Clip4
Final Approach
The quality control of AV gas from the terminal until delivered at the airport is different and AV gas will always have a dedicated tanker.
Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet
- Thread starter wayneda40
- Start date
SoonerAviator
Final Approach
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2014
- Messages
- 9,410
- Location
- Broken Arrow, OK
- Display Name
Display name:
SoonerAviator
I don't think we're necessarily in disagreement. I was just saying that midwestPA24 was speaking about it in very absolute terms:
"Anyone that says they are doing it for the planet or their engine is just lying." . . . which seems short-sighted. If even one guy is buying Mogas because he doesn't have to deal with plug fouling or is able to increase oil life, then it proves him wrong. You can buy Mogas because it's cheap AND because it has some other benefits. It's okay to be cheap, especially if you have other reasons to do it that help you justify the hassle of tankering fuel.
A few years ago I was bringing mogas to the airport for the plane I owned then... because my engine ran better on it, and the manufacturer didn't recommend avgas. Not because it was cheaper, that was just a bonus.
OTOH, I buy avgas for my small engines despite the higher cost, for the better shelf life.
OTOH, I buy avgas for my small engines despite the higher cost, for the better shelf life.
Sounds like we’re in agreement. And this is why I run unleaded in my own airplane - it’s easy to get here, cheaper than 100 and it has some side benefits. I don’t go out of my way to find it when I’m away from home however.
Todd82
Line Up and Wait
That's not what my former colleagues in the pipeline and terminal business are saying.
Clip4
Final Approach
That’s because you and your former colleagues think base auto fuel and base AV fuel are the same. The different odor of the two fuels should tip you off they are not.
AV gas is not going to be delivered via pipeline for local distribution like a lot of auto gas is.
The specific gravity of AV gas and auto fuel are not the same and AV gas specific is monitored at the terminal, when it is loaded for transport and before it is delivered into the tanks at the airport. Contamination with other fuels is a no no.
wayneda40
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 581
- Display Name
Display name:
waynemcc
In my opinion, the most personal and hopefully impactful thing that we as aircraft owners can do is PURCHASE the STC... Now!
Show our appreciation for the 10-year+ effort that GAMI has put into this fuel. (purchased for my DA40 in March 2023)
Show our appreciation for the 10-year+ effort that GAMI has put into this fuel. (purchased for my DA40 in March 2023)
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
Nope. **** GAMI. Bought out another STC holder and then gave a giant finger to anyone that needs a replacement. They will make enough on the fuel monopoly.
Pinecone
En-Route
AVGAS is not delivered via pipeline due the low volume.
The transition volume (the part where two separate loads mix) is larger than a typical AVGAS slug. This was from someone with a lifetime in the petroleum industry and a pilot.
I have never seen the tanker check the specific gravity of the fuel before it leaves the truck.
Unleaded AVGAS should be perfectly OK to be mixed into the MOGAS stream (especially in the small amounts compared to MOGAS), so the only real concern is switching a truck from MOGAS to AVGAS and that could potentially require a rinse with AVGAS to remove any MOGAS.
The high was 2019 with 92 million gallons of AVGAS sold for the year. In comparison, there is about 8.8 million BARRELS (370 million gallons) of MOGAS sold, PER DAY.
NordicDave
En-Route
In my view AOPA is being pragmatic. I also disagree with Paul Bertorelli. The EAGLE approach is the right approach as it provides a fuel anyone can produce like today's 100LL. The competition will keep costs down.
^^^ Yes.
100UL a monopoly and George and the Gami boys can charge whatever they want as a license to the refiners. They make $6-$8 million of the on the frontend with the STC across the fleet and $10's of millions annually on pump fees. Don't get me wrong I'm all for capitalism and George Braly buying himself a new jet.
Do you really want a monopoly in control of piston aviation fuel? What happens when a private equity firm on Wall Street buys out GAMI and we have to pay $9 a gallon?
The only power the FAA has to ensure fair fuel pricing for the future is the EAGLE process. Lets be glad the FAA didn't wipe the board clean and stick us with one fuel overlord.
Last edited:
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
What stops the same thing from happening to the sole TEL provider?
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
No, but I also don't want to use tax dollars to prevent it. I'm opposed to spending taxes to develop something that already exists. Should we use USG dollars to help beverage companies develop a non-proprietary version of Coca-Cola? Absurd.
