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.
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:
- This puts fire to the feet of industry to find a solution with a mandated timeline. There’s nothing quite like an existential threat to get folks to take things seriously and put minds to work. When the Soviets were first to put something into orbit, the U.S. really threw everything at the next goal - putting a man on the moon.
- Laws come and go. If absolutely, technically impossible, I would expect extensions or exemptions, while holding the bar high to find a solution.
- There needs to be an ethanol-free mo-gas alternative for the aircraft that can use lesser-octane fuels TODAY. I appreciate the environmental (renewable resource) and economic (supporting mid-western corn farmers) arguments in support of ethanol in vehicle fuel, and my Toyota is very happy with 10% ethanol. However, it absolutely is a safety issue for aviation, so much so that some operators prefer to use 100LL in engines that burn unleaded fuel because of concerns about the effects of ethanol in their fuel systems and engines. This has an environmental impact for which there is there is a very simple solution that involves reaching back into the recent past (Premium, ethanol-free gas).
- The ROTAX 912 is a nice 80 or 100hp package that prefers unleaded fuel. Avgas availability is an issue outside of North America. Even Canada had a shortage of avgas recently. Piston engine manufacturers should start thinking towards mo-gas compatible or diesel (jet-A burning) engines.
1 Like
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?
look at the FAA reauthorization act of 2024 section 827.
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.
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.
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.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.