By General Aviation News Staff · September 3, 2022 · 14 Comments
In what is being hailed as a milestone for general aviation, the FAA has approved an expansion of a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) that allows the unleaded fuel developed by General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) to be used by the entire general aviation fleet.
Known as G100UL, the fuel was initially approved in July 2021 for a limited number of engines, including Lycoming O-320, O-360, and IO-360 piston engines. With the recent FAA nod, the Approved Model List now covers “every spark ignition piston engine and every airframe using a spark ignition piston engine in the FAA’s Type Certificate database.”
The approval comes after more than 12 years of testing, and more testing, and more testing, by the FAA to ensure the fuel was safe for general aviation.
“We’ve been told by the FAA that this is the most thoroughly tested and documented STC that has ever been done at the Wichita Aircraft Certification Office,” said George Braly, GAMI’s co-founder and head of engineering.
“It’s a great day for GA,” added Tim Roehl, president and co-founder of GAMI. “Not only can we look forward to a lead free fuel future, the benefits of the G100UL will improve the maintainability and reliability of our engines, enhancing dispatchability and safety.”
The FAA’s approval of the use of G100UL fuel in all piston aircraft addresses the industry’s long-standing goal of finding solutions that can be used for the entire GA piston fleet, according to Mark Baker, president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
“I’m proud of GAMI, the industry team, and the FAA for persevering over the long term and getting a fuel that the FAA has recognized as a viable alternative to low lead,” he said. “It’s vital that we find solutions to what has been plaguing general aviation since the 1970s. It’s certainly the biggest issue I have dealt with in my time at AOPA.”
“This is a big deal,” he added, “but there is a lot of work yet to be done.”
The plan is for GAMI to license the fuel’s formulation to oil 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.”
At SUN ‘n FUN 2022, Braly noted the first customers of G100UL 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.
“It’s going to take a while to manage the infrastructure, including manufacturing and distribution,” Braly said. “The supply chain is still a very wounded infrastructure and that’s not going to make the process any easier, but we have a handle on how to do this, and with the support of the major players I think we can do that. It’s going to be limited to begin with, but it can be ramped up rapidly.”
While the cost of the fuel is not known — and won’t be set by GAMI — Braly acknowledged that the initial small batch production process means the fuel will cost more than 100LL.
“Small volume batches cost money,” he said. “Until we can get production revved up that we’re making millions of gallons at a time, there will be an incremental cost.”
“It’s not going to be unreasonable,” he added. “Pilots in America will not be paying what they’re paying for avgas in Europe today.”
Owners can also expect to see engines that operate more efficiently.
“I think the days of cleaning spark plugs every 50 hours are going to be behind us for good,” Braly said.
GAMI officials know pilots and aircraft owners have a lot of questions about the transition to unleaded fuel, so during SUN ‘n FUN, they offered 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,” according to Braly. The STC is 18 pages long and includes more than 1,800 engine makes and models.
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. Operationally, G100UL is virtually identical to 100LL and actually has a bit more energy (BTUs/gallon) for increased range of the aircraft, officials added.
Will the operation of my engine change? No.
Can I mix G100UL and other fuels? Yes. In fact, you can mix G100UL with any fuel authorized for your aircraft, in any ratio.
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.
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 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.
Other companies are also involved in the transition to an unleaded general aviation, including pioneer Swift Fuels, which has received FAA approval for its 94-octane unleaded fuel. It is available at a limited number of airports, with a concentration on the West Coast and around Indiana, where the company is based.
Swift Fuels’ 94-octane fuel meets some, but not all, of the demand of aircraft with lower-compression engines, noted AOPA officials. The company is developing a 100R unleaded fuel with more than 10% renewable content.
In addition, two fuel candidates are currently in the FAA’s Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) testing process.
“We’d like to see several fuels available that all work together and blend together,” AOPA’s Baker said. “Competition is always a good thing for the markets.”
Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily. Sign up here.
Automobiles did not need an STC to use fuel containing ethanol. Aviation is severely hampered in the USA due to irrational and illogical excessive regulation and we all know it. The FAA does not regulate auto parking decks at airports, why is it in the hangar regulation business? Just completely NUTS! Please email Mayor (now Secretary) Pete and tell him its time to clean up the FAA. You can fume about this petrel change mess or you can make it easy: I bought Rotax.
