part to get some revenue to jump start the production and distribution of the fuel. GAMI has already invested millions with NO return so far.
 
Hmm, you already are driving around with 4 - 5 gallons jogs worth. And probably even store it in your house. :D

Use a couple beer kegs

15gal each, hotrod people have been using them for fuel since hot rods and beer kegs came out lol
 
If 100ll, incandescent light bulbs, red meat and all that was so bad for us, how come people become less self sufficient and more useless and weak generation after generation?
Vaccines and modern medicine allowing weaker genes to survive and reproduce.
Higher income/more intelligent people that make smarter decisions about using birth control to limit their reproduction while less successful people continue to breed prolifically.
Progressive government that rewards lack of initiative and productivity.

And the big one (as it relates to this discussion): Air pollution and lead making people sicker and dumber.
 
Vaccines and modern medicine allowing weaker genes to survive and reproduce.
Higher income/more intelligent people that make smarter decisions about using birth control to limit their reproduction while less successful people continue to breed prolifically.
Progressive government that rewards lack of initiative and productivity.

And the big one (as it relates to this discussion): Air pollution and lead making people sicker and dumber.

Perhaps, like idocracy

However some of the self proclaimed green intellectuals are all so often about as useless as Anne Frank's drumset

People thinking that the government forcing this new fuel to replace perfectly good 100ll is going to do anything other than just cost more money, it’s like they slept through the majority of other “green” scams, for every one that does good there are 100 that just get some people rich, are worse for the environment, damage property and businesses, or a mix of all of the above
 
Speaking of perfectly good 100LL, the other day when I was sampling fuel from one of the newer Cessnas with lots and lots of sampling points, the winds were such that I had trouble keeping fuel from getting on my hands. I decided that it would be a good idea to bring rubber gloves for that purpose.
 
Speaking of perfectly good 100LL, the other day when I was sampling fuel from one of the newer Cessnas with lots and lots of sampling points, the winds were such that I had trouble keeping fuel from getting on my hands. I decided that it would be a good idea to bring rubber gloves for that purpose.


Why?

You don’t think you’re actually going to get cancer or something from a splash of 100ll do you?

I was watching a episode of Frazier a couple days ago, Niles takes a napkin and wipes down the chair and table before he sits in it, the studio audience laughs as it was funny, no sane person would do that, now days I see people wiping things down all the time


Here I am, still will drink out of a hose, driving old cars with no nanny features, have had no covid shots, have been up to my elbows in everything from 100ll to old grease to the innards of game animals, here I am with no crazy allergies, doing well enough and smart enough to have a plane and no debt, no mental oddities like depression/anxiety
 
Last edited:
Why?

You don’t think you’re actually going to get cancer or something from a splash of 100ll do you?
I think the danger to people in adjacent neighborhoods is probably being exaggerated, but what evidence is there that direct contact with the skin is safe?
 
Last edited:
I think the danger to people in adjacent neighborhoods is probably being exaggerated, but what evidence is there that direct contact with the skin is safe?

History of pilots doing it with no issue, what I see with my own eyes

Also talked to a doc once about it, he practically laughed at me
 
History of pilots doing it with no issue, what I see with my own eyes

Also talked to a doc once about it, he practically laughed at me
And mechanics that drown themselves in fuel and grey belly sludge …..nothing to see here folks. :confused:
 
I can tell you're mind is made up. "I have seen nothing to show 100LL is causing any actual quantifiable damage." Of course you haven't. Because you probably haven't cared to read any of the published data.

It's obvious you didn't read the study in the link I posted, because if you did, you would have seen that that study was done in North Carolina, not "crazy California." I purposely did not link to the RHV study, but you wouldn't know, because you didn't read it.

Here's one from the UK.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.12.22277256v2.full.pdf

Lead has been known to be harmful, even in small quantities, since at least the 1400s, probably earlier. It's not political. It's science.

Edit: had two users confused. Apologies.
I skimmed it - question still not answered: I didn't see any BLL measurements in kids living around airports in the study; did I miss it? - just the "probability" it could pose a risk. It's kinda like science, except a little more guessing and a little less mesaurement. . .
 
And mechanics that drown themselves in fuel and grey belly sludge …..nothing to see here folks. :confused:

I know a ton of old as dirt mechanics, biggest health issue I see is a beer belly lol

The people with the odd diseases, mental issues, allergies that no one ever got a decade or two ago, they are all are like non gluten, quad boosted, rubbing hand sanitizer like a guilt stricken murder, and see a shrink to “unpack” whatever
 
Hmm, you already are driving around with 4 - 5 gallons jogs worth. And probably even store it in your house. :D
: ) Just two "jugs" - my Mazda 3 had a ten gallon tank. . . I pranked a neighbor once, telling her several tons of high explosives were being transported through our neighborhood every day by people with no training or certifications for handling it.
 
https://www.britannica.com/science/tetraethyl-lead

"TEL can cause acute or chronic lead poisoning if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Indeed, the industrial chemist widely given credit for discovering the antiknock properties of the compound, Thomas Midgley, Jr., was forced to leave his job for several months in 1923 in order to recuperate from lead poisoning."

There's anecdotal evidence both ways. If you guys don't mind getting it on your hands, that's up to you.
 
https://www.britannica.com/science/tetraethyl-lead

"TEL can cause acute or chronic lead poisoning if inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Indeed, the industrial chemist widely given credit for discovering the antiknock properties of the compound, Thomas Midgley, Jr., was forced to leave his job for several months in 1923 in order to recuperate from lead poisoning."

