Behind the Scenes of GAMI's Unleaded Avgas
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 07. 2022
- George Braly, Co-Founder of General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (GAMI) headquartered in Ada, Oklahoma, gives a behind the scenes look at the facility where their unleaded G100UL avgas has been being developed and tested for nearly 10 years. Braly explains what the next steps are in the certification process for the fuel.
Keep up with the latest on the unleaded fuel issue here: aopa.org/advocacy/100-unleade...
Watch AOPA’s unleaded fuel update webinar from 3/2/22 here: • Unleaded Aviation Fuel...
#aopa #aviation #generalaviation #pilot #avgas #airplane
The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) is the largest community of pilots in the world, providing aviation advocacy, education & inspiration. AOPA has represented the freedom to fly for all pilots since 1939. To learn more about becoming a member visit www.aopa.org/jointoday. - Věda a technologie
Let’s flex the AOPA membership muscle a little to get this done!
Yes, please get this 100UL out to airports where 100LL sales have been banned. As Reid Hillview is my home airport I can attest to the significant safety issues of not having fuel on the airport as well as the significant pain it is to always have to fuel up at my destination.
Currently the banning of sales of 100LL at any airport is the most significant threat to the freedom of GA to fly. It would be real nice if the FAA stopped dragging their feet on a fuel that has already long proven itself. The longer the FAA takes the more likely GA airports will be shut down. The more GA airports shut down the harder and more expensive it will be to train new pilots for the pilot shortage.
Hopefully the bureaucracy at the FAA gets this done. Has been decades of work and pilots owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Braly and GAMI.
I've done 2 hours of research. And I can tell you that octane. 100% octane. Has an octane rating of 100.
It also has a lower vapor pressure than Avgas. Which is far lower than MoGas. Octane is very stable. Very high octane. Mixes with any gasoline mix and improves its octane... because it is literally octane.
Pay for the STC, pay more than a dollar more per gallon. Wow. We are truly blessed. Glad I have a MOGAS STC.
I’m a big supporter of getting rid of TEL. I hope that Congress and the FAA can see the importance of this. If I were in office, I would make this a huge part of my job. Thank you.
Godspeed!
Upside will be fewer oil changes.
Fly experimental.
Use whatever fuel you want, that works in your engine.
93 octane is plenty for 8.5:1 compression ratio, as long as your not running near 500f cylinder head temps.
Time and logistics!? This is about big industry money and politics, and AOPA is not helping by feeding and delaying this with their multi-player committee shenanigans.
Agreed, AOPA has to drop the Eagle foot-dragging project and get 100% behind G100UL... now. Wayne (DA40 KSBA)
Agreed, AOPA has been a champion in delaying the removal of lead in avgas. Just read the comments left here by AOPA and you can sense that they have no interest in supporting the removal of lead.
Will be curious how they enforce that STC at the pumps!! My Guess is the STC will get tied to your aircrafts airworthiness certificate
Cause tons of Folks will pump it without that STC.
And Curious if it Fungability
With Car Gasoline ⛽️
DeltaHawk uses JetA
And everyone is waiting on George Bye of Bye Aviation to get those Electric motors certified. Then everyone will fly Electric aka Teslas in the Skies!! ❤😊
Electric is the Future
As much as we all would love for everything to happen over night, frankly, it's amazing that regulatory approval is moving this fast! (assuming it doesn't grind to a halt, of course.) It will be great when there is a good cross section of aircraft and engines "in the wild" that have multiple years running this stuff. I'm very hopeful that this works well.
We all need to know the name: Clair Patterson PHD geochemistry.
"Has been working on this avgas for 10 years"
No, he spent less than 1 year, and they took 9 years to approve it.
Living proof that individuals make the progress, while the government drags it.
It didn't have an STC for turboplanes but it does work in turboplanes?
