All that’s needed is one signature from FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
A small company in a tiny little town in Oklahoma has solved general aviation’s biggest problem.
After a 12-year quest, General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) has created an unleaded fuel that is a drop-in, fleet-wide solution that can be used in every spark ignition piston engine in the FAA database.
“We’re done folks. We fixed the problem,” George Braly, GAMI’s head of engineering, told a crowd at the 2022 SUN ’n FUN Aerospace Expo.
Known as G100UL, the unleaded fuel made headlines at last year’s EAA AirVenture Oshkosh when GAMI received a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) for the fuel for a limited number of engines, including Lycoming O-320, O-360, and IO-360 piston engines.
At that time, GAMI promised the STC would be expanded to include all piston engines in the GA fleet by this year’s Oshkosh — and beat that prediction by four months.
On March 2, 2022, the Wichita Aircraft Certification Office determined that GAMI “completed all necessary showings and findings of compliance and provided type design data and documentation required for the substantiation of the requested expansion” of the STC.
That was followed on March 3 with another finding that GAMI met all the requirements to expand the Approved Model List (AML) to all aircraft “approved for operation on 100LL fuels, lower octane unleaded aviation gasolines, and mogas.”
The only thing holding things up?
FAA headquarters in Washington D.C.
Yet Another Delay
Instead of signing the STCs as expected, top FAA officials decided that the GAMI fuel had to undergo yet another review, this time by a Technical Advisory Board using a “work instruction” following the same outline the FAA used in the Boeing 737 MAX fiasco.
This put G100UL on hold yet again, understandably frustrating Braly and others at GAMI, who already have undergone more than six thorough reviews by FAA officials, starting in March 2010 in the early phases of the project. That was followed by five more in-depth reviews, including one at FAA headquarters in Washington, D.C.
In late 2021, Earl Lawrence, head of the FAA certification office in Washington, D.C., assigned yet another review to the Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office.
Braly said agency officials in Atlanta went above and beyond, working 12-hour days through the holiday season to produce a Jan. 5, 2022, report that was forwarded to the Wichita office, which then issued its findings approving the expansion of the STC and AML.
Braly noted that officials in Wichita told him that the “G100UL avgas STC project is the single most thoroughly vetted and documented STC project in memory in that office.”
But top FAA brass still put the project on hold for yet another review by a Technical Advisory Board, made up of six “subject matter experts” with the FAA.
On May 2, FAA officials told Braly that the Technical Advisory Board review was completed and a report was expected to be forwarded to the Wichita Aircraft Certification Office by May 6 with any recommendations.
“I’m not concerned,” Braly said after talking with the FAA on May 2. “I have a lot of confidence in the integrity and quality of work with the Wichita office.”
GAMI officials won’t speculate as to what caused the latest review. Perhaps it’s the new Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Leaded Emissions (EAGLE) initiative. Perhaps it’s the fact that GAMI didn’t participate in the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), a 10-year program that failed to find an unleaded avgas.
When asked if it could be fear to turn such a big project over to a small company from a tiny town, Braly nodded his head.
“Fear is a big deal,” he said. “They know this is a big deal.”
In fact, it’s such a big deal that EPA officials reached out to GAMI, initiating a Zoom call a few weeks ago to learn more about G100UL.
“They are quite interested in seeing how expeditiously this gets resolved,” he said.
GA Wants G100UL
Meanwhile, Braly said he’s “going deaf listening to the phone ring.”
“We’re getting calls from airports that want to get the fuel,” he said, saying the airports are from around the country, including on the West Coast, the East Coast, in Wisconsin, Atlanta, and elsewhere.
And GAMI is ready to go once the final signature is received.
The plan is for GAMI to license the fuel’s formulation to refineries. The license includes a quality control aspect that allows GAMI officials, as well as FAA officials, to make random inspections to ensure the fuel is made correctly.
It also has a deal with Avfuel to work through the logistics of distributing the fuel, with both companies committing to “ensure G100UL avgas is available to all legitimate distributors and vendors on an equitable basis.”
But Braly acknowledges that the first customers of G100UL — once it is approved — will be airports where 100LL has been banned, such as Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV) in East San José and San Martin Airport (E16) in Santa Clara County in California.
World politics, including the war in Ukraine and continuing supply chain issues, also will impact the timeline for when the new fuel could get to your airport, Braly noted.
He added that dealing with giant corporations, such as the big oil companies, takes time as things move slowly at the corporate level.
“We can’t even get the new product development people to put this before their committees until we get FAA approval,” he said. “So we are just sitting here on our hands waiting on a piece of paper.”
