100UL for Shell near?

If it's being backed by Shell, it'll have a much better chance of getting picked.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If it's being backed by Shell, it'll have a much better chance of getting picked.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if "picked" is really the correct word, wouldn't it be "FAA accepted"? Shouldn't anyone that passes the AIR standard be allowed to put their product on the market? What I find interesting is that Sunoco has had a fuel "on the shelf" that would work fine, they've had it for many years, they just don't want to get involved in the aviation market.
 
I agree with Henning -- the issue isn't being "picked" (the FAA will evaluate for certification all fuels presented, and certify all that meet the standards), but rather distribution. Since Shell already has an established aviation fuel distribution system including retail dealers, they will have a big advantage over Swift and GAM putting their fuel in our tanks. But I do like the idea of competing products from different sources -- competition is always good for the consumer.
 
Henning said:
I'm wondering if "picked" is really the correct word, wouldn't it be "FAA accepted"? Shouldn't anyone that passes the AIR standard be allowed to put their product on the market? What I find interesting is that Sunoco has had a fuel "on the shelf" that would work fine, they've had it for many years, they just don't want to get involved in the aviation market.
Click to expand...

I used to buy unleaded racing fuel from Sunoco and VP. I think it was 100-105 octane.
 
dell30rb said:
I used to buy unleaded racing fuel from Sunoco and VP. I think it was 100-105 octane.
Click to expand...
Sunoco's 260GTX going into NASCAR's racers is about that, and unleaded. However, it's never been submitted for certification for aviation uses, and I have no idea whether or not it meets FAA/ASTM standards for avgas.
 
Ron Levy said:
I agree with Henning -- the issue isn't being "picked" (the FAA will evaluate for certification all fuels presented, and certify all that meet the standards), but rather distribution. Since Shell already has an established aviation fuel distribution system including retail dealers, they will have a big advantage over Swift and GAM putting their fuel in our tanks. But I do like the idea of competing products from different sources -- competition is always good for the consumer.
Click to expand...

Historically, the FAA has not certified fuels. OEMs have provided a specific document that states which fuels are allowable, and those fuels have a corresponding ASTM spec that goes with them. The engines are tested with the appropriate min spec fuel and found to be compliant. You could certify the engine to run on moonshine if it passed the appropriate tests and had an ASTM spec for it.

Their role in this case is unprecedented but it is also very necessary in my opinion. What they're trying to arrive at in this case is a regulatory and industry consensus that particular fuel(s) have equivalent performance to 100LL and can be drop-in replacements. This includes anti-knock properties, altitude performance, material compatability, and other items.

"Picked" probably isn't the best word, I agree. However, I suspect that one clear winner will ultimately come out of this.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Historically, the FAA has not certified fuels. OEMs have provided a specific document that states which fuels are allowable, and those fuels have a corresponding ASTM spec that goes with them. The engines are tested with the appropriate min spec fuel and found to be compliant. You could certify the engine to run on moonshine if it passed the appropriate tests and had an ASTM spec for it.

Their role in this case is unprecedented but it is also very necessary in my opinion. What they're trying to arrive at in this case is a regulatory and industry consensus that particular fuel(s) have equivalent performance to 100LL and can be drop-in replacements. This includes anti-knock properties, altitude performance, material compatability, and other items.

"Picked" probably isn't the best word, I agree. However, I suspect that one clear winner will ultimately come out of this.
Click to expand...

Pretty likely, but it will be more of the reason Garmin was 'picked' as the industry leader in the new generation of GA avionics, they had the best marketing and distribution system to go along with a decent product that was available for purchase when people started buying.
 
Henning said:
Pretty likely, but it will be more of the reason Garmin was 'picked' as the industry leader in the new generation of GA avionics, they had the best marketing and distribution system to go along with a decent product that was available for purchase when people started buying.
Click to expand...
I think it's fair to say Garmin was "picked" by the marketplace, not the FAA. On the fuel side, I suspect it will again be the marketplace that "picks" which 100UL avfuel becomes the industry leader after the FAA approves each one for use.
 
Ron Levy said:
I think it's fair to say Garmin was "picked" by the marketplace, not the FAA. On the fuel side, I suspect it will again be the marketplace that "picks" which 100UL avfuel becomes the industry leader after the FAA approves each one for use.
Click to expand...

Exactly, that was my inference. If Shell comes to market first, unless someone can come out with a great price advantage, they will likely take the market.
 
Henning said:
Exactly, that was my inference. If Shell comes to market first, unless someone can come out with a great price advantage, they will likely take the market.
Click to expand...

