At this stage, Daniel and his company are looking to push through the non-viable solution they have, all costs to us be damned. They are way past the development stage where they were trying to come up with a new formula that works, so whatever it is, it is, MAYBE they will consider minor tweaks, but I doubt it given the stage of testing and given the 2027 timeline.

Sorry to burst the utopian bubble, but they are a massive threat to GA, and no, we should not be extra polite to the people trying to screw us over. And for what it's worth, I was being polite assuming they were simply ignorant to the issues. It is arguably more likely they are well aware and he is here for the purpose of spreading misinformation and FUD thinking we are stupid and gullible.

You can interpret it however you like, but I don't think the facts support a reasonable conclusion that they are here to learn and develop a better solution.

Hi Gustavo,

First a clarification: I am not representing "the vendor" here. I am sharing my knowledge about unleaded fuel and the PAFI program and answering reasonable questions about both. I also intend to stay in my lane, refrain from argumentation, and not speculate.

Second: Unlike some who followed the STC process, we do not do our own testing. We rely on experts in their fields to do it. Hence the "I am told".

Regarding your question about your engine, the answer is: probably, but this is still being evaluated. Your CR suggest that it will be fine without mods, but I don't want to get ahead of the FAA and Continental on this.

Lastly, the fuel will likely not change. FAA and OEM have evaluated multiple variations of the formulation and other chemistries and settled on this one for the PAFI program, not because of any vast conspiracy, but because we stayed with the program, listened to the experts, improved our fuel, and passed its qualification requirements for full-scale testing. I hope that you and the GA community sees this as a good thing.

You can follow the progress made at flyeagle.org. It will take another 18 months or so to get there, but the testing will be both thorough and transparent.

I will stay in touch here and will let you know when I know more.

What about 550 TAT? Not sure what you are asking. Can you elaborate?

Dan,
Aren't you glad you joined BT.
Run while you can.

So, the only vendor, having an approved not perfect unleaded fuel, requiring zero modifications to engines, deserves the adversarial treatment? That is exactly what this forum has done in many occasions …

Asking because it is obvious the FUD campaign, and resentment against GAMI and no similar pledge / ask?

The OP threw the doubt about g100ul safety, sounded not assertive about modifications to engines and so far has not answered a simple question about TSIO520UB and we qualify comments as adversarial?

Hi Dan,

Post crossed.

thanks.

I find hard to digest, you are the project leader but you don’t represent a vendor here.

That said, it is not clear to me, the direction as described by you leads to address the high performance engine detonation problem without significant changes to them. It will really help to come here with technical details, more than I am told.

On the TAT 550, that is one of the most common upgrades to one of the most popular engines I am referring to: Turbo Normalized (by GAMI). What is your take about your fuel and such engine?

We have a new Daniel in a new lion's den.

As long as I can use it in my engine without modifications, sure.

Fwiw, UL94, STC or even 100R had passed similar, the catch is, they don’t work on my engine or most high performance engines out there burning 80% of avgas.

That is the core of the problem (for me with a selfish PoV). G100UL solves such problem for me (again, not a perfect fuel).

Once again, the points I am making are to inform/influence hopefully, the direction of the formula. I want options. Period. I have zero patience for FUD at this point.

Can you elaborate on how the documentation would work for timing changes or compression ratio changes? Will your company be creating STCs for this, or just saying that changes will need to be made and it will fall to third parties to create STCs for these engines? Or is there some other method of modification guidance and approval envisioned?

You already have G100UL. If that works for you, great. We have developed a different fuel that behaves differently. The FAA and OEMs believe it is a viable fuel and are working hard to define its safe operating envelope in the entire fleet. You say you want options? That's what this is about.

Unfortunately, it sounds like this fuel will not be an option for the TSIO520, without compromising performance (or in other words, safety). It’s taken me until now to understand that “Fleet Authorization” does not mean “the GA Fleet”, but rather “some subset of engines and aircraft as determined by the FAA”.

The gullible will fall for his schtick, but it is not hard to see that he is not being genuine. He knows damn well that there will be modifications needed and if there is any performance hit, the modifications will be considered major based on PAFI's own documents, including the one he linked. He also knows you can't retard timing without a performance impact, and that Flight Manual supplements and log book entries will be needed, and not funded by them or PAFI.

Sorry to sound "adversarial" but Daniel is NOT your friend or the folksy "aw shucks I don't really know the answers" guy he is pretending to be. Anyone falling for that crap, please send me a PM, I have all sorts of things to sell you!

There is one and only one candidate fuel that can be used in every airplane that can burn 100LL. The other two candidates have been hiding behind the intentionally deceptive "fleet authorization" knowing damn well they won't work across the fleet. While people want more options, there are currently no other fuels known to be under development, and even if there were any, they would not be able to go through testing and approval in time.

The GA community needs to wake up. We have 100LL and G100UL and then we have a pair of scammers. The market isn't close to big enough to support two fuels with widespread availability, so if the scammers use dirty politics and dirty money to get a foothold, GA will suffer.

There is one and only one candidate fuel that can be used in every airplane that can burn 100LL. The other two candidates have been hiding behind the intentionally deceptive "fleet authorization" knowing damn well they won't work across the fleet. While people want more options, there are currently no other fuels known to be under development, and even if there were any, they would not be able to go through testing and approval in time.

The GA community needs to wake up. We have 100LL and G100UL and then we have a pair of scammers. The market isn't close to big enough to support two fuels with widespread availability, so if the scammers use dirty politics and dirty money to get a foothold, GA will suffer.

There's only 1 way to resolve your tank sealant question. Give George a call. Internet scuttlebutt won't do.