Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Not just the FAA. The OEMs and insurance companies also can't afford the liability risk for for a fuel that isn't produced to an industry-approved standard.
GAMI is free to seek an ASTM or other industry-approved specification.
www.flyingmag.com
So it seems Lycoming thinks the issue is real, but not sure what caused it. But Lycoming is recommending not so aggressive leaning. GAMI stated they dis agree with the FAA’s suspected cause, and claims to have data on the real cause.Update on the valve recession issues on the University of North Dakota airplane fleet with the Lycoming engines while using the UL94 fuel. The university reverted to the 100LL fuel for now.
Lycoming Claims Fuel Aromatics May Be at Root of UND Fleet Valve Problems - FLYING Magazine
Lycoming releases its response to an investigation that the use of UL94 causes abnormal valve seat recession.
George says he has the data and will disclose it at some point, I'm interested to see it. I have enough gray hairs to have an instinctual distrust of pretty much any FAA statement just on face value, and actual data speaks with more authority IMHO. Waiting to see what develops...
Understood completely, Sir; but,
Agreed we need data.
That only works if you're talking about one-cylinder engines. It's "flight hours," not "cylinder hours." If all of the hours were on Barons, for example, the total number of cylinder hours would be 46,000x12 = 552,000 cylinder hours. Divide that by 126 cylinders and you get 4380 hours per cylinder. If all the time was 4-cylinder singles (and it isn't), that would still average 1460 each.
Of course. I'll bet I'm not the only one tired of George's teasers. The only thing worse is the persecution complex of his fanboys.
And 100LL accounts for .30% of fuel consumed in the US. We could get rid of the lead for the fuel and just provide a lead substitute for those that need it in their engines. I've been running non-leaded fuels for years.
www.avweb.com
True enough, but that still seems disproportionately high.
aviationweek.com
1.2 million gallons of G100UL just hit the market. Don't believe all the BS that is out there. And the price point is quite good.Why you still haven't seen G100UL at your airport (and may never) explained here:
Lack Of Product Spec Blocks Sale Of G100UL, NATA Says | Aviation Week Network
G100UL unleaded avgas lacks a product specification from ASTM International—something industry has historically relied on when introducing new fuels, NATA says.
I think ASTM is trying to scare people because they are outsiders on the testing.
Ya think?
I am not sure what you mean by your comment. The fuel industry sells fuel meeting industry specifications (ASTM). That is how it works. I do not believe ASTM is pushing for a specification and I doubt they care.
1. What do you mean by "hit the market"? Where is G100UL being offered for sale and at what price? Sitting in a Vitol tank doesn't count as "hitting the market". Someone still has to distribute it. Help us out here...where can pilots buy G100UL and what is the price per gallon?
You mean side-by-side 2 versions of mogas available at the same airport? No, I don't see that ever happening. Too much infrastructure involved.
If it were viable, there’d be airports selling 100LL and MOGAS. There aren’t many.
In theory, Mark, you are correct. In practice, this has proven to be elusive. Removing the lead from your typical FBO 100LL drops effective MON by ten to twelve points. This octane deficit is very difficult to overcome with cost-effective octane boosters while preserving all the other properties that are required for a drop-in fuel such as density, viscosity. low-temperature fluidity, fuel stability, deposit control, maintenance intervals, and materials and 100LL compatibility. Even returning to minimum spec D910 octane is a challenge. Just read GAMI's patent and you will understand.
Some of you are 1-2 years behind the news. I can't help that.
There is a tiny insignificant company.....AvFuel.....ya probably never heard of them.
As for compatibility while G100UL and leaded avgas are fully fungible, it will be up to others that follow to be compatible. The PAFI process is a flawed and costly (taxpayer) exercise and anything that is promoting now is years away from the market even if the FAA only halves what they did to GAMI.
As for point 3 about being a fleet wide drop in? Yes. G100UL is. Fully. And just in case you are wondering I have had as close as one could get involvement in this product development without actually working for GAMI.
I “do” remember pulling up to the pump island at almost any airport and having the choice between 100LL and 80/87. Those were two distinct fuels with the associated double infrastructure…. Why is that such a seemingly impossible task today, only a few decades later?
Many small airports around Europe somehow seem to have found a way to have multiple fuel grades, usually 100LL, Jet-A, and either Mogas or UL91. Some have both Mogas and UL91. Almost every airport with fuel has 100LL and Jet-A. We frequently see UL91 or Mogas on a small fuel trailer. Seems strange that the much larger, busier US market can't get this going. If the recent Aero trade show in Friedrichshafen is any indication, there is some competition in the fuel market here, with Total Energies, AirBP, Warter, and ProEnergy all with huge booths at the show. No idea if they are making money, but they are spending it.
These guys might be able to help: https://www.energypetroleum.com/contact/
Flying a Rotax powered airplane this topic is of interest to me. I have asked at every airport I visit "when will you be offering an unleaded option" and more often than not the FBO manager is dumbfounded; they have not even heard of Swift or GAMI, the push for unleaded or even that some airports in California have mandated no leaded fuels. Then those that ARE aware of the unleaded fuel topic tell me that adding another fuel tank, pump, etc. runs in the $750,000 to $800,000 cost range and that earning $1.00 to $1.50 per gallon on the handful of Rotax and/or STC'd certified piston aircraft doesn't justify the investment. However, even the ones in the know don't "get" that the government is in process of forcing ALL piston aircraft onto unleaded.