Unless these fuels are less expensive than 100LL, I think it's very likely the market will just choose Jet A diesel instead.
 
dans2992 said:
Unless these fuels are less expensive than 100LL, I think it's very likely the market will just choose Jet A diesel instead.
Click to expand...

It already is choosing Jet A diesels for new planes in some cases, and that number will expand. The legacy fleet, which makes up the majority of piston GA, will still need a 100LL equivalent.
 
The market, being general aviation singles and twins don't have the option of Jet-A unless they retrofit for $$$ or buy new for $$$$$$ :mad2: My 182 can't use Mogas, so my options are limited to what I can buy at the FBO. :rolleyes2: That being said, I think the first one to the market will own the market as other fuel manufacturers seize the opportunity to bail out of the 100LL business altogether. :eek: I think a company the size of Shell has the ability to bring it to the market, hopefully at a reasonable price, same as 100LL or less would work. :D
dans2992 said:
Unless these fuels are less expensive than 100LL, I think it's very likely the market will just choose Jet A diesel instead.
Click to expand...
 
dans2992 said:
Unless these fuels are less expensive than 100LL, I think it's very likely the market will just choose Jet A diesel instead.
Click to expand...

In the long term, I agree, especially with the ease of making a JetA approved algae based fuel (already available). The issue there is it's not a 'drop in replacement' fuel. If you think that the modern avionics have created a dump in market value for planes that aren't equipped, Diesel engines will completely remove half the recip fleet from economic viability if there is no alternative fuel to use in the current 100LL burning planes. In the long run, Diesels will be the norm in the OEM market and slowly those planes will fill the used marketplace. By that time though all those $20k-$60k planes that people can barely afford now, will be doomed to the scrapyard and the aviation market prices will once again 'correct themselves' to the price of a house.
 
Henning said:
By that time though all those $20k-$60k planes that people can barely afford now, will be doomed to the scrapyard and the aviation market prices will once again 'correct themselves' to the price of a house.
Click to expand...

Are you saying used planes will correct themselves, or new ones will?

Price of a house in TN or in CA?
 
If I'm already spending $50k to overhaul/replace a 100LL engine, how much more would it really cost to put in a Jet A diesel instead?

If course, this assumes the Jet A engine is certified as a replacement and manufactured in sufficient numbers to make the cost "reasonable".

Pretty much all avgas burning engines get replaced or overhauled every 10-15 years...
 
dell30rb said:
I used to buy unleaded racing fuel from Sunoco and VP. I think it was 100-105 octane.
Click to expand...

I believe it's worth mentioning again...

That the aviation octane scale is not the same as the automotive scale. The old 80 octane aviation fuel was essentially the exact same blend as the old 87 octane leaded MoGas.

So that 100 octane racing fuel probably isn't 100 octane on the aviation scale.
 
dans2992 said:
If I'm already spending $50k to overhaul/replace a 100LL engine, how much more would it really cost to put in a Jet A diesel instead?

If course, this assumes the Jet A engine is certified as a replacement and manufactured in sufficient numbers to make the cost "reasonable".

Pretty much all avgas burning engines get replaced or overhauled every 10-15 years...
Click to expand...

The Continental guys I spoke to at OSH said they were looking to price point about the same as the gas engines, so that $50k price you quote is about going to be right. However, that number represents replacing the engine with a factory new one, that rarely happens. The majority of engines get an overhaul which is typically 1/4-1/2 that amount. As to "what else", the prop is going to be an issue most likely, $10-20k depending on power. Then there is the engine mount, engine prop cable & running, electrical harnessing... there is a plethora of little details and expenses in these types of projects. Oh, if you are replacing a carbureted engine, you also have return fuel plumbing to run to the tanks along with possibly having to change the fuel valve(s) to manage the return flow.
 
We spent $45k doing the IO-540 in our Comanche a couple years ago, right before I joined the partnership. Pretty sure it was "overhauled" not brand new.

If swapping out for a diesel, I wonder what the "core" value of the old engine would be?
 
Henning said:
Actually, if they do it right, the price should come down as there will be a much larger available market for it.
Click to expand...

I would be very surprised if it went down measurably.

dans2992 said:
We spent $45k doing the IO-540 in our Comanche a couple years ago, right before I joined the partnership. Pretty sure it was "overhauled" not brand new.

If swapping out for a diesel, I wonder what the "core" value of the old engine would be?
Click to expand...

It depends on who makes the diesel and what sort of deal they'll come out with. Look at it like engine swaps today to get an idea. If you stick with the same manufacturer, they will typically make a deal and accept the dissimilar core. However, the engine swaps that you see very few of are the ones what go to a different manufacturer, because the costs go up significantly. Lycoming will not accept a Continental core or vice versa.

