MuffinMan
Oh boy… oh goody goody…another update. When can I fill my tanks at my airport and wherever else I decide to fly? What a joke. These alleged updates are beyond boring.
Oh boy… oh goody goody…another update. When can I fill my tanks at my airport and wherever else I decide to fly? What a joke. These alleged updates are beyond boring.
Just another kick of the can down the road by EAGLE. Does anyone believe the OEMs (presuming the airframers that hold the TC) will ever issue the first piece of paper approving any unleaded fuel? I am sure the company lawyers are awaiting the lawsuits that will generate. Any change of this magnitude will require a forcing action, either EPA outright banning 100LL or FAA blanket approval through regulatory action (i.e., NO STC required). The California unleaded consent decree was a lost opportunity for an initial forcing action. Take away 100LL and see how fast GMAI G100UL and Swift 100R show up at your airport.
@rblevy points out yet another reason the STC process is not viable and not reasonable for a consumable commodity.
Fuel is a commodity. Airports who now carry only one fuel will certainly not carry 3 or 4 fuels from 3 or 4 manufacturers/STC owners, and will be unable to switch from one supplier to another when it is economically indicated. It will permit the development of a defacto monopoly oligopoly of commodity suppliers and prices set by them, and delivery conditions set by them and we will pay the price or non-commercial aviation will die in the US.
It is no surprise that one company has stated there is no single solution to aviation fuel needs. There never has been one. From as far back as I can remember, there was 100/130 Green, 100LL Blue and 80 Red fuels. 100LL itself was a compromise that does not work well in many 80 Octane airplanes which was the reason the powerplant manufacturers started makng 100LL requiring engines even for the lowly C152. They chose to abandon engines that could and do burn lead free fuel in favor of those that require it and now we are stuck.
I doubt we will get airport venders to supply G100, 94UL, 100R, and whatever else attempts to enter the market when we cannot even get them to carry Mogas (of any of the many brands covered by the generic mogas STCs) alongside 100LL for those airplanes that can use it safely and effectively whether a piece of paper says they can or not.
This will be the greatest fuel/energy monopoly since Standard Oil and Rockefeller. But it will not impact the widespread population and receive Sherman Act attention. Already Aviation fuel suppliers are maneuvering to keep their relative monopolies even at high volume major airports with only one FBO.
The clear solution is the same as the automotive solution of the 1970s: There will be engine modifications needed and those mods, in many cases already exist but were abandoned with the fuel changes of the 90s. There is no reason why the airframe manufacturers cannot power them with engines that will burn commodity fuels in the future and provide standard engines that will retrofit existing airframes at TBO for commercial operators.
1 reply
“The aviation community has long recognized the need to eliminate lead emissions from piston-engine aircraft”
And yet for 4 decades these organizations have worked against unleaded AvGas and Non-ethanol MoGas! GIVE ME A BREAK. When they ignore a vast amount of the aviation community(small planes), don’t tell me that you’re listening or representing me as an owner. Don’t tell me that you are concerned about lead after 40 years of us burning fuel we don’t need while paying more for it.
Since pilots and instructors with thousands of hours of siting directly behind engines burning 100LL do NOT have elevated lead levels in their blood, The sane approach is to keep selling 100LL forever. Obviously creating a “new” 100 octane fuel will be costlier to everyone AND detrimental to many aircraft. Lose/lose.
1 reply
Have any scientific studies been performed to measure this?
In any case, there are two very good reasons to get rid of the lead: 1) it’s bad for the engines, 2) there is only one manufacturer of the TEL additive. If that manufacturer has any reason to cease production, 100LL will go away for good and the aircraft that do require 100-octane will either have to make due with performance-limitations or just not fly at all.
Here are some facts to consider:
The FAA has been a sad joke for a long time. The calcified, callow bureaucracy is not capable of doing anything other than loving the problem.
It will, of course, lead to a crisis. This will also be mismanaged while somehow funneling billions of public dollars to the campaign donors of whichever politicians sit on the committees that sign the checks.
I’m not sure I agree with this, but I need more information. They went the other way in the 80s toward engines requiring higher octane fuels. For example, the O470R is a 230 HP @ 2600 RPM 80 Octane engine (CR 7.0:1) and the O470U is a 230 HP @ 2400 RPM 100LL engine (CR 8.6:1). The weight of the S and R are the same at 401 lbs, the U slightly heavier at 412 lbs. The work to certify has already been done in one direction, I don’t see that following the same path back is excessive.
