Sooo, just a quick question, what has happened to Paul Bertorelli? I enjoyed his pithy commentary and his encyclopedic knowledge of aviation and all things surrounding it. I guess it's ok to let the B team have a crack at it for a while, but when exactly will Paul be back, or is he now just an historic footnote in the annals of AVWeb?
@@UncleKennysPlaceyou are correct. I had a mistype and corrected. 😵💫 MOGAS is preferred but will run on 100LL. You just have change oil at 50hrs vice 100hrs, and spark plugs at 100hr vice 200hr. That lead sludge builds up. Also coats exhaust cowling. 😢
G100 UL will allow us Rotax people to get the fuel we want at more airports. This is a good thing for us. They need to work on the pricing, though. I'll still buy MOGAS until the prices align.
Can y'all please expound on the practical health risks of being a pilot or mechanic exposed to 100LL? Everyone talks about this like it's an environmental issue but I just want to know if I'm hurting my kids by taking them to Oshkosh.
Answer: None. I've been around leaded avgas multiple days/week for the last 36 years. I've had my blood tested and my family's blood tested for lead. The results have been negative every time. Air sampling results collected by EPA at airports are consistently lower than EPA's own exposure standards--even when EPA tried to rig the monitors to drive up hits. The evidence cited in EPA's endangerment finding is like Russian dolls--layer after layer of cross-references that ultimately devolve to preliminary studies that didn't actually show what EPA claims. There are a handful of statistical reports that find correlation, but do not presume to claim causation. Even those statistical reports fail to account for obvious and well-known sources of lead in the immediate environment of the study area. But correlation was all that anti-airport people need to claim causation, and politicians looking for something to drive votes jumped on the bandwagon. So, the crusade against 100ll is based on junk science and fear-mongering. EPA was looking for something to do. Friends of the Earth was looking for a cause to stir up fear and drive memberships and donations. They conspired to bring a friendly lawsuit. Other anti-airport groups got on the bandwagon. The alphabet groups did't even try to fight this garbage, so we are now stuck with baseless, histrionic claims that 100ll is poisoning the children, which predictably shows up in comments on videos like this one. The U.S. Government should buy the rights to G100UL immediately and open-source it to all refiners and distributors. Let the taxpayers pay for it if it will make the snowflakes happy. Call it the stupidity tax.
@@206dvr I'm an A&P and I did have a BLL come back at 12mg/dl when I used to work adjacent to a shop that did lots of recip overhauls. I guess it's different when you're spending most of your time around avgas rapidly fleeing the scene of the lead emissions...but fuck the people behind you, right? You're the only person in the whole wide world that matters, the rest of us are just scenery.
One thing that people keep missing is that one does not need to be only concerned about the EPA/FAA. The only aviation source of TEL is in the UK. So if the British government decides to ban its production and/or export then no more 100LL! There is a British election later this year and it is expected that the government will change. I'd be far more concerned about the British Government rather than the EPA!
94UL is now found to cause problems with some engines in valves components, FAA considering action. G100UL will be made by Exxon in the next few years Canada will have it before the United States.
UND university flight school had huge problems with unleaded fuel, went back to 100LL because of valve seat recession. GAMI has no proof to show that the same problems don’t occur with G100UL fuel.
@@tropicthndr San Carlos and West Valley Flight School in the San Jose also run Swift 94 on the same planes and do not have issues and have seen decreased maintenance intervals. Lycoming, GAMI and AOPA are investigating but are pointing the finger at the leaning techniques used at UND. AvWeb has an article on it.
Because he would lose $500 - $1000 per STC sold. So the problem is, you have one tank at an airport, you put in 100UL, and a bunch of planes pull up to the pump and cannot get fuel due to their not having the STC!?
@@Top10VideosOnTheWebWrong, Braly would get ASTM D910 if he could but he can't. G100UL does not meet the specific gravity requirement of D910. D910 also literally requires the fuel to have some lead in it. This is all because D910 was designed to standardize 100LL purchasing for FBO contracts. 100LL doesn't meet D910, rather, D910 describes 100LL (and other octanes).
We know that there are several specific airports in California where it would make a lot of sense to sell G100UL. I get that GAMI is a small company and getting the fuel into larger scale production has a bunch of chicken-vs-egg problems. But is something concrete happening to get G100UL available to sell at these threatened CA airports? I give GAMI credit for being "the little guy vs big bureaucracies" but at some point they need to move from getting their product approved and into production/sale. In the same way that journalists should be digging into and reporting what barriers are being erected against GAMI and G100UL, if GAMI isn't pushing ahead, there should be investigation and reporting on what is happening there if anything.
GAMI should make the lion's share of the money anyway. They've developed it. They spent millions of dollars making this fuel a possibility. Any oil company that wants to refine this, can.GAMI wants oil companies to step in and produce it. Your comment is baseless.