Any other company is free to invest their own money and do exactly what George did. Given that there are unleaded fuels already approved, G100UL and 94UL, I don't think it makes sense to spend tax dollars to develop yet another fuel so that companies won't have to pay a licensing fee. The USG has an interest in removing lead from avgas; fine, a means to do that already exists. It's not up to the FAA to implement some twisted means of creating competition. That's waaay outside their wheelhouse.
We'd get to a fielded UL solution faster if we used the EAGLE money to subsidize license fees and distribution. Those subsidies could be made available to any company that develops an UL fuel and gains FAA approval, not just GAMI.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,662
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
What is EAGLE going to come up with that will be different than GAMI? Some magic, undiscovered petrochemistry that gets you the octane and still fits the distillation curve derived from 1930's era car gas? Somehow doesn't seem likely to me. PAFI was supposed to find a way to do this starting in 2014. 19 years and no results yet.
Find a workaround to the GAMI patents? Possibly. A lot depends on how well the GAMI patents were written.
Get the "standards" changed in a way that a GAMI clone fuel "qualifies"? That seems most likely to me. Though I'm not sure how they will prevent the GAMI fuel from qualifying at the same time.
[to be clear - I ain't no petrochemical engineer - so I could be 100% wrong. That's a disclamer, not some kind of "badge of honor" or whatever someone may take it to be.]
Ed Haywood
En-Route
That's not selfish. Rational behavior to optimize benefits is the core principle of economics.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,662
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
Clip4
Final Approach
I don’t know who is delivering your 100LL, but a specific gravity test is supposed to be performed when the fuel is loaded and prior to delivery in the airport tanks. Yes, there are lazy drivers who don’t do their job.
The american Petroleum institute (aPi) gravity test measures how heavy or light a petroleum liquid is compared to water. this test is performed with a thermo-hydrometer. if there is a change in aPi gravity compared to the numbers recorded on the bill of lading from the fuel’s last storage location, this may indicate that a cross contamination exists with another product. this test will not tell you what type of contaminants are present, but it will allow you to see if the fuel has changed since it left the last storage area.
TO CONDUCT AN API GRAVITY TEST YOU WILL NEED:
• an astM approved thermohydrometer graduated in degrees of aPi gravity and Fahrenheit or Celsius for the type of fuel you are testing
• a glass or plastic hydrometer cylinder
• an aPi gravity calculator, or a book of petroleum measurement tables
YOU SHOULD USE ASTM APPROVED THERMO-HYDROMETERS:
• For turbine fuel (Jet-a & Jet-a1), use 54hl and 55hl
• For Jet-B, use 55 hl and 56hl thermohydrometers
• For aviation gasoline, use 57hl and 58hl
FOLLOW THESE PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT AN API GRAVITY TEST
1. Collect a fuel sample in the hydrometer cylinder, allow a few minutes for the sample to settle and any air bubbles to dissipate.
2. remove any bubbles from the surface by touching them with the corner of a paper towel.
3. Once the sample has settled and the air bubbles have dissipated, gently lower the thermo-hydrometer into the fuel sample.
4. depress the thermohydrometer approximately 2 inches into the sample and gently spin it as you release it. this will help remove
any air bubbles that may adhere to the sides of the hydrometer and keep it away from the cylinder walls when it comes to rest. the
thermohydrometer should float and not rest on the bottom of the cylinder.
5. When the thermohydrometer has come to rest and shows a steady reading, record it to the nearest scale division at the point at which
the surface liquid intersects the hydrometer.
6. record the temperature to the nearest one degree Fahrenheit or half-degree Celsius. Keep the thermohydrometer in the fuel as you
inspect the temperature for maximum accuracy.
7. now, correct the observed thermohydrometer reading to the standard temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit using the aPi gravity
calculator or the book of petroleum measurement tables.
8. record the corrected gravity measurement.
9. Compare this measurement when receiving fuel to the corrected aPi gravity values from the last storage facility or bill of lading.
Corrected aPi gravity remains constant for a fuel batch. While slight differences in test results occur, a change greater than 1.0 degree aPi warrants further investigation. slight differences in test results occur due to differences in test operators or sample locations, but these are usually minimal -- less than 0.3-0.5 degrees.