I am extremely pro unleaded gas for my Piper Arrow, not because I am a crazy tree hugger but I want my engine to live longer. Aircraft fueled with 100LL must use inferior oil to handle the lead that gets into the oil. This oil does not lubricate as well as moderne automotive full synthetic oils. Professionally I am a meteorologist but for fun I have a 1,000HP Chevy LS that is supercharged and has produced 1,000HP for 200,000 miles in a 1 ton truck. I know the power can be made on pump gas with fuel additives that are not alcohol, I use MMT to get 116 octane for max power runs all with the catalytic converters still working. I cannot explain the science behind the oils, I just know my race engine makes power and has no sludge in the oil pan.
I fear our .gov is trying to end private aviation by killing off GA’s fuel.
No more spraying the country side with neurotoxins, finally!
Nice if it lasts without going bad for ever like the fuels of the last fifty do not
Why does it seem like the FAA does nothing but interrupt and suffocate progress and innovation?
Yes but will not go bad for ever like all of our previous fuels never did?
…now redesign and replace every flying engine that needs leaded fuel.
Engine redesign is not necessary to use G100UL.
A 800hp Dodge Demon uses unleaded fuel, so does the Corvette, Porsche, Etc with hundreds of horsepower
@@flywithaopa the point that I was trying to make is about hp, and that ultra high horsepower engines are capable of using unleaded fuel. The excuse for leaded avgas is that is needed in high horsepower engines because of “high compression engines”, “cooling” and many other nonsense excuses, lead is not a requirement for higher horsepower as the industry has led of us to believe.
@@javev1772 Most agree lead is not needed, but 100 octane is in order to prevent detonation, particularly at altitudes never seem by your Corvette and the lead additive is how we have gotten the octane boost needed. The challenge is finding an octane booster that doesn’t contain lead.
@@tomhaines29 the 800 hp Dodge Demon engine that use in my exaggerated example above does not suffer from detonation with 91 octane unleaded. I also used that example as an obvious exaggeration as most GA aircraft engine, in comparison, don’t even produce half that much horsepower. GAMI and SWIFT have proved that most GA engines do great with unleaded fuels. Now is the time to get lead off of aviation fuels. We suffer from a resistance to change and improve, remember how people fought ADSB? composite airframes? BRS ballistic chutes? the disappearance of the halogen lightbulb? Seatbelt laws? We are better today because of these changes, let’s do the same with Lead.
@@javev1772 Again, most everyone in aviation agrees that we would like to not have lead. However, at this point no one has an approved solution for airplanes that require 100 octane. Maybe you’d like to go fly a Continental IO-550 on 91 octane and see how that goes? Report back.
Regardless of many advantages this fuel could bring, to small aircraft owners and air-breathing humans, I’m afraid Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler and the potato have to get a cut before congress will support it.
Why is lead still even needed?🤷🏻♂️🤦♂️
Makes absolutely no sense…None at all with the engine technology available today. Seriously
@@flywithaopa there is 100 unleaded available at the pumps for cars, why would this not work? Honest question! What about octane boosters in 98 pump gas, would this not work? Is it a issue with the valve seats?
Study up and get back with us.
@@bullhead900 why ask a question? Stupid response
@MooneyPilot - No, big engines with high compression need something to help prevent knock / detonation. Tetra-ethyl-lead is only one of many additives that can get the job done. Getting the engines to run without lead hasn't been the hard problem in all of this; after all we've solved this with much higher-compression automobile engines. The "trick" is finding an additive that achieves this *and* has no adverse effect on existing plumbing, hoses, seals, pumps, valves, exhaust system parts, etc.
Its tricky partly because the FAA is (rightly) concerned about pilots mixing old and new fuel and potentially causing problems in their engines if there are any incompatibilities between the new fuel and old parts. And its also tricky because the industry understands that if a new fuel requires that each airplane owner replace major portions of their engine/FWF systems in order to use the new fuel, people will balk at the cost and the change-over won't happen.
GAMI seems to have come up with something that largely achieves all of the major objectives.
@@sacrificialrubber779 mogas octane is measured differently than avgas octane. If the Texaco station had R+M/2 105 octane gasoline, that might work for airplanes. Instead, the Texaco has 93 premium.