Best numbers I can find is that 186M gallons of avgas were sold in 2008 (a downyear due to the financial crisis, but the only data I could find). You’d have to charge a pretty heft per-gallon fee to become a $100B business on that. Babbling is fun.
Having the entire GA fleet beholden to the whims of one company is asking for trouble.
Remember what happened to Cessna parts & SB kit prices after Textron bought them? Nice ole’ Uncle George or his heirs will sellout to Blackrock or the like at some point.
We need to get 100UL approved if it’s legit. Also some senior politician, like a Senator, should facilitate a negotiation between GAMI, FAA, and EAGLE program stakeholders for a fair “buy-in” to GAMI for the greater public good and call that the EAGLE program and it’s done.
Several times the Federal gov stepped in to unstick US aviation from restrictive patients harming the national good going back to the Wright Brothers.
The downstream harm Steve M. mentioned is tangible, no matter how much we like George for domesticating knowledge of LOP operations.
It’s not the lead that matters, it’s the octane. And these engines don’t particularly like lead for that matter, re: plug fouling and oil contamination, just to name two.
These days, I OFTEN say to others – when discussing the current state of affairs in this Country – WTH did I serve 21 years in the military for … THIS ?? Like you, I’m no longer going to be silent on any of this … I’m going to confront the fanatical lefties who can’t see what’s happening and either are ignorant or don’t care and think everything is OK … it ISN’T! $9.50 fuel in Mendocino, CA (6/06/2022) ought to be sending up flares and red flags everywhere. Where I am, it went up to $4.80 this AM … up from $4.20 just two weeks ago.
The GAMI G100UL issue reminds me of Michael Huerta standing on stage at the Meet the Administrator forums at Airventure year after year telling hundreds of pilots waiting for news about medical reform that he couldn’t discuss it and that it was in work … be patient. Patience, hell, get offa you butt and DO something (now, about G100UL). Sen Inhofe ought to make his parting contribution to GA some forced codification of the use of Braly’s fuel.
Someone ought to rename the FAA the Bureau of Oral Gratification and Enforcement … and not much else. But the Secretary of Transportation is probably too busy feeding his infant Pablum to even care? Now I see him on TV discussing issues not even remotely related to subjects the DOT ought to be dealing with.
Standard Essential Patent rules should come into play. George would not be able to charge whatever he wanted.
The problem isn’t what an engine will burn or certification, it’s distribution. I can put a LS6 in my plane today which uses unleaded pump gas (even 10% ethanol). I can have the latest mass produced engine technology using 30% less fuel, 1000 more hours until TBO and a quarter of the rebuild cost, but when I get to where I’m going they will only have 100LL, so you need to fix distribution before anything else. I can already get an STC for mogas for myo-470, but again… it’s not ANYWHERE. Like having a Tesla without a charging network, pretty useless - unless you never leave home.
Very well said! I agree with you. We don’t have patriotic leaders in government at this time. I think they are working for chinas interest not ours. As for Biden he is no leader and certainly no president.
All of us need to be calling email or otherwise talking to our congressman and senators every chance we get complain to them to get off there buts and do something besides drawing their pay checks off our backs our labor. Make them listen,They work for us.
Just to bring you down to earth, avgas sales are in the range of 200 million gallons a year. Five or so refineries make it and it and the gross profits for all of them together is about $150 million. If you think it’s a $100B business, you’re wide by several magnitudes.
I think it’s delusional to think GAMI or Swift’s fuels will achieve monopolies with their 100-octane fuels. The example would be Swift’s 94UL. It’s carving out a tiny little market share. It won’t take off, if it ever does, until lead is gone. Maybe not even then.
GAMI will be in the same position. It will be selling a more expensive fuel against a cheaper leaded version. Chances of success are difficult at best and will rely on market preferences and AVfuel’s willingness to play the long game. What you’re arguing for is government market control by saying an STC fuel should not be approved because it might become a monopoly. Odd, don’t you think, stifling success with government regulation?