Last edited:
murphey
Touchdown! Greaser!
That's pretty much most CongressCritters.
murphey
Touchdown! Greaser!
Unfortunately, the anti-leaded fuel contigent is using the Reid-Hillview report to justify shutting down 100LL in as many places as they can. They don't understand
1) the logistics of manufacturing and delivery of the fuel
2) the RHV Report only examined children within 1.5 miles of one airport. Yet anyone within any distance of a GA airport is claiming the same results without any valid study by the local health organization.
pfarber
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2021
- Messages
- 495
- Display Name
Display name:
pfarber
You never had a plug foul? That would not be ‘running fine’. There is no reason now for lead in a gas other than no one wanted to pay for the STC to remove it. Lead is bad for you. Lead costs you money in maintenance and also engine issues.
Please tell me what good qualities lead provides that UL doesn’t?
WDD
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 5,424
- Location
- Atlanta / KRYY
- Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
1 - I think we almost all agree going to the UL formula is good or at worse not an issue
2 - LL currently isn’t hurting anyone - too little to have an impact
3 - The FAA will continue to Kabuki dance this for a long time because it provides something to do. Which results in the absurdist spectacle of a Democrat Senator injecting into the law a requirement that leaded fuel be sold.
2 - LL currently isn’t hurting anyone - too little to have an impact
3 - The FAA will continue to Kabuki dance this for a long time because it provides something to do. Which results in the absurdist spectacle of a Democrat Senator injecting into the law a requirement that leaded fuel be sold.
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm not sure if you are being facetious or not?
Has your engine never needed to be rebuilt or replaced since 1939?
Or is it like the guy that says he has Abraham Lincoln's original axe.
Of course the head has been replaced 4 times and the handle about 9 times since Honest Abe used it, but it is still Lincoln's original axe.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,381
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,381
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Not so fast! I do use 100LL but I also use as much ethanol free fuel as I can to keep lead out of my engine. It has nothing to do with being cheap it has to do with taking care of my experimental engine ...
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,381
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
Not true. I do it to keep lead out of my engine. Unfortunately I do have to use 100LL but it's not good for my engine.
Daleandee
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2020
- Messages
- 6,381
- Display Name
Display name:
Dale Andee
I use a mix also and in the summer I use more 100LL to help prevent vapor lock, carb ice, & detonation. I need 93 octane and most of the Mogas I find that's E-free is 90. There are calculators online if you don't want to do the math ...
DaleB
Final Approach
We feed ours ethanol-free MOGAS exclusively. The lack of lead means our oil change interval is 4 times longer than if we were running 100% AVGAS, and the gearbox won’t have as many problems.
Yes, it’s a Rotax, so nobody cares, but yes, we do haul MOGAS from the gas station in 5 gallon cans specifically for the health of the engine, and would do so even if it cost the same as 100LL.
The ethanol thing is just preference; the engine and fuel system are both designed to handle 10% corn squeezin’s. I personally don’t want to divert any more of that away from bourbon production than I need to.
You know an interesting thing about getting lead out of avgas? Is why the question is always about the gas.
To avoid the lead you can get rid of the lead in the fuel and that as we already knows takes a lot of effort and we still can’t get it.
Or, you can change over to engines that doesn’t need leaded fuel.
I wonder on the basis of total cost of development and impact to cost (and safety) of general aviation, if serious money and effort had been made to make it possible adopt automotive engines for the fleet, would we have gotten lead free sooner and with additional benefits?
To avoid the lead you can get rid of the lead in the fuel and that as we already knows takes a lot of effort and we still can’t get it.
Or, you can change over to engines that doesn’t need leaded fuel.
I wonder on the basis of total cost of development and impact to cost (and safety) of general aviation, if serious money and effort had been made to make it possible adopt automotive engines for the fleet, would we have gotten lead free sooner and with additional benefits?
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
????
No, it doesn't take a lot of effort to get lead out of fuel; actually, the lead has to be put into the fuel. That's done to increase the octane. If you leave the lead out of 100LL you get UL94.
The challenge has been developing a 100 octane fuel without using lead. That's been done by GAMI and it's called G100UL.
