So, after a blissfully uneventful week in fuel news here is where we're at.
The only candidate trying to develop an alternative to 100LL that's following the clearly preferred method of obtaining approval says it's impossible to make a "drop-in replacement."
I knew when I saw the EAGLE initiative it would be just like all the others that had came before it just another way to pacify the public ending in nothing happening.
Now that The federal government has create a mandate to continue leaded fuel, there may be only one way out of this mess and that would be to create a second fueling option at all airports to give the consumer an unleaded choice. To do this, it may require the government to help set it up, just like they are setting up electric charging stations. I would love to have this choice for my Skyhawk because it would cut my maintenance cost by A considerable amount.
I am including an excerpt about the Rotex 912 engine Which talks about maintenance when using leaded fuel.
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.
This is an excerpt from Wikipedia
Russ, you don’t really believe that all the key people in the FAA are aligned to the extent, and in the way that you seem to suggest that they are do you?
Well well well: no surprises especially with the “lawyer” engineer at GAMI!! Why not get AOPA to cobble together the solution with the Congress like we did with Basic Med?? not the perfect solution, a compromise in many ways, but a solution after all. FAA still needs leadership which is hasn’t had since Admiral Busey, so turn to today’s leaders …AOPA PRESIDENT AND his close friends in the House. my 2 cents
I just hope Amelia doesn’t have to write on this topic when she’s editor-in-chief!
And I guess that’s why it’s probably the inevitable and most efficient route to a new fuel. Democracy, free speech and free enterprise be damned.
We reap what we sow. We have for so long given the FAA nearly unlimited latitude and power to regulate the GA industry that it has become bastardized–free enterprise no longer applies. A free market rewards innovation and/or collaboration; consumers patronize businesses that build a demonstrably better mouse trap. Today, it’s more profitable for players to simply appeal to the real decision-makers on high to protect them from competition.
And just to avoid a political discussion here, I’m not suggesting there should be no regulation, but that maybe the level of regulation we expect for major airlines isn’t necessarily appropriate for the GA market. IMHO, over-regulation is a big part of the reason why we have been forced to accept the stunted development of GA piston engine technology.
Is it Ground Hog Day? I am sure I have seen such comments 100 times in the past 20 years. No mention here of mogas, which continues to increase in use along with the increased used of engines designed for it, eg Rotax, ULPower, Jabiru, etc. Airports collect exactly zero in fuel taxes when pilots self-fuel.
This article ought to be the reference document for anyone to get up to speed on what has happened. While it has some editorial opinion, it did a great job of summarizing this long term mess into something digestible.
I wish I could fuel my airplane with the GAMI fuel. Why doesn’t GAMI get its own trucks? Looks like theres a business opportunity to transport. Do we know how many airports are willing to install an UL pump when the transport issue is solved?
Perhaps the best solution is to re-power with liquid cooled engines that are not so prone to detonation.
Lastly, Sunoco Race Fuels offers UL 100 and (260 GT Plus) 104 octane. 104 could be a drop in fleet fuel. The Sunoco fuels have been around for a very long time. Only issue I see here is the cost. Racing fuel is expensive $13.10/gallon but if a high volume deal was established to fuel GA I’m sure this issue would be resolved.
“The EPA already has the authority and ability to mandate the elimination of lead in avgas.”
Obviously 100LL meets (or is below) the current EPA levels of environmental impact. That’s probably why anti-aviation lawsuits have switched to noise or safety or CO2 or land use.
If the EPA changes rules to specifically target 100LL, that is out of their purview and would be punitive, disruptive and ultimately illegal.
The FAA could subsidize the installation of MOGAS tanks for less than what it would cost to fund a AVGAS contest. Expand the EAA or Petersen STC AML. That cuts your lead emission in half which can buy time for some company that sees a lucrative market in a dying GA industry.
Replacing one boutique fuel with another boutique fuel won’t attract anyone long term. Repurposing an existing high volume fuel ( with as little modification as possible) is the answer.
Check their website. Every can says it contains Ethanol, which is major no-go.
MOGAS is not a drop in replacement but those that can safely use it certainly should. My Cherokee 140 with 7.5:1 compression couldn’t tell the difference. My 8.5:1 IO-360 probably would unless I can find 93 octane, which is not as widely available as 87-91 octanes.
Thanks. Why is Ethanol no good?
It needs to be remembered that autofuel STC’s are available for some higher powered engines not normally associated with its use. The Baron and 210 are both approved for 91AKI minimum. Yes they require mods (ADI) but approved nonetheless. If the FAA would not have played favorites when they were doling out the cash, the problem would have been solved 25 years ago.
You can shave up to 13 octane points off an engine by using water/methanol injection. So it’s clear that one would not need 93, and that even Swifts 94 would be overkill if ADI is used. AOPA said a few weeks back that they would test any fuel in their Baron that showed promise. Well the Baron has been approved for 91AKI since 1988. I’m still waiting for a call from AOPA.
Several reasons we can’t use fuels that contain Ethanol.
Really?
With no ASTM certification every distribution channel could be subject to scrutiny, and potential liability, for any engine/fuel system related accident in any aircraft using the fuel. What FBO’s lawyer would accept that?
Consider this from your FBO’s perspective … did the entire distribution channel completely clean out all trucks, lines, etc., before filling and shipping with G100UL? Or is there the potential of contamination or mixing of this fuel with any of the other fuels, or with 100LL? And what about the FBO’s own tanks? Or even in the aircraft’s own tanks! If the fuel has been potentially contaminated by mixing with other fuels, or if they can’t completely prove in court that it wasn’t, here comes the lawsuits - pointed at the FBO, not GAMI.
Considering that FBO’s now enjoy liability coverage via the fuel distribution chain (i.e., those silly truckers), that’s kind of a big thing.
And why won’t GAMI pursue an ASTM certification? Why won’t they let independent labs test their fuel in the same way as all of the others, who are going through ASTM certification?
I’d sure like the author of this piece to turn his hard eye’d journalistic investigation skills onto helping all of us to understand the real world complexities of the path GAMI is choosing. It’s easy to write “It’s not clear exactly why the fuel distributors are blocking sale of G100UL” … perhaps you need to do a little work to better explain that!
I am confused why there has to be only one “winner” in the process. Could there be multiple fuels that meet the program rules, with FBOs choosing which brand to sell? …no different than in auto industry where many formulas are sold. Don’t know the answer, just asking why not.
Without standardization (i.e., an ASTM spec), the fuels cannot be tested and shown to work after mixing. Without standardization (ASTM), the FBOs selling the fuel won’t have liability coverage from their fuel distributors.
Look, we’ve all had the luxury of not having to worry - pull up to the pump and 100LL is 100LL wherever you are. That’s because it’s an ASTM standardized product. So again, why won’t GAMI pursue an ASTM spec?