The total package for engine, prop, STC, and associated work I would ballpark at around $40-80k/engine, depending on how big of an engine is being replaced, and assuming that you can turn your core in.
 
dans2992 said:
If course, this assumes the Jet A engine is certified as a replacement and manufactured in sufficient numbers to make the cost "reasonable".
Click to expand...

It will have to be or it won't really be viable in the market.

Pretty much all avgas burning engines get replaced or overhauled every 10-15 years...
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true at all. The engines in the 310 were closer to 20 years old at replacement. It seems most Part 91 guys I talk to are more in the range of 15-30 years.

The 135 guys, however, replace their engines in under 10 years, sometimes in under 5 years. Those planes fly... a lot.
 
dans2992 said:
If I'm already spending $50k to overhaul/replace a 100LL engine, how much more would it really cost to put in a Jet A diesel instead?
Click to expand...
At least double, maybe four times as much. The aerodiesels are staggeringly expensive ($80,000 net for the Cessna 182 conversion compared to about $30K for an overhaul/exchange), and turbine conversions are through the roof (about half a mil for a single like a Bonanza). And that's assuming there is an available STC'd conversion for your aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
At least double, maybe four times as much. The aerodiesels are staggeringly expensive ($80,000 net for the Cessna 182 conversion compared to about $30K for an overhaul/exchange), and turbine conversions are through the roof (about half a mil for a single like a Bonanza). And that's assuming there is an available STC'd conversion for your aircraft.
Click to expand...



Ok, turbine yes, that is out of the question.

$80k with the ability to burn Jet A (which will be cheaper long term) might just be worth it. Especially if it means lower fuel burn/longer range/better performance.
 
dans2992 said:
$80k with the ability to burn Jet A (which will be cheaper long term) might just be worth it. Especially if it means lower fuel burn/longer range/better performance.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of planes out there with engines in the $20k-overhaul range, and which only fly enough to require one every 15-30 years. The return on investment is not there for an $80k overhaul. Besides, who's going to do the STC to allow that for all the various airframe+engine combos and how much will _that_ cost? (And what will be the ROI for the STC holder??)

There will be a continuing market for unleaded avgas for the foreseeable future, even if the price climbs.
 
The people who will see the biggest gain from diesels are the big piston twin operators and bush operators. For a comparison in boats I'll see a 30% reduction in fuel flow for equivalent operations between a gasoline powered version of the identical boat in the gasoline powered version.

One thing we will see is a small revitalization of the cabin class piston twin market especially for the third world where they are operating turbines in inefficient applications due to fuel availability issues. Also, in markets like Europe where the price of AvGas is considerably higher than Diesel, the economics change as well.
 
Even with price parity on fuel at $5 a gallon, an operator running 1000hrs a year in a Chieftain or 402/404/421 that burns 40GPH, if they see even a 25% fuel savings, that's $50k a year. That's a fair bit of bottom line.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It will have to be or it won't really be viable in the market.



I don't think that's true at all. The engines in the 310 were closer to 20 years old at replacement. It seems most Part 91 guys I talk to are more in the range of 15-30 years.

The 135 guys, however, replace their engines in under 10 years, sometimes in under 5 years. Those planes fly... a lot.
Click to expand...

Yessir, my engine is 30 this year.

Our 135 ships, well they aren't likely to calendar time out (props will however)
 
Henning said:
The people who will see the biggest gain from diesels are the big piston twin operators and bush operators. For a comparison in boats I'll see a 30% reduction in fuel flow for equivalent operations between a gasoline powered version of the identical boat in the gasoline powered version.

One thing we will see is a small revitalization of the cabin class piston twin market especially for the third world where they are operating turbines in inefficient applications due to fuel availability issues. Also, in markets like Europe where the price of AvGas is considerably higher than Diesel, the economics change as well.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. Nobody's building a big piston twin now. If the Baron gets offered with new diesels, that would become a huge selling point vs. used, but Piper isn't building Navajos and Cessna isn't building 421s. Depending on the conversion cost, the general theory is it will take decades to see a significant portion of the fleet converted.

With the low price of Cheyennes and King Airs these days, it will be a tough sell to take a Navajo or 421 of the same age, convert it to diesel, spend more money on an unproven setup vs. the turboprop with lower performance, and then send it to a new buyer. Not saying people won't do it, but saying a resurgence might be a bit strong unless the OEMs restart the piston twin lineups.
 
Henning said:
Even with price parity on fuel at $5 a gallon, an operator running 1000hrs a year in a Chieftain or 402/404/421 that burns 40GPH, if they see even a 25% fuel savings, that's $50k a year. That's a fair bit of bottom line.
Click to expand...