@@dh-flies then why can't they get astm and why were the excluded from eagle... It's all beuracratic BS that's holding it up. Gami knew this and it's why they are doing the stc
@@FlyingNDriving Because George has a very low tolerance for bullshit, and unfortunately that isn't a trait you can have if working with our worthless government...
The first comment is correct. It's all about the money, IMHO. It's kind of in a stalemate right now. The current sticking point is no ASTM certification for GAMI's fuel. GAMI doesn't trust some components (peoples) inside of ASTM the way I hear it. The next thing is the necessary STC thing to buy & use G100UL. Then there's the valve recession issue without lead in the fuel that keeps getting brought up. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I won't get into that here. And how about experimental aircraft, they don't need STCs, so will they be able to buy G100UL? I would certainly hope so. Over all I think it would be good to get the lead out.
It's going to take a hell of a lot of infrastructure investment to make G100UL available at every airfield (that carries 100LL) in the United States, Canada, Europe, South America, Australasia, etc. As far as I know, Gami doesn't have the resources to make that investment alone. This is going to take time.
No new infrastructure is needed? It has to be made in sufficient quantity to serve a global market. It has to be distributed to a global market. That takes infrastructure. Gami does not have the resources to do that.
@@philipritson8821 GAMI is licensing the formula to existing fuel providers (refineries/distributors), it can use the same tankers, etc. They are not providing the fuel themselves except for those that make a pilgrimage to Ada, OK.
@@dh-fliespeople who care about each other, and for humanity as a whole, are not necessarily related to each other, but we do outnumber the bigots and haters, so sometimes it might seem like we are all related 😉
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
Sooo, just a quick question, what has happened to Paul Bertorelli? I enjoyed his pithy commentary and his encyclopedic knowledge of aviation and all things surrounding it. I guess it's ok to let the B team have a crack at it for a while, but when exactly will Paul be back, or is he now just an historic footnote in the annals of AVWeb?
Paul is currently enjoying the retired life!
@@AVweb For me, Paul was almost synonymous with AVweb. He's missed.
Pauls video comment years ago about amphibian pilots becoming U-Boat commanders was priceless!
I miss Paul too. These guys are trying but, in fairness, there was only one Paul Bertorelli.
@@BlueBaron3339 I think they’ll do fine getting their own stride, but there is only one Paul.😁
I wish I could get MOGAS. My ROTAX WOULD LOVE IT!😊
Aren't most Rotax engines certified to run mogas, even with some ethanol?
Will refineries threatening to close down in California also affect how's this plays out?
@@UncleKennysPlaceyou are correct. I had a mistype and corrected. 😵💫 MOGAS is preferred but will run on 100LL. You just have change oil at 50hrs vice 100hrs, and spark plugs at 100hr vice 200hr. That lead sludge builds up. Also coats exhaust cowling. 😢
G100 UL will allow us Rotax people to get the fuel we want at more airports. This is a good thing for us. They need to work on the pricing, though. I'll still buy MOGAS until the prices align.
@@dh-fliesthat is a good thing!
Can y'all please expound on the practical health risks of being a pilot or mechanic exposed to 100LL? Everyone talks about this like it's an environmental issue but I just want to know if I'm hurting my kids by taking them to Oshkosh.
Answer: None. I've been around leaded avgas multiple days/week for the last 36 years. I've had my blood tested and my family's blood tested for lead. The results have been negative every time. Air sampling results collected by EPA at airports are consistently lower than EPA's own exposure standards--even when EPA tried to rig the monitors to drive up hits. The evidence cited in EPA's endangerment finding is like Russian dolls--layer after layer of cross-references that ultimately devolve to preliminary studies that didn't actually show what EPA claims. There are a handful of statistical reports that find correlation, but do not presume to claim causation. Even those statistical reports fail to account for obvious and well-known sources of lead in the immediate environment of the study area. But correlation was all that anti-airport people need to claim causation, and politicians looking for something to drive votes jumped on the bandwagon. So, the crusade against 100ll is based on junk science and fear-mongering. EPA was looking for something to do. Friends of the Earth was looking for a cause to stir up fear and drive memberships and donations. They conspired to bring a friendly lawsuit. Other anti-airport groups got on the bandwagon. The alphabet groups did't even try to fight this garbage, so we are now stuck with baseless, histrionic claims that 100ll is poisoning the children, which predictably shows up in comments on videos like this one. The U.S. Government should buy the rights to G100UL immediately and open-source it to all refiners and distributors. Let the taxpayers pay for it if it will make the snowflakes happy. Call it the stupidity tax.
@@206dvr I'm an A&P and I did have a BLL come back at 12mg/dl when I used to work adjacent to a shop that did lots of recip overhauls. I guess it's different when you're spending most of your time around avgas rapidly fleeing the scene of the lead emissions...but fuck the people behind you, right? You're the only person in the whole wide world that matters, the rest of us are just scenery.
