GAMI vs Swift UL fuel competition

ateamer said:
Sold at 29 airports doesn’t exactly make it widely and easily available. Here in Florida - the third most populous state - there are all of three places to buy it.
Click to expand...
How many places can you buy GAMI G100UL?

frfly172 said:
I have the swift STC and use ul 94 problem is finding it,looks like gami is going to have a better network for supplying their product.
Click to expand...
What's the evidence of that? It looks like all they've done for the past year is rage against the conspiracy that keeps their manna out of our tanks.

Meanwhile, Swift has refined and distributed their 94 to 30-some airports by themselves and gotten a contract with AvFuel and others. That would be the same AvFuel who opted against distributing G100UL. What does AvFuel know that we don't? Short answer: a lot. And a relevant lot at that.

I don't think it's true that Swift 100R is only compatible with 85% of airframes, though I might be wrong. It's definitely true of 94UL, which isn't the same stuff. But if G100UL costs as much as I think it will, it will be compatible with fewer than 85% of aircraft owners, so the effect is no better.
 
STEVENTUCKER said:
see i read that as well but after googling it gami is not available anywhere and it is UL94 thats availabe 85% of the country
Click to expand...

No, Swifts R100UL is only usable in 85% of aircraft.

94UL is only usable in low compression, NA aircraft. A lot less than 85% of the fleet.
 
What is the issue with R100UL that 15% of the fleet can't use it?

Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to see it, 94UL will never be widely available as most FBOs have only one tank/pump, and they need that for 100LL.
 
Ah! A necro-thread, back from the dead! I didn't see this one last year, and it's unfortunate there's so much misinformation in the year-old discussion. But we'll rise above that for the moment...

Sean - TheFirePilot said:
GAMI is the way to go. Completely mixable
Click to expand...

STEVENTUCKER said:
Isn't 100R also fully mixable?
Click to expand...

Swift has said that it is, and that does seem to be one of the FAA's approval criteria, so we can probably expect that it will be. It's tough, though, to puzzle out what Swift is really doing, since there's so much conflicting information. At Oshkosh, Swift's Jon Ziulkowski, in a forum presentation, said that Swift intentionally release misinformation to confuse competitors. Hmmm. But of course, that puts them in the position of lying to potential customers too, which is probably regrettable. But I guess that's fair warning...

John Spartan said:
Jet-A is superior... better economy. Less pollution.
Click to expand...

Of course, in aviation we care more about miles per POUND of fuel than miles per gallon... and Jet A in a diesel engine doesn't have any superiority. In fact, some of the fielded aviation diesels are less efficient, say, than a turbocharged Lycoming. Similarly, the greenhouse gas contribution is linked to weight, and hydrogen content. Jet A is slightly less hydrogen rich than gasoline, though it's probably offset by CO2 produced in the refinery where gasoline production is more CO2 intensive. If it's lead emissions, then yes, Jet A definitely has an advantage there.

Pinecone said:
{100R} is only usable in 85% of the airplanes out there. G100UL is usable in all airplanes right now.
Click to expand...

STEVENTUCKER said:
GAMI is not available anywhere ... UL94 {is} available 85% of the country
Click to expand...

ateamer said:
Sold at 29 airports doesn't exactly make it widely and easily available. Here in Florida - the third most populous state - there are all of three places to buy it.
Click to expand...

OneCharlieTango said:
How many places can you buy GAMI G100UL?
Click to expand...

That seems like an uneven comparison... Swift has been selling their 94UL, which doesn't replace 100LL, for over six years to achieve about 1% market penetration of the ~3,500 airports that offer avgas. A replacement for 100LL, whether Swift's or GAMI's, would presumably receive a somewhat different reception.

OneCharlieTango said:
Meanwhile, Swift has refined and distributed their 94{UL} to 30-some airports by themselves
Click to expand...

That's not quite accurate. Swift doesn't do any refining... they do have a blending plant in West Lafayette IN, sticking up in the corn fields there. They do some direct distribution, but they're also distributing through others, so it's not an entirely a self-sufficient effort.

