I always enjoy George's no-B.S. presentations. It's hard to fathom the obstacles that have been thrown into their path at every turn. I wish them much success. I bought the STC, knowing I wasn't going to see it anytime soon, but wanted to support their efforts.
There must be economic or supply related issues with making this fuel in quantity. I.e. require substantial investment in refinery processes. Or limited quantities available in crude oil. Or it's currently used in high value area, and by getting the government involved, the oil companies will be forced to divert sales to a lower value area. There is no other reason people would sabotage their own reputation by fighting to keep leaded fuel pumping into the air above everyone. This isn't carbon related, its lead.
Full disclosure: I'm not a pilot and I've never even been in a GA plane, but I love these channels. The fact that million dollar pieces of equipment rely on archaic technology is appalling to me. As a lawyer I totally understand liability issues. I also appreciate the profitability cycles that have occurred in this industry. Regardless, I can't help but think that if the CEO's of GA aviation had been CEO's of the automobile industry, we'd still be using a hand crank to start engines which were equipped with manual choke levers! This is simply mind boggling to me.
All pilots Agree with you lol, It’s mostly the FAA’s red tape and cost to certification that slow progress. For example EVTOL’s will be the biggest innovation in aviation we’ve seen in years but the juice is worth the squeeze which is why there’s so many players in the space trying to create designs… but yeah the FAA just makes it hard and expensive to get anything done
Most innovation is in Electronics. Ring laser gyros and digital EFIS with GPS. Aero-engine manufacturers stubbornly refuse to adopt EXU and electronic fuel injection, when auto makers went that way in the late-80's with single point then multi-point by the mid-90's. Now the auto industry has converted primarily to Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi). Like the Daimler-Benz and Junkers Jumo from the 1930s-1945. Later the Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gullwing from '54-'57. This has a significant effect on reducing knock, detonation, and pre-ignition. Allowing higher performance (compression ratio, boost). With lower fuel octane. If they switched to GDi then Aircraft could all run 91 octane easily. Also, Octane (8 Carbon atoms, 18 Hydrogen. C8H18) Is a gasoline-like liquid that makes up a certain fraction of crude oil. It has an Octane rating of 100. Because it is the standard for "Octane" rating. Is is far leas volatile than regular auto gas and even aviation fuel. Lower vapor pressure allowing higher altitude operation without pressurized tanks, and reducing vapor-lock issues in fuel lines. Especially when hot. (Fuel sitting in return-less fuel injection lines on top of these archaic flat six air cooled engines, after they are shut down hot). Octane, 100% octane, is almost a drop-in replacement for 100LL.
I had no idea George was a lawyer! Given his presentations I shouldn’t be surprised! Right there in the June 21, 1986 edition, “George Braly and his wife, Diana Deschamps-Braly, attorneys for Mrs. Marlee, said theirs was the first Federal lawsuit charging that snuff causes cancer…” Of course, George didn’t mention that the jury found against the Brady’s client, but it certainly is a qualification that he knows the topic.
I heard at the Aero this year there there is some chemical in G100UL that the EU does not like - no idea if this is accurate, or if there is a path for it to become available in Europe.
@@dermickGeorge said there is no metallic/ferris components. So I can't see it other than normal fuel acrylates. It's gotta be better than lead, don't yah think? Let's get it goin in the U S of A first and I'll bet yah Europe will follow suite.
Thanks Martin for posting this I did not get to attend while I was there. There is so much to digest around this topic. My fear is not that the gas won’t be compatible as much as the consistent availability during the transition and at the end of the day, the number one thing is going to be cost. 100 LL cost can’t be controlled. Currently I feel the overwhelming majority of pilots consider fuel a limiting factor as far as cost with regard to the hours flown. I can’t pay nine dollars a gallon for fuel and continue to fly the way I currently do. The fact that nobody’s talking about the cost of the fuel is alarming to me. With all that being said, in my personal opinion, George is a bit brash in his delivery and maybe people just don’t like him and maybe that’s why they’re pushing back Each time I’ve spoken with him, he has come off as very direct. I realize that he is the foremost expert probably around the data associated with these fuels and work on his delivery a little bit would help.
Most innovation is in Electronics. Ring laser gyros and digital EFIS with GPS. Aero-engine manufacturers stubbornly refuse to adopt ECU and electronic fuel injection, when auto makers went that way in the late-80's with single point then multi-port injection by the mid-90's. Now the auto industry has converted primarily to Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi). Like the Daimler-Benz and Junkers Jumo from the 1930s-1945. Later the Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gullwing from '54-'57. (VW GDi, Ford EcoBoost, GM LT-V8 et. al.). This has a significant effect on reducing knock, detonation, and pre-ignition. Allowing higher performance (compression ratio, boost). With lower fuel octane. If they switched to GDi then Aircraft could all run 91 octane easily. The German fighters of WWII utilized very low octane quite effectively. Also, Octane (8 Carbon atoms, 18 Hydrogen. C8H18) Is a gasoline-like liquid that makes up a certain fraction of crude oil and pump gas. It has an Octane rating of 100. Because it is the standard for "Octane" rating. Is is far less volatile than regular auto gas and even aviation fuel. Lower vapor pressure allowing higher altitude operation without pressurized tanks, and reducing vapor-lock issues in fuel lines. Especially when hot. (Fuel sitting in return-less fuel injection lines on top of these archaic flat six air cooled engines, after they are shut down hot. Which prevents re-start until cool). Octane, 100% octane, is almost a drop-in replacement for 100LL.
