This is the best video I've seen, which addresses the practical application of flying with both lead-free fuel and operating lean-of-peak. For us old pilots, who were taught that high-compression piston aircraft engines were "incapable" of operating on lead-free fuels(valve lubrication) and also not able to be operated safely on the lean side of peak for prolonged periods, this video helps to dispel those myths. I have to admit though, after having operated and leaned piston engines for decades and many thousands of hours in my flying career, the first time I deliberately leaned my IO-520 beyond peak after GAMIjector installation and ran it on the lean side, was a bit of a tense moment. My training from long ago, was constantly trying to remind me, that I was likely doing damage or possibly even creating a scenario where I would abruptly become an unintended glider pilot, if I were to maintain that mixture setting. Thanks for the video Martin!
You are welcome! And there’s no need to be nervous about LOP, not with G100UL and not with 100LL either. Watch the CHTs to make sure you have leaned enough - where people get into trouble is when they go a little bit lean (into the red box) but not lean enough. - Martin
@@martinpauly Understood. However, back in the day, that "red box" was more defined as a "red line" that you dare not cross. Glad I installed the GAMIjectors and the JPI monitor though, because they definitely save me fuel and at today's prices, I'll take all the savings I can get.👍
I’ve been a fan of these guys for decades! Thanks to their training, I’ve successfully taken several big bore Continentals well beyond TBO, and without any cylinder replacements during that time!
A PEP talk about GAMI's 100UL fuel and a 20-minute or so flight in a Bonanza switching between 100UL and 100LL proves nothing, save for the engine continues to run. Let's see that Continental engine in tear-down mode in 500 hours and THEN see what's what!
@martinpauly That LOP stuff is going to come back and bite real hard, especially on turbocharged engines. Do YOU want to make a $40K mistake on somebody's say so? NOT ME!
I have the G100UL STC on my Mooney M20M Bravo, it's got the TIO 540 AF1B, thanks for the great video. I wish they could roll this fuel out sooner than later, but that's where we're at right now. It's my understanding there's approximately a million gallons of G100UL stored in Louisiana ready to be sold, but it's up to the current distribution channels to get it to market 🤞🏼
Yes, that matches my understanding. Production is ready, and first FBOs (especially on the west coast) are ready to receive and sell G100UL. What's still missing (for now) is the distribution piece. - Martin
Thanks for taking the time and effort with this one Martin. Very informative! The one time I landed at Ada, the FBO had closed 15 minutes prior and the self-serve pump was locked up and not available (?????). After talking to some locals, it seemed that self-serve fuel frustratingly wasn't available at many of the surrounding airports...not useful during off-hours! Anyway...that was the first and only time I had to pay for somebody to come back and open up the FBO so that I could fuel up.
Thanks Martin. I purchased one of the first STC's for GL100UL due mainly to my respect for what they are doing at ADA. Now George speaks at levels far far above my feeble brain but I trust what he says. Looking forward to being able to pump some in my Bonanza.
Awesome video Martin! This is just a typical example of the idiocracy we live in. We have a system that sorta works, it was captured by an industry that doesn't want to spend money on change and that bought the regulator to not force it to change. Along come some smart people showing a better way who get stonewalled on every step they make, just because they're upsetting the gravy train. Quaking humanity is so depressing sometimes.
One side benefit of unleaded fuels is there will be no lead fouling of engine oil, piston rings, and spark plugs. Removing the lead from fuel will enable the use of full synthetic motor oils which should result in greater durability and cleaner engine internals. A win for the environment and a win for engine durability.
@@MS-ig7ku Maybe, but adding TEL to an already 93 MON alkyl base was the cheapest and easiest way to get 100+ MON back in the 30s. It took George years of experimentation with a highly sophisticated test engine to find the right mix of isomers of aromatics to get 100+ MON without lead.
All true. And even if we continue to run the current mineral based oils, we can double or triple the oil change intervals. Really looking forward to getting rid of the lead-bromine salts that make the oil filthy.
Can't wait for unleaded avgas to be widely available in the US. My Rotax would love it! Fewer oil changes and longer life on the spark plugs! On another topic, it looks like you're wearing the Axis headset. Great headset!
