Fill ER UP...... Hold the 'LEAD"

[glaciercub]

Published: February 15, 2010 08:30 am

Revolutionary answer

GAMI formulates unleaded piston-engine aircraft fuel
Justin Lofton Staff Writer

Ada — George Braly and Tim Roehl may have solved a problem that’s been plaguing the aircraft industry and the Environmental Protection Agency for years. Braly and Roehl, owners of General Aviation Modifications, Inc. at Ada Municipal Airport, say they have formulated an unleaded piston-engine-aircraft fuel that may revolutionize the industry because it produces the same octane rating as leaded fuel.

“We have one of the finest test facilities in the country for being able to evaluate the octane performance of various fuels,” Roehl said.In November 2007, Friends of the Earth — an international network of environmental organizations — petitioned EPA in attempt to get "avgas," a high lead fuel regulated. Roehl said due to a court case with Friends of the Earth the EPA must finally force a removal of lead from avgas.

“Having been familiar with a lot of the formulations that have been tried in the past, we decided to formulate our own fuel,” Roehl said. “After about a month of testing, we feel confident that we have, in fact, come up with a fully 100 Motor Octane Number unleaded avgas fuel that meets essentially all of the requirements that avgas will need to meet.”

The new fuel is called G100UL. Roehl said they have filed for a patent and have applied for certification with the FAA. He said representatives with the FAA, The Aviation Consumer magazine, and General Aircraft Manufacturers Association have come to Ada to look at the fuel they’ve developed.

No ingredients in their formula should drive the cost of avgas up significantly, Roehl said.

“Our goal here is to preserve the opportunity for today’s aircraft engines to not only maintain existing aircraft performance levels but also to be able to raise those performance levels and improve the efficiency of those engines on a new unleaded high-octane fuel,” he said.

Roehl said the fuel has been tested in their testing facility, as well as in one of their airplanes. After more testing, he and Braly hope the formula can be licensed to world-wide avgas producers.

“We hope this fuel can be adopted as a replacement for 100LL and should serve to help the environment while maintaining the performance of our aircraft today,” Roehl said.

“For 15 years since the lead was removed from automobile gas, the EPA has given an extension to the general aviation industry to allow them to continue to try to find some additive to try to replace tetra-ethyl lead which would allow for the removal of lead and yet the retention of the 100 octane rating of the fuel.” Roehl said no substitute could be found that provided the same octane rating.

Roehl said there are approximately 200,000 airplanes currently flying in the world with piston aircraft engines—typically smaller single and twin engine airplanes. The standard fuel for these engines is called avgas, also known as 100LL (Low Lead). Roehl said tetra-ethyl lead is a major ingredient in the fuel.

“It’s the last remaining leaded fuel allowed by the EPA,” he said. “As airplanes and engines are certified by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), the engines’ horsepower and performance is based upon the octane rating of the fuel. If you decrease the octane rating of the fuel, the engines cannot make the rated horsepower and the engines and the airframes in combination can’t perform according to their certification basis.”

Roehl said they’ve tested several unleaded fuels others have formulated to try and solve this problem.

[mountainmatt]

This is good news!

***crosses fingers and holds breath***

[Coyote Ugly]

So, what did they replace the lead with??

[dirtstrip]

I googled for G100 UL and got this test video and discussion. The Colonel's recipe was not divulged. Unsurprisingly the last statement made in the piece is whether the refiners can do it at a profit. At least the replacement can be done in volume and be seamlessly blended with existing fuels. I have faith it will be done for a profit and I have faith it will not be cheaper.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/exclusi ... 983-1.html

[Glidergeek]

I don't know about "good news" we shall see. This statement doesn't make me feel easy, "No ingredients in their formula should drive the cost of avgas up significantly, Roehl said". What's the definition of significantly? To some people
50-75 cents is insignificant, you can bet this secret sauce will be costing at least that or more per gallon because of "technology" no matter if it costs less or more to produce. Mogas costs more at what few airports that have it than if you go to your local gas station and there are very few or no brakes on road taxes unless you really fight for them. When was the last time you were financially rewarded for using a cleaner fuel?