OneCharlieTango said:
That would be the same AvFuel who opted against distributing G100UL. What does AvFuel know that we don't? Short answer: a lot. And a relevant lot at that.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware that Avfuel has opted against distributing G100UL; their website and GAMI's still shows them partnered. Though, both Avfuel and GAMI have said GAMI's fuel will be available through any distributor or to be blended at any plant who is willing to meet industry standards for avgas blending. Pretty open. Swift has said they will only commission third party blending once their plant capacity is sold out, and even then, they envision only three licensees on West, East, and Gulf coasts. But... see misinformation above.

OneCharlieTango said:
I don't think it's true that Swift 100R is only compatible with 85% of airframes
Click to expand...

See Swift's CEO's letter to the EPA last fall, commenting on the lead endangerment NPRM. Why Swift chose that platform to share that their fuel won't meet the needs of 15% of the fleet isn't clear, nor is it clear why they further stated that those 15% are the FAA's problem. Maybe more misinformation? But not a good idea to make stuff up when going on the public record with a Federal agency.

OneCharlieTango said:
if G100UL costs as much as I think it will...
Click to expand...

Swift has said that 100R will be price competitive with 100LL, but I'm not certain what that means. 94UL is easy to make by comparison... Swift at times has said it's just 100LL without the lead (and at other times Swift has contradicted their own statement). But 94UL often sells for $1+ per gallon over 100LL pricing. I could only find one airport where 94UL was less expensive, but 100LL was really pricey at that airport.
 
Last edited:
PaulMillner said:
I could only find one airport where 94UL was less expensive, but 100LL was really pricey at that airport.
Click to expand...
It was about $1.00 cheaper at GBR, but it doesn't look like they have it any more.
 
My home airfield, 5B6 in Falmouth, MA is one of only places you can get 94UL on the east coast aside from Florida. Our club manager asks that we use the 94UL on club planes when available so that we can realize the benefits of it, but you can guarantee on any cross country flight you're gonna wind up with 100LL again. Prices as of a couple days ago was $7.05 for 100LL, and $9.29 for 94UL. I can't imagine many of our visitors are opting for 94UL.

There's also an email list you can sign up for to get alerts as to when we get a delivery and when we run out. Not very comforting if you're relying on 94UL availability.

I attended a webinar last week put on by Swift because I genuinely wanted to learn more about 94UL. It really wasn't much more than a sales pitch with information that is already available on their website.
 
Racerx said:
I thought I remember GAMI saying Lycomings are usually pretty close...at least compared to Continentals
Click to expand...
The later Continentals are pretty good from the factory. My 550 peaks out all within a quarter turn of the mixture control with the factory injectors.
 
Craig Hammond said:
Is this more GAMA/EAGLE propaganda? Everything I've seen and read is that AvFuel and GAMI are partners. What is your source for this statement?

Click to expand...
George said as much on BeechTalk. https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=216072&hilit=GAMI

Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but that's the impression I get when he says on August 13, 2023:
"a) On March 22, 2023, a formal letter was provided to the four existing major distributors of aviation fuel products to contact a specific very large well known producer of aviation fuels to make arrangements to transport G100UL avgas to California. So far, none of those four distributors have availed themselves of that offer. As a result:

b) That same producer is currently negotiating end-user contracts with airport authorities and FBO's to begin production and to become a competitor of those four "traditional" large suppliers of aviation fuels (JET A and Avgas) to the airport FBOs."

Maybe that doesn't mean AvFuel has taken a pass, but that's sure what it looks like. And whatever it means, it doesn't sound at all like "GAMI and AvFuel are partners." It's true that AvFuel said on 7/27/21 that they were "handling the logistics of expanding the product's distribution," but that was a long time ago, and before the formal letter from GAMI of 3/22/23. In the two years since that announcement, G100UL hasn't appeared anywhere.