Cape Air would eat it up, as would some of the Navajo freight doggers. The rest of the fleet, less so.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Maybe, maybe not. Nobody's building a big piston twin now. If the Baron gets offered with new diesels, that would become a huge selling point vs. used, but Piper isn't building Navajos and Cessna isn't building 421s. Depending on the conversion cost, the general theory is it will take decades to see a significant portion of the fleet converted.

With the low price of Cheyennes and King Airs these days, it will be a tough sell to take a Navajo or 421 of the same age, convert it to diesel, spend more money on an unproven setup vs. the turboprop with lower performance, and then send it to a new buyer. Not saying people won't do it, but saying a resurgence might be a bit strong unless the OEMs restart the piston twin lineups.
Click to expand...

Not new, retrofit market of the ones sitting around.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Maybe, maybe not. Nobody's building a big piston twin now. If the Baron gets offered with new diesels, that would become a huge selling point vs. used, but Piper isn't building Navajos and Cessna isn't building 421s. Depending on the conversion cost, the general theory is it will take decades to see a significant portion of the fleet converted.

With the low price of Cheyennes and King Airs these days, it will be a tough sell to take a Navajo or 421 of the same age, convert it to diesel, spend more money on an unproven setup vs. the turboprop with lower performance, and then send it to a new buyer. Not saying people won't do it, but saying a resurgence might be a bit strong unless the OEMs restart the piston twin lineups.
Click to expand...


:yeahthat:

plus, there's already stc's and turbine retrofit for cessna and piper twins. In the long run new airplanes are going to come with diesel engines from the factory and the older used fleet will eventually start getting scrapped and the market will start getting filled by cheap used diesel bug smashers. This will take decades. A plane takes a long time to get affordable or the average dude. A lot of you people wont be around so on the meanwhile embrace and enjoy burning avgas. LOL
 
cirrusmx said:
:yeahthat:

plus, there's already stc's and turbine retrofit for cessna and piper twins. In the long run new airplanes are going to come with diesel engines from the factory and the older used fleet will eventually start getting scrapped and the market will start getting filled by cheap used diesel bug smashers. This will take decades. A plane takes a long time to get affordable or the average dude. A lot of you people wont be around so on the meanwhile embrace and enjoy burning avgas. LOL
Click to expand...

Turbines are double reverse economics for these planes compared to a Diesel retrofit. First off the retrofit is 10 times the cost rather than twice, and the fuel species get worse rather than better.
 
Basically, even if there was an upcharge for Jet-A engines, I'd go for it. My use of the plane would benefit. I think a large number of people would not.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Basically, even if there was an upcharge for Jet-A engines, I'd go for it. My use of the plane would benefit. I think a large number of people would not.
Click to expand...

It'll happen reasonably soon, so we should see how the market reacts by the end of the decade. I think the 402, 206, and Chieftain will be the first to be STCd used. The Cirrus will obviously be the first OEM since TCM and Cirrus have the same parent or at least grandparent company, I'm sure Beech will offer a G-xxTDi of the Bo and Baron. Interestingly Cessna will be putting it in the 206 since they are offering the 4cyl in the 182 already if I understand correctly.

The competitive market will be the Caravan market. You'll be able to get a Chieftain airframe with run outs for $125, figure $200k to repower, $100k panel, $30k paint and an optional $20k interior, and your in an equal capacity plane for half the cost of a Caravan, and you have better fuel specifics and speed.
 
Henning said:
It'll happen reasonably soon, so we should see how the market reacts by the end of the decade. I think the 402, 206, and Chieftain will be the first to be STCd used. The Cirrus will obviously be the first OEM since TCM and Cirrus have the same parent or at least grandparent company, I'm sure Beech will offer a G-xxTDi of the Bo and Baron. Interestingly Cessna will be putting it in the 206 since they are offering the 4cyl in the 182 already if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...

Since Cessna is already offering diesel as an OEM, Cirrus will have to be at least #2. However I foresee Cessna converting the rest of their lineup, and I think Cirrus will be at least offering it before long if they can get the performance to be equal or better. Not sure what's happening with Beech - aren't the bankrupt now?

The competitive market will be the Caravan market. You'll be able to get a Chieftain airframe with run outs for $125, figure $200k to repower, $100k panel, $30k paint and an optional $20k interior, and your in an equal capacity plane for half the cost of a Caravan, and you have better fuel specifics and speed.
Click to expand...

A Caravan is much bigger than a Chieftain. People will buy the Chieftain if they want a cabin class twin, and buy a Caravan if they need something big with lots of space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top