Split from "At What Point Did You Realize..." thread.
------------------------------------------------------------

rsrguy3 wrote:How you guys plan on handling the "little bit more than 100ll " price of non leaded gami fuel?

If it takes the only legitimate argument the NIMBY's have for shutting down airports, I'm good with it. I mean, it's pretty hard to make the case the injecting lead into the atmosphere in 2022 is moral and acceptable.

rsrguy3 wrote:Do you think it'll be "safe and effective "?

Yes. It's been studied to death (almost literally a few times).

rw2 wrote:

rsrguy3 wrote:How you guys plan on handling the "little bit more than 100ll " price of non leaded gami fuel?

If it takes the only legitimate argument the NIMBY's have for shutting down airports, I'm good with it. I mean, it's pretty hard to make the case the injecting lead into the atmosphere in 2022 is moral and acceptable.

rsrguy3 wrote:Do you think it'll be "safe and effective "?

Yes. It's been studied to death (almost literally a few times).

It’s easy to make the case, the science and historic says low lead it’s not making a difference

And the busy bodies and enviro extremists will ALWAYS try to shut airports down, do NOT compromise, the busy bodies and enviro extremists WILL NOT compromise on their end, you just give ground, they gain momentum and confidence in their tactics, you give your hard earned money, and you not only get NOTHING back in return you empower them to go even further due to your weakness

I already pay too much for gas, paying a extra buck a gallon for “environmental feel good” with no real discernible environmental ROI, forget all that!



I get it, it’s like the paper straws and all the other nonsense, I do think someone’s heart was in the right place, just their brain didn’t fully go into gear before they fired up the mandate machine, and tons of the crazies run with this to push for even more regulation in the name of the cause of the day, and they will not be happy until you can’t even have a gas powered RC airplane

Had to look NIMBY up

“not in my back yard”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY


The home owners are not NIMBY however, the airport was there before them, so factually they moved into the airports back yard

The airports that have been local to me

One made in 1936
Another 1943
The one I first learned to fly at 1944

Presuming the home owners bought the home 2 years before the airport was finished, and day they turned 18 (not likely)
They would be 106 years old, 100, and 99 years old, thus they would ether be so old they don’t even notice the airplanes, or they are dead

And unlike a neighbor who like to play loud music every night or something, it’s pretty easy to see where the airport is lol

Better word for them would be idiots or entitled, as they ether couldn’t figure out the giant chunk of land and all the airport that way signs mean there is a airport, or they move somewhere and expect everything to change for them

Ether one is not something we should accommodate, but something we should laugh at, make fun of, take any possible legal action against, warn others in town of, or at the very least completely ignore

Maybe hold a massive flyin in their honor

Once you give in to the greenies, one teeny tiny bit, you have lost everything. NO 100LL today, aircraft engines meeting modern car emission standards in 3, 2, soon. Good luck with that one. How much do catalytic converters weigh?

GB wrote:Once you give in to the greenies, one teeny tiny bit, you have lost everything. NO 100LL today, aircraft engines meeting modern car emission standards in 3, 2, soon. Good luck with that one. How much do catalytic converters weigh?

^exactly


My 6.2L corvette is a “gas guzzler” even though in 6th it can to 80MPH at 30MPG

How many MPG do those rich elitists airplanes get again??

Pretty simple just stick to 8.5 - 1 compression and run a carb. No need for 100LL or Gami fuel just run Mogas.
DENNY

I have an open mind with G100UL and not because it is a Kumbaya feel good fuel. The lead component in 100LL fuel is such a small portion of the toxic stuff we have circulating in our food, water, and air that I am just not going to consider it worth talking about. As far as I am concern it doesn't matter and this will make the environmentalist happy. Of course eventually they will be just mad about the CO2 produced from our engines.