Someone smarter than me really needs to explain why it isn't full speed ahead with the G100UL and damn the torpedos? Is it being held up by STCs? Manufacturing? or is it political? Because if it's political I'm just going to be incensed. There's a LOT of anti-airport/aircraft groups out there organizing behind the 100LL as the catalyst for trying to shut down airports. If this can get deployed it removes one of the single largest (and most dangerous) tools in these groups toolbox for coming after aviation.
Clearly someone with money to gain is slowing down this process. There may be some good reasons, like the FAA not wanting to pick a "winner" - we all want competition, for sure, and will G100UL dominate the market and stop development by other competitors? I think we can sort this out, but wow, it's painful.
George and GAMI have tested it every which way but loose! What more do they want? Oh! I know 💰 It's clearly political and driven by money in my opinion😡
It's essentially political... The committees that spent millions on those PAFI and EAGLE projects done want to admit defeat and let this man make millions by being the guy that cracked the case
There are people at the FAA who future is based on working on eliminating 100LL by the date they have had on a roadmap for decades. We have seen in other regulatory bodies, any chaos as we approach those dates makes the post retirement plans of those FAA more lucrative. "Stop Loving the Problem" "People at the FAA did not want us to succeed."
Too bad the reauthorization bill has basically railroaded him from getting fuel distributed since they went consider a fleet wide STC a "authorized replacement"
That is not surprising since 1 of the schools there take their truck across the street to Cosco to get their fuel. From the number of planes they run, it's not a little school.
Most aero engines having low 7.5:1 compression ratio can obtain an STC for 91 octane MoGas. They wont allow it for 8:1 engines, because they assume there would be destructive detonation when run at max CHT of 500f, max RPM, on a hot day, at the bottom of death valley. (Negative sea level altitude and high pressure. Or ram pressure).
I always enjoy George's no-B.S. presentations. It's hard to fathom the obstacles that have been thrown into their path at every turn. I wish them much success. I bought the STC, knowing I wasn't going to see it anytime soon, but wanted to support their efforts.
There must be economic or supply related issues with making this fuel in quantity. I.e. require substantial investment in refinery processes. Or limited quantities available in crude oil. Or it's currently used in high value area, and by getting the government involved, the oil companies will be forced to divert sales to a lower value area. There is no other reason people would sabotage their own reputation by fighting to keep leaded fuel pumping into the air above everyone. This isn't carbon related, its lead.
Thank you Martin for sharing.
Thanks for sharing Martin
Full disclosure: I'm not a pilot and I've never even been in a GA plane, but I love these channels. The fact that million dollar pieces of equipment rely on archaic technology is appalling to me. As a lawyer I totally understand liability issues. I also appreciate the profitability cycles that have occurred in this industry. Regardless, I can't help but think that if the CEO's of GA aviation had been CEO's of the automobile industry, we'd still be using a hand crank to start engines which were equipped with manual choke levers! This is simply mind boggling to me.
All pilots Agree with you lol, It’s mostly the FAA’s red tape and cost to certification that slow progress. For example EVTOL’s will be the biggest innovation in aviation we’ve seen in years but the juice is worth the squeeze which is why there’s so many players in the space trying to create designs… but yeah the FAA just makes it hard and expensive to get anything done
Most innovation is in Electronics. Ring laser gyros and digital EFIS with GPS.
Aero-engine manufacturers stubbornly refuse to adopt EXU and electronic fuel injection, when auto makers went that way in the late-80's with single point then multi-point by the mid-90's.
Now the auto industry has converted primarily to Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi). Like the Daimler-Benz and Junkers Jumo from the 1930s-1945. Later the Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gullwing from '54-'57.
This has a significant effect on reducing knock, detonation, and pre-ignition. Allowing higher performance (compression ratio, boost). With lower fuel octane. If they switched to GDi then Aircraft could all run 91 octane easily.
Also, Octane (8 Carbon atoms, 18 Hydrogen. C8H18) Is a gasoline-like liquid that makes up a certain fraction of crude oil. It has an Octane rating of 100. Because it is the standard for "Octane" rating.
Is is far leas volatile than regular auto gas and even aviation fuel. Lower vapor pressure allowing higher altitude operation without pressurized tanks, and reducing vapor-lock issues in fuel lines. Especially when hot. (Fuel sitting in return-less fuel injection lines on top of these archaic flat six air cooled engines, after they are shut down hot).
Octane, 100% octane, is almost a drop-in replacement for 100LL.
Very long brief but enjoyed listening to the history and the current state. Thanks for the video!
I did the same Martin, I bought the STC. My opinion is they won. Lets all get behind them and push. Get this all behind us and move on.
