JimH_in_CA

ok, so at a price of $10.39 a gallon, who wold be buying this ?

Here in nor Cal, 100LL is $5.99 , not a chance 94UL would sell here.!

1 reply

JohnS

But the data from Oshkosh and University of North Dakota says the octane is not high enough for modern Lycomings with CR of 8.5:1. Data says need to be 100 octane to prevent value recession. Buyer beware.

1 reply

Jeff_G

“While this doesn’t replace all aviation gasoline, it is an important first step.” Well no, it really isn’t. Unless the same fuel some day is going to magically be sufficient for all piston engines, just like the 100LL it’s ostensibly replacing, this is a complete waste of time and resources.

jbmcnamee

I find it interesting that fuel distributor, Avfuels, is willing to distribute Swift’s 94UL, a fuel with known and unresolved engine issues, but will not touch GAMI’s G100UL that has been well vetted with no known engine performance problems. One of their reasons for not handling G100UL is liability concerns. What do they think will happen if customers start having valve recession issues with a fuel that they are providing?

Ehsif727

I’m pretty sure you’re spreading false information as no determination has been made to the information you are stating as a fact.
In the engine that the school stated had the valve recession of the four cylinders on that engine, only one of the four Cylinders had any valve session. The reason for the valve recession is still in undetermined.

1 reply

Lars_Hjelmberg

It is interesting to note the difference between Sweden and the US as regards to prices and performance of unleaded AVGAS. Hjelmco AVGAS 91/96UL ® (basically an UL94 with better performance) which has been produced for 33 years and has during all the years sold at a LOWER price than 100 LL. Currently the UL price is approc 15 % lower in price than 100 LL. Also the Hjelmco fuel has never had the valve problems that experienced in the US with UL94. Google on search words to find more informationl

gmbfly98

True enough, but the fact still remains that some aircraft that were approved to run 94UL had engine wear issues, while no such issues have been encountered so far with the few aircraft that are running G100UL.

1 reply

Lars_Hjelmberg

True - the ASTM UL94 standard allows for various formulas for the UL 94 fuel. There is an excellence - actually an art in to make a fine AVGAS. The Hjelmco fuel which I in person designed and was recognized by Lycoming already 1995 and now with 33+ years in operations with multi millions of flight hours, thousands of various types of aircraft and under actually any weather condition is a safe fuel. Also the FAA attended the safety review Sept 15 1999 made by the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority and the conclusions were that the introduction of this fuel had less items than when the 100 LL was introduced. Also the Hjelmco fuel which is a true AVGAS is cheaper to produce than 100 LL. To summarize - request a lower price for unleaded AVGAS than 100 LL - because of this

cbixby

Reference these other AvWEB news items.
Reid-Hillview Airport Launching Sales Of G100UL - Oct 30, 2024

 California Flight School Using Swift 100R In Its 172s  -   Nov 7, 2024

Does anyone really think that having different airports supplying 3 different kinds of fuel to GA is a good idea??

Is it even a good idea having 3 or more 100LL replacements to choose from?

If you are truly interested in discovering the sordid details behind the search for a replacement for 100LL, I suggest this article in Aviation Consumer!!!

It is the best description I have seen of the history of the search for a replacement to 100LL. It also provides a good “picture” of the current state of the Avgas fiasco!!! It showcases the infighting, stonewalling, waste of taxpayer money etc between the FAA, the fuel developers, along with the National Air Transport Association (NATA)

I am unsure what the pilot population can do to get our voices heard. But somehow we need to demand that the FAA make a choice of the best replacement (GAMA 100UL) available and then make it the universally accepted fuel of the future!!!

I for one do not think the industry needs to end up with multiple inferior products replacing 100LL due to bureaucratic ineptness!!!