I wonder if Continental, Lycoming and Cirrus have any reason for this other than fear of change.
Lycoming has reasons to beleive that Swift UL94 and GAMI G100UL contain new aromatics that have never been used before
GAMI lost lot of credibility with UND UL94 trial as they blamed low octane rating for valve problems basically,
We are talking about UND Archer2 that runs on Mogas EN228 (88/87 or AKI93), no need for PhD in chemistry to infer that: if there was any problem with UND trial, it’s likely aromatics rather than the imagined detonation problems from low octane, while I respect GAMI views, I think they are blind on this one and I tend to agree with Lycoming analysis
UL91 is 100LL without TEL, Lycoming is happy with it. This does not sound like not having ASTM is the problem, it’s rather CYA on engine manufacturers side regarding aromatics, however, there are bigger commercial interests in the picture
US Congress produced this graph on the path for alternative fuels 10 years ago, U find it hard to beleive that the “STC route” was dead end and we are are discovering this today? with lack of warranty?
The only guys who are promising on “PAFI route” are VPRacing, they have candidates that passed initial tests in 20023 and they have 6 months-12 months to finish it
They do “high octane and/or high etanol” Mogas with ratings that exceed 100LL (E102, M103, VP-C16, X98..), we will see if they can make an Avgas?
As much as I am a supporter of unleaded fuel, and of GAMI, I think the better solution is to ensure your engine runs on the same gasoline that millions of automobiles use, for the highest chance of success in the market, and the lowest cost. Sure this will be painful for the 130 thousand or so owners that need to modify their engines. It’s not rocket surgery.
Regardless of testing and engine modifications that could be done under an engine STC if it existed, there is no way that most of those aircraft can or will run the E10 fuel that is the only available auto fuel in any area they fly, and increasingly the world over. The issue with autofuel is also related to the airframe’s fuel system, and alcohol.
The issue with autofuel is also related to the airframe’s fuel system, and alcohol.
Exactly. Add to that that the blend changes with the seasons, at least here in California, and you’ve got a nice can of worms.
Peter wrote:
Is the formula known?
Yes, it’s patented. Paul Berturelly (sp) has an our video about it. An interview with a really knowledgeable guy on the subject of aviation fuel. The “secret” ingredient is made in one particular factory/refinery in Europe. That’s the only place. I’m not enough into paint/ink/chemistry to know exactly what it is, but it is some aromatic compound that at least used to be commonplace in ink.
Yes, it’s patented. Paul Berturelly (sp) has an our video about it. An interview with a really knowledgeable guy on the subject of aviation fuel. The “secret” ingredient is made in one particular factory/refinery in Europe. That’s the only place. I’m not enough into paint/ink/chemistry to know exactly what it is, but it is some aromatic compound that at least used to be commonplace in ink.
Seems to be used in printers ink and very availble around (also does not sound sound to be harmful when mixed with other food packaging in stores)
The patent for G100UL is here
[ huge links cleaned up ]
Ibra wrote:
We are talking about UND Archer2
What is an “UND Archer 2”?
Ibra wrote:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US8628594B1/en
That patent covers many different fuel blends. It is known which one of these is G1000UL?
Ibra wrote:
UL91 is 100LL without TEL, Lycoming is happy with it.So why can’t the already available 91UL fuel be used in Cirrus aircraft? Because the aircraft requires a higher octane, 100 instead of 91 MON? And if so, why do common fuel suppliers like Total Energies or Hjelmco not produce 100UL? Is that difficult in manufacturing to reach 100 MON without TEL?
Ibra wrote:
Seems to be used in printers ink and very availble around (also does not sound sound to be harmful when mixed with other food packaging in stores)
Aromatics is something the entire chemical industry is moving away from. Sure, there are lots of niche products that will remain for some time, but the future is definitely not in aromatics. The special compound in G100UL is only produced at one place in Europe. For how long will that last?
In the end it’s a question of price.
Off topic posts removed. I am trying to keep this thread on the topic, since it is rather relevant.
If, as suggested, Lyco have commercial fingers in “100UL” development, then their non-warranty policy might be simply commercially motivated 
That patent covers many different fuel blends. It is known which one of these is G1000UL?
It’s a useless post…
But Gami did what everybody does: file variations of an idea, to make it harder for somebody to do something almost identical. This is the #1 attack on a patent. Ways to make different “avgas” fuels have been known since the 1930s.
And if so, why do common fuel suppliers like Total Energies or Hjelmco not produce 100UL? Is that difficult in manufacturing to reach 100 MON without TEL?
The general “100UL” thread is under “Threads possibly related to this one” below.
