So they charge a few cents or a dime or even $0.50 per gallon, on that 180,000,000 gallons of avgas we burn yearly. I don’t have any issue with IP, or a single supplier; if they charge too much, someone else will see what’s happening, and tweak the formula enough to make it patentable. I’ve seen it happen several times.
That may be true but now it would become whether the costs for those modifications are worth it. Those modifications may exceed the value of a lot of those twins. Then it just becomes another way to retire obsolete older aircraft just as RVSM or ADS-B or the stage 2 noise ban did.
You’re kind of missing the point here. GAMI’s UL100 already works in all engines manufactured by Lycoming and Continental without any modifications. That includes the high compression and turbocharged big-bore engines that use most of the avgas anyway. Asking those users to spend tens of thousands of dollars to modify (derate) their engines to accept a lower grade fuel is a non-starter if they can use a 100 octane fuel that the manufacturers have already approved (which they have). Also, don’t forget that any modifications to current engines would require FAA approval through an STC process that would probably take years to accomplish. Why bother if there is an acceptable substitute fuel already available? And, don’t make the assumption that G100UL will forever be 50-80 cents per gallon more expensive that 100LL. Most refineries that do not produce leaded avgas don’t want the hassle and expense of producing a product that has to be religiously separated from all other products due to the lead. If they can produce something which does not require that amount of separation and recordkeeping, they may decide to get into the business. More competition would naturally result in lowered prices. That is one reason why Shell (among others) doesn’t want to switch away from leaded avgas. Follow the money.
Can I have your last name so I can make fun of it?
Lycoming has already signed off that G100UL is an acceptable fuel for all of their avgas powered engines. Continental has done so as well. Interesting point about European plane builders; Pipistrel originally designed their new Pahthera to use the Lycoming IO390 engine, but later switched to the IO540 instead. One reason why is that the 390 requires 100 octane fuel while the 540 can use the 94 octane unleaded mogas.
The problem is that ethanol has a slight octane boost effect. If the refiners produce mogas that they know will be blended with ethanol, they can make it a slightly lower octane value. If they make an ethanol free mogas, they will have to blend it to a slightly higher octane value at the refinery. But, you are correct; ethanol in auto gas is one of the dumber ideas the government has crammed down our throats. It was marketed as a “solution” to freeing us from foreign oil imports AND a “solution” to lowering air pollution from gasoline. In reality, it was a vote-getting move to the farm lobby. All those jobs in corn production and ethanol plants are in predominantly agricultural states. The government also make a real blunder with the original ethanol mandate. They required that a minimum volume of ethanol had to be produced and blended into the gasoline supply, regardless of the actual volume of gasoline sold. When gasoline demand dropped, as it did in the pandemic, refiners were scrambling to find a place to put the constant amount of ethanol they were sold. That explains the recent push to raise the percentage of ethanol in mogas as farmers lobby to make more alcohol.
Congress is the unindicted co-conspirator/cause of many of the FAA’s problems.
“regulators” no longer work for the good of the regulated, but for their own paychecks.
That disconnect never ends well.
@Teddy G: That is absolutely not correct. (and you err when re-identifying CAA as FAA.)
@Brian L: And so your Dad, a congressman disrespectful of the national interests risked U.S. involvement in a middle-east war by flying a foreign armed fighter because he thought he’d have more fun than respect his obligation to Americans?
PAFI participation also required full disclosure (forfeiture) of intellectual property. Swift initially started in PAFI, but pulled out. PAFI was a collective of those who had not been able to come up with a UL solution for decades. That a little company like GAMI has developed the solution and successfully completed the certification requirements is simply unacceptable to the establishment. The solution? move the goal post out to 2030 and hope more time will allow big oil to catch up and squash the innovator. Government complicit corruption at its best.
George H,: I suggest you find a website which might appreciate your socialistic nonsense! Either that or go back to your flight simulator in your Mom’s basement.
That statement neatly encapsulated everything wrong in this country.
Is there really any value in that attack on a guy and his dad?
If some violent dictatorship attacks one of our Allies while our Congress people are visiting, can we be uninvolved? (As if there is some way we would not have been involved in a Middle East conflict during that period anyways.)
Just because someone was having fun, must something be wrong?
War is acceptable if it’s against Israel or the US (in which case it’s understandable)?
Should the part of his dad have been played by his mom or some other woman from just the right ethnic group du jour?
Should I go on?
If Tecnam is now number one, could we get a story on that from Avweb?
On top of that, the fertilizer used to grow corn runs off into the rivers and turns the Gulf of Mexico brown and causes all sorts of problems, but no one on the Left will say anything because they know the ignorant masses blame it on drilling.
If you have a real concern, you should seriously drop the Marxist screed elements. Your understanding of the way things works is lacking, and it’s turning off your audience.
This is more about ego and power than money.
Your argument ignores the fact that the 20% of the aircraft models that do need 100 octane fuel currently consume more than 75% of the avfuel (100LL) currently produced today. The combined value of their aircraft is in excess of 20 billion dollars. So you will basically be killing everything but recreational GA if you don’t get to a 100-octane solution. You sound a little bit like the congresswoman who recently bragged that she had gathered enough chips to get an electric vehicle and just breezed by all those gas pumps on her drive back to D.C. (I’m fine now - screw the rest of you guys). Whether you realize it or not, your airports, your FBO, and all of the non-turbine GA owners are dependent on the existence of a 100-octane fuel to maintain GA as we (the little guys) now know it.
I am not sure where this sort of nonsense comes from but it is simply not true. The FAA can still issue new regulations and new approvals based on their authority under US Code.
He is retiring and looking for more closed runways to land on.