Hi Jesse. Not yet. We have data in engines with 7.5 CRs, e.g TSIO-550-K and TSIO-520-VB and it seems to do well in those. Testing was just completed in a IO-540-K1A5 with an 8.7 CR, but I haven't heard how it performed in it yet.

Hi Jesse. Not yet. We have data in engines with 7.5 CRs, e.g TSIO-550-K and TSIO-520-VB and it seems to do well in those. Testing was just completed in a IO-540-K1A5 with an 8.7 CR, but I haven't heard how it performed in it yet.

Does it still degrease the belly nicely with a rag?

Hi Matt,

The FAA will not grant the fuel fleet approval if it poses a threat to GA. You are also free to fuel your aircraft with G100UL if you think it is safe.

Dan

You're welcome, Jesse. Will do.

I wish I believed that, but there are large factions within the FAA that would love to get rid of as much GA as they possibly can. I also think politics and money will play a larger role in approval than what is best for GA.

Also, are you trying to imply G100UL is not SAFE? That is the kind of FUD we have come to expect out of Swift, don't stoop to their level.

Hi Jesse. Not yet. We have data in engines with 7.5 CRs, e.g TSIO-550-K and TSIO-520-VB and it seems to do well in those. Testing was just completed in a IO-540-K1A5 with an 8.7 CR, but I haven't heard how it performed in it yet.

Here we go



We have been talking for ages, there is an ongoing FUD campaign. It is interesting to see yet another vendor, with poker face stating, let me summarize for you:

Hey, our prospect fuel, is safe - my comment: we don’t know really it is not commercially available yet- end of comment, but it won’t wok with 20% of the fleet (that consumes 80% of the fuel) unless significant changes to the engine and operational parameters. But we will be ASTM friendly, and G100UL is not safe.

I am having hard times, we the “cost conscious” pilots, screaming about the cost of G100UL STC or the pseudo monopoly, sounds familiar? - will be OK investing mechanic labor on modifying their engines … apologies for the sarcasm when said, “we”…back to topic …

Meantime, with the not perfect fuel G100UL (Braly’s own words), I burn it today in my TSIO520UB, no modifications to the engine, I need to be extremely vigilant with components as stated in GAMI continuous airworthiness advisory, that’s it. A trade off I accept when I use it.

I am told the K1A5 and others with 8.5 CR will need timing mods.

Dan

You are representing the potential vendor here and you state “I am told”.

Simple question

Is the fuel going to be an option for eg TSIO520UB without modifications yes or no?
What about 550 w TAT?

Edit: I am hoping the question influence the direction of the formula. I am all for unleaded options for my engine

Can you elaborate on how the documentation would work for timing changes or compression ratio changes? Will your company be creating STCs for this, or just saying that changes will need to be made and it will fall to third parties to create STCs for these engines? Or is there some other method of modification guidance and approval envisioned?

Can you elaborate on how the documentation would work for timing changes or compression ratio changes? Will your company be creating STCs for this, or just saying that changes will need to be made and it will fall to third parties to create STCs for these engines? Or is there some other method of modification guidance and approval envisioned?

If timing mods are required to use the fuel, they will be retarding the timing - and at that instant, the POH performance charts are all garbage. Hence, the effect of the change to this prospective fuel will be that, for every airframe on which any changes at all are required, an STC will also be required.

I cannot begin to guess how much that would cost to underwrite the expense of performance testing to create new performance tables and limitations for each and every aircraft so affected. And, by definition, the performance will be poorer. Will we give up on takeoff distance, rate of climb, cruise speed - or all of the above?

I'll gently suggest that, in order for a new fuel to be rationally acceptable and to be a success, it will have to provide equal or greater performance to that obtained with current fuel, or it will be a non-starter.

Obviously poor Daniel and his company don’t have any real understanding of general aviation and what these “minor” changes really mean. If you are used to cars and boats and have no pilots or A&P’s at decision making levels, it is really easy to not know what you don’t know.

That said, I still fear that dirty money and dirty politics can leave us with this crap shoved down our throats if we are not vigilant and we don’t fight this hard. FWIW, where are all the GAMI haters who were spreading false fear about G100UL when it comes to the real threat of this fuel and 100R? Paging Gerald Alves and Mike C…

Obviously poor Daniel and his company don’t have any real understanding of general aviation and what these “minor” changes really mean. If you are used to cars and boats and have no pilots or A&P’s at decision making levels, it is really easy to not know what you don’t know.

That said, I still fear that dirty money and dirty politics can leave us with this crap shoved down our throats if we are not vigilant and we don’t fight this hard. FWIW, where are all the GAMI haters who were spreading false fear about G100UL when it comes to the real threat of this fuel and 100R? Paging Gerald Alves and Mike C…