100LL cost

Hang 4

Hang 4

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Aug 18, 2017
Messages
2,335
Display Name
Display name:
Hang 4
As a new buyer of Avgas, how do prices now compare to pre-crash(2007) prices when crude was >$100/bbl? Crude has been slowly moving up and I'm wondering if we need to be padding our budgeting assumptions?
 
I've been flying for close to 11 years and purchased something on the order of 50,000 gallons of AvGas. In that timeframe, AvGas has fluctuated, but current prices really aren't too much different than they were when I started on the whole. In those days $4/gallon was pretty easy to come across. It's still not hard to come across, although maybe a bit above. There were times when I was seeing $6-7/gallon pretty normally, those times hurt without a doubt. Yeah, you can go to places that don't want your business and find it for north of $8/gallon, but there are fewer of those around and usually a cheaper option not too far away.

Should we pad our budgeting assumptions? No more than we always have. Will 100LL go up a bunch more in the future? Maybe. One of the concerns about a replacement is that it not only be drop-in compatible but also have a similar price point. I haven't heard much on progress of a replacement recently, and have stopped following since I'm now mostly living in the Jet A world. It's possible that a replacement will go up in price, but I can't see it being too much or else it will kill its own market off. The oil producers know very well that if the price goes too high that they'll lose a lot of business.
 
Avgas pricing is a little complex. While crude oil prices certainly have an impact as a raw material, 100LL has its own, special economic quirks, including the fact it is a low volume item, with only a few producers, and expensive transportation costs. In the Northeast, there are only a few avgas terminals, and all the product comes in by barge. IIRC, we can get avgas in our parts from either Philly or Montreal. If you are a small consumer (as in a small airport) then partial truckloads cost even more. The lead content complicates transport, as it cannot contaminate non-lead-containing fuels, and cannot be transported more cheaply by pipeline like gasoline. So supply and demand are a larger piece of avgas pricing than for a large volume commodity fuel like gasoline or Jet-A.
 
Do what the airlines do and hedge your future purchases by going long futures or long call options :) But you better be buying a sh*tload of fuel :)
 
Delta bought a refinery, not sure my homeowners association would allow that.

Thanks for the responses, makes sense - I've been seeing pump creep for my diesel, which got me thinking
 
Hang 4 said:
Delta bought a refinery, not sure my homeowners association would allow that.

Thanks for the responses, makes sense - I've been seeing pump creep for my diesel, which got me thinking
Click to expand...

It was a joke :) My HOA gets mad at me when I leave my recycle bin out more than a day.
 
EminiTrader said:
It was a joke :) My HOA gets mad at me when I leave my recycle bin out more than a day.
Click to expand...

So was the talk of buying a refinery - thought that was obvious enough not to require a smiley :)
 
If you're a typical GA flyer who logs 100 hours/year, I would avoid budgeting altogether.

Say your fuel burn is 10 gph, and fuel is $4/gal. If you find yourself paying $5/gal., it's only $1000 more per year. One AMU is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of airplane ownership.
 
Long term I would budget for $8 a gallon because once the FAA approves no lead fuel it is going to be a mess for 2 years.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This is why I do not live where there is an HOA.
Click to expand...

I have a wife, who thinks (apparently, correctly) that it's HER home. It's the same thing as an HOA, just different rules...;)
 
Clip4 said:
Long term I would budget for $8 a gallon because once the FAA approves no lead fuel it is going to be a mess for 2 years.
Click to expand...

Long term we should figure out how to follow Ted's example and get an oil burner. :p
 
I find it odd that given the 2018 deadline that there has not been more news about the no lead replacement. The last I heard was over a year ago where the Shell candidate was found to dissolve paint. Has anybody heard anything else?

Fuel has always been the cheapest part of flying.
 
GRG55 said:
Long term we should figure out how to follow Ted's example and get an oil burner. :p
Click to expand...

Disagree. Kerosene burners are not the answer to all questions. Find what suits your mission. :)
 
We've got a lot of smart people here, we just need to put our heads together and come up with a battery that's good enough to replace 100LL. Simple.
 