Chevron, Exxon and Phillips have had years to develop their own fuels and could have. It’s not that hard. The turbine mafia did it in short order with SAF.
There are basically 2 approaches to eliminating leaded AVGAS.
-
Formulate a new blend that has the same performance characteristics as 100 LL, or
-
Replace 100LL with an existing unleaded certified aviation gasoline, namely 94UL, which is basically 100LL without the lead.
Choice one has proven to be unexpectedly difficult because there are no easy and cheap chemicals which can replace TEL. The various formulations of 100 UL require quite expensive exotic chemical additives which bring the significant potential for unintended consequences to either airplane fuel systems, or the environment, or both.
Personally I think 94UL is the solution. It involves zero change to the existing aviation gasoline refining and distribution process and is price neutral and a reasonably long phase in period can be announced now. The downside is, of course, what about all the engines that are only certified for 100LL.
Well… and I know I am going to get hate mail for this; but I think those airplanes are going to have to be modified to run on 94UL, which for most will mean a set of lower compression pistons and a slight reduction in takeoff power output. Turbocharged engines will also probably need a water methanol injection system. Of note Continental already has a version of the turbocharged TSIO 550 which is approved to run on 94UL.
However I think it is likely that many engines can probably be run on 94UL with no changes because there was no reason to ask the question. An example is the IO360 in the new C 172’s. It was a 100LL only engine but is now also certified for 94UL with no changes.
I would suggest that this is where the FAA could be part of the solution by providing a simplified recertification pathway for approving 94UL in existing engines and where that is not possible a simple approval for de-rating engines with an AML equivalent. They also could provide a subsidy like the ADS-B program.
The bottom line is GA is going to be paying more going forward. We either pay a substantial penalty per gallon for 100UL forever, or an upfront penalty to modify engines to use 94UL. Pay now or pay later but you are going to pay…
I agree. Nothing last forever. We are heading the way of the old USSR. The future looks bleak. When people who are sworn to protect the constitution actively advocate for abolishing the electoral college, packing the court, doing away with the senate and the 2nd Amendment and believe biology is a social construct we are finished…wait…
Im investing in a unicorn ranch. Pretty soon we will only have unicorn farts for energy. Better jump on board. Bitcoin and NFT’s excepted.
Reducing takeoff power to run engines on 94UL will ground just about every light twin built. Most of those planes already have marginal single engine performance, any reduction in power would make those planes ineligible for air carrier service. And it is those planes that use the most 100LL.
Is it possible that pressure is coming down from the White House to stall this long enough that EPA can ban 100LL and simply ground the entire piston fleet? They could then trumpet it as another blow against “climate change.”
I would suggest that the previous poster never ascribe malice to that which can be adequately explained by the exercise of mere incompetence…
Incorrect. Modifications to piston twins need to be made that will maintain the current power they already have. Larger intercoolers and in some cases water injection will do the job. We should’ve done this long ago it’s an embarrassment for Aviation that we didn’t do it already.
Cui bono?
Would anybody be surprised if the current incumbents providing 100LL aren’t hidden in the shadows behind Lawrence’s departure, the ensuing bureaucratic bungling and the “it’s in draft so we can’t share” sleight of hand.
Follow the money.
A previous poster (Gary B) wondered why PAFI rejected GAMI. According to Mr. Braley, it was the other way around. When he was invited to join PAFI, he asked if GAMI would get credit for what they had already done. Answer: No, you have to start over from the beginning. What about if we get it done and discover something that will make it better, can we modify it? Answer: No, you have to start over from the beginning.
Are drafts and committee memberships exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?
And for some things, converting EASA approval to FAA approval requires only a rubber stamp. And this certainly appears to be a rubber stamp item.
That is the free market. Want an example of the free market? Look at your paycheck. Will you work for less? Or would you rather have more, but you are getting paid what others are paid for the same job?