Massive congratulations to both of these gentlemen for having the stones to deal with the FAA for more than a decade to get this STC done! And it's also great to see that they partnered up with a good company to allow for the next step to actually happen. Fingers crossed that goes much smoother this time out 👍
The gentleman of GAMI have a level tenacity that everyone can admire. Congratulations to GAMI and the industry for this significant milestone. The environment implications of this are obvious, but there are huge maintenance implications (for the positive) as well. Just think about the positive impact this will have to cylinder head and value life. Hurray!!!
And health benefits! Can’t believe we still have leaded aviation fuel after we stopped using leaded gasoline in cars decades ago because of its harmful health effects.
I would love to eventually get into GA. Not having to breath in lead will be a huge relief. Thank you so much. Your contributions will make future generations much healthier.
Better than 115/145 . . . wow! Thanks George Braly and Tim Roehl for your perseverance. Also thanks to Paul Millner. Paul Bertorelli, great aviation journalist that he is, asking questions that I want answers to. Discussing issues with people I’ve met and whose knowledge I respect.
Thank you, George, Tim and GAMI for making this happen. Congratulations! Wonderful to hear about refiners/producers being interested. Thank you, Paul, for your continued great coverage of the GA world.
Glad I saw this one too.... it looks like GAMI is trying to step away from the blending, and distributing. Good for them. Their explanation sounds like they are also adding incentive for competition of the blenders, and that may help with the "Street" price.
It seems to me that there should be a huge market for GAMI's 100UL in the automotive market. Car/truck manufactures could exploit this fuel to build engines with higher compression with a consequent increase of power.
With modern stuff probably not so much. E85 has been around quite a while and is generally 100-105 octane and I imagine considerably cheaper than what this product can be sold for. Plus being ethanol it has the added benefit of the cooling effect. For older stuff like carbs or the guys that just want nothing to do with Ethanol it might be a good option vs Race fuels.
@@DOAHunt3r Yes, but at what price? $20 per gallon keeps it out of the highway market. More importantly for us, is it certified for aviation use and is there enough production to satisfy the aviation market -- let alone the automotive market?
@@BlaineNay E85 is dirt cheap. It costs often 30% less than premium mogas. You were talking about G100UL for automotive, I’m just telling you there’s no real need for it when E85 or anything in between that and E10 is readily available for cars. Automotive has been working hard on flex fuel for a long time now and it’s not that complicated to make E85 work even in retrofit applications. Unleaded 100 octane race gas is also readily available for about 9 dollars a gallon. There’s more than enough supply for automotive use as most people either use the much cheaper E85 or only run 100 octane for track use. High octane fuel is mostly a solved problem in automotive. G100UL brings nothing new to the table in that regard.
Paul, is there any opportunity for improving economies of scale with this 100 Octane Unleaded being offered to the automotive market? One could see G100s desirability at least on race tracks, to potentially offer manufacturers an additional lever they can pull to seek higher cylinder pressures for improved performance and economy.
So anyone who wants to produce the fuel can just prove they can meet the spec, be vetted by AVfuel and get the license. They seemed to forget about paying fees, how that's structured (per gallon, month, negotiable by each agreement). That's got to be a huge contributor to this increase in cost per gallon.
Well, George Braly is talking about it, but I think the reason is that's a much longer-term prospect. The major initial benefit IMO is the fully fungible formula with 100ll. I imagine that only a handful of launch customers and flight schools specifically would be able to go cold turkey on 100ll, and if the torturous process the FAA put GAMI through is any indication, they'll be similarly reluctant to allow the reintroduction of fully synthetic oils.
Does this fuel change any engine management procedures at all? Would leaning for taxi just be more about fuel economy than lead deposits on the spark plugs?
Thank you, gentlemen, and all of GAMI for your service to the health and well-being of all of us below the open skies! May the Lord richly bless you all.
2000hrs could be met in under 90 days on a test bench and under 110 days for a full accelerated test procedure like what has been done in the marine/automotive industry where they can accelerate the operational wear and test out 10-15 years in a few months and have it bear out just like real world results at the end of 10-15 years.
Sell the STC right now. I purchased the vaporware " Swift forever STC " for $100. I am ready to send you $100. However I feel the FAA should be buying the STC for everone, as a fine for being incompetent...sorry, i meant government. Thank you George and Tim.
Don't let that be the reason of not getting your PPL. Buying fuel is not the biggest expense compared to insurance, maintenance and hangaring. Go get your PPL and you can just rent a plane a couple hours a year and have a lot of fun like that.
If that’s what’s preventing you from doing it I’ll bet money that even with UL you’ll find another reason. Do it, or don’t do it, don’t sit on the fence.