So you guys solved the problem. Good for you ! 20:46
Now all those DC planes can live again
My favorite is DC 5
I had no idea George was a lawyer! Given his presentations I shouldn’t be surprised! Right there in the June 21, 1986 edition, “George Braly and his wife, Diana Deschamps-Braly, attorneys for Mrs. Marlee, said theirs was the first Federal lawsuit charging that snuff causes cancer…” Of course, George didn’t mention that the jury found against the Brady’s client, but it certainly is a qualification that he knows the topic.
Anyone know if there is a roadmap to get 100UL to EASA area?
I heard at the Aero this year there there is some chemical in G100UL that the EU does not like - no idea if this is accurate, or if there is a path for it to become available in Europe.
@@dermickGeorge said there is no metallic/ferris components. So I can't see it other than normal fuel acrylates. It's gotta be better than lead, don't yah think? Let's get it goin in the U S of A first and I'll bet yah Europe will follow suite.
Thanks Martin for posting this I did not get to attend while I was there. There is so much to digest around this topic. My fear is not that the gas won’t be compatible as much as the consistent availability during the transition and at the end of the day, the number one thing is going to be cost. 100 LL cost can’t be controlled. Currently I feel the overwhelming majority of pilots consider fuel a limiting factor as far as cost with regard to the hours flown. I can’t pay nine dollars a gallon for fuel and continue to fly the way I currently do. The fact that nobody’s talking about the cost of the fuel is alarming to me. With all that being said, in my personal opinion, George is a bit brash in his delivery and maybe people just don’t like him and maybe that’s why they’re pushing back Each time I’ve spoken with him, he has come off as very direct. I realize that he is the foremost expert probably around the data associated with these fuels and work on his delivery a little bit would help.
Most innovation is in Electronics. Ring laser gyros and digital EFIS with GPS.
Aero-engine manufacturers stubbornly refuse to adopt ECU and electronic fuel injection, when auto makers went that way in the late-80's with single point then multi-port injection by the mid-90's.
Now the auto industry has converted primarily to Gasoline Direct Injection (GDi). Like the Daimler-Benz and Junkers Jumo from the 1930s-1945. Later the Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gullwing from '54-'57. (VW GDi, Ford EcoBoost, GM LT-V8 et. al.).
This has a significant effect on reducing knock, detonation, and pre-ignition. Allowing higher performance (compression ratio, boost). With lower fuel octane. If they switched to GDi then Aircraft could all run 91 octane easily. The German fighters of WWII utilized very low octane quite effectively.
Also, Octane (8 Carbon atoms, 18 Hydrogen. C8H18) Is a gasoline-like liquid that makes up a certain fraction of crude oil and pump gas. It has an Octane rating of 100. Because it is the standard for "Octane" rating.
Is is far less volatile than regular auto gas and even aviation fuel. Lower vapor pressure allowing higher altitude operation without pressurized tanks, and reducing vapor-lock issues in fuel lines. Especially when hot. (Fuel sitting in return-less fuel injection lines on top of these archaic flat six air cooled engines, after they are shut down hot. Which prevents re-start until cool).
Octane, 100% octane, is almost a drop-in replacement for 100LL.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane
www.warteraviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/AVGAS-100LL.pdf
Someone smarter than me really needs to explain why it isn't full speed ahead with the G100UL and damn the torpedos? Is it being held up by STCs? Manufacturing? or is it political? Because if it's political I'm just going to be incensed. There's a LOT of anti-airport/aircraft groups out there organizing behind the 100LL as the catalyst for trying to shut down airports. If this can get deployed it removes one of the single largest (and most dangerous) tools in these groups toolbox for coming after aviation.
Clearly someone with money to gain is slowing down this process. There may be some good reasons, like the FAA not wanting to pick a "winner" - we all want competition, for sure, and will G100UL dominate the market and stop development by other competitors? I think we can sort this out, but wow, it's painful.
George and GAMI have tested it every which way but loose! What more do they want? Oh! I know 💰 It's clearly political and driven by money in my opinion😡
Politics and money. Simple.
It's essentially political... The committees that spent millions on those PAFI and EAGLE projects done want to admit defeat and let this man make millions by being the guy that cracked the case
There are people at the FAA who future is based on working on eliminating 100LL by the date they have had on a roadmap for decades. We have seen in other regulatory bodies, any chaos as we approach those dates makes the post retirement plans of those FAA more lucrative.
"Stop Loving the Problem"
"People at the FAA did not want us to succeed."
Too bad the reauthorization bill has basically railroaded him from getting fuel distributed since they went consider a fleet wide STC a "authorized replacement"
This is taking way too long; the FAA needs to S### and get off the POT. Torrance KTOA just voted to ban leaded fuel on the field in 12 months.
That is not surprising since 1 of the schools there take their truck across the street to Cosco to get their fuel. From the number of planes they run, it's not a little school.
Most aero engines having low 7.5:1 compression ratio can obtain an STC for 91 octane MoGas.
They wont allow it for 8:1 engines, because they assume there would be destructive detonation when run at max CHT of 500f, max RPM, on a hot day, at the bottom of death valley. (Negative sea level altitude and high pressure. Or ram pressure).