I bought the STC last fall as soon as I could. I don’t think it will be available anytime soon but I feel this approval effort which must have been a significant investment needs to be supported!
If it was really safe and approved, you WOULDN'T NEED TO BUY an STC. How about telling the greenies to get a life?! 100LL has NEVER been proven to cause ANYONE any harm at any time. Did you buy the lie?
@@SkyKing337 According to you then any design change that comes with an STC is unsafe and unapproved? You are misinformed. And as you should well know: It doesn’t at all matter if lead is harmful or not. There are enough people believing it and so the hammer will come down whether you believe it to be true or not.
@marc-andremuller1954 Well Marc, you're putting words in my mouth I never said. But let me say this: there are Millions who believed Fauci, Birx and Trump and were otherwise coerced by gross media manipulation, their doctors and big pharma to get those jabs that were hailed as "Safe and Effective" and they're now pushing up Daisy's. STC's are not the cure-all.
Great Video, our QB meeting had a speaker a last month to talk about G100 fuel and it sounds like right now is getting it to FBO's, sounds like it can only be transported by truck from the refinery. Lot of great info in the video, thanks have a great day, Charlie
I am sure that UL is coming but with as much as we are currently paying for 100LL its hard to swallow another premium $$ on top of what we are paying now.
Exactly! But all these people involved are so wealthy that they have no concept of what it’s like to have to consider the costs of anything. It’s just “Oh!, we are getting the lead out! Look at us go! This is so wonderful! Sure, it’s gonna cost $1-2 per gallon more, but that’s irrelevant, because to us, $7/gallon is still cheap!” They are like politicians,,,,,,completely out of touch with common everyday citizens
@@johngeorg9491what about all the airports needing to redo tanks and pumps to accept it. Some airports don’t have the money to maintain current fuel systems lead alone make a switch.
On the GAMI/G100UL website, they estimate that G100UL will cost between $0.70 and $1.05 per gallon more, until it is more widely available and becomes the standard. However, they also include the caveat, that much of that initial added cost will likely be offset by a lowering of maintenance costs.
In full disclosure: I did not pay for the G100LL fuel for this test, only for the 100LL in the other tank. GAMI is not an FBO, so they don’t sell fuel to end customers. Once G100UL is in full distribution and available at FBOs, GAMI said they expect it cost maybe around $1/gallon more than 100LL. Until FBOs are starting to sell it, we don’t really know precisely. - Martin
Thanks for the real world demo of G100UL. It looks as if it will perform the same with minimal differences. Now when are they going to start distributing it? Would be nice to be able to fuel up at my home airport (Reid Hillview KRHV) again.
CHT’s at 300 degs will result in cylinders plugged up with lead on 100LL. You need to run them at least 300 degs for the lead scavenging additive to work.
That’s another old wives’ tale. When Continental prototyped a liquid-cooled aircraft piston engine, the design parameter for CHT was around 250 deg F. - Martin
How long will it last? For instance, since lead is not being used for octane and stabilization, what is being used? Regular auto gas at 93/94 will eventually turn to varnish, even though it has no ethanol. Also what about the lubricating properties of lead? How is that problem solved? This has always sounded like a solution in search of a problem to me. Leave 100LL alone.
Nothing about lead deposits is lubricating. Comparing lead to sand would be more accurate, and last I checked, keeping abrasive particles out of an engine is a common best practice.
GAMI has been a bit cagey about the exact set of additives they are using. I don't know what the situation is in terms of patents, but we can assume that GAMI has filed for patents covering various aspects, so there might be specifics in those patents if you want to go looking. Regarding stability, George Braly has stated that they shipped several 55 gallon drums of G100UL to someone, those drums sat for at least a year (if I recall correctly, possibly longer) unused, and GAMI retrieved that fuel. GAMI stated that it was fine. You'll notice that everything is GAMI describing their own product. I haven't seen anywhere that I thought they were lying, but it's a caveat that this is such a small market, and the product isn't actually "for sale" so there hasn't been outside verification other than the FAA approval for all piston engines.
If you watched the video you'll see there is no lubricating value from the lead. The lack of detonation can stop erosion of the valve seats but gami doesn't detonate anyway. The lubrication idea was wrong from the start.