If barrels of crude keep going up in price, then both jetA and 100LL are going to go up in price. Just the way things work.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
If you're a typical GA flyer who logs 100 hours/year, I would avoid budgeting altogether.

Say your fuel burn is 10 gph, and fuel is $4/gal. If you find yourself paying $5/gal., it's only $1000 more per year. One AMU is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of airplane ownership.
Click to expand...

Current fuel price in Juneau is $6.50/gal. I used around 600gal last year, that's about $4000. Typically, annuals run me about $1500. That's $600 for the IA, $400 for hanger rental for the month and the rest in parts...:)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
One of the concerns about a replacement is that it not only be drop-in compatible but also have a similar price point. I haven't heard much on progress of a replacement recently, and have stopped following since I'm now mostly living in the Jet A world.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hope the FAA came to their sense and stop funneling welfare to the likes of Swift Fuel and instead turned to technology, but I suspect I'd be living a pipe dream. Today, now, I can buy a $500 water injection system for my Baron and run mogas, except because of FAA paper it costs $14,000+. A FADAC system that can give me some additional detonation margin (lower octane) and better fuel economy, just a few thousand, but with the FAA paper, over $10K.

We don't need a replacement for 100LL, we need to once again become part of the automotive fuel chain, like we once were. That should be the goal.... and it is attainable.

JetA? Last we spoke you were flying a Aztec. What are you in now?
 
How about a small (200 - 300 HP) turbo prop. Smaller than Caravan or Malibu, something for a STC in many GA aircraft. Bo, 182, Mooney, Arrow, etc.
 
Jeff K said:
...JetA? Last we spoke you were flying a Aztec. What are you in now?
Click to expand...

Ted went from the Aztec to a Cessna 310, then a 414 and now a Mitsubishi MU-2. He loves em, and then he leaves em. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
A1Topgun said:
How about a small (200 - 300 HP) turbo prop. Smaller than Caravan or Malibu, something for a STC in many GA aircraft. Bo, 182, Mooney, Arrow, etc.
Click to expand...

I completely agree!! I've been saying this for years
 
At AirVenture I've seen some pretty small Turbo Fan engines for small jets yet I've never seen a small Turbo Prop.
 
solutions looking for a problem. Unleaded 91/96 avgas already exists, we just don't have the economic infrastructure to implement it. The trappings of being captive audience to the big 100LL consumers by volume (revenue operators).
 
Turbines size up easily, but they don't readily size down. The specific fuel consumption (gph per hp) of small turbines isn't fundamentally economical, unless you could make turbine wheels run at hundreds of thou rpms and at high temperatures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ted
GRG55 said:
Ted went from the Aztec to a Cessna 310, then a 414 and now a Mitsubishi MU-2. He loves em, and then he leaves em. :D
Click to expand...

Jeff K said:
No, but I've not been on POA for quite some time.
Click to expand...

GRG55 got it right. It’s been over 5 years since I sold the Aztec. There was some overlap with the 310. A bit over 2 years ago we upgraded to the 414 because the mission was dictating more space plus pressurization and better altitude performance due to the need to fly more dogs and flying out west more.

The the stars aligned such that we were able to get the MU2, and I’m loving it.
 
Jeff K said:
I'd like to hope the FAA came to their sense and stop funneling welfare to the likes of Swift Fuel and instead turned to technology, but I suspect I'd be living a pipe dream. Today, now, I can buy a $500 water injection system for my Baron and run mogas, except because of FAA paper it costs $14,000+. A FADAC system that can give me some additional detonation margin (lower octane) and better fuel economy, just a few thousand, but with the FAA paper, over $10K.

We don't need a replacement for 100LL, we need to once again become part of the automotive fuel chain, like we once were. That should be the goal.... and it is attainable.
Click to expand...

So if this is such the obvious answer, why isn't anyone going that route? Are you talking straight Mogas, or something else? I've read here before that the largest consumers of 100LL are piston air carriers or freight carriers, and something about those engines can't be run on mogas?
 