@@c1ph3rpunk There are a lot of passionate aviators with big concerns regarding our environment. Especially here in europe. For them it is the No1 reason to stick with rotax engine equipped planes or nothing.
Paul, I’m at a total loss to understand your pessimistic attitude towards this fuel and these men’s ability to bring it to market. It’s as though you were invested in a competitor and are trying to hold G100UL down.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 Until you local Air Quality board or NIMBY types forces every airport within 200NM of home base to drop 100LL. Another 400-600 bucks for a piece of paper to put in product that has already been tested to a higher standard than the original only choice on 95% of the engine fleet without issue. The FAA/EPA owes it the consumer of AvGas to make the transition as cheap as possible considering the decades of feet dragging.
@@christopherwhull is the requirement of an STC their fault? Or is that not a requirement of the FAA? I still don't quite understand this. The OP here seems to be taking this out on the designers of the fuel.
Massive congratulations to both of these gentlemen for having the stones to deal with the FAA for more than a decade to get this STC done! And it's also great to see that they partnered up with a good company to allow for the next step to actually happen. Fingers crossed that goes much smoother this time out 👍
The gentleman of GAMI have a level tenacity that everyone can admire. Congratulations to GAMI and the industry for this significant milestone.
The environment implications of this are obvious, but there are huge maintenance implications (for the positive) as well. Just think about the positive impact this will have to cylinder head and value life.
Hurray!!!
And health benefits! Can’t believe we still have leaded aviation fuel after we stopped using leaded gasoline in cars decades ago because of its harmful health effects.
I would love to eventually get into GA. Not having to breath in lead will be a huge relief. Thank you so much. Your contributions will make future generations much healthier.
What a tremendous accomplishment by the entire GAMI team and all players in the process, but especially by George Braly. Thank you, George!
George cut his beard! I guess it wasn't a joke he was letting it grow to show how long it would get while waiting for G100UL to be approved.
Wow. I have seen him in videos. But, I didn’t remember hearing about the beard challenge.
Better than 115/145 . . . wow!
Thanks George Braly and Tim Roehl for your perseverance. Also thanks to Paul Millner.
Paul Bertorelli, great aviation journalist that he is, asking questions that I want answers to. Discussing issues with people I’ve met and whose knowledge I respect.
Such a huge accomplishment to help keep GA going. Thank you !!
Thank you, George, Tim and GAMI for making this happen. Congratulations! Wonderful to hear about refiners/producers being interested.
Thank you, Paul, for your continued great coverage of the GA world.
Congratulations and a big vote of confidence in the prospects for GAMI … it goes to show what determination and perseverance can accomplish.
That's great news! Congrats to everyone involved!
Glad I saw this one too.... it looks like GAMI is trying to step away from the blending, and distributing. Good for them. Their explanation sounds like they are also adding incentive for competition of the blenders, and that may help with the "Street" price.
What will this mean to those that wish to use synthenic oils to extend their engine life.
An aviation-specific synthetic oil will be possible. Don't use automotive oils, the additives can damage aircraft engines.
Congrats GAMI. I’d fly to Ada tomorrow for a tank of the 100UL.
Paul - thank you for all those excellent questions.
It seems to me that there should be a huge market for GAMI's 100UL in the automotive market. Car/truck manufactures could exploit this fuel to build engines with higher compression with a consequent increase of power.
With modern stuff probably not so much. E85 has been around quite a while and is generally 100-105 octane and I imagine considerably cheaper than what this product can be sold for. Plus being ethanol it has the added benefit of the cooling effect. For older stuff like carbs or the guys that just want nothing to do with Ethanol it might be a good option vs Race fuels.
VP Racing already has unleaded 100 octane CARB approved for pump gas. And there’s E85 if you want cheap race gas.
@@DOAHunt3r Yes, but at what price? $20 per gallon keeps it out of the highway market. More importantly for us, is it certified for aviation use and is there enough production to satisfy the aviation market -- let alone the automotive market?
@@BlaineNay E85 is dirt cheap. It costs often 30% less than premium mogas. You were talking about G100UL for automotive, I’m just telling you there’s no real need for it when E85 or anything in between that and E10 is readily available for cars. Automotive has been working hard on flex fuel for a long time now and it’s not that complicated to make E85 work even in retrofit applications. Unleaded 100 octane race gas is also readily available for about 9 dollars a gallon. There’s more than enough supply for automotive use as most people either use the much cheaper E85 or only run 100 octane for track use. High octane fuel is mostly a solved problem in automotive. G100UL brings nothing new to the table in that regard.
Paul, is there any opportunity for improving economies of scale with this 100 Octane Unleaded being offered to the automotive market?