I hope they're successful. But more than that, I hope we get an affordable and usable fuel, regardless of the source.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
In the two years since that announcement, G100UL hasn't appeared anywhere.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind that GAMI's G100UL was approved by the FAA on September 1st, 2022... a year ago yesterday. Not surprisingly (to me, at least) fuel producers, distributors, and FBOs might have expressed lots of curiousity and interest, but no one was keen on making financial commitments until that final FAA approval was handed down. THEN began the serious commercial negotiations. George is impatient, and I understand that... but my oil industry experience tells me that unleaded fuels are moving toward market at lightning speed compared to the typical pace of change in the industry.

All that said... like you, I'm not considering that wonderful has happened until I can fly somewhere and fuel up. Given that I'm based in California, I'll likely have a proximity advantage so some others here. :)

Paul
 
The prototype Learfan made its first test flight on December 32, 1980...
 
Dana said:
The prototype Learfan made its first test flight on December 32, 1980...
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Once upon a time, my engineering team was on the hook to finish a qualification test by the end of Sep, and I was sending in daily status reports. The last several reports were dated 9/29, 9/30, 9/31, and 9/32 (when we finished).
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
{maybe} the UND problem slowed them down.
Click to expand...
UND was of course using a different product, with a different formulation and different additive package: 94UL, approved under STC.

I don't have my notes in front of me, but at ASTM in New Orleans last month, Swift's CEO Chris D'Acosta mentioned dates in 2024... they have a bit of a path ahead of them... approval of a preliminary ASTM spec, testing of the fuel to that spec, and then approval of a final ASTM spec. The timelines and assumptions about path forward that Swift shared at Oshkosh 2023 seemed completely unrealistic. And turned out to be just that.

At best, based on industry standard approaches, they're looking at final spec approval in December 2024, and that's very ambitious. FAA approval to follow? But Swift hasn't been forthcoming, and in fact, at Oshkosh advised that they felt it appropriate to share disinformation with the aviation public. So keep your grains of salt handy...

Paul
 
VP also entered the unleaded battle. But I believe they're doing it the PAFI or is it EAGLE route? They used both terms in the presser.

vpracingfuels.com

VP Aviation Established Filling Need For Lead-Free Aviation Fuel

Explore VP Aviation's lead-free fuel, born from FAA PAFI success VP Racing: Pioneers in high-octane solutions, eliminating lead. Replacing 100LL, meeting global demand.
vpracingfuels.com vpracingfuels.com

Swift has always seemed a little sketch to me.
 
PaulMillner said:
The timelines and assumptions about path forward that Swift shared at Oshkosh 2023 seemed completely unrealistic. And turned out to be just that.
... But Swift hasn't been forthcoming, and in fact, at Oshkosh advised that they felt it appropriate to share disinformation with the aviation public.
Click to expand...
Some of the characters you encounter in the aviation business make Elon Musk look like a saint.
 
If he hadn't bought twatter he probably could have.
 
Pinecone said:
My other question is, how many people were tested and was each round of testing the same people or other people.
Click to expand...
There are significant issues with sample bias and controls in the original paper. The BLL data is taken solely from children enrolled in lead monitoring program, that is, children previously identified to have lead poisoning issues and therefore already having high environmental exposure to lead. It is not a random sample. Lead poisoning is primarily an issue of inadvertent ingestion of lead materials in the home. In addition, the authors use a complex statistical method to evaluate a "distance effect" rather than simpler methods. Ultimately the authors chose a subset of individuals living within 10 km of any airport in the state (MI) as the experimental group, a fairly large and arbitrary distance (the one that gave the desired results?) This might include a large fraction of the tested population in the state. Finally, does the "control" group (over 10 km) show the same correlation in BLL seasonality as the experimental group? Correlation does not always equate to causation if there are significant covariables present.