The Big Questions
GAMI officials know pilots and aircraft owners have a lot of questions about the transition to unleaded fuel, so offer some answers to the most common questions they are asked.
How much is it going to cost? The best estimate is that it will cost between 60 and 85 cents more a gallon than 100LL.
Will it work in my airplane? The STC covers all spark ignition piston engines in the FAA’s Type Certificate Database, “without exception,” Braly said. The STC is 18 pages long and includes more than 1,800 engine makes and models.
What if I fly a warbird? It will work in your airplane as well. The STC includes all of the World War II engines and all of the post-World War II radial engines.
What changes will I have to make to my airplane? You’ll have to attach a small placard to the engine and add a short supplement to the Pilot’s Operating Handbook. That’s it.
What is the octane of G100UL? During FAA-approved detonation testing, G100UL was the same — and in some instances exceeded — 100LL, according to GAMI officials.
Other than being lead-free are there other benefits to G100UL? Spark plug maintenance and replacement intervals will improve with the absence of lead, while it is likely that over time oil change intervals will double. Without lead, it is also likely that synthetic oil will become available that will further increase oil change intervals, GAMI officials said.
Will the operation of my engine change? No.
Can I mix G100UL and mogas? Yes. In fact, you can mix G100UL with any fuel authorized for your aircraft, in any ratio.
What will the STC cost? Price will be based on engines and horsepower, similar to the pricing for other fuel STCs. For example, the Experimental Aircraft Association’s STC for auto fuel is $1.50 per horsepower. Petersen Aviation offers its STC for $2 per horsepower.
They’re morons. Theres solutions right in front of their eyes but ….. This is all by design. Does it makes sense to you that there’s only 2 manufacturers? Who are in bed with Cessna, FAA and Government. Lycoming Continental. That’s what is being protected here.
An Engine is an Engine. These morons don’t get it. Replace the engine!!!! Automotive Technology is SUPERIOR to General Aviation’s technology. Used in Boating, Industrial, Airboats and many other applications any adaption is a HUGE jump in technology for this forgotten archaic industry.
Automotive technology is the only thing that will save General Aviation and give a solution to their fuel issues. The industry is just to small to innovate from within it self. The decline in plane sales is evident. The only reason General Aviation is even allowed is for flight training. Oh and the few lawyers and doctors who crash each year
FAA’s trying to recreate fuels as the rest of the world is looking to eliminate it. LOL Once again FAA you fail in your response time and the world moves on.
Have the filter companies been testing this product? I am interested in hearing what Facet and Velcon have to say. I am a Phillips 66 aviation fuel distributor and that is one of my biggest concerns.
It’s a shame that the EPA minority has so much power over the majority. It’s is all about the money and who is invested in the companies that manufacture all the products required to satisfy the EPA MINORITY FALSE PROPAGANDA!! You buy a new automobile and one third of the cost increase is due to the EPA Requirements. If you think that electrical stuff is going to help, you are totally mistaken. You either pay the money on the front end or the back end!!! Fossil fuel is still required!! There is one and it’s necular. But, there’s so many hoops to jump if they ever get approved to be built!!! The rest are unpredictable and don’t last before they are worn out!! If you believe that man can control the SUN AND THE ROTATION AND TILT OF THE EARTH’S ORBIT AROUND THE SUN YOU ARE A FOOL!!! Only GOD CAN SOLVE THOSE THINGS!!!
I have tremendous respect for GAMI since the 90’s when I first installed their GAMIjectors in my Bonanza. Later I added their Engine Cooling Baffles and am better off for a better running and safer engine. Without a doubt GAMI has added tremendous value to GA. If in fact there is no good reason to prevent GAMI’s 100 unleaded AvGas from going into production than shame on the FAA for being an unnecessary obstacle. Other companies are working on 100 unleaded which will not require buying an STC nor hopefully the $0.60 – $0.85 per gallon tariff and they should receive support as well. We are all being stung since our energy independence has been tossed and our oil needs became dependent on our enemy’s. Competition is good for the consumer. That said if there is no legitimate reason to not allow GAMI to go forward immediately and get their fuel out to market then they deserve their opportunity to prosper by getting to market first with a badly needed product.
Smells to me like Deep State pressure that supports elimination of fossil fuels. Starving the entrepreneur is the same way as cutting off the head of a snake.
Kudos to GAMI.
“Knowing Smile” here.
Follow the money. The legacy refiners see this as a threat to their avgas market. Undoubtedly the FAA is getting enormous pushback to delay or deny this.