One could see G100s desirability at least on race tracks, to potentially offer manufacturers an additional lever they can pull to seek higher cylinder pressures for improved performance and economy.
Would have a hard time competing with E85 I imagine.
So anyone who wants to produce the fuel can just prove they can meet the spec, be vetted by AVfuel and get the license. They seemed to forget about paying fees, how that's structured (per gallon, month, negotiable by each agreement). That's got to be a huge contributor to this increase in cost per gallon.
Why isnt anyone talking about the amazing oils were going to get to use now that lead isn't a problem. Engine wear is about to go down dramatically
Well, George Braly is talking about it, but I think the reason is that's a much longer-term prospect. The major initial benefit IMO is the fully fungible formula with 100ll. I imagine that only a handful of launch customers and flight schools specifically would be able to go cold turkey on 100ll, and if the torturous process the FAA put GAMI through is any indication, they'll be similarly reluctant to allow the reintroduction of fully synthetic oils.
I'm curious as to what is added to up the Octane or if it is something different than Octane #'s that pushes detonation events further away than now.
Does this fuel change any engine management procedures at all? Would leaning for taxi just be more about fuel economy than lead deposits on the spark plugs?
Finally, s9me good GA news. These two men may have saved General Aviation.
Fantastic news, thanks for sharing
Face it Paul, this is a big win for GA. Your pessimism is missing the demand of the market for this.
Well done guys!
Great news. Zulu Bravos to all involved. Good call on trimming the beard!
Thank you, gentlemen, and all of GAMI for your service to the health and well-being of all of us below the open skies! May the Lord richly bless you all.
Has anyone run only G100UL through an engine for a full 2000 hour cycle between overhauls?
13 years of testing. I’m sure some engine has hit TBO on the bench.
2000hrs could be met in under 90 days on a test bench and under 110 days for a full accelerated test procedure like what has been done in the marine/automotive industry where they can accelerate the operational wear and test out 10-15 years in a few months and have it bear out just like real world results at the end of 10-15 years.
I would be more than happy to test this out for max TBO in a real airplane if someone supplies the airplane. 😁
Getting rid of air sprayed neurotoxins... finally!
You didn't ask the most important question of all: Why did George Braly cut off his epic beard?
Someone told him to stop looking like a lunatic.
Another poster made a comment that he vowed not to cut it until his fuel was approved.
Maybe some day I won't have to lean to near engine starvation while taxiing.
Where is the beard?
i hope Canada gets this juice sooner than later
congrats
Sell the STC right now. I purchased the vaporware " Swift forever STC " for $100. I am ready to send you $100. However I feel the FAA should be buying the STC for everone, as a fine for being incompetent...sorry, i meant government. Thank you George and Tim.
Leaded gas is actually a big deterrent from me getting my PPL. I'm not in a rush to buy-in to an expensive passion.
Don't let that be the reason of not getting your PPL. Buying fuel is not the biggest expense compared to insurance, maintenance and hangaring. Go get your PPL and you can just rent a plane a couple hours a year and have a lot of fun like that.
I’m with you - I feel less guilty when flying a rotax with MOGAS.
If that’s what’s preventing you from doing it I’ll bet money that even with UL you’ll find another reason. Do it, or don’t do it, don’t sit on the fence.
@@c1ph3rpunk There are a lot of passionate aviators with big concerns regarding our environment. Especially here in europe. For them it is the No1 reason to stick with rotax engine equipped planes or nothing.
Paul, I’m at a total loss to understand your pessimistic attitude towards this fuel and these men’s ability to bring it to market. It’s as though you were invested in a competitor and are trying to hold G100UL down.
Better to be tough during an interview like this than seem like a "fanboy". Keep up the good work Paul!
Total loss?
@@RayeBay1 you’ve never heard that expression before?
Paul is not being pessimistic, he is being a good interviewer, coaxing valuable information from the developer.
If you want to sell your fuel , drop the stupid STC. And price the fuel the same as 100 LL or go away!
Stay mad. Don't like it, don't buy it.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 Until you local Air Quality board or NIMBY types forces every airport within 200NM of home base to drop 100LL. Another 400-600 bucks for a piece of paper to put in product that has already been tested to a higher standard than the original only choice on 95% of the engine fleet without issue. The FAA/EPA owes it the consumer of AvGas to make the transition as cheap as possible considering the decades of feet dragging.
@@christopherwhull is the requirement of an STC their fault? Or is that not a requirement of the FAA? I still don't quite understand this. The OP here seems to be taking this out on the designers of the fuel.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 it exists simply to make him money, he can wave it.
@@thompsonjerry3412 so the fees from an STC go right to them?
There's something slightly off with all this.