Slightly reducing the compression ratio (i.e. new pistons) would allow the use of MoGas for non-turboed engines, but re-certification might be the issue that would sink such a whole program. MoGas in some circles is still a controversial issue after ~25 years! There would have to be a slight reduction in allowable gross weight to compensate for the reduced hp, and maybe a few more fuel pumps required. Ethanol based fuels though would continue to be a major issue due to its incompatibility with water.

I'm convinced there are some weird forces that we mortals are not supposed to understand in the US gasoline market.:confused:
 
nrpetersen said:
Slightly reducing the compression ratio (i.e. new pistons) would allow the use of MoGas for non-turboed engines, but re-certification might be the issue that would sink such a whole program. MoGas in some circles is still a controversial issue after ~25 years! There would have to be a slight reduction in allowable gross weight to compensate for the reduced hp, and maybe a few more fuel pumps required. Ethanol based fuels though would continue to be a major issue due to its incompatibility with water.

I'm convinced there are some weird forces that we mortals are not supposed to understand in the US gasoline market.:confused:
Click to expand...

Mogas is a red herring. As I stated before in post 24, UL 91/96 AVGAS is already a reality abroad. The problem is that recreational users who could benefit from the use of lower octane avgas are held captive by the revenue operators who consume the lion's share of 100LL by engine requirement. The economic environment in this market is such that there isn't the profit incentive to run 91/96 distribution as a bona fide replacement of 100LL, and for sure zero economic incentive to run two distribution lines (one UL one LL).

On the same token, what precludes us from taking advantage of UL fuels is also what keeps us from having to worry about hobby-exiting mandatory retrofits into diesels and turbines. Meaning, these revenue operators are not in an economic position to retrofit to turbine operations overnight, if outright ever, and the congress critters would hear about it in a new york second. Fan boi techie fanaticism about turbines, diesels or batteries aside, there's not a significant threat to elimination of 100LL in the CONUS. I would argue if recreational users were the lion's share of 100LL, we would indeed be up the creek by comparison. As it is, non-diesel piston engines are not going anywhere.
 
Is 91/96 basically 100LL without the lead or is it something entirely different?

Why not mix the TEL in at the retail endpoint for only those that need it?
 
UngaWunga said:
So if this is such the obvious answer, why isn't anyone going that route? Are you talking straight Mogas, or something else? I've read here before that the largest consumers of 100LL are piston air carriers or freight carriers, and something about those engines can't be run on mogas?
Click to expand...

Read what I posted again more carefully. I never said anyone was not going that route, in fact quite the opposite. I said regulatory obstacles ("FAA paper") were standing in the way of large scale adoption as well as corporate welfare for proprietary boutique fuel's was the wrong direction. "Solving" aviation fuel problem, once and for all, requires we look at convergence of the AvGas and MoGas fuel chains, at least as much as possible. Creating yet another boutique fuel, subsidized on the taxpayers dime, is not a solution.

Let me give you some details to support my earlier contention. Water injection... a very mature technology around since at least WW2. Peterson did a STC on this some decades ago that eventually made its way to InPulse, who sells a STC to allow IO-470's and IO-520's to run on 91UL Mogas:

http://www.flyinpulse.com/inpulse_info/what_is_inpulse

Problem is, they want $14,000+ for it for my Baron 58, for what amounts to a $500 water injection system along with a controller that turns it on when CHT is above 400F OR MP above 25". Not speculation on my part, the experimental guys are already doing it: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=96596&page=2

As to FADEC's, those are a win/win, retard the advance under conditions prone to detonation, advance it during cruise to gain some fuel economy. Even detect per-detontation similar to how Harley does it on their air cooled motorcycle engines. http://www.gami.com/prism/prism.php

Here is the thing, the FAA/Congress have dumped over $26 million into trying to come up with a "replacement" for 100LL... which at the end of the day will result in a monopoly for whoever gets the nod as well as another more expensive boutique fuel. What I'm saying is this:

Take the lead out of 100LL... that gives us 91/96 or 94UL depending on the testing standard. My Aztec was already placarded for 91/96 so we are done there as we are done for about 75% of the remaining GA fleet. Now you are correct much of the 100LL is used by the turbocharged/airfreight market, and that is where the technology comes in. What if the FAA gave Peterson/InPulse a million dollars to expand the number of aircraft that are covered by their water injection system? GAMI some bread to finish their FADAC PRISM system?