I do however feel that UL fuel could potentially have some advantages that in the end could lead to it reducing the cost not increasing the cost of flying. There will be less spark plug replacement for those who don't lean properly but more importantly engine life maybe extended significantly. Along with the use of synthetic oils that may reduce the number of oil changes needed over the life of the engine. I don't like that it is slightly heavier than 100LL but not significant for my 180. It will reduce the UL by 20 lbs at full fuel. I have always wondered why so many car engines can run for 200-300K miles (represents 3000-6000 hours depending average driving speed) without being overhauled compared with an average aircraft engine making it 1500-2000 hours. I remember as a youngster car engines didn't last as long as they do now. I am not sure this is due to removing lead from our fuels but it is certainly plausible.

So while I hate paying more per gallon for fuel - I am happy to hear the solution with G100UL fuel is far more simple than some other fuels that were in the running. In the end a longer engine life with less oil changes may more than compensate for the higher cost per hour. At least let's hope so.

Here is a link from the GAMI Website with some more information:

https://gami.com/g100ul/GAMI_Q_and_A.pdf


Josh

DENNY wrote:Pretty simple just stick to 8.5 - 1 compression and run a carb. No need for 100LL or Gami fuel just run Mogas.
DENNY

Huh? I have a O-520 with 8.5-1 comp, can you point me to this Mogas STC that covers that engine and airframe?

Dog is my Copilot wrote:I have an open mind with G100UL and not because it is a Kumbaya feel good fuel. The lead component in 100LL fuel is such a small portion of the toxic stuff we have circulating in our food, water, and air that I am just not going to consider it worth talking about. As far as I am concern it doesn't matter and this will make the environmentalist happy. Of course eventually they will be just mad about the CO2 produced from our engines.

I do however feel that UL fuel could potentially have some advantages that in the end could lead to it reducing the cost not increasing the cost of flying. There will be less spark plug replacement for those who don't lean properly but more importantly engine life maybe extended significantly. Along with the use of synthetic oils that may reduce the number of oil changes needed over the life of the engine. I don't like that it is slightly heavier than 100LL but not significant for my 180. It will reduce the UL by 20 lbs at full fuel. I have always wondered why so many car engines can run for 200-300K miles (represents 3000-6000 hours depending average driving speed) without being overhauled compared with an average aircraft engine making it 1500-2000 hours. I remember as a youngster car engines didn't last as long as they do now. I am not sure this is due to removing lead from our fuels but it is certainly plausible.

So while I hate paying more per gallon for fuel - I am happy to hear the solution with G100UL fuel is far more simple than some other fuels that were in the running. In the end a longer engine life with less oil changes may more than compensate for the higher cost per hour. At least let's hope so.

Here is a link from the GAMI Website with some more information:

https://gami.com/g100ul/GAMI_Q_and_A.pdf


Josh

Blowing $15 a hr for every hr I fly, not sure I burn through plugs like that, especially if managing mixture

Plus as it stands lots of the fleet goes way past TBO on the fuel we have always had and has for all intensive purposes worked just fine

So I’m not seeing the reason to burn $15hr extra (skywagons and the like) plus the less payload certainly also has a expense


No matter how I look at the numbers this new green fuel leaves me in the red


It will be like corn gas, I don’t think they’ll let the free market decide, they’ll just not give you a option

I think if there were two pumps, one with perfectly good 100LL, another with the green fuel for like a buck more per gallon, I’d wager they’d pump 10gal of 100ll for every gallon of green gas

It’s simply a more expensive solution in search of a non existent problem

corefile wrote:

DENNY wrote:Pretty simple just stick to 8.5 - 1 compression and run a carb. No need for 100LL or Gami fuel just run Mogas.
DENNY

Huh? I have a O-520 with 8.5-1 comp, can you point me to this Mogas STC that covers that engine and airframe?

