banner
banner

22 Oct 2025, 21:01 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Stevens Aerospace (Banner)



Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2025, 17:19 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/08/18
Posts: 864
Post Likes: +487
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Aircraft: B36TC
Quote:

its safe operating envelope in the entire fleet



Sorry Dan, not personal,

You are just representing a business.

In short, after throwing FUD after G100UL, denying they are voicing/ representing
a vendor, acknowledging they don’t know if a tsio520UB will be supported as is, actually hinting either minor or major mods will be required, they are told …, ignoring other variants like 550 TN, a new paradigm was created..safe envelope…

I can certainly see with joy, my engine, modified to either set max map at 23 inches or to modify the timing or the pistons so we produce less power to avoid detonation… yes making stuff up because we are only told…”we” manufacture the fuel but let third parties to figure out if it works….we don’t test it…

And leaving sarcasm behind, no, according to you, your fuel does not seem to be a viable option for my engine, at least not on paper, or I should say on screen, that is the only evidence we have. Because my command of the English language is far from good, in case it was not clear, by wanting options, I meant a fuel I can run my engine “as is”.

I will certainly give you credit and buy your fuel if it can be used in my engine. So far the things you are told you shared with us, don’t preclude such.

Btw admins, time to bill them as sponsors, they are not here to help settle LOP vs ROP or 100 dollar burger trip suggestions. at least they can contribute to keep BT running :)


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2025, 17:25 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/26/18
Posts: 160
Post Likes: +79
The near future will be a large change in engine manufacturers going to Diesel/Jet-A only for GA aircraft. I don't think there is enough demand for 100LL or UL when we get to the nitty gritty of it.

I think flight schools will be flying aircraft that burn diesel to train future commercial pilots, but I'm unsure how it plays out for us recreational flyers who own older models.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2025, 17:25 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 9667
Post Likes: +16517
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
Username Protected wrote:
Matt, I appreciate the comments. At this point I do not trust any fuel but 100LL in my Malibu. I need to see a lot more data and hours with the TSIO variants. I am also worried about the fuel tank sealant issues, if those are actually true. I hope you are right about the one UL fuel that we have today being viable, I am just not ready to call it yet.
Kevin


To be clear, in my mind there is a difference between “viable” and “with no issues”. I expect there are going to be issues with any change in fuel. Some real, some that would have also happened with continued use of 100LL. If G100UL does cause widespread problems with well maintained tanks due to materials compatibility problems, that’s a pretty big deal. If it happens to a few select tanks that already had small leaks, that is a minor issue that should have been addressed anyway.

The important thing to keep in mind is that so far, the issues with G100UL are much smaller than those with the other two fuels, so if it is a least of three evils situation, that’s still better than taking the worst of three evils, or having no solution when the one TEL plant suddenly goes offline.

_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2025, 17:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/01/14
Posts: 9667
Post Likes: +16517
Location: Операционный офис КГБ
Aircraft: TU-104
Username Protected wrote:
The near future will be a large change in engine manufacturers going to Diesel/Jet-A only for GA aircraft. I don't think there is enough demand for 100LL or UL when we get to the nitty gritty of it.

I think flight schools will be flying aircraft that burn diesel to train future commercial pilots, but I'm unsure how it plays out for us recreational flyers who own older models.


We have been hearing about these diesel engines being right around the corner for 30 years now. There would be a lot of benefits to standardize all aircraft on a single fuel (Jet A) but I am not holding my breath. There are good reasons they have struggled.

_________________
Be kinder than I am. It’s a low bar.
Flight suits = superior knowledge


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2025, 18:48 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/08/18
Posts: 864
Post Likes: +487
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Aircraft: B36TC
A concrete example.