Now I'm not a fan of government grants, but I'm less a fan of government creating monopolies. Any solution has to be market based and have competition. And IMHO has to, as much as possible, not drift even further away from the existing automotive fuel chain.

That being said, I fully realize the pipe dream squarely rests on my shoulders. I had really hoped the FAA would give the nod to the PNC category when the ARC proposed it, but it was not to pass either.
 
Last edited:
Jeff K said:
Read what I posted again more carefully. I never said anyone was not going that route, in fact quite the opposite. I said regulatory obstacles ("FAA paper") were standing in the way of large scale adoption as well as corporate welfare for proprietary boutique fuel's was the wrong direction. "Solving" aviation fuel problem, once and for all, requires we look at convergence of the AvGas and MoGas fuel chains, at least as much as possible. Creating yet another boutique fuel, subsidized on the taxpayers dime, is not a solution.

Let me give you some details to support my earlier contention. Water injection... a very mature technology around since at least WW2. Peterson did a STC on this some decades ago that eventually made its way to InPulse, who sells a STC to allow IO-470's and IO-520's to run on 91UL Mogas:

http://www.flyinpulse.com/inpulse_info/what_is_inpulse

Problem is, they want $14,000+ for it for my Baron 58, for what amounts to a $500 water injection system along with a controller that turns it on when CHT is above 400F OR MP above 25". Not speculation on my part, the experimental guys are already doing it: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=96596&page=2

As to FADEC's, those are a win/win, retard the advance under conditions prone to detonation, advance it during cruise to gain some fuel economy. Even detect pre-detontation similar to how Harley does it on their air cooled motorcycle engines. http://www.gami.com/prism/prism.php

Here is the thing, the FAA/Congress have dumped over $26 million into trying to come up with a "replacement" for 100LL... which at the end of the day will result in a monopoly for whoever gets the nod as well as another more expensive boutique fuel. What I'm saying is this:

Take the lead out of 100LL... that gives us 91/96 or 94UL depending on the testing standard. My Aztec was already placarded for 91/96 so we are done there as we are done for about 75% of the remaining GA fleet. Now you are correct much of the 100LL is used by the turbocharged/airfreight market, and that is where the technology comes in. What if the FAA gave Peterson/InPulse a million dollars to expand the number of aircraft that are covered by their water injection system? GAMI some bread to finish their FADAC PRISM system?

Now I'm not a fan of government grants, but I'm less a fan of government creating monopolies. Any solution has to be market based and have competition. And IMHO has to, as much as possible, not drift even further away from the existing automotive fuel chain.

That being said, I fully realize the pipe dream squarely rests on my shoulders. I had really hoped the FAA would give the nod to the PNC category when the ARC proposed it, but it was not to pass either.
Click to expand...

Boom! Excellent post. Right on the head, especially with your closing sentence.
 
dmspilot said:
Is 91/96 basically 100LL without the lead or is it something entirely different?
Click to expand...

According to SWIFT, that is exactly what 94UL is, which is approved for all 91/96 aircraft as well.

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/september/13/swift-fuels-94ul-put-to-the-test

--“It’s 100LL without the lead,” said Jon Ziulkowski, vice president for commercial operations at Swift Fuels,

Why not mix the TEL in at the retail endpoint for only those that need it?
Click to expand...

Good question. I almost included that in my rant above but didn't know enough about it to suggest it. Of course, the reason we are seeking a alternative to 100LL is the lead (EPA), so adding it back would defeat that mandate, but perhaps with most of the fleet going to UL that would be enough of a reduction? There also is MBTE and EBTE, and other octane boosters, that might be added at the pump, all with their own set of issues of course. My big issue in this whole runaway train is creating yet another boutique fuel so ANYTHING that can get us closer to MoGas is much preferred to me.
 
I never quite understand some of the drastic swings over small geographies. Passed through the NYC area recently and studied fuel prices.

Ross Aviation at HPN (hardly a major hub and lots of light GA 100 LL burning activity) was charging $7.27 when literally a stones throw away you can pick up 100LL at DXR for $4.90 (both prices for full service). On previous trips years ago I don’t remember the delta being anything like that.

