Arthur_Foyt
Glad to see that California has a lower cost and ready supply of an alternative fuel.
Edit:
End Aviation by Governmental Legislative Edicts (EAGLE) program.
Glad to see that California has a lower cost and ready supply of an alternative fuel.
Edit:
End Aviation by Governmental Legislative Edicts (EAGLE) program.
So what I get from this article is that there are 11 pilots in the California State house, and 8 in the Senate.
Sorry, it’s sarcasm. I forgot to add sarc at the end of the post. May bad.
Of course the powers that be (and suppliers) are NOT concerned about costs to consumers. That’s probably why lower cost fuels (like unleaded AvGas or MoGas) have not been available for the GA training fleet. My fear is that as the deadline get s closer is that it then become a “whatever it costs!” situation and all pilots lose.
1 reply
Unfortunately, there are no lower cost 100 octane fuels for the trainer fleet. Unless your local flight school has old 150s, they need a higher octane fuel than mogas can provide. Modern 172s and Piper Archer TXs need higher than 94 MON (as evidenced by UNDs detonation-induced valve seat recession due to too low octane fuel useage).
1 reply
Glad to see California doesn’t trust the FAA who have earned that badge of honor for the way they’ve handled this whole unleaded fuel fiasco, which is their normal pathetic operational mode.
Of course six years is a ridiculous amount of time to get rid of lead in the Fuel. I know that California is still going to try to push to have unleaded fuel available now rather than in six years.
For some of us who want the unleaded product now to reduce our maintenance cost which results from using unleaded fuel, still want to know why it took so long to get to this point but actually know that the poor leadership at the FAA leads us to the point where innovation is being stopped dead in their tracks.
I may move my planes to Arizona. It’s not much further, and everything is cheaper there.
GAMI’s fuel is available, which is great, but competitors are doing their best to keep it from going to market. If Newsome really wants to get rid of lead, he’d help with getting G100UL to the California market and let the rest take care of itself.
Next up: California requires all aircraft to be electric by 2035.
If you filter out all the political bias and garbage spewed here, this process is totally sensical and reasonable. California asked the FAA “how long do you need to get this done”, the FAA gave them a date, and California said, “Sounds good, we’ll go with that”.
I don’t see how you can complain about this process. It’s not like they demanded it be done now. It’s not like the FAA wouldn’t give a date and said they were “studying it” indefinitely. Both of those are much more typical government, and much less rational.
In the world of cynical reality, is it likely the FAA will have it done by then? Yeah, right…
California, with more pilots, flight schools, piston-engine aircraft, and airports than most states, plays a major role in U.S. aviation. While frustration is understandable given the slow progress toward alternative fuel standards tied to the FAA’s 2031 deadline, there’s also room to be hopeful. The state’s bold move to ban leaded avgas, despite the uncertainty surrounding new fuels, shows leadership in driving change. Yes, costs and delays are concerns, but the eventual transition could lead to cleaner, more efficient aviation. While G100UL is approved for all piston engines, some older aircraft may require adjustments—but this modernization could ultimately benefit the industry. It’s going to be an interesting ride, with the potential for long-term gains.
2 replies
Note that in the FAA reauthorization, 49 U.S. Code § 47107 [ a] 22, ends the sale of 100LL in the USA on Dec. 31, 2030.
So, it will be unleaded fuel or NO fuel.!
1 reply
Seems real simple to me. If you don’t allow fuel, you don’t get any GA services. When (not if) they have the next earthquake or flood, or need a medievac flight (whether they burn jet fuel or avgas) - no service. How long do you think it would take for the fine citizens of California to revolt when they start dying becasue there’s no medivac flights?
1 reply
I used to fly a Medic vac aircraft, Dave, but it’s been about four years and I don’t remember a single piston airplane in California doing Medic vac, so what you’re saying really is an effort to distort the facts for some sort of political gane, which seems to be the political climate of the day, to bad, the truth would be a better choice.
Most of our low compression piston engines were certified to use 87 octane gas.
So, if California would allow 91 octane, ‘0’ ethanol auto gas, we could use that at about $2 less per gallon.