There's anecdotal evidence both ways. If you guys don't mind getting it on your hands, that's up to you.

Show me one case of someone getting sick from getting 100ll on their hands lol

I mean eating enough pickles CAN probably give you cancer too, along with everything in the state of California
 
Show me one case of someone getting sick from getting 100ll on their hands lol

I mean eating enough pickles CAN probably give you cancer too, along with everything in the state of California
I don't know whether Midgley got it on his hands or not, but there is probably more risk from repeatedly getting it on my hands than there is from merely living in the neighborhood.
 
I don't know whether Midgley got it on his hands or not, but there is probably more risk from repeatedly getting it on my hands than there is from merely living in the neighborhood.

He was studying lead in the 1920s, like that was his entire job, just sayin…
 
History of pilots doing it with no issue, what I see with my own eyes

Also talked to a doc once about it, he practically laughed at me

So you can tell by looking whether a person has lead poisoning?
 
If you're saying that the extent of exposure matters, I agree with you.
Agree, but what also matters quite a bit is the age of the person being exposed. Children are extremely susceptible to lead poisoning and the effects are well documented on the harm lead ingestion has on children’s mental development. Even small amounts have a deleterious effect.
 
At least one of the CA studies I saw was an airport... in an industrial area... next to an interstate where cars burned leaded fuel for decades... no wonder they'd find elevated lead levels.

Long term occupational exposure to lead, bad. Splashing 100LL on your hands occasionally... not such a big deal.
 
Agree, but what also matters quite a bit is the age of the person being exposed. Children are extremely susceptible to lead poisoning and the effects are well documented on the harm lead ingestion has on children’s mental development. Even small amounts have a deleterious effect.

“The children”


Noooooooooope

That argument is a auto nope


So you can directly show how the 172 hurt little Timmy?
 
Found the smooth-brained science denier.


You’re clearly in the “don’t know ****” group.

I’m out.

So show me the **** you know about little Timmy becoming even dumber because a 172 did a touch and go?

Verifiable qualified proof that 172 burning “basically hitler” 100LL hurt “the children”


I don’t deny science, but I’m not a fan of fear porn from couldn’t hack it in the real world green extremist career academics
 
de·fen·es·tra·tion
/dēˌfenəˈstrāSHən/

noun
  1. 1.
    FORMAL•HUMOROUS
    the action of throwing someone out of a window.
    "death by defenestration has a venerable history"

  2. 2.
    INFORMAL
    the action of dismissing someone from a position of power or authority.
    "that victory resulted in Churchill's own defenestration by the war-weary British electorate"

I think you meant "debridement". Or maybe "immolation".....



dude.......what kind of farmer are you??!???
 
I can tell you spilling 100ll on your hands during preflight ain’t going to do crap to you

100%

Now put the napkin back in your pocket Niles ;)
So SGOTI says it's 100% safe. What else could I possibly need? Maybe I should refill my soap dispensers with it! :rofl:
 
I think the danger to people in adjacent neighborhoods is probably being exaggerated, but what evidence is there that direct contact with the skin is safe?

Dose makes the poison.

Low doses are typically not a hazard. Your body can deal with them.

In the old days, lean miners would work until they were suffering affects, then they were taken out of the miner, and the lead "baked" out of them. Literally. They would spend their days in a very hot room and the body would secrete the lead.

The current concerns are more about developing children. But there is very little low dose data. As there is no one with zero exposure.

EPA uses a linear dose response model where the only safe dose is zero dose, using data extrapolated from high dose data. But many things are actually helpful in low doses. Take zinc. High levels of zinc are bad, leads to metal fume fever. But you take zinc in multivitamins, because it is required in our bodies.
 
So show me the **** you know about little Timmy becoming even dumber because a 172 did a touch and go?

Verifiable qualified proof that 172 burning “basically hitler” 100LL hurt “the children”


I don’t deny science, but I’m not a fan of fear porn from couldn’t hack it in the real world green extremist career academics
Aha!

Now I remember where I saw your user name before.
You’re on the Dan Gryder thread in the mishap page extolling the virtues of Dan and Alex Jones.

I wish I had remembered that hours ago. It would have explained a lot and saved me a bunch of time…
 
The TCDS for my 120 says "73 octane aviation gasoline"

Do I need an STC for 100LL??? Why would I need an STC for G100UL?

FYI: The STCs are needed for the simple reason there is no type certificate that lists G100UL as an approved fuel. It’s a paperwork exercise like a lot of things are in aviation. Now if an aircraft or engine gets certified today and it lists G100UL on its TC then no STC required. As to the STC being a recurring cost if one changes an engines doubtful unless GAMI wants to be greedy. STCs get transferred to different S/Ns with no issues. And the reason the STC is tracked by S/N is regulatory so there’s a record of which specific TC model was altered. No mystery.
 
The TCDS for my 120 says "73 octane aviation gasoline" Do I need an STC for 100LL??? Why would I need an STC for G100UL?
TCDS’s usually list only the fuel grade or octane and not the approved fuel specification standard. G100UL does not meet the current approved spec standard which is required to be used in all TC’d aircraft and engines. Same with oils, etc. So the only other approval option on a large scale is to go the STC route just like mogas and the original multi-grade oils did. However, if G100UL gets included in a specification standard in the future then no STC will be required as it will be approved at the production level like 100LL is.
 
Back
Top