Nope. But if you can afford that plane you can most likely afford the fuel. Plan ahead on the next one. Just saying.
DENNY

DENNY wrote:

corefile wrote:

DENNY wrote:Pretty simple just stick to 8.5 - 1 compression and run a carb. No need for 100LL or Gami fuel just run Mogas.
DENNY

Huh? I have a O-520 with 8.5-1 comp, can you point me to this Mogas STC that covers that engine and airframe?

Nope. But if you can afford that plane you can most likely afford the fuel. Plan ahead on the next one. Just saying.
DENNY

Plan Ahead… huh? I can run 100LL or 100UL so not sure what you are “Just Saying”. The configuration you specifically mentioned can’t be used legally by any certified plane with mogas - how in the world can there be no need for 100LL or GAMI fuel? And the “if you can afford that plane” line was childish.

Ya, you are right!! Sooooo how about your next plane is experimental and now all your first work problems will be solved. Your are living the live of .0025 percent of the world SUCK IT UP! DENNY

NineThreeKilo wrote:

Dog is my Copilot wrote:I have an open mind with G100UL and not because it is a Kumbaya feel good fuel. The lead component in 100LL fuel is such a small portion of the toxic stuff we have circulating in our food, water, and air that I am just not going to consider it worth talking about. As far as I am concern it doesn't matter and this will make the environmentalist happy. Of course eventually they will be just mad about the CO2 produced from our engines.

I do however feel that UL fuel could potentially have some advantages that in the end could lead to it reducing the cost not increasing the cost of flying. There will be less spark plug replacement for those who don't lean properly but more importantly engine life maybe extended significantly. Along with the use of synthetic oils that may reduce the number of oil changes needed over the life of the engine. I don't like that it is slightly heavier than 100LL but not significant for my 180. It will reduce the UL by 20 lbs at full fuel. I have always wondered why so many car engines can run for 200-300K miles (represents 3000-6000 hours depending average driving speed) without being overhauled compared with an average aircraft engine making it 1500-2000 hours. I remember as a youngster car engines didn't last as long as they do now. I am not sure this is due to removing lead from our fuels but it is certainly plausible.

So while I hate paying more per gallon for fuel - I am happy to hear the solution with G100UL fuel is far more simple than some other fuels that were in the running. In the end a longer engine life with less oil changes may more than compensate for the higher cost per hour. At least let's hope so.

Here is a link from the GAMI Website with some more information:

https://gami.com/g100ul/GAMI_Q_and_A.pdf


Josh

Blowing $15 a hr for every hr I fly, not sure I burn through plugs like that, especially if managing mixture

Plus as it stands lots of the fleet goes way past TBO on the fuel we have always had and has for all intensive purposes worked just fine

So I’m not seeing the reason to burn $15hr extra (skywagons and the like) plus the less payload certainly also has a expense


No matter how I look at the numbers this new green fuel leaves me in the red


It will be like corn gas, I don’t think they’ll let the free market decide, they’ll just not give you a option

I think if there were two pumps, one with perfectly good 100LL, another with the green fuel for like a buck more per gallon, I’d wager they’d pump 10gal of 100ll for every gallon of green gas

It’s simply a more expensive solution in search of a non existent problem

93K - I do understand where you are coming from. Why fix something that isn't broken. I am just trying to look at the possibility this reduces other costs since we all know this is going to be the only acceptable fuel due to the power of the green lobbyists. A mere 5% increase in engine life over its natural TBO would about break even on the cost. Many engines go past TBO but many don't. Yes if you change the oil every 25 hours and fly the airplane regularly with proper leaning techniques you will have a long running engine but this is not to say that with G100UL you couldn't produce similar longevity gains. If the lead in our fuel is the reason for premature aging then it is possible the significance could be much longer times between overhauls. I think there is potential for this new fuel being better on the long-term functioning of our engines. Time will tell.


Josh

I don’t care one iota about the lead… except I do not want it in my “new” engine depositing gunk on my valves etc

I will be burning either G100UL or 91 non-ethanol mogas in my O-360 200hp

If synthetic oil becomes feasible, I will use that too

Where, exactly does 94 octane mogas exist? Best we have near here is 88 octane. And I’m not carrying 8 5 gallon cans in my car to fuel up every time.

