VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

  #1  
Old 10-29-2021, 02:24 PM
togaflyer togaflyer is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fl/Ga
Posts: 871
Default G100 UL

I did some reading on Gami G100UL fuel that is working its way as a replacement for the 100 LL. This company has spent years developing a potential direct replacement for 100LL fuel. Reading their testing, they utilized a number of engines including a Turbo Continental TIO 550 with 8.7 to 1 compression ratio. This got me thinking about our experimental engines. I run 9:1 and I know there are engine that run up to 10:1, so I sent a question to Gami regarding how their fuel would work in higher compression engines. I received a response the same day, which I did not expect. Here is the answer received from Gami…….

The "lean rating" octane performance of the G100UL exceeds that of 100LL, so any engines that can run on 100LL will run well on G100UL.
That being said, the "rich rating" octane performance is WELL above that of 100LL (160+ octane equivalent). I don’t know what the limit of detonation-free compression ratio would be when full rich. That limit might be hard to find using currently available engine parts.

Thanks,

John-Paul
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-29-2021, 07:14 PM
RV6_flyer's Avatar
RV6_flyer RV6_flyer is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NC25
Posts: 3,976
Default FAA Approved G100 UL engines

So far, the FAA approved these engines for use with G100 UL AvGas.
__________________
Gary A. Sobek
NC25 RV-6
Flying
3,500+ hours
Where is N157GS
Building RV-8 S/N: 80012

To most people, the sky is the limit.
To those who love aviation, the sky is home.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-2022, 07:00 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,314
Default

I saw a letter today from George Braly basically saying that it appears GAMI's G100UL unleaded avgas will not be FAA approved any time soon for fleet wide use, so don't hold your breath.

The letter is probably too political and critical of the FAA to publish here so I didn't.

Sad news indeed.

Let's hope the letter creates some positive action somehow.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 457.6 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-31-2022, 07:38 AM
rv8ch's Avatar
rv8ch rv8ch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: LSGY
Posts: 4,868
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy View Post
I saw a letter today from George Braly basically saying that it appears GAMI's G100UL unleaded avgas will not be FAA approved any time soon for fleet wide use, so don't hold your breath.

The letter is probably too political and critical of the FAA to publish here so I didn't.

Sad news indeed.

Let's hope the letter creates some positive action somehow.
Indeed there seems to be something strange happening - no idea why this is taking so long. I'm struggling to understand why the FAA would be blocking progress on this.
__________________
Mickey Coggins

http://www.rv8.ch/help-people-in-ukraine/
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-31-2022, 08:20 AM
Freemasm Freemasm is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Orlando
Posts: 804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv8ch View Post
Indeed there seems to be something strange happening - no idea why this is taking so long. I'm struggling to understand why the FAA would be blocking progress on this.
There's so much future profit involved. Yes, it's comparatively a drop in the bucket for Big Oil but...

If a company can politically position itself to supply a closed market, they gain and everyone else suffers. No one really expected this market to be ceded to niche players, did they? This won't be over until the situation is ultimately forced. Any lack of competition is gonna hurt, bad.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-31-2022, 08:53 AM
1001001's Avatar
1001001 1001001 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Just Minutes from KBVI!
Posts: 1,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemasm View Post
There's so much future profit involved. Yes, it's comparatively a drop in the bucket for Big Oil but...

If a company can politically position itself to supply a closed market, they gain and everyone else suffers. No one really expected this market to be ceded to niche players, did they? This won't be over until the situation is ultimately forced. Any lack of competition is gonna hurt, bad.
Nothing would stop a competitor to GAMI from having certified, and manufacturing and distributing, another unleaded fuel, absent interference from a regulating agency.

Or are you implying that the entrenched manufacturers had some influence over this?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-31-2022, 09:03 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,314
Default

GAMI isn't the only potential vendor to complain about how PAFI has been run by the FAA.

No telling what influences are at work here from the outside. The only thing we do know is that this has taken a very long time so far with little result. With multiple STCs approved a while back from 2 manufacturers and GAMI seemingly just being around the corner from fleet wide approval, this has now been moved out further into the future again.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 457.6 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ



Last edited by rv6ejguy : 05-31-2022 at 09:31 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-31-2022, 09:17 AM
Freemasm Freemasm is online now
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Orlando
Posts: 804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1001001 View Post
Nothing would stop a competitor to GAMI from having certified, and manufacturing and distributing, another unleaded fuel, absent interference from a regulating agency.

Or are you implying that the entrenched manufacturers had some influence over this?
I not intentionally implying but we all know how the world works. You can maintain your market share by being better or cheaper. Think Snap-on versus Harbor Freight. Both have a place in that market There are above board ways to lobby in order to get policy in your favor. There are other ways. I've been around too long to trust any side of a position when money is involved.

All that said, this assumes all of the associated bombastic verbosity prior to SnF was accurate; "the best position paper ever witnessed from a government entity" or whatever the exact words were. Will be interesting to see any related release from the FAA.

Would like to keep my 9.6:1s in my virgin engine but who knows?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-31-2022, 09:38 AM
1001001's Avatar
1001001 1001001 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Just Minutes from KBVI!
Posts: 1,417
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freemasm View Post
I not intentionally implying but we all know how the world works. You can maintain your market share by being better or cheaper. Think Snap-on versus Harbor Freight. Both have a place in that market There are above board ways to lobby in order to get policy in your favor. There are other ways. I've been around too long to trust any side of a position when money is involved.

All that said, this assumes all of the associated bombastic verbosity prior to SnF was accurate; "the best position paper ever witnessed from a government entity" or whatever the exact words were. Will be interesting to see any related release from the FAA.

Would like to keep my 9.6:1s in my virgin engine but who knows?
Regulatory capture is a thing always and everywhere. Regulation is never a panacea and carries risks and problems of its own.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-31-2022, 04:25 PM
JDeanda JDeanda is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 338
Default Aw, Dang

Braly actually says his fuel has been tested and fully FAA approved twice for all certified piston aero engines in the United States. The feds are now reviewing their certification system and standards. Again. They’ve enacted the EAGLE program to bring the fuel into use and they estimate only 8 years are needed to do so, after only 20 years of testing so far. Mmm, and I was SO looking forward to running aero engines without cleaning lead deposits off of spark plugs, pistons, valves, all that, along with sharply reduced oil contamination. Oh well.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:18 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.