Back in the hay day aircraft used to run on 80 octane which was colored red. There’s no reason why manufacturers cannot design a high horsepower engine with lower compression that would be able to use 93 or 94 octane. I realize aircraft engines that are in service requiring 100 low lead should be able to have an additive that is not lead to bring 94 up to 100. They are reinventing the wheel.
With electronic control of ignition timing and mixture, a high-compression engine could indeed run on lower-octane gas. After all, 8.5:1 is laughable when compared to modern car engines. But the engines which power most of our piston fleet don’t have those kinds of controls, and I don’t see anybody trying to change that. Thus, high-octane fuel is a requirement for general aviation for the foreseeable future. - Martin
@@martinpauly that is a very good point. I guess what I meant to say was aircraft back in the early days all the way up to the 1960s were able to run on 80 octane red. Now that excludes military aircraft during World War II, which were powered on I believe 145 octane.
There are STCs for using ordinary unleaded mogas on a lot of the old engines, also with turbos it seems. So - there is a difference in opinion on the need for a gas going forward. Would be interesting to see if you can find a bonanza running mogas and take a test flight?
@@oddbjrngundersonheimdal6007 Hello Oddbjørn, there are some early Bonanzas (with E model engines) which are approved to fly with mogas. The newer ones with IO-520 or IO-550 have higher compression engines and thus require higher octane fuel to avoid detonation under high power settings. - Martin
Probably because the avgas market is too small for them to bother. It wouldn't be worth the investment to add new production lines to the refineries or to modify their existing 100LL production lines. I imagine they'd be happy if someone else took over avgas manufacture. Then they could free up those facilities to produce something that's more profitable.
It's too small a market and it costs a lot to make tel from an environmental management perspective. It's horrifically toxic, no one will start to make it and all but one of the old players have stopped. It's just not worth their while.
Those "NUMBERS"... they just might NOT be showing the full flame front picture! GMAS, an IA and Skymaster GURU, called out all the BS years ago. A FOOL and his MONEY soon parteth company!
I’m 1000% going to take the lead out and reap the benefits of greatly prolonged engine life. We already know how auto engine’s benefited going unleaded. Massive improvement!
Ironically, Cirrus just announced G100UL will NOT be approved in their planes and if used warranties will be void. Sounds like an overreaction on their part!
Ironic indeed, since most of the G100UL flight testing has been done on an SR-22. I think this has more to do with warranty and liability (read: CYA) and not with any actual concerns Cirrus has with the fuel. - Martin
I am so excited about no-lead avgas, finally. All the work that GeorgeB and the team have done…. Has finally put all of us in GA in such a good spot, to finally get rid of lead. It will take content and advocacy just like this, to get the real word out to a community that is sometimes hard to change. Well done Martin!
George Braly has had quite a career. From battling tobacco companies as a trial lawyer to now doing all this complex fuel engineering is extremely impressive!
Thanks! I am confident that once G100LL is actually sold to pilots at FBOs, the topic will quickly become boring because absolutely nothing noteworthy will happen - it’ll be just the same as 100LL. - Martin
Nice interview. Thanks for doing that. Safety and interchangeability are established. The issue is availability. Where is it? What’s the hold up? Did George have anything to share on when I can buy it?
I don’t think anybody can accurately predict that. So far, serious production has started (over one million gallons) and a number of airports want to sell it. But it looks like the distributors are not yet ready to create a parallel channel (to 100LL) for G100UL, and it is not clear to me what all could trigger them to step forward.
@@martinpauly Obviously, hiring fuel tanker trucks to shuttle back and forth between the airports that want to sell it and wherever the refinery is that can produce the 100UL base stock would mean a higher purchase price at the pump (and no doubt paperwork/red tape) but I wonder if the local pressures to redevelop the airport property, er, I mean reduce lead exposure will tip things to where that more expensive route actually happens.
