Guess it’s no bueno for wet wings ether, causing the tanks to leak fuel after adding G100UL



“ General Aviation Modifications Inc. is inviting an operator of a wet-wing Mooney to visit Ada, Oklahoma, for a borescope inspection to assess the condition of the sealant in the tanks. "I would like to have the chance to borescope an older Mooney fuel tank that has not been converted over to a bladder," Braly said in a post on mooneyspace.com. The invitation was extended after two California owners reported issues with fuel leakage after putting GAMI's G100UL in the tanks. The fuel is available at three California airports.
Mooneys and many Pipers were not factory equipped with rubber bladders in their fuel tanks. They were formed in the structure of the wing and a sealant used to fill the voids and rivet holes in the metal. Many older Mooneys started leaking when 100LL was introduced and owners either installed bladders or had the tanks resealed with a "sloshing" treatment developed in response to the widespread problem.
One of the owners reported on mooneyspace.com that his tanks started leaking a week after he started using G100UL. Another said his tanks had been seeping (within manufacturers limits) but when he added G100UL the paint blistered in the areas affected by the seepage. GAMI founder George Braly told AVweb it's not clear what role, if any, the fuel is playing in the issues but he did say the formulation is different from 100LL, notably in its use of an aromatic chemical called Xylene to boost the octane and hence detonation resistance of the fuel. Aromatic amines are solvents, but Braly said in a detailed response to the posts it's the least aggressive of the octane-boosting chemicals. He also noted that the sealant in the tanks is likely decades old. "It lasts a long time but it doesn't last forever," he said.
Braly said the fuel has been exhaustively tested on sealants, seals and gaskets used in airplanes under the supervision of the FAA. He also said he's never seen it cause paint to peel. If spills are not cleaned up, it can cause a yellowish tan stain. Many of the responses to the thread on the forum said they were not having any problems with G100UL.”

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/moo ... ng-g100ul/




[edited]

I saw that this morning. Wonder why BCP locked the G100UL thread on here over in the Fuel Section, the one showing the Champ with the stripped paint.

C180_guy wrote:I saw that this morning. Wonder why BCP locked the G100UL thread on here over in the Fuel Section, the one showing the Champ with the stripped paint.

When members start using posts to highlife their political ideas Zane will lock it down. He's been very patient with many members who can't seem to stop doing it, (he's made his feelings clear many times) at least more patient than I'd be anyways.

Halestorm wrote:

C180_guy wrote:I saw that this morning. Wonder why BCP locked the G100UL thread on here over in the Fuel Section, the one showing the Champ with the stripped paint.

When members start using posts to highlife their political ideas Zane will lock it down. He's been very patient with many members who can't seem to stop doing it, (he's made his feelings clear many times) at least more patient than I'd be anyways.

?

I don’t recall any of that

Fact is for back country flying to occur engines must spin

It’s unfortunate companies are trying to ban what we all enjoy doing by pushing to outlawing fuel via making un needed and unfortunate forced alternate fuels, fuels that seems to have more and more issues as they are used in the field.

This is a very worthy topic
Without fuel there is no back country flying, and everyone who has actually run this enviro fuel has had issues, ranging from stripping and staining, to fuel tank failures, none of which occurred with 100LL


Talking about it is a start, education and awareness, might even help stop the unnecessary banning of 100ll, or at the very least educate people on what to keep a eye out for if this enviro fuel ends up in their tank.

Not allowing people to talk about this major concern is a guaranteed not to help aviation


Without good working fuel, training, big tires, airstrips, medicals, different aircraft, go pro wing mounts, none of it will matter

Go find the last thread and you'll see precisely the point where it got locked. Focus on the facts/technical discussion, no political parties bullshit even if thinly veiled. That's politics, it's divisive and I will lock it. It's no allowed here per the guidelines you read when you signed up. If you continue, your account will be disabled.

I have no agenda other than not stinking this place up. That's a good use for Facebook. All the cancer there you could ever ask for.

This place is only big enough for one douchebag stinking it up, and that’s me.