Comparing modern car engines with air cooled airplane engines is apples and oranges. Lots of differences there, while lead could be one factor, I doubt it’s a big one.

What’s the shelf life on mogas, or the unleaded alternatives?

corefile wrote:

DENNY wrote:Pretty simple just stick to 8.5 - 1 compression and run a carb. No need for 100LL or Gami fuel just run Mogas.
DENNY

Huh? I have a O-520 with 8.5-1 comp, can you point me to this Mogas STC that covers that engine and airframe?

Petersen Aviation has (or at least used to have) a mogas STC for high compression engines,
but it requires 91 octane ethanol-free fuel.
The STC includes for example the Lycoming 320-D1A, which is 8.5:1.
The 470-50 / 470XP engine could conceivably be added to that STC.
Or Northpoint could add mogas to the engine mod STC.
Maybe contact them?
BTW the standard XP470 is 7.5:1, which would be 87 octane mogas compatible.
Something to consider when having an engine built.

Here 94 no-ethanol car gas is more expensive than 100LL. Maybe we have the tail wagging the dog - our GA industry relying on esoteric engines that need esoteric fuel. Are we trapped by history? 1930's commercial and military aircraft supercharged piston engines that needed special fuel? Time to say goodbye, those market drivers have all gone JetA now.

We should tag onto the recreational boating industry, and adapt engines to whatever the rest of the recreational market (boats, atv's, snowmobile etc) uses. How did the boating industry duck the ethanol mandate, big numbers? Yet another specialty, expensive fuel for a tiny slice of the economy is doomed. Me, I'm waiting for those cheap Chinese-built Rotax engines that burn anything out of any pump.

StillLearning wrote:Where, exactly does 94 octane mogas exist? Best we have near here is 88 octane. And I’m not carrying 8 5 gallon cans in my car to fuel up every time.

Comparing modern car engines with air cooled airplane engines is apples and oranges. Lots of differences there, while lead could be one factor, I doubt it’s a big one.

What’s the shelf life on mogas, or the unleaded alternatives?

Sorry, I meant 91 non-Ethanol.

Corrected above

The folks opposed to a replacement fuel seem to universally ignore the fact that there is precisely one company in the world that produces tetraethyl lead, which is the "Lead" part of 100 LL fuel. And, that plant is located in Britain, NOT the US. Here's a blurb from Wikipedia:

"Innospec Inc., formerly known as Octel Corporation and Associated Octel Company, Ltd., is a specialty chemical company. It comprises three business units: Fuel Specialties, responsible for the development and supply of additives for fuels and which also includes the company's activities in its Oilfield Chemicals division, Performance Chemicals, which focuses on products for the Personal Care industry and also provides products for the Polymers markets, and Octane Additives, which is the last remaining non-Chinese producer of tetraethyllead (TEL) used in the manufacture of 100LL avgas throughout the world.[1] The company has recently sparked controversy due to its being the only company that continues to export leaded petrol from the UK to Algeria despite pledging to stop several times."

Why is that of concern? It means that ANYthing that happens to that plant, whether a shutdown due to an accident, a strike, a fire, OR more likely, some group of folks who live close to that plant discover what it does, and decides to go to Parliament to shut it down. And, according to that piece from Wiki, the company is already in the hot seat there.

Any of those things happens, and there IS no more 100 Low Lead gasoline. Now, how long to you figure it'll be before the "greenies" in Europe discover this "polluter" in their midst, and decide to shut it down?

THAT is why we need an alternative to 100 LL, because without a viable alternative, if that plant gets shut down, we are ALL going to be looking for an auto fuel STC....

MTV

This STC might help the high compression types in the future. https://www.avweb.com/features/the-retu ... ction-adi/.
DENNY