If the engine in the DA50, would be certified in a B36TC, At least, ignoring physical installation hurdles CG etc it would be probably 180 pounds heavier … using web sources … so take w grain of salt


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2025, 19:34 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/22/12
Posts: 892
Post Likes: +367
Location: Denver, CO
Aircraft: 1969 TN 36
A solution that address 80% of the fleet that doesn't address the 20% of the fleet that burns the majority of the fuel is not a solution. Frankly, it's a distraction. A reduction in performance is not a solution. I'm curious of that 80% what % is currently supported under STC's to burn auto fuel as is..


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 05 Jun 2025, 21:39 
Online


 Profile




Joined: 02/21/11
Posts: 790
Post Likes: +1023
Location: Northside of Atlanta
Aircraft: RV-6 & RV-10
Username Protected wrote:
A solution that address 80% of the fleet that doesn't address the 20% of the fleet that burns the majority of the fuel is not a solution. Frankly, it's a distraction. A reduction in performance is not a solution. I'm curious of that 80% what % is currently supported under STC's to burn auto fuel as is..


It appears that only way to get to a reasonably priced fuel is by sacrificing something. Why? Chemical engineering. Lead is a near-magic octane booster. With that key ingredient out of the picture, we can only get so close to a 100% drop-in replacement. The question is which of the key metrics we choose to sacrifice... Cost? Octane? RVP? Material Compatibility? Shelf life/stability?

It isn't the engineer's fault (or the refiner/blender's fault) that a government bureaucracy established a requirement (no lead) that is incompatible with the laws of chemistry/physics and the intended use of the product.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2025, 00:16 
Online




User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/07
Posts: 35571
Post Likes: +14062
Location: Minneapolis, MN (KFCM)
Aircraft: 1970 Baron B55
Username Protected wrote:
You already have G100UL. If that works for you, great. We have developed a different fuel that behaves differently. The FAA and OEMs believe it is a viable fuel and are working hard to define its safe operating envelope in the entire fleet. You say you want options? That's what this is about.

Dan I appreciate your participation here and I assume you're here to learn as well as answer questions. There are a couple of very important isssues I believe you should give serious thought to WRT an unleaded gasoline for piston powered aircraft.

1) Any required modification that reduces performance is pretty much a non-starter. OTOH if you come up with a fuel that requires simple and inexpensive alterations that do NOT affect performance (e.g. horsepower, full power and cruise power BFSC) I think that would be acceptable to the market. Even a small performance change would require modifications to the operating handbooks for all affected aircraft and that would be a huge undertaking, especially considering that there are plenty of aircraft flying today whose manufacturers no longer exist.

2) Very few airports will ever be willing to offer multiple avgas types, it's simply not economical. It's not like the automotive world where retailers often provide two or more choices. Thus the only viable way for multiple unleaded fuels to exist in the marketplace is if they're completely fungible. You might think that pilots would simply choose to fuel at airports providing their favorite avgas but that's not plausible either for a number of reasons.

Both of these issues are pretty unique to aircraft fuel, primarily due to the heavily regulated nature of flying. If this fuel was for a boat, it would be a very minor annoyance if one's boat engine needed the timing retarded a few degrees even if that meant the power output dropped several percent. Boat operators who want to retain the original power output can utilize boutique fuels for the times when that's needed, and since boats are often fueled via portable tanks it's feasible to seek that out. Since there are no regulator hoops to thread it's much easier to comply with whatever changes are needed.

_________________
-lance

It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2025, 00:31 
Offline




User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/12/07
Posts: 8078
Post Likes: +3715
Company: Cutler-Smith, P.C.
Location: Dallas, TX (KADS)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza V35A
An important fact: a timing mod may, in itself, be a "minor modification" (I can do it in seconds); but once the timing has been changed, the aircraft is no longer a certificated aircraft fit and legal to fly - the performance data which define how the aircraft can operate are no longer valid.

A fuel which cannot be used in the high-compression, spark-ignition engines that represent the majority of aviation fuel sold and used is not a viable fuel.

