This video has a good explanation of the GAMI fuel. Apparently it can be blended by just about anybody, from readily available ingredients. Some of the constituents are named, possibly for the first time. There must be an NDA around it…
Sure hope we see more UL around Europe.
This US AOPA article is interesting.
What is really behind this sentence might be quite revealing
the STC process is proprietary by its very nature, and engine manufacturers and fuel distributors simply want to learn more about the GAMI fuel
It sounds like GAMI are trying to keep the composition secret, but all the time they do that, nobody is going to adopt it. They obviously want to make money and probably most of the money will come from licensing the STC to the blenders and much less from aircraft owners paying to use the STC (which will be impossible to enforce in the field anyway).
From here
It is interesting how GAMI seem to have given the US discussion about UL Avgas a boost. Beyond the challenge of getting into the distribution chain, they have a steep hill to climb for 3 reasons:
1) Needs an STC which means $$$, even if the one-off <$500 is surely affordable for most pilots (and I really wonder how much risk someone would have if they filled up their Cirrus with G100UL without having the STC … who could/would police that?).
2) No path at this time for experimental aircraft to use it. GAMI says they have a solution to that for experimental aircraft, but the refusal by EAA to work with them on it implies political powers behind the scenes.
3) Many airfields can’t afford an additional pump for G100UL, so it would need to replace 100LL with G100UL. For airfields with only one pump, that means the loss of a universal fuel for certified and experimental aircraft.
I agree that the US will lead and Europe will follow on this. That’s a shame. I wonder how many experimental aircraft in Europe really need 100LL today, and if issue 2) above has the same weight as in the US. What would be the impact if GAMI were to negotiate with fuel distributors in Europe to replace 100LL with G100UL in their delivery chains? How may experimental aircraft would really suffer?
1) Needs an STC which means $$$, even if the one-off <$500 is surely affordable for most pilots (and I really wonder how much risk someone would have if they filled up their Cirrus with G100UL without having the STC … who could/would police that?).
IMHO this will be totally unenforceable. And the vast majority will not pay it. In fact nobody will pay it once an airport drops 100LL.
2) No path at this time for experimental aircraft to use it. GAMI says they have a solution to that for experimental aircraft, but the refusal by EAA to work with them on it implies political powers behind the scenes.
I don’t understand this. Surely you can run an Exp on chicken poo (Mad Max) 
3) Many airfields can’t afford an additional pump for G100UL, so it would need to replace 100LL with G100UL. For airfields with only one pump, that means the loss of a universal fuel for certified and experimental aircraft.
I don’t understand this because Exp engines are the same engines, and 100UL is required to behave the same way as 100LL.
I agree that the US will lead and Europe will follow on this. That’s a shame. I wonder how many experimental aircraft in Europe really need 100LL today, and if issue 2) above has the same weight as in the US. What would be the impact if GAMI were to negotiate with fuel distributors in Europe to replace 100LL with G100UL in their delivery chains? How may experimental aircraft would really suffer?
I am sure Warter are looking at this closely, as probably are the big names. But GAMI are talking only under an NDA.
Most airfields cannot afford more than one pump, due to needing the maximum available volume discount.
FWIW at our club we have four pumps, 3 with 100LL, one with Jet-A1; we considered the UL fuel Warter sells, but it would not be competitive with the car gas station on the other side lf the fence. We’e have no problem putting 100UL in one tank, or three, if it was available and had any remeblance of economic sense.
Peter wrote:
I don’t understand this. Surely you can run an Exp on chicken poo (Mad Max)
I’m not sure that experimental operation is quite the lawless environment that you imply. In any case, if you run the IO-550 in your experimental aircraft on Mogas then you or your heirs certainly don’t have any legal support if anything untoward happens to you, the aircraft, or the engine.
Sure, but then “you” are just stupid
Will the GAMI (if G100UL comes) really not authorise their 100UL for cert engines only? I would find that totally amazing, given the size of the US Exp community. I’d say, totally impossible.
Of course what some European amateur build licensing body decides, god knows… Has any of the (e.g. the LAA) ever ruled on this? Anyway, once we have 100UL available 100LL will disappear fast, so their hands will be forced.
A warranty on an engine is like a warranty on a parachute, anyway. It is only in the most egregious cases (like, the mfg assembled an engine with the bearing shells missing) that any engine warranty is honoured. Occassionally we hear of one of these. There are probably others but all under a strict NDA and nobody is willing to talk; SB569 was one “very fine” example.
Peter wrote:
once we have 100UL available 100LL will disappear fast
Right.
Anyone here with a clue as to a date (year would be good, month even better 
) of introduction here in EU? Some countries ahead of others?
I queried GAMI about this and they essentially said that they aren’t interested in spending any time or effort on Europe until the US is sorted. A shame, because there just might be less political and legal barriers here to getting it into the 100LL distribution channels first, with phasing out of 100LL to follow.
