A few thoughts:
Most airports are only set up to provide two types of fuel, at most. This usually amounts to Jet-A and 100LL. This has made 94UL largely irrelevant in the US. It also impedes utility of having the ability to use auto gas.
Speaking of auto gas, I always found it puzzling that the 40-year-old Petersen STC covers such a vast array number of 80/87 Octane engines and aircraft. It seems it was all cool with everyone with little or no involvement of the FAA.
94UL comes with a bit of a caveat. The octane is suitable for the as-delivered IO-360’s we have (which specifies min octane of 91). Those of us with electronic ignition of one type or another would seem to be in a different category.
The DA40 AFM specifies 100LL or straight 100 (double the lead of LL). So we do have competing airworthiness documents. This is clearly only a paperwork issue but I could see complications with the FAA/Insurance companies in the event of an engine-related mishap.
No matter the emergence of the 100UL, we are trading one boutique fuel for another.
100UL and Us
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- Rich
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 4607
- Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
- First Name: Rich
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N40XE
- Airports: S39 Prineville OR
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1186 times
Re: 100UL and Us
Last edited by Rich on Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
- dant
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:45 am
- First Name: Dan
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N787DM
- Airports: KPAE
- Has thanked: 51 times
- Been thanked: 60 times
Re: 100UL and Us
Someone recorded the session with GAMI at Oshkosh with latest updates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEnyHCwakww
It's long, mostly just a lot of ranting, with more evidence that the FAA all agrees that it's passed testing, but the paperwork just isn't getting signed. As of that filming there was talk of the new FAA certification person (Lirio Lui) sending a team that should be at GAMI roughly right now. Curious how that's going.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEnyHCwakww
It's long, mostly just a lot of ranting, with more evidence that the FAA all agrees that it's passed testing, but the paperwork just isn't getting signed. As of that filming there was talk of the new FAA certification person (Lirio Lui) sending a team that should be at GAMI roughly right now. Curious how that's going.
- TimS
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 561
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
- First Name: Timothy
- Aircraft Type: OTHER
- Aircraft Registration: N1446C
- Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
- Has thanked: 101 times
- Been thanked: 100 times
Re: 100UL and Us
It finished. George posted over on BT about it.
https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewto ... 7&t=209969
Tim
https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewto ... 7&t=209969
Tim
- waynemcc999
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 568
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:38 pm
- First Name: Wayne
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N211WP
- Airports: KSBA
- Has thanked: 1517 times
- Been thanked: 411 times
Re: 100UL and Us
Tim, that's behind the Beechtalk login wall... do you have a summary?TimS wrote: ↑Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:45 pm It finished. George posted over on BT about it.
https://www.beechtalk.com/forums/viewto ... 7&t=209969
Tim
Thanks,
Wayne
Wayne McClelland
PPL/IR, 2008 Diamond Star DA40-XLS 40.922, KSBA
Photo logs of PilotsNPaws | Flying Doctors | Angel Flight | YouTube @GeezerGeekPilot
PPL/IR, 2008 Diamond Star DA40-XLS 40.922, KSBA
Photo logs of PilotsNPaws | Flying Doctors | Angel Flight | YouTube @GeezerGeekPilot
- Chris B
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 843
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:52 am
- First Name: Chris
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N171CB
- Airports: KRHV
- Has thanked: 210 times
- Been thanked: 215 times
Re: 100UL and Us
FYI, BeechTalk does require no-cost registration, but there is no paywall.Tim, that's behind the Beechtalk login wall... do you have a summary?
Thanks,
Wayne
AFAICT they mostly use registration to cut down on spam and bad behavior.
Here is the key post by George Braly. Tim Roehl is GAMI's president.
Chris
On BeechTalk George Braly wrote:
The "next steps" were not crystal clear during the "out-take" at 11:20 AM on Friday.
The "Mantra" from the FAA since June 7th is that the "Holy TAB" recommended that Wichita ACO consider 4 new issue papers and re-open the 7 year old Detonation Issue Paper (FAA approved by AIR-20 et al - - i.e. the same people that were in charge of the PAFI program.).
The five issues were:
1) Detonation (re-open Nov 9 2015 FAA approved "Holy Writ" Issue Paper);
2) Material Compatibility; (New Issue Paper)
3) Hot day hot fuel climb cooling / fuel vaporization / engine operability testing; (New IP)
4) Engine Endurance; (New IP)
5) Use of an Independent (proprietary ) verses ASTM. (New IP)
A) GAMI already has FAA approved/accepted test reports for each of those five items. THAT should be the end of the matter.
B) FAA standing policy requires that Issue Papers only be generated at the BEGINNING OF A PROJECT - - or at worst - - during the "EARLY STAGES" of a certification project.
C) The written "enabling" language in the TAB charter required that TAB activity only take place during the early phases of a certification project.
The FAA has openly and notoriously violated each of those written policy documents!
Also, consider that those five items listed above, include essentially 100% of the check list for doing a start to finish "Certification Plan" for the use on engines and airplanes of a completely new fuel chemistry!!!
Essentially, the FAA wanted GAMI to stop our program and help EAGLE create a "roadmap" for how to (next time- - and sometime before December 2030) correct all of the mistakes in PAFI and then maybe have a chance of doing EAGLE - - right. (maybe)
During the OUTAKE on Friday morning, it appeared that the FAA "posture" had changed (maybe - - sort of ) .
"We do not have to do Issue Papers (which traditionally take 18 months to 3 years). Maybe we can do this with some "Memoranda" to document the decisions reached...." or something close to those words.
GAMI's consistent position (since 2009) has been that if someone can present to GAMI some credible engineering DATA that clearly demonstrated there was a need for additional testing, then GAMI would investigate and if additional tests were justified (for which there was not already satisfactory test data to the contrary) then GAMI would likely agree to do that additional testing.
Since April we were promised by the FAA that all of their TAB "recommendations" would be supported by "DATA".
At the 08:15 Monday meeting at Oshkosh with the FAA, once again, we were promised that with respect to proposed meeting (last weeks meeting at GAMI), that the FAA would only raise issues for which they had "DATA" to support their position(s).
We were told 12 days ago that Tim Owens (who is married to EAGLE) was "putting the data together" for the meeting.
Then (no surprise) - - on Monday, before the Wednesday meeting at GAMI was scheduled to begin, we were told that the FAA had been unable to identify any pertinent "DATA". But the meeting would still take place with a "list of questions". Which we received mid-day on Tuesday before the Wednesday meeting.
*********************
Tim Roehl is more optimistic than George.
AIR-ONE has made it clear, and AIR-700 restated the following at the "close-out":
>>If GAMI is not satisfied with the written response, then GAMI is entitled to escalate the matter directly to AIR-ONE.<<
Whether or not we do that is an open question.
For now, I need to clean up my emails from the last ten days!
George