_________________
PP, ASEL, Instrument Airplane, A&P
Texas Construction Law: http://www.TexasConstructionLaw.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2025, 12:24 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/09/11
Posts: 2032
Post Likes: +2811
Company: Naples Jet Center
Location: KAPF KPIA
Aircraft: EMB500 AC95 AEST
If it’s chemically impossible to safely replace 100LL, then what’s needed is a domestic lead manufacturer and another 50 years to figure and phase it out. :shrug:


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2025, 15:00 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/08/18
Posts: 864
Post Likes: +487
Location: Menlo Park, CA
Aircraft: B36TC
G100UL, engine wise, does work today. On All engines.

Just saying, until demonstrated otherwise.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2025, 18:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/24/17
Posts: 1387
Post Likes: +1269
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
G100UL, engine wise, does work today. On All engines.

Just saying, until demonstrated otherwise.

It's not clear that it works. So far, in extremely limited real-world application, there have been numerous issues.

And again, it is suspicious that a much larger company, with way more resources than GAMI, would develop a fuel that has limitations. There must be a reason that they have chosen to do so. The most obvious explanation is that GAMI's approach has flaws that the public hasn't discovered yet. Otherwise, the much larger company would have just bested GAMI.

Maybe nobody has discovered a way yet to create a fuel that has no flaws and that works for all engines. Seems like the most likely explanation.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2025, 19:02 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/22/12
Posts: 892
Post Likes: +367
Location: Denver, CO
Aircraft: 1969 TN 36
Explain to me how the most obvious reason are flaws in their product. That's pure speculation.

Username Protected wrote:
G100UL, engine wise, does work today. On All engines.
There must be a reason that they have chosen to do so. The most obvious explanation is that GAMI's approach has flaws that the public hasn't discovered yet. Otherwise, the much larger company would have just bested GAMI.

Maybe nobody has discovered a way yet to create a fuel that has no flaws and that works for all engines. Seems like the most likely explanation.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2025, 19:42 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/24/17
Posts: 1387
Post Likes: +1269
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
Explain to me how the most obvious reason are flaws in their product. That's pure speculation.

It is pure speculation, yes. Instead of "flaw," you could also call it "tradeoff." There is some tradeoff that the much larger companies were unwilling to make, which results in their fuel not working for all engines. It's highly unlikely that they didn't know how to make a fuel that, just like GAMIs, works for all engines. They've intentionally not done that.

The obvious question is...why? I'd love to get an answer to that.


Top

 Post subject: Re: New member in Houston, TX - Unleaded avgas project lead
PostPosted: 06 Jun 2025, 20:52 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/05/19
Posts: 98
Post Likes: +153
Location: San Jose, CA (KRHV)
[NOTE: I just realized this is in an intro thread - perhaps the discussion should get moved to another forum specific to the fuel]

Here are a few resources that I would recommend reading, which might shed some light on the discussion here. The STC vs PAFI program have some differences.

FAA Unleaded Fuels
flyeagle.org has additional info

From there you will find the FAA's policy statement about the fleet authorization process being alluded to for a candidate fuel.

The FAA has some valuable lessons learned documents from the previous PAFI fuel candidates between 2014 and 2022. They also publish the test plans and materials compatibility tests that are being performed. I would highly recommend taking the time to read them.

Materials Test Plan
Materials Test Matrix

Lessons Learned
Best Practices
Considerations

Attachment:
fleet_auth.jpg

Attachment:
resources.jpg

Attachment:
policy.jpg


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Last edited on 06 Jun 2025, 21:07, edited 4 times in total.

Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next



Plane AC

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025

.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.holymicro-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.mcfarlane-85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.LogAirLower85x50.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.BT Ad.png.
.v2x.85x100.png.
.b-kool-85x50.png.
.performanceaero-85x50.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.AeroMach85x100.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.suttoncreativ85x50.jpg.
.puremedical-85x200.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2021-11-22.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.rnp.85x50.png.
.ocraviation-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Plane AC Tile.png.
.KingAirMaint85_50.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Elite-85x50.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.aerox_85x100.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.8flight logo.jpeg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.Aircraft Associates.85x50.png.