Are such FBOs just inflating prices hoping to keep AvGas burners away so they can focus on jets? It’s almost like they’re posting a sign saying “I mean if you really wanna come here fine, but seriously best you just stay away!”

I understand when someone like JFK has high prices for 100LL so you don’t just pop by for a quick fuel up, but HPN is hardly a major hub with a lot of pistons still banging around.
 
Jeff K said:
Read what I posted again more carefully. I never said anyone was not going that route, in fact quite the opposite. I said regulatory obstacles ("FAA paper") were standing in the way of large scale adoption as well as corporate welfare for proprietary boutique fuel's was the wrong direction. "Solving" aviation fuel problem, once and for all, requires we look at convergence of the AvGas and MoGas fuel chains, at least as much as possible. Creating yet another boutique fuel, subsidized on the taxpayers dime, is not a solution.

Let me give you some details to support my earlier contention. Water injection... a very mature technology around since at least WW2. Peterson did a STC on this some decades ago that eventually made its way to InPulse, who sells a STC to allow IO-470's and IO-520's to run on 91UL Mogas:

http://www.flyinpulse.com/inpulse_info/what_is_inpulse

Problem is, they want $14,000+ for it for my Baron 58, for what amounts to a $500 water injection system along with a controller that turns it on when CHT is above 400F OR MP above 25". Not speculation on my part, the experimental guys are already doing it: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=96596&page=2

As to FADEC's, those are a win/win, retard the advance under conditions prone to detonation, advance it during cruise to gain some fuel economy. Even detect per-detontation similar to how Harley does it on their air cooled motorcycle engines. http://www.gami.com/prism/prism.php

Here is the thing, the FAA/Congress have dumped over $26 million into trying to come up with a "replacement" for 100LL... which at the end of the day will result in a monopoly for whoever gets the nod as well as another more expensive boutique fuel. What I'm saying is this:

Take the lead out of 100LL... that gives us 91/96 or 94UL depending on the testing standard. My Aztec was already placarded for 91/96 so we are done there as we are done for about 75% of the remaining GA fleet. Now you are correct much of the 100LL is used by the turbocharged/airfreight market, and that is where the technology comes in. What if the FAA gave Peterson/InPulse a million dollars to expand the number of aircraft that are covered by their water injection system? GAMI some bread to finish their FADAC PRISM system?

Now I'm not a fan of government grants, but I'm less a fan of government creating monopolies. Any solution has to be market based and have competition. And IMHO has to, as much as possible, not drift even further away from the existing automotive fuel chain.

That being said, I fully realize the pipe dream squarely rests on my shoulders. I had really hoped the FAA would give the nod to the PNC category when the ARC proposed it, but it was not to pass either.
Click to expand...

Having spent a decent part of my early career on this exact question, the realities get complex. While one can argue that the solution itself is simple (and water injection does work, very well), right now it's just hard to coordinate.

The FAA has been going for the mandate of the drop-in replacement for 100LL, which I personally agree with. Of course, ~10 years later, we don't have a solution yet that actually works.

The other option would be the FAA doing a mandate like ADS-B, and say "Sorry guys, no more 100LL. Going to [insert unleaded fuel here]. You have [insert number of years] to convert your fleet." This would be feasible so long as you could keep the vapor pressure correct, as that causes issues in some experimentals running mogas and would definitely cause issues in some certified as well. Water injection would work, but the reason that $500 injection system costs $14k is certification. So then you have companies doing this for all the appropriate aircraft that need it, or else doing STCs to allow for the mogas without water injection.

The orphaning of aircraft would be an issue. I can think of some planes that have small enough numbers that it would be effectively impossible to make a business case for them. I'm not sure how you handle that. ADS-B is a lot easier because effectively everything is the same between aircraft.

Honestly I wish the EPA and FAA would just give up on it. 100LL is an excellent fuel and we live in an industry that consists of a legacy fleet and is highly regulated. I would love to get rid of the lead, but when we consume so little of it that it's not even considered a fuel by the companies (rather a "specialty chemical"), what's the point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top