@Walkinghispath has the real insight to the problem, though. How to solve it is another matter, well beyond my ken.
@WBJohn points out truths. I have personal knowledge of his points 1 and 2. His 4th point is very consistent with my belief. However, Point 3 is problematic as Swift has stated that its coming 100R should not be mixed with GAMI G100UL due to compatibility concerns related to aromatic amines. Whether this is marketing hooey or reality is unknown. Aromatic amines are readily detected by gas chromatography analysis, so their presence/absence can be confirmed. Swift’s argument is it can dissolve fuel system components which GAMI has not reported in its testing.
Time for more popcorn.
1 reply
My comment #3 meant to state that G100UL can be mixed with current 100L in any proportion, and would not require FBOs to maintain separate storage and dispensing systems. I agree it’s not compatible with Swift Fuels, which at this point appears to be incompatible with almost everything, including most current aircraft engines and fuel systems.
The innovation is problay great,to have at least three companies working on the possibilities of a new fuel.
If Braly would sell his patent and STCto AvFuel or Philips, we would see it show up at the airport.
Avgas is a tremendously profitable product.
The current players do not want to lose this market.
Thus, they manipulate the timid into being afraid of and balking the changeover.
GAMI knows more about combustion than most other parties to this issue.
They have a million gallons of good fuel ready to go.
Distributors have nothing to do with the issue.
OEM’s are simply afraid of liability if even the slightest thing is changed.
2030?
Seriously?
This is issue has been going on too long; end the footdragging; now!
Oh goodie - they moved the goal posts again…
“I” have 4,000 hours and I did not test high for lead.
“I” want100LL without the lead, supply that and no lead fouling.
“I” do not need 100 octane in my engine"
Second source the product; if for strategic reasons if nothing else.
All the FAA has to do to help this issue along is to decree that no more new piston powered airplanes or engines will be certified to run on any leaded fuels. Unfortunately what another poster has commented on the FAA actually doing anything is spot on.
“There can be only one fuel for the fleet”
Be careful now, you want it to be Jet A or 100LL?
Point is that for 40 YEARS now that same dumb mentality of “one fuel” has caused both prolonged leaded 100LL use and has delayed UL fuels from being in common use.
Gami 100 UL and engine mods for the rare few that need it.
When? When YOU said “There can be only one fuel for the fleet”.
The “fleet” uses more than one kind of fuel, Jet a or 100LL in case you have not noticed the 2 tanks at the self-serv ramp. We could have had one more tank added in the last 40 years by now so I’m a little incensed when people go down your argument that “we only need one fuel” when obviously we already can and do have more than one.
Not all airports have JetA, because not all airports can even support jets/turboprops (by and large the biggest consumers of JetA).
If there were some aircraft that could only run on 94UL, then airports would have more of an incentive to carry two kinds of avgas. But with that not being the case, it’s a bit of a chicken-and-egg game. Why would an airport make the investment into 94UL tankage (as an example) when there wouldn’t even be a guarantee that they’ll sell enough to make the investment worth it in the long run? Especially when we have cases like Burke and others that are under threat of closure because of the perception that they don’t bring in enough income.
But rather than having a hypothetical discussion about this, why don’t you just go to your local airport manager and make the case that they should sell a second avgas. If it’s such a slame-dunk case, it should be easy to convince them to do so. And if you’re successful at that, it can be used as a template for others to do the same.
1 reply
When all “pilots” in flight schools are taught only 100LL, most “pilots” don’t understand that they can use 80/87 or 91/96. Unfortunately thus these “pilots” would not use anything but 100LL even if there were suitable alternatives at airports.
That’s probably why “pilots” today are brainwashed into thinking that “one fuel” is the answer (even if it costs more and can be overkill for their engines). I see the same thing with people paying for premium auto gas because they don’t RTFM on their cars.
1 reply
In the last month I have been to the Reedley, California airport a few times while training my grandson on my Skyhalk. I found out Reedley, California is planning to have a third pump soon to sell Swift UL 94. The reason that this came about is because the College just purchased 5 Rotax power training aircraft for their flight school and the use of 100LL is considered very bad for the Rotax engine but is usable. The College has been able to talk the city into providing the third tank option which will be installed soon.
2 replies
My earlier comment (to a different poster) about contacting the local airport manager or FBO to get additional fuel tanks installed wasn’t to be condescending or facetious. I really did mean it, and this shows that it is possible.
Conspiracy theory?
Conspiracy theory?
(to make Avweb’s ridculus 20 threshold)
Good for the airport, helping a local operator who buys volume I presume.