Why isn’t AOPA or EAA behind this small GA company that appears to have solved the unleaded issue? Maybe they aren’t because they are wedded to bureaucratics in the FAA and big gas companies to come up with an alternative to 100LL by 2030. It sounds like a solution looking for a problem that apparently has been solved.
If their resources were used to get behind GAMI and push the FAA to approve the unleaded fuel and then promote use by the association members, maybe we will see a rapid transition to unleaded fuel and maybe a reduction in the price.
The lead lubricates. Does the unleaded?
sorry, it doesn’t….see my comments below.
What impact with unleaded fuel have on the valves in all of our Lycoming and Continental engines that were designed for leaded fuel?
The exhaust valves were designed to tolerate TEL. With unleaded fuel there will no longer be an issue with lead-bromide deposits on the exhaust valve stem, causing a stuck valve.
There will be fewer deposits in the piston ring grooves and lead deposits on the spark plugs.
So, we will have better performing engines that will be more reliable.
I have a Continental 0-300A that I run almost exclusively on mogas with no ethanol content with NO problems. I fly often putting about 80 hrs on a C-170 annually. I pay about 60 cents more a gallon than car gas and 80 cents a gallon less than the avgas at the nearest airport. I still change the oil at factory recommended intervals but don’t get the lead deposits on my plugs or the lead residue I had grown to expect in the bottom of the oil pan. I prefer the smell of the avgas but have learned to get over it when I add the fuel savings to the mix. Oh, and it smells bad when it gets on my hand but daily baths solved that problem. If eligible get and use a mogas STC.
I recently completed a test of 93AKI ethanol-free unleaded auto fuel with the Lycoming 0-360 engine in my Glastar. Performance was essentially the same as 100LL AVGAS but I just can’t stand the smell of the stuff. After a couple of tanks of the mogas, I’m back to AVGAS.
For those interested in diving deeper into this subject, here are three links to videos with George Braly talking about his work certifying G100UL:
Press conference at Airventure 2021:
aopalive.aopa.org/detail/videos/latest-videos/video/6265651240001/gami-g100ul-avgas-press-conference
On Social Flight (Part I — Dec 8, 2021):
youtube.com/watch?v=Vh3fnojuvM0
On Social Flight (Part II — Feb 8, 2022):
.youtube.com/watch?v=_5SlfWPehJA
Solvents is indeed the big question. Fuel bladders, sealed integral tanks etc….. The great thing about 100LL is if you get it on your hand, it just evaporated and is gone. And it just does not degrade with time. Even Shell Vpower , the cleanest car fuel, stinks 24 h after you get it on your hand.
Almost $1 more per gallon than 100LL, which is ridiculously priced already. That’s one way to solve the problem…folks will stop flying.
Yup, With 8$ per Gal. Now, So 9 .00 per gal !! MORE IN ITHER PLACES, Rest in Peace TO a Huge chunk of the GA Fleet that CANT run Mogas..
Wow..!! $8 gas.. where is that ?
I’m in Northern California and our gas is $5.29, and our 100LL is $6.39.
A big question is how does G100UL act/interact with epoxy resin sealed airplane fuel tanks? Epoxy resin is used to seal the fuel tanks in many fiberglass airplanes.
A big problem with MoGas is that it contains ethanol, a solvent that can melt the inside of epoxy resin coated fuel tanks. If the engine can use G100UL but it damages the fuel tank in an airplane then it is can’t be used in many fiberglass airplanes.
It is no longer a big question if the G100UL interacts with composite planes. If you watch George Braly’s presentations, you will find out that Cirrus approved the use of the G100UL with its composite material. Also, GAMI has been flying a Cirrus for years with no problems with wet wing tanks.
That doesn’t quite answer the question. Cirrus tanks may have a protective sealant. “Doesn’t melt Cirrus tanks” is not the same as “doesn’t melt epoxy”.
A few minutes’ research finds this statement on the competitor, SwiftFuels’ web site:
“Aromatic Amines are very aggressive on the entire aircraft fuel system and may in some cases erode, soften, destroy or weaken critical aircraft fuel system components.”
SwiftFuels says they specifically studied the m-toluidines being used in G100UL.
I admit, I’m now a little concerned.
GAMI says they’ve tested G100UL on fuel bladders and have done “extensive” materials compatibility testing. And, the Cirrus study is encouraging.
So many times we’ve seen great products go bust once the full fleet adopts them. Before that final signature does down, I want to know all that can be done has been done. Even then, limit the application to lowest risk users, and only expand its application once we have proof there are no problems. I’m for small, deliberate steps at first. That said, I won’t miss lead. Thank you GAMI.