One thing that people keep missing is that one does not need to be only concerned about the EPA/FAA. The only aviation source of TEL is in the UK. So if the British government decides to ban its production and/or export then no more 100LL! There is a British election later this year and it is expected that the government will change. I'd be far more concerned about the British Government rather than the EPA!
94UL is now found to cause problems with some engines in valves components, FAA considering action. G100UL will be made by Exxon in the next few years Canada will have it before the United States.
G100ul will also allow engines to use synthetic oil which will dramatically increase red engine life.
Yup no more fouled spark plugs and stuck valves. Oil change intervals can be doubled...
UND university flight school had huge problems with unleaded fuel, went back to 100LL because of valve seat recession. GAMI has no proof to show that the same problems don’t occur with G100UL fuel.
@@tropicthndr San Carlos and West Valley Flight School in the San Jose also run Swift 94 on the same planes and do not have issues and have seen decreased maintenance intervals. Lycoming, GAMI and AOPA are investigating but are pointing the finger at the leaning techniques used at UND. AvWeb has an article on it.
Any idea why Braly does not want to get an ASTM certification?
Because he would lose $500 - $1000 per STC sold. So the problem is, you have one tank at an airport, you put in 100UL, and a bunch of planes pull up to the pump and cannot get fuel due to their not having the STC!?
@@Top10VideosOnTheWebWrong, Braly would get ASTM D910 if he could but he can't. G100UL does not meet the specific gravity requirement of D910. D910 also literally requires the fuel to have some lead in it. This is all because D910 was designed to standardize 100LL purchasing for FBO contracts. 100LL doesn't meet D910, rather, D910 describes 100LL (and other octanes).
We know that there are several specific airports in California where it would make a lot of sense to sell G100UL. I get that GAMI is a small company and getting the fuel into larger scale production has a bunch of chicken-vs-egg problems. But is something concrete happening to get G100UL available to sell at these threatened CA airports? I give GAMI credit for being "the little guy vs big bureaucracies" but at some point they need to move from getting their product approved and into production/sale. In the same way that journalists should be digging into and reporting what barriers are being erected against GAMI and G100UL, if GAMI isn't pushing ahead, there should be investigation and reporting on what is happening there if anything.
They really don't want gami to make all the money, one of the oil corporations has already called dibs
GAMI should make the lion's share of the money anyway. They've developed it. They spent millions of dollars making this fuel a possibility. Any oil company that wants to refine this, can.GAMI wants oil companies to step in and produce it. Your comment is baseless.
@@dh-flies then why can't they get astm and why were the excluded from eagle... It's all beuracratic BS that's holding it up. Gami knew this and it's why they are doing the stc
@@FlyingNDriving Because George has a very low tolerance for bullshit, and unfortunately that isn't a trait you can have if working with our worthless government...
@@FlyingNDriving you must work for somebody. It's obvious you are not an entrepreneur and understand business concepts.
The first comment is correct. It's all about the money, IMHO. It's kind of in a stalemate right now. The current sticking point is no ASTM certification for GAMI's fuel. GAMI doesn't trust some components (peoples) inside of ASTM the way I hear it. The next thing is the necessary STC thing to buy & use G100UL. Then there's the valve recession issue without lead in the fuel that keeps getting brought up. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I won't get into that here. And how about experimental aircraft, they don't need STCs, so will they be able to buy G100UL? I would certainly hope so. Over all I think it would be good to get the lead out.
Not as long as the government helps.
It's going to take a hell of a lot of infrastructure investment to make G100UL available at every airfield (that carries 100LL) in the United States, Canada, Europe, South America, Australasia, etc.
As far as I know, Gami doesn't have the resources to make that investment alone.
This is going to take time.
20:45
No new infrastructure is needed.
No new infrastructure is needed?
It has to be made in sufficient quantity to serve a global market.
It has to be distributed to a global market.
That takes infrastructure.
Gami does not have the resources to do that.
@@philipritson8821 Why can't they just use the infrastructure (tankers, tanks, pipes, etc) that is already in place?
@@philipritson8821 GAMI is licensing the formula to existing fuel providers (refineries/distributors), it can use the same tankers, etc. They are not providing the fuel themselves except for those that make a pilgrimage to Ada, OK.
Leaded gas should be banned now!
Blah blah blah... Are you a relative of AOC?
@@dh-fliespeople who care about each other, and for humanity as a whole, are not necessarily related to each other, but we do outnumber the bigots and haters, so sometimes it might seem like we are all related 😉
@@jpe1 I don't even know where to begin with your statement...I wish I could go through life that oblivious...
@@jpe1 I bet you wash your underwear in rainwater.
@@dh-flies Leaded gas has been poisoning the world since it was introduced. There's simply no reason to allow aircraft to use it.