[glaciercub]

what did they replace Lead with ?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ most likely?

[N1593Y]

Published: February 15, 2010 08:30 am

Revolutionary answer

GAMI formulates unleaded piston-engine aircraft fuel
Justin Lofton Staff Writer

Ada — George Braly and Tim Roehl may have solved a problem that’s been plaguing the aircraft industry ...

The new fuel is called G100UL. Roehl said they have filed for a patent and have applied for certification with the FAA. ...

Statements like this make me wonder about the veracity of their claims. You don't apply "... for certification with the FAA." The FAA doesn't certify avgas. You go to ASTM and work on approval of a spec for 100 octane unleaded avgas that will do everything 100 LL according to ASTM D910 does, without lead. If ASTM agrees that the specified fuel is 100 UL avgas and does the same thing as 100 LL, by consensus, then the spec is published and the aircraft and engine manufacturers can test it and agree that it works in their equipment, or they can petition the FAA to allow G100UL to replace 100 LL, which is what actually happened when 100 LL replaced 100 / 115 avgas which had much more lead than the 2 grams / gallon allowed in 100 LL. It is the responsibility of engine and airframe manufacturers to designate what fuel can be used in their airplanes by the TC process. They are the ones who bear the liability, not the FAA.

GAMI found in a few months what nobody in the petrochemical industry has been able to find in more than 20 years of trying. I will believe it when they submit their paperwork to ASTM. At least Swift has submitted their specs to ASTM. It is binary unleaded avgas. It will probably take a year or so to get it through the committee by which time they might have a commercial scale plant on line and we will have an idea of the cost. Of course the video put out by Aviation Consumer reporting about the GAMI G100UL made an interesting comment about the Swift's difficulties with scaling the process.

[hotrod150]

A "100LL replacement" which does or would work for the majority of us is already being produced- it's called mogas. They just need to make a "clear" version widely available, 91 octane p[lease for the higher-compressioned amongst us.
Why do people always try to fix something which isn't broken?

Eric

[Bob]

A "100LL replacement" which does or would work for the majority of us is already being produced- it's called mogas. They just need to make a "clear" version widely available, 91 octane p[lease for the higher-compressioned amongst us.
Why do people always try to fix something which isn't broken?

Eric

I may be a little naive here but there has been unleaded high octane racing fuels available for quite a few years now.What makes these unacceptable for aviation use?Yes some of the street legal fuels are oxygenated like the sunocco 260 gt series I use from the pump but others like VP's C-10 aren't.I know they cost more,and figured this was due to being a even smaller market then 100ll has,shipping and packaging costs etc etc.

Pre 9/11 we used to store a few of our cars and a boat with 100LL and race them on C-10 (class legal fuel)since then it's been only C-10 and we where far from the only ones doing so.Now I know things have changed but my local FBO surely could set up a pump on both sides of the fence so to speak.If they had a EPA legal high octane non oxygenated fuel available at a decent price they would sell twice the fuel if not more then they do now.Hell they might actually make some money from fuel sales for a change.


SPECIFICATION SHEET FOR C-10
(Typical Values) Specific Gravity: .763 @ 60°F
Color: Clear
Motor Octane: 96
Research Octane: 104
R+M/2: 100
Reid Vapor Pressure: 1.9
Oxidation Stability (min.) 1440+
Distillation:
10% evap @ 212.0°F
50% evap @ 224.0°F
90% evap @ 266.0°F
E.P. @ 281.0°F

why wouldnt this fuel work in the majority of GA AC that actually require 100LL now?


Personally I feel if we joined forces with the boating and racing communities in some way with all the issues caused by oxygenated fuel we might get somewhere.As it sits now with the markets divided they dont see the buying power there to do anything about it.