If you really wanted to answer this question rationally, you would measure environmental lead levels in the air and soil at various locations near and far from airports to determine if there is any medically significant risk of enhanced lead ingestion due to airport activities. I strongly suspect such evidence will be hard to demonstrate. Lead exposure from other sources (lead paint, preexisting soil lead contamination, etc.) are likely to be far more significant sources of kead exposure. But making the actual measurements, with proper controls, is not technically difficult and could probably be managed as a community undergraduate research project. I'm willing to be convinced of a significant public threat with real, direct, data, but not poorly done metastudies.

Personally, I think we should eliminate leaded fuel for many reasons, but not because of poorly framed and justified fears.
 
Racerx said:
VP also entered the unleaded battle. But I believe they're doing it the PAFI or is it EAGLE route? They used both terms in the presser.

vpracingfuels.com

VP Aviation Established Filling Need For Lead-Free Aviation Fuel

Explore VP Aviation's lead-free fuel, born from FAA PAFI success VP Racing: Pioneers in high-octane solutions, eliminating lead. Replacing 100LL, meeting global demand.
vpracingfuels.com vpracingfuels.com

Swift has always seemed a little sketch to me.
Click to expand...
PAFI is an FAA entity, which has been kicking around over a decade now. First with Shell and Swift, who both withdrew when they determined they couldn't succeed following the FAA's anti-science procedures. Then relaunched with Phillips 66 who is now sitting on the sidelines and Lyondell (Swiss chemical company that bought ARCO chemical when BP bought ARCO) in collaboration with VP Racing. VP Racing's press releases are misleading, but the FAA started the confusion when Earl Lawrence, then AIR-1, began describing fleet wide approval of unleaded avgas as differentiated from "fleet wide approval" of unleaded avgas. Really? There are so few words in the English language that you have to use the exact same phrase to mean two different things depending on punctuation, which gets regularly omitted and unexplained in the press. GAMI's G100UL has fleet wide approval... it can be used in any airplane with any engine in the FAA database. Rotorcraft approval is underway to expand that to any aircraft. Lyondell/VP-Racing are hoping for "fleet wide approval" but the FAA hasn't decided amongst themselves yet exactly how that will work. The latest iteration I heard is that you won't need an STC... but don't start cheering yet. Instead, you'll need the FAA's determination document, which your IA can then use to fill out 337s for the engine and airframe to apply the determination document to your aircraft. But... isn't that EXACTLY how an STC is implemented? Well yes... but to do it differently might requires years of rulemaking, Lawrence told us. Jeesh. Why didn't you get started on that two years ago when you told us you realized it was a challenge? But no... they're watchfully waitig.

EAGLE is an FAA/industry partnership toward facilitating communication on the oncoming unleaded avgas transition. The first industry leader was AOPA's Mark Baker, and the first FAA leader was the FAA's Earl Lawrence. That's now transitioned to the president of NATA, the FBO trade group, Curt Castagna, and FAA's Lirio Liu. It's all about communicating with pilots, mechanics, FBOs, engine manufacturers, anyone you can think of who might be interested or affected. They have no regulatory power or approval...

chemgeek said:
If you really wanted to answer this question rationally, you would measure environmental lead levels in the air and soil at various locations near and far from airports
Click to expand...
There's more data available than Santa Clara County's contractor shared, which is frustrating... as they didn't share enough data to support or decry the conclusions of their consultant's report... and there are definitely ulterior motives at work. The RHV pilot group has done decent background investigation, and point out FOUR sources of lead in the vicinity, all of which are larger than the aviation contribution (though no longer contemporaneous). It wouldn't be rocket science to evaluate the lead in the environment and classify it as to source: leaded mogas from major highways through the area, from 1920 to 1993. Lead arsenate used as a pesticide from 1930's to 1970's... the whole area was orchards in my youth, and lead arsenate was the treatment of choice (to the detriment of some of the farm workers). Leaded racing gasoline from the former nearby race track (very high concentrations). Lead from paint used from 1920 through 1990. And finally of course leaded avgas. But just share the evidentiary data that the county's report is based on for our analysis... but it's not in the County's interest to do so, so no. There's been consideration to sue the county on this issue simply to force discovery, and release of that data... But that costs money and takes time.

Paul
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top