Zzz wrote:Go find the last thread and you'll see precisely the point where it got locked. Focus on the facts/technical discussion, no political parties bullshit even if thinly veiled. That's politics, it's divisive and I will lock it. If you continue, your account will be disabled.

I 100% get you don’t want to turn this site into a politics / Facebook / Reddit type deal, I get it I really do

The hard part is this G100UL fuel is 100% being pushed on a environmental regulation angle, as is the pitch to try to ban 100LL

It's pretty easy to maintain a discussion without getting the thread locked. Channel your inner Russ Niles.

Zzz wrote:Go find the last thread and you'll see precisely the point where it got locked. Focus on the facts/technical discussion, no political parties bullshit even if thinly veiled. That's politics, it's divisive and I will lock it. It's no allowed here per the guidelines you read when you signed up. If you continue, your account will be disabled.

Crap - hope it wasn't my comment on 'a new sheriff' coming to town.

Seems it would have been a good idea to do a test to see how different wet wing sealant held up and see if nitrile rubber fuel bladders work etc. Sure hope the Swift fuel can meet the test!!!!!

180Marty wrote:Seems it would have been a good idea to do a test to see how different wet wing sealant held up and see if nitrile rubber fuel bladders work etc. Sure hope the Swift fuel can meet the test!!!!!

On BT, Braly claims they did do testing. However, now we have the AOPA Baron develop leaks in the G100UL side, the Champ on BCP with the stripped paint and now the wet wing Mooney develop leaks. On this morning's Avweb news Braly's competitor at Swift Fuels had this to say,
"Similar damage has been witnessed, photographed, and reported to the aviation industry over the last several years with fuels containing aromatic amines. This leaking of sealants, staining, and stripping of paint in this fuel is most likely caused by meta-toluidine, an aromatic amine - and a very aggressive solvent - contained in G100UL according to the safety data sheet and the FAA independent specification. For clarification, Xylene mentioned above is not an aromatic amine - it is a C8 aromatic hydrocarbon also generally described as a solvent.

Chris D’Acosta
CEO - Swift Fuels, LLC"

This whole unleaded issue is very, very complicated with all the parties involved. I ran a tank of G100UL as you can see on my PIREP #1 and PIREP 2 on the RHV G100UL locked topic. I do NOT want G100UL to be the "winner" of this issue and do not want two "winners". G100UL stains and does not evaporate and I do not care for the turpentine smell. I have a mason jar of Swift 100R, and it does NOT stain, it evaporates and smells a bit better - like nail polish. I also found G100UL stains 16 - inches x 2 - inches wide aft of my oil breather on the belly. Took compound to remove. Court action in California is going to try to legally push four distributers to handle the G100UL per an agreement made years ago when unleaded fuel becomes commercially available. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/g10 ... rt-action/

While I do share the political concerns and motives the economics for flying don't look good. As a user of must have 100ll or the substitute and more towards the end of the distribution system what is that supply going to look like? As price goes up more users who can use car gas are going to switch. Turbines are going to replace more small recip commercial planes. As demand goes down then price goes up more. How much more is the price going to be? As that price goes up flying hours and demand go down further and....the price goes up. Internal combustion engines are generally not in favor to say the least. What happens to the boat and RV industries? That is just reality. I wonder if I made a mistake overhauling my IO-360. Economics seems to be against us besides politics.

As a longtime consumer of BT, I’ve been following this thing for a long time. When I recently said that widespread adoption of a new fuel would undoubtedly have unintended effects and that some of them might be bad, it was suggested that I might be the product of a consanguineous marriage.

Now, with limited distribution, we see complications which George is working overtime to present as coincidences. Perhaps they are, but ADs have been issued on less important issues with smaller sample sizes.

Interesting discussion on BT this morning about UL94 causing particulate contamination from cadmium plating that was reported in a NASA ASRS report.

BT forum? Can someone post a link to the site please.

m_moyle wrote:BT forum? Can someone post a link to the site please.

Beech talk.com

Kinda different demographic and a different vibe than here