@@tomdchi12 It would be cheaper to use fuel trucks, though even that is still a lot more pricey than railroad cars. I think we just need to get to critical mass to make railroad cars feasible, and then the G100UL train (no pun intended) can start rolling for real! - Martin
When I was a kid... I worked at a chevron station just when leaded fuels were being phased out. I also had a 68 camaro. (This was mid 80's) I remember needing to change over to unleaded, and I was assured nothing bad would happen. When I finally put in a tank of "Regular UL", I had detonation. I had to run premium, and I had to make the carburetor slightly richer to keep my power. (I could have run regular if I wanted to drop ignition timing) I'm guessing this is where some of the old issues came from. A typical "Mom" would be forced to switch in her station wagon, and nothing would be adjusted. The light, constant detonation would eventually take it's toll on the engine. I wouldn't have an issue with 100 UL since we still have that "100" octane base fuel. I look forward to it being more wide spread. BUT... they need to figure out a way to make it a price that doesn't discourage GA. $6/gal has already slowed GA.
$6/gal is already more than 60% cheaper than what we Eurpeans pay at most airports, sometimes much much cheaper than that still. Maybe it's time to pony up dear Yanks?
Thanks for the great video. I noticed that you used 19.5 in Hg and 2500 rpm with about 11.7 gph to get 133 kts IAS and I think you have a 550 engine. I have a 1972 A36 with 520 engine and take a simpler route to leaning...I go to just over 2300 rpm 22 in Hg (thus at or just below 65% power so the red zone is small to not present and stay above the 2300 rpm minimum limit) and lean to engine roughness then enrich to smooth engine and get about 133 kts IAS at 10.7-11.0 gph. I agree lean of peak is best since going 10 kts faster costs at least 1-2 gal more fuel per hour but only gets you there about 4-5 min earlier per flight hour so it not worth it.
I don't "use" 19.5 inches, that just happened to be the manifold pressure that day with wide open throttle. In my Bonanza, I rarely cruise with a throttle setting other than wide open. Otherwise I might as well fly with a partially clogged air filter, right? - Martin
Proactive? 50+ years after we removed lead from automotive fuels, hardly sounds proactive. Anti airport groups are now using elevated lead levels around my home airport of RHV, to threaten closer. We needed to remove lead in fuel decades ago, and I hardly think your characterization of being proactive is appropriate in this case.
Nice video, thanks Martin. Particularly liked seeing your comparative engine performance figures at about minute 24:00 onwards. Does George mention why the CHTs (though commendably cool as they are) run a little hotter in your trial, by about 5-8 degrees on the G100UL fuel vs. the 100LL, at the same fuel flow? Perhaps it's that extra 3% energy using the G100UL?
1-2% more energy content but not 4% more weight per gallon. Very close but not quite as good. Still sounds like a great alternative with no real meaningful drawbacks. Great video! I really enjoyed it!
Fantastic job Martin!! And a HUGE thank you to George and Tim for providing such intimate up close access to this tremendous new high octane fuel. Absolute GAME CHANGER.
Time will tell, Marc. GAMI has frequently said they could see the fuel cost about a Dollar/gallon more than 100LL. But since nobody is selling it to end users yet right now, we really don’t know yet. - Martin
Oil temp of 154F is pretty low. 300F CHT is also pretty low, even considering deliberate aggressive LOP cruise operations at 11k. Close some cowling flaps.
I wonder what makes you think that my cowl flaps were open at the time. I have very good baffles, and my cylinders are usually cool in cruise. When Continental experimented with a liquid-cooled aircraft engine similar to the IO-550, I was told their CHT target was 249 degrees F. So being in the low 300s feels alright to me. - Martin
Martin, big fan of your videos! I am not happy with my Bose/Aerox headset/oxygen cannula combination- wires going everywhere around my head. What headset and oxygen combination do you use? Your setup looks very clean and unobtrusive.
Martin, there is NO safe level for lead...GA should have transitioned when the auto industry did in the 70's. It's amazing that GA is still dragging its feet and questioning the need for this change when we have the chemistry and technology to switch to alternative unleaded high-octane fuels. Thanks for tackling this issue.
Not sure who you are pointing to when you say “GA is still dragging its feet.” Are you referring to pilots, engine manufacturers, government regulators, the oil companies, airframe manufacturers, or someone else? GA is not a monolithic entity. There are market forces at work, not to mention powerful special interests that have more influence over politicians than does the average weekend pilot. Still, George and the team at GAMI developed this unleaded solution over a decade ago and have been fought every step of the way by FAA regulators under the influence of the entrenched players in the oil industry. Your government has not been working on your behalf.