The high compression and turbocharged engines need the 100/130 octane fuel.
California has more pilots, flight schools, piston-engine aircraft and airports than most states, and plays an important role in the U.S. aviation industry. You are right. With the rapid development of the tourism industry, I have found that it is now being updated and modernized, which is a long-term industry benefit
Unfortunately, not for me. I fly a 172, but it’s the Hawk XP with a high compression engine. I need a 100 octane fuel. If we transition back to a two-fuel industry, the high octane gas I need will cost even more due to the smaller production volume. Likewise, I worry a little what happens to any/all aviation gasolines if automobiles really become predominantly electric. We together (all piston aviation) won’t sustain the refineries.
1 reply
The “leadership” in CA has flubbed getting alternate fuels being made available at it’s airports for many decades now. The “leadership” is now going to cut off AvGas and then “hope for the best” and trust that someone else will come up with something.
Bold? Yea, like a Red Bull stunt where you parachute jump w/o a chute and trust that someone else will swoop in and supply one before you hit the ground…
My 8 cents:
I checked the approved list for Swift UL 94 Fuel and it says the Skyhawk XP is approved. The Compression ratio of the Continental engine is 8 1/2 to 1. That also is the same compression ratio of my Skyhawk, but it is a Lycoming engine and it also is on the list. The only Skyhawk not on the Swift UL 94 approved list is the AD Engine Skyhawk With the 9 to 1 compression ratio.
That Engine was made starting in 1977 for a few years then it was changed to A different version of the 0-320 Lycoming, which had an 8 1/2 to 1 compression ratio and was actually approved to use 91 octane fuel
You’re begging the question. As I pointed out when you raised this claim a month ago (sans your since added ‘[ a]’:
You’re missing the start of the reg.:
§ 47107. Project grant application approval conditioned on assurances about airport operations
(a) General Written Assurances.—The Secretary of Transportation may approve a project grant application under this subchapter for an airport development project only if the Secretary receives written assurances, satisfactory to the Secretary, that—
(1) the airport will be available for public use on reasonable conditions and without unjust discrimination;
(2) […]
.
.
.
(22) the airport owner or operator may not restrict or prohibit the sale or self-fueling […]Section (22) falls under section (a) which pertains to project grant applications. No grant app, no fuel restrictions.
Why must you continue to drag out this red herring?
1 reply
I looked at it; what was I expected to see?
And why did you specifically cite “49 U.S. Code § 47107 [ a] 22” if that wasn’t your source?
You would probably need to give a lot of other people ‘down’ votes too. They are clearly conveying the same sentiment, only with greater subtlty.
How is unleaded fuel going to reduce my maintenance costs, as you imply? Please give me an example. In 20+ years of aircraft ownership and 1500 hours of time on the airplane, I am not aware of any out of pocket expense due to using 100LL. How would I have saved money, and how much are we talking about for an O-320 over 20 years? Tell me what I dont know. Thank you.
1 reply
I am going to post some excerpts from rotax:
The 912 may be operated using leaded fuel, but this is not recommended as lead sludge tends to accumulate in the oil tank and reduction gearbox. Also, avgas is incompatible with the recommended synthetic oil which cannot hold lead in suspension; consequently, the use of leaded fuel mandates additional maintenance.
According to the Rotax 912 maintenance manual, Oil changes should be done at 100hrs and plugs changed at 200hrs when using unleaded fuel.
If you use avgas, then it is recommended that you change the oil at 50hrs and plugs at 100hrs.
There was no Scientific proof on the flying school use of UL 94 that the valve recession was caused by detonation. In the Flight school valve recession incident that was cited on the four-cylinder engine, all the other cylinders had no valve recession only one cylinder on that engine had the problem. The reason for the valve recession in that incident was undetermined. Brand Please don’t spread misinformation.
Years ago, I checked into what was then the Peterson Autofuel STC, and my airplane/engine wasn’t listed.
1 reply
Auto fuel STC’s would be much more limited because auto fuel is lower in octane and has a higher vapor pressure than Swift UL 94.