Our engines don't need leaded fuel. They need fuel of the appropriate octane with the correct vaporization pressure and without the ethanol and detergents that go into automotive fuels. Such a fuel exists: G100UL.
Automotive engines have been used in some experimental aircraft with limited success. Automotive engines are not designed to run at or near max power all the time, as is required for aircraft engines. They also don't need the same high reliability, so they can be water-cooled and they don't require redundant ignition systems. They run at higher RPMs and need reduction gearing to drive a prop, which further reduces reliability. There are lots of other reasons that car engines aren't suitable for planes, but it comes down to different designs for different purposes.
But why should we adapt auto engines for planes as a way to use UL fuel? Our engines can already use UL fuel, and an UL fuel has already been developed that the FAA has approved for every piston & spark engine in the entire registry.
The fuel development problem is solved; the remaining problem is sales and distribution.
NordicDave
En-Route
In my view the difference is we have a standard anyone can refine with EAGLE, without a sole supplier stranglehold. We all need to be careful thrusting 100UL into the default sole supplier. Lets see if George can convince the current refiner in Houston GAMI is still negotiating to make a single supply to tanker around the country. We have several 94UL airport in my area and it's a full $1 or more higher per gallon.
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 15,662
- Location
- DXO124009
- Display Name
Display name:
Light and Sporty Guy
You think they will find a way to work around the GAMI patents?
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
So the taxpayer-funded FAA is trying to work around the taxpayer-funded Patent Office? Your USG at work.....
Pinecone
En-Route
Do you know how much GAMI is charging for the rights to make G100UL? If so, tell us. If not, you are blowing smoke.
And not everyone can make 100LL. They have to have the ability to handle and store TEL, which is NOT a trivial issue due to safety concerns and environmental regulations. As of 2007, only 10 refineries (out of around 130) produce AVGAS. WIth G100UL, any refinery can make it. So actually MORE competition.
Heck, you don't even need a refinery, you can buy the materials from a refinery and blend it and sell it.
As for how much GAMI makes, realize they have been investing in this project for over 20 years with NO return.
And one final thing, what happens if none of the EAGLE fuels work? So far none have. Neither did any of the PAFI fuels. They have been working on this for over 25 years and NO usable results.
RyanShort1
Final Approach
All I'm gonna say is that preventative maintenance should be done regardless of the fuel you are using. I've done plenty of flying with thousands of hours and even more unlogged with the aerial photography and I've yet to conclude that leaded Avgas is destroying the engines on the Cardinals. We've replaced two engines from use while I've been flying the birds I manage, just saying.
455 Bravo Uniform
Final Approach
Double like. It’s not a mix of proprietary chemicals. It’s a patented blend of existing known and available chemicals that they found to meet the performance requirements. I’m surprised it took so long on the science and engineering end, but not surprised from the administrative end (patents, approvals, politics, etc.).
What’s all the fuss about ASTM? I haven’t really looked into that aspect, so I am unintelligent at the moment.
WDD
Final Approach
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2019
- Messages
- 5,424
- Location
- Atlanta / KRYY
- Display Name
Display name:
Vintage Snazzy (so my adult children say)
And now a rep from California has added an amendment to the bill to allow unleaded fuel to be sold instead of leaded. AS LONG AS it comes from ASTM EAGLE. Not the already tested GAMI.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
You do realize that 100LL didn't exist in 1939? 100LL came into existence about 40-50 years later. 80/87 Avgas is what the older lower-compression aircraft engines were designed for. It had 0.14 grams of lead per liter of fuel. 100LL has 0.56 grams of lead per liter of fuel. You're running 4 times more lead through your engine than your engine designers anticipated. This causes all sorts of problems that we have come to accept as "normal" but weren't normal until 100LL became the only thing people could get.
100LL is only called 'low lead' because it has half the lead of the 100/130 Avgas it replaced.
Last edited:
RyanShort1
Final Approach
I crossed some stuff up. My Luscombe is the '39 and that aircraft I do try to use ethanol free gas when I can. And yes, I'm aware.
The .gov will fund another project to find one that will. Knowing how the government works, it will be anything but GAMI or any other privately funded option.
I'm not surprised.
There were a number of old engines designed for 73 octane fuel, which as far as I know, had no lead in it. So it's even worse.