Thank you, Martin. Very informative. George also debunked a couple of things I had heard and wondered about G100UL. I do have a couple of questions, though. How much more per gallon is G100UL? In looking at a Wikipedia article, it says that G100UL contains absolutely no lead products whatsoever. So, what's the 'UL' mean? Anyway, great video. I'm not an active pilot, but I still enjoy aviation and the aviation business, and I was wondering and concerned about the availability of an 'Avgas' product. With Diamond offering more and more Jet-A fueled piston twins, I still expect that to be the future paradigm, and aviation moves to one fuel source. But, in the meantime, we still need some sort of avgas for the fleet that we have, and will continue to need it for the foreseeable future.
I can’t wait for lead to go away here. I have a non related question for you Martin. I have been flying my RV6 at reduced RPM and operating over square. O-360 with CS prop. Mike Busch explains the benefits in a video and I am giving it a try. Lower tip speeds reduce drag and noise. Lower heat generated by friction. Lower losses due to less piston inertia. More time for fuel in the combustion chamber to completely burn extracts more energy per volume of fuel. Lower cylinder head temps. Lycoming engine manual has oversquare limits of 1800 rpm and 22”. I aggressively lean and fuel flow is about 5.2 gal at 7500’ wondering if you have tried this in the Bonanza?
It was interesting. We got rid of lead in cars by the late 80s. I am really surprised aviation hasnt changed over yet, or the federal government hasnt mandated it yet.
Aviation is extraordinarily risk averse. There are enormous liability issues with changing what fuels aircraft. If planes started crashing after switching to a new fuel, there would be devastating lawsuits against the oil companies, aircraft manufacturers, engine manufacturers, etc. So, inertia works for the entrenched industry players and government regulators alike. Still, George and the team at GAMI demonstrated this unleaded technology a decade ago. The FAA has impeded their progress at every step. Our government has gone from spawning aerospace innovation to stifling it. That’s why all the major airframe and engine manufacturers are now owned by the Chinese.
Another great video, Martin. Always informative! Back when I was having magneto problems, the manager at the local FBO told me that my O360 Lycoming was just about impossible to make detonate. If that's true, why can't I run a lower octane fuel? There is an STC for 91 octane, but it is cost prohibitive. Like $15K! I would do it, but 91 octane UL (no ethanol) auto is not available here. Only 89. If lead is not a lubricant, why do we need it? Lead must boost the octane rating? What do they add in place of lead to get the octane rating to 100? For me cost is always a factor. Right now AV gas is way too expensive. I can only guess that UL AV gas will be even more. I remember when bio diesel first came out. They said it was just as good as regular diesel. Well, it wasn't. I used it a few times and swore I'd never use it again. I hope that's not the case for 100UL.
Lead mainly plays a big part in reducing knock, which typically is not something you have to worry about on a NA O-360. Have flown quite a few o-360s on 91 non ethanol and they always seem to run cleaner
@@jonahloughren9067 With extreme high prices of AV gas, I'd go to 91 non ethanol in a heartbeat. 89 is going for about $4.35 which still a screw, but relatively cheaper. Strangely, for a city the size of Tucson, there's no 91 octane available. Never mind the $15K for the piece of paper....
So if I use auto fuel I have to use 100ll from time to time to keep lead in the valves to prevent damage. But I can run 100ul with no problems. Oh I’ll have to run nothing but 100ul because without 100ll I can’t follow auto gas STC.
@@GWNHomestead my point being that in every previous STC/ or study lead was required to prevent wear. Which I don’t agree with. But one study by the company pushing this product shows no problem. Suddenly everyone is ready to jump in 100% without 3 party verification. Also mogas STCs require 100LL to be run “to prevent wear” so no 100LL then no mogas either. Is the FAA going to say I have to buy G100ul instead of MoGas because I can’t get lead from 100LL? I’m asking for a friend…
Excellent content, Martin. Was great to meet you and George at BeechBash. Looking forward to G100UL availability improving in the coming months and years.
You can research the benefits of LOP operations in cruise. Any richer (closer to peak) will increase engine wear. 30LOP is normal for avoiding the so called “red box”. Best!
