Not sure who the author is, but he seems to parrot what the “industry experts” say - that is those trying to protect their territory. GAMI has a fuel but even the EAA folded and stopped so much as mentioning it. (I wonder what (loss of) money was held over their heads?) I thing brianhope said it right - the problem is corporations who have no product ready, and all the Luddites who don’t want to switch because it’s new.
Andrew_M is right that financial incentives might be necessary to make the change - this market is just too small to absorb these costs easily. I’m thinking of our local airport - owned by a retired pilot who barely makes a profit on the place. He does it for the love of aviation. There is no way he could afford an entirely new fuel delivery system.
And, of course, George Braly has thought this out very well. It’s only money that keeps people from listening - either the potential loss of it, or the cost to convert/add G100UL (both aircraft and airfield).
Avgas is not produced insufficient volumes to warrant transportation in pipelines.
The contamination of one batch of fuel with another at the beginning and end of a pipeline run would not be an acceptable with the small volumes of Avgas.
And Avgas could not stand the contamination (lower octane) from even small amounts of autogas in the “tail” left over from pipeline shipments.
One has to be careful in discussing compatibility of fuels.
If one is going to use the “mixed” fuel in a engine already approved for use of Swift 100R ( there are only two aircraft so far approved for use of Swift 100R - - two make/model C 172s) then there is no immediate safety issue with mixing G100UL avgas with Swift 100R.
But it is NOT a two-way street. You could not used the “mixed” “comingled” fuel in a Bonanza without likely causing detonation and other problems.
Because of the potential risk of confusion with this issue, it is easier to just say “don’t mix them.”
We have extensively tested fuel made to conform to the Swift composition with 25% ETBE - - on our elaborately instrumented test stand at GAMI.
Those tests demonstrate that 25% ETBE fuel blends like Swift 100R will not operate safely on 8.5:1 high performance engines, without serious modifications and/or derating/restrictions on the engine operating envelope. For twin engine aircraft, that might not even be possible do to the single engine performance requirements.
Anything you see or hear to the contrary is simply mis-informed or based on erroneous data.
That may be true, but that still leaves fleets of dedicated tank trucks and any refineries dedicated solely to aviation gasoline to deal with. I don’t know how many refineries are dedicated solely to aviation gasoline production, but my guess would be no more than one or two, at most. Switching to unleaded fuel will move that production to a wider base of production facilities, preventing a possible single point failure, if the only refinery dedicated to leaded avgas has to shut down for any reason.
I must respectfully disagree with your contention that visible smog was the only issue in air pollution controls for automobiles. The three (3) regulated pollutants, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and unburned hydrocarbons, all have undesirable health and environmental effects. Oxides of nitrogen react with water in the air to form nitrogen acids (nitrous acid, nitric acid) which contribute to acid rain. Unburned hydrocarbons react with sunlight to form photochemical smog, yes, but carbon monoxide is a real hazard to pilots, passengers and those of us on the ground alike! The catalysts were fitted to reduce those pollutants in all levels of the atmosphere. Oxides of Nitrogen have also been implicated in the destruction of Earth’s ozone layer, well above operational flight altitudes. Anyone who has driven behind a pre-emission-controlled car, without a catalyst, can smell the difference in the exhaust! So, no it wasn’t just visible “smog” that forced the rules, but these invisible components of internal combustion engine exhaust as well.
Studies have shown that residents near General Aviation (GA) airports have higher lead levels in the blood, with documented effects on the brain and central nervous systems of those people. The effects are most severe on the developing brains of young children, so getting the lead out is of vital importance to all of us!
I’m inclined to agree. This prompts me to ask a question, though. Since warbirds used to use 130 octane aviation gasoline, where do they get the fuel necessary for them to run as they were designed to run? As far as I know, 130 octane avgas is no longer sold, at least in the US, and 100LL won’t be good enough for these incredibly powerful engines. Detonation would be a huge problem, so how is that issue addressed? Do warbird pilots have to add octane boosters to the fuel so the airplane can run without damage? Thank you for your help.
Back before G100UL was available, I suggested ‘replacing’ 100 LL with Jet-A:
Stop selling new avgas airplanes and engines, and sell diesels that can run on jet-A instead. Existing engines could be replaced with diesels when they reach TBO. The extra costs would be offset by lower fuel burn of the new diesels. Airports and FBOs would actually save money because they would only have one fuel type.
Anyway, now that G100UL is here, that is no longer necessary. G100UL IS backward compatible. It just doesn’t have the scale of production and distribution that 100LL enjoys. Airplane owners have no reason to buy the STC, because they can’t get the fuel. And FBOs have no incentive to offer it, because not enough of their customers have the STC. The existing producers and suppliers are digging their heels in to prevent G100UL from gaining market share.
People say that the existing producers want to keep their money from making 100LL. GAMI is not a fuel producer, so they are not competing. They sell a license to make G100UL. Is that license fee so expensive that the fuel producers can’t profit? When TEL is no longer available, what do they plan to do?
All auto engines are water cooled and not comparable to air cooled aircraft engines due to exhaust valve heating and deterioration in air cooled aircraft engines from unleaded avgas. Air cooled engine exhaust valves need a replacement for lead; either finely ground iron or copper or some combination to cool the air cooled exhaust valves. The FAA needs to mandate either iron or copper or some combination for air cooled engines to obtain exhaust valves that will last more than 2000 hours of operation. From personal experience, unleaded avgas exhaust valves will burn in 100 to 400 hours of use; totally inadequate and unacceptable.
“We have extensively tested fuel made to conform to the Swift composition with 25% ETBE - - on our elaborately instrumented test stand at GAMI.”
I’m amazed to see this written down as I understood that Swift had a patent granted for their fuel.
If so (and I have some legal experience), that would make blending and / or testing without their permission illegal here in the USA. Of course you testing Swift’s fuel would be possible if the fuel was obtained commercially (which I don’t think is possible yet), but it is not legal for someone to independently blend and test something that is covered by existing registered Intellectual Property.
It’s an interesting testing observation, but you might want to alter your post before Swift lawyers contact you…
I think the 1970 Clean Air Act was used to push the change to unleaded fuel to have a supply across the US was accomplished in less than 2 years. The catalytic convertor saw to that. The unavailability of G100UL is because the EAGLE has spoken and the Fuel Distributors refused to transport GAMI. When an inferior unleaded fuel was championed by EAGLE, it assured the industry of having leaded fuel available long after any of us stop breathing air.