Lets face it if there is a profit to be made the EPA can be dealt with by big oil companies.

Personally I feel the powers that be here are dragging their feet in order to milk a cash cow and when the epa finally pulls the rug out they are just going to milk us some more.

[OregonMaule]

I'll believe it when I see it.

You would think some group would form to supply clear UL 96-100 octane. I wounder why it has not happened?

[180Marty]

Could it be that C-10 is what GAMI discovered would work? The RVP looks kind of low though---even less than pure ethanol so might have cold start issues???? Just went to this sight that has prices http://schmidtsgasngo.com/Racing%20Fuel%20Prices.html
The C10 is almost $11 a gallon and they have E98(98%) ethanol at high $5's---about double what the ethanol plant gets.

[Bob]

Could it be that C-10 is what GAMI discovered would work? The RVP looks kind of low though---even less than pure ethanol so might have cold start issues???? Just went to this sight that has prices http://schmidtsgasngo.com/Racing%20Fuel%20Prices.html
The C10 is almost $11 a gallon and they have E98(98%) ethanol at high $5's---about double what the ethanol plant gets.

Yes cold starts are a issue on the carbureted motors I've used it in,but for what it's worth I have yet to come across a high strung race motor with a carb that has to run race fuel that starts easily when cold It has never been a issue in any of the fuel injected motors I've come across.

Price is an issue but the guys I know and get fuel through own a marina and buy in bulk once a year straight from the VP distributor in Newark DE.Still pricey but last time I bought it through them it was 400$ a barrel After friends pitching in for a few gal here and there,barrel costs etc we get it down to around $6.50- 7$ or so a gal.

[182 STOL driver]

And How about "Hold the corn alcohol" and let us have 100% pure fuel . I'd like to see a price to be LOW-LOW -LOW and folks will be flying again. $6.00 buck a gallon 100LL is ridiculous - lets get the oil from North Dakota or Oklahoma and tell the arabs to pound sand .

[Stol]

And How about "Hold the corn alcohol" and let us have 100% pure fuel . I'd like to see a price to be LOW-LOW -LOW and folks will be flying again. $6.00 buck a gallon 100LL is ridiculous - lets get the oil from North Dakota or Oklahoma and tell the arabs to pound sand .

Can I have a AMEN .......

[bumper]

And How about "Hold the corn alcohol" and let us have 100% pure fuel . I'd like to see a price to be LOW-LOW -LOW and folks will be flying again. $6.00 buck a gallon 100LL is ridiculous - lets get the oil from North Dakota or Oklahoma and tell the arabs to pound sand .

Can I have a AMEN .......

Sure . . . AMEN!!!


Now all you gotta do is get rid of the damn lobbiests and special interest in our fed gov't and take back the 6 billion renewed alcohol subsidy they recently approved. Bastiges

[180Marty]

Adding up the tax deductions, credits and other public benefits the oil industry receives, U.S. taxpayers support oil to the tune of between $133.2 billion and $280.8 billion annually, according to DTN research. It's a wide range because definitive numbers on many benefits are ranges unto themselves. Documents DTN examined didn't always pin a solid dollar figure on a tax break or other incentives.

Bumper, I'd sure like to take the above figures from oil also. By the way, do any of you guys remember if AvGas was rationed back in 1973 like auto gas was---still vividly remember sitting in line for 10 gallons on even or odd days just because the OIL MONOPOLY could do it. The exec's probably loved knowing they could bring the country to it's knees.

[180Marty]

Why Only Fossil Fuels Deserve Subsidies — Just Ask Paul Ryan

Subsidies including tax incentives and credits for oil and gas would remain;
Maintain a loophole in a 1990s oil-and-gas law that the Government Accountability Office estimates could deprive the treasury of $53 billion in lost royalties.

http://www.bnet.com/blog/clean-energy/w ... -ryan/4836