You are SO right! The stifling FAA bureaucracy with its costly activity-killing rules and regulations is fundamentally broken beyond repair. Unless many of the FAA’s unnecessary light aircraft-related functions are simply cancelled and the rest parted out, light-aircraft GA in this country will continue its rapid decline and eventually become irrelevant. But sadly, there are still apologists out there who continue to argue for the status quo. Why? Follow the money! Under the FAA’s “leadership” light-aircraft GA in this country has gone from “thriving” to “on-life-support and dying”. Most of the so-called “new” light aircraft on the market are half-million-dollar flying equivalents of the 56-Chevy. If you want to own a modern, new airplane you’ll have to be rich – or build your own. Could you imagine an automotive world where other than half-million-dollar Rolls Royces, all new cars are home-made? And while the FAA is regulating private light-aircraft to extinction, in most states any (rich) 16-year-old kid can legally buy and drive a lightning fast, street-legal 800-horsepower Dodge Challenger SRT Demon for the cost of a 50-year-old 172. The SRT is produced and sold that way without any lengthy and costly FAA-certification process. Are you really going to tell me that a hypothetical, factory-built, but non-FAA-approved 180-horsepower puddle jumper would be more dangerous to the public than this Demon?? This bizarre paradox is just one of many brought to you courtesy of the FAA – and their apologists.
Here we co again folks, we have gone over another hurdle of life, just to get it in the rear end once more. All this rigmarole is the same, the pilot always gets it in the shorts. This is probably why the delay on getting this thing done. more money for a stupid gallon of gas. that is the bottom line always, & will always continue to be that. we will continue to get ripped off no matter what, it’s the explanations that come before the shaft that amazes me. You can always be assured that the longer it takes to solve a problem the more it will cost us, not matter who or why it is said the way it is. The bottom line is, ” pay till you can’t pay anymore and then maybe it will ease up a little, ” This is a typical “American screwing if I ever saw one.. I’m sure glad I did my time in the military so that the average Joe continues to get shafted. The producers will always get the gold mine, the public will get the shaft, again. This will undoughtedly ruin general aviation for good, no one can afford these outrages prices, now or ever.. thanks for nothing !!!!!
sounds like Joe Henry Needs some cheese and crackers with that wine! 😂
Good news! Any idea as to when it will be available in Northern Canada?
It’s about time we get rid of that nasty gas there is nothing good about Leaded gas !
The big deal here is that this spells the end for sticky valves and premature top overhauls due to excessive valve guide wear and stuck rings. Those maintenance problems we have been plagued with for decades all belong to the overabundance of TEL in 100LL.
The FAA forcing a STC for use is bureaucratic foolishness when it is approved for all engines without modification to the engine or airframe. This is the result of the FAA foot dragging and their inability or intentional blocking of the approval of any fuels via the utter failure called the PAFI program. Since no fuels were approved, GAMI was forced to gain approval via STC. Swift is also going through the same process. So send a thank you note to your congressman and the FAA administrator when you write that check for the STC.
With others also developing fuels, such as swift, I hope we don’t need to buy a STC for each brand of fuel or plan fuel stops to only the FBOs that carry the brand we have bought an STC.
So lemme get this straight – it is approved for use in “every spark ignition piston engine and every airframe using a spark ignition piston engine in the FAA’s Type Certificate database”. And yet I’ll have to pay a few hundred bucks for a placard so that I can legally use this more-expensive fuel in my airplane??
Isn’t FAA bureaucracy great?
PeterH, this has nothing to do with bureaucracy and everything to do with the company that poured a lot of money into research and development trying to recoup some of that back. This is the price of innovation. It is expensive at first and costs go down over time. There are other listed benefits described above including longer maintenance intervals, potential longer oil change intervals, etc. It also offers an option for those that have none (such as locations that have banned 100LL).
Gami worked on developing this fuel over the last 12 years, on their own ‘nickel’.! Think of it as a patented invention. Those that want to use the invention must get patent rights. The FAA is just the approving authority, and now we can use the fuel, once it’s available at our favorite GA airport.
BTW, I bought an ‘Auto gas’ STC 20 years ago, and to date have never been able to use it, since California requires all auto gas to contain 10 % ethanol.
GAMI should recoup its investment through its licensing to refineries. There was no STC for 100LL, and nor should there be for G100UL or any other fuel at the pump. Swift’s low octane UL (91UL?) can generally be used without an STC. Swift gets their recoupment at the pump. If the FAA can’t figure out how to bureaucratically authorize this for the fleet, then our Representatives in Congress should write a short Bill authorizing it for fleet usage of approved UL fuels without an STC.
Either way, you will pay. STC or at the pump, probably both. GAMI, and any other inventor/investor needs to get a return on their investment. I don’t need an STC to build and rent a hangar, but the return on investment stops me from building them. How about needing an STC for sun-visor?
An STC isn’t required for a hangar to be constructed. But, a hangar will need a lease or purchase for the ground it sits on. And then, you’ll need a building permit and inspections for structure, electrical, drainage, etc…. If you rent the hangar, the controlling agency will require a lease agreement and be named as an ‘additional insured’. Oh, and in some jurisdictions, you will get a property tax bill for the land used. So, no less simple compared to an STC.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
© 2022 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy