20% consume 80% of the Avgas

If any data exists, I suspect GAMI has it as it would seem to be a necessary component of their business case. Note that they chose to develop a one-size-fits-all fuel of 100 octane and AFAIK they're not trying to create a lower octane variant.

I believe that the same logic that compelled 100 octane development will compel 100 octane sales.

And it's not just FBOs. The same decision will have to be made by fuel producers when UL fuel moves to higher volumes.
 
schmookeeg said:
Since there is a repeated demand for data here... could we generate most of this data with ADS-B? Perhaps make some general assumptions by type (172 = low compression, SR22 = high, etc) and suss out the hours being flown for each? It would be imperfect, since some types have both engine types represented, but it might be a start?
Click to expand...
This shouldn't be too hard if you can scrape the ADS-B data. The tail number database is easy to download. So you just need to scrape ADS-B data to map tail number to hours flown per year. Take the tail number database from the FAA to map tail number to airframe and engine type. Manually map airframe type to engine quantity because that's faster than generalizing across TCDSes. Manually map engine type to minimum fuel grade and average fuel burn per hour, for the same reason. It's probably also useful to specify the burn in single vs. multi engine applications since it seems the singles burn more gallons per engine than the twins do. At the end, you just need one properly crafted SQL query to spit out a table of how many gallons a year can be 91UL or 94UL and how many must be 100UL or better.

Or...

Half Fast said:
If any data exists, I suspect GAMI has it as it would seem to be a necessary component of their business case. Note that they chose to develop a one-size-fits-all fuel of 100 octane and AFAIK they're not trying to create a lower octane variant.
Click to expand...
...or assume that GAMI has done the homework already and probably got it right. That's my plan.
 
iamtheari said:
...or assume that GAMI has done the homework already and probably got it right. That's my plan.
Click to expand...

:) And it's probably the best and most sensible one. I actually share OP's skepticism and would love to see someone crunch the numbers on this.

Sadly I'm too busy to tackle it myself at the mo. I bet someone has a snapshot of a whole day's ADS-B in the country and could twiddle out a quick little program or spreadsheet.
 
Pinecone said:
A data point, from another board, member was just at an airport that pumped both 100LL and 94UL. The 94UL was $1 more per gallon than the 100LL.

Hmmmm
Click to expand...

At GBR, 94UL is $1.00 cheaper than 100LL. Also Hmmmmm.
 
Dana said:
At GBR, 94UL is $1.00 cheaper than 100LL. Also Hmmmmm.
Click to expand...
A lot of FBOs set their gas price when they buy from the truck. Maybe they are trying to slowly sell off an expensive load of 100LL or got a smoking deal on a load of 94UL. I think it would be interesting to know the wholesale price of each product, on the same day and from the same distributor.
 
iamtheari said:
A lot of FBOs set their gas price when they buy from the truck. Maybe they are trying to slowly sell off an expensive load of 100LL or got a smoking deal on a load of 94UL. I think it would be interesting to know the wholesale price of each product, on the same day and from the same distributor.
Click to expand...


...and in other news,
https://generalaviationnews.com/202...ffers-incentives-for-pilots-to-buy-ul94-fuel/

But in something different, on May 18, 2023, the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) Board of Commissioners unanimously approved incentives to offset the higher cost of UL 94 at the Naples Airport. The subsidies cut the cost of UL 94 nearly in half, making it equal in price to leaded aviation gasoline.​

Also, I see that Swift is running a sale on its "Forever STC" for $100. Not sure I want to fly to Naples for fuel, but when UL94 gets a bit closer to home I might go for it.
 
Half Fast said:
...and in other news,
https://generalaviationnews.com/202...ffers-incentives-for-pilots-to-buy-ul94-fuel/

But in something different, on May 18, 2023, the Naples Airport Authority (NAA) Board of Commissioners unanimously approved incentives to offset the higher cost of UL 94 at the Naples Airport. The subsidies cut the cost of UL 94 nearly in half, making it equal in price to leaded aviation gasoline.​

Also, I see that Swift is running a sale on its "Forever STC" for $100. Not sure I want to fly to Naples for fuel, but when UL94 gets a bit closer to home I might go for it.
Click to expand...

You forgot the rest of the article.

"Currently, tenants pay $5.13 per gallon (the same as traditional avgas) compared to the full cost of $9.89, he noted."

How many people are going to run 94UL at $4.76 per gallon more??? Even if compared to G100UL at say even $2 more than 100LL
 
Swift 94UL is $7.09 in Griffith, IN. So they are either subsidizing too or get much better transportation costs since they are near the source (I believe).
 
Swift 94UL is $6.75 at Michigan City, IN. Also near what I assume is the refinery they are using.
 
OK, I cribbed this from FlightAware:
100LLOr91.png
Excuse the crudeness, I've been working all day, had to make dinner and have a release tonight. I grabbed this from the Airborne Aircraft page, and included all the recips that had at least 10 in the air when this was reported, which was around 6 PM EDT. What I gather from this is that if all the airplanes that that required 100 octane were all Navajos, then maybe fuel use would be 60/40.

I basically guessed which airplanes burned what, if anyone has the time to list some corrections, I'll update this and repost it.
 
FormerHangie said:
OK, I cribbed this from FlightAware:
View attachment 118024
Excuse the crudeness, I've been working all day, had to make dinner and have a release tonight. I grabbed this from the Airborne Aircraft page, and included all the recips that had at least 10 in the air when this was reported, which was around 6 PM EDT. What I gather from this is that if all the airplanes that that required 100 octane were all Navajos, then maybe fuel use would be 60/40.

I basically guessed which airplanes burned what, if anyone has the time to list some corrections, I'll update this and repost it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps add a Gallons/Hour column? And a count*(gph) column next to it?
 
FormerHangie said:
OK, I cribbed this from FlightAware:
View attachment 118024
Excuse the crudeness, I've been working all day, had to make dinner and have a release tonight. I grabbed this from the Airborne Aircraft page, and included all the recips that had at least 10 in the air when this was reported, which was around 6 PM EDT. What I gather from this is that if all the airplanes that that required 100 octane were all Navajos, then maybe fuel use would be 60/40.

I basically guessed which airplanes burned what, if anyone has the time to list some corrections, I'll update this and repost it.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the Cardinal should be in the left column since last I checked the IO-360s aren't approved.
 
asicer said:
Perhaps add a Gallons/Hour column? And a count*(gph) column next to it?
Click to expand...

I was thinking of that, but it might be a while

RyanShort1 said:
I'm not sure the Cardinal should be in the left column since last I checked the IO-360s aren't approved.
Click to expand...

I'm looking at Trade-a-Plane, there are 13 172RGs and 12 fixed gear Cardinals, the RGs would need 100 LL and the fixed gear would not.

NealRomeoGolf said:
Arrows are maybe in the same boat?
Click to expand...

The Arrows should almost all be IO-360s or TSIO-360s, so they go in the 100 octane column.

Even with making those changes, it looks to me to be about 60/40, with the 91 octane being the 60. I'm guessing that the 100 octane airplanes would use about 2.5 times as much fuel per aircraft compared to the 91 octane fleet
 
FormerHangie said:
Even with making those changes, it looks to me to be about 60/40, with the 91 octane being the 60. I'm guessing that the 100 octane airplanes would use about 2.5 times as much fuel per aircraft compared to the 91 octane fleet
Click to expand...
Yeah but we're talking one point in time. Means nothing at this point.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Yeah but we're talking one point in time. Means nothing at this point.
Click to expand...

Yes, a single data point. And 1 more than I’ve ever seen. Kind of an interesting way to gather data, my dull noggin did not consider it. The raw data being available is key so algorithms can be refined. The many smart folks on this site will help get to the truth.
 
Something worth clarification: when we're talking about "requiring" high octane how much of that is because the engine needs it and how much of it is because they are not certified to burn anything else? Because if it's the latter, a little FAA will to do something about it to get the ball rolling on unleaded avgas could go a long way.

I'm also not 100% convinced the end is nigh for 100LL. Most of the attempts at a ban have been pretty regional and often with long periods of compliance. This is not a topic the public pays a huge amount of attention to- it's not inconceivable that 100UL never finds enough market foothold and the bans just evaporate or we have a few refueling deserts to contend with.
 
focal_plane said:
Yes, a single data point. And 1 more than I’ve ever seen. Kind of an interesting way to gather data, my dull noggin did not consider it. The raw data being available is key so algorithms can be refined. The many smart folks on this site will help get to the truth.
Click to expand...
It also doesn't show how long they've been in the air. All the ones on the left may have been 30 minutes and the ones on the right 4 hours. It means nothing.
 
FormerHangie said:
OK, I cribbed this from FlightAware:
View attachment 118024
Excuse the crudeness, I've been working all day, had to make dinner and have a release tonight. I grabbed this from the Airborne Aircraft page, and included all the recips that had at least 10 in the air when this was reported, which was around 6 PM EDT. What I gather from this is that if all the airplanes that that required 100 octane were all Navajos, then maybe fuel use would be 60/40.

I basically guessed which airplanes burned what, if anyone has the time to list some corrections, I'll update this and repost it.
Click to expand...

But then you have to look at hours flown that day and fuel flows. A lot of the 91 airplanes burn less than 10 GPH, a number of the 100 aircraft burn double to triple that. And tend to fly longer flights.
 
cowman said:
Something worth clarification: when we're talking about "requiring" high octane how much of that is because the engine needs it and how much of it is because they are not certified to burn anything else? Because if it's the latter, a little FAA will to do something about it to get the ball rolling on unleaded avgas could go a long way.

I'm also not 100% convinced the end is nigh for 100LL. Most of the attempts at a ban have been pretty regional and often with long periods of compliance. This is not a topic the public pays a huge amount of attention to- it's not inconceivable that 100UL never finds enough market foothold and the bans just evaporate or we have a few refueling deserts to contend with.
Click to expand...

Like the whole state of CA?

They REQUIRE it. Unless you like destroying a $100,000 engine (price replacement engines these days, plus R&R. Local CAP O470 C-182 managed to detonate a cylinder on 100LL.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
It also doesn't show how long they've been in the air. All the ones on the left may have been 30 minutes and the ones on the right 4 hours. It means nothing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s a snapshot. So maybe next step is see if integrated flights can be mined. Then flight time/profile could be used. Historical data could be used for an immediate database. I don’t play much with data mining ADSB like this so I really don’t know how much of it is possible.
 
If someone wanted to spend the time programming something through one of the ADSB APIs then we could do some real math. I don't have the programming skills.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
If someone wanted to spend the time programming something through one of the ADSB APIs then we could do some real math. I don't have the programming skills.
Click to expand...

I don’t either. Maybe an entrepid aeronautical science student needs a project.
 
Last edited:
cowman said:
Something worth clarification: when we're talking about "requiring" high octane how much of that is because the engine needs it and how much of it is because they are not certified to burn anything else? Because if it's the latter, a little FAA will to do something about it to get the ball rolling on unleaded avgas could go a long way.

I'm also not 100% convinced the end is nigh for 100LL. Most of the attempts at a ban have been pretty regional and often with long periods of compliance. This is not a topic the public pays a huge amount of attention to- it's not inconceivable that 100UL never finds enough market foothold and the bans just evaporate or we have a few refueling deserts to contend with.
Click to expand...

Pinecone said:
Like the whole state of CA?

They REQUIRE it. Unless you like destroying a $100,000 engine (price replacement engines these days, plus R&R. Local CAP O470 C-182 managed to detonate a cylinder on 100LL.
Click to expand...

Santa Clara County is not the whole state of California, and it's only the two airports that the County owns and operates. (Palo Alto Airport is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto.)
 
schmookeeg said:
...I bet someone has a snapshot of a whole day's ADS-B in the country and could twiddle out a quick little program or spreadsheet.
Click to expand...
A day is not enough. Profiling a Wednesday versus a Saturday will give very different results. I speculate most recreational pilots are weekenders spreading from Friday into Monday.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
Swift 94UL is $7.09 in Griffith, IN. So they are either subsidizing too or get much better transportation costs since they are near the source (I believe).
Click to expand...

I asked a friend who's based at Reid-Hillview (RHV) what they pay for 94UL ($7.60 at the self-serve pump), and he told me that transportation cost is a big factor and depends on volume. He said that lower-volume places would have to be supplied by trucks, which are much more expensive per gallon than rail cars, and that RHV sells a lot of fuel. It probably helps that there are three other airports in the area that sell 94UL.

Since the County banned 100LL sales at the two airports they operate, I doubt that they have felt any need to subsidize UL94.
 
Palmpilot said:
Santa Clara County is not the whole state of California, and it's only the two airports that the County owns and operates. (Palo Alto Airport is owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto.)
Click to expand...

There is already a bill introduced in the CA legislature to ban leaded fuel state wide.

And if they pass and sign it, there are several Me Too states that will follow CA.
 
Domenick said:
A day is not enough. Profiling a Wednesday versus a Saturday will give very different results. I speculate most recreational pilots are weekenders spreading from Friday into Monday.
Click to expand...

But business flying is more likely to be Mon-Fri. More bigger engines, more twins.
 
Pinecone said:
There is already a bill introduced in the CA legislature to ban leaded fuel state wide.

And if they pass and sign it, there are several Me Too states that will follow CA.
Click to expand...

The writing is on the wall at the EPA as well. As soon as a suitable replacement is available, the EPA is prepared to act. Airports and the FAA are facing the same environmental pressure regarding PFAS in our firefighting foams.

Not to mention, last I knew there is one manufacturer of the lead compound found in 100LL in the entire world. I want to say its in England but I could be wrong. If that facility ever closes or burns down, the transition will happen overnight.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Not to mention, last I knew there is one manufacturer of the lead compound found in 100LL in the entire world. I want to say its in England but I could be wrong. If that facility ever closes or burns down, the transition will happen overnight.
Click to expand...
The company is Innospec. The plant is located here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Innospec+manufacturing+plant,+Oil+Sites+Road+Ellesmere+Port,+Chester,+United+Kingdom/@53.2843321,-2.8793651,17z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x487adfb12e8d3649:0x42ecb20a1d5da75a!8m2!3d53.2838033!4d-2.8791367!16s/g/11h1yvccm6

There are rumors that China might be making the stuff, but that's still unclear. Even if they did, who knows whether they're willing to export it or if we're willing to import it.
 
focal_plane said:
Yes, lots more anecdotal I know of an operation that uses thousands……………

Where’s the real data from the study. It may be true. Facts and data.
Click to expand...
I literally am a manager in that flight department. My numbers are facts.
 
NealRomeoGolf said:
If someone wanted to spend the time programming something through one of the ADSB APIs then we could do some real math. I don't have the programming skills.
Click to expand...

I'm not that invested in this to go to that much effort. I'm convinced that while the 80/20 rule was valid at some point, say 30 years ago, it isn't valid now.

This is the product supplied data for Avgas, compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Agency, which corresponds to the consumption of avgas.

AvgasProductSupplied.jpg

I'm thinking that back in the 80's and 90's that the 80/20 rule was valid. For the most part, other than for flight training, working airplanes are turbines. There are a few exceptions (Cape Air, Air Bemidji) but they are few.

There are some times where I'm waiting for something to finish at work, and I'll pop into Flightaware to see if there are any old airplanes aloft. As I type this, I see a DC-3, a Howard DGA-15, and a Staggerwing. I used to see DC-4s and DC-6s flying freight or fuel, or a Basler DC-3 in the Caribbean. I don't see the big recips any more. I know that Buffalo has moved much of their freight hauling to their Electras and aren't operating DC-6s any more.

At 6 PM yesterday, FlightAware showed 766 172s and 384 PA-28s, Right now, it's showing 355 172s and 182 PA28s, about half as many. It also showed 56 SR-20, 52 SR-22s, and 50 SR22 Turbos. It's now showing 29 SR20s, 10 SR22s, and 10 SR22 Turbos. The six cylinder Cirruses, which I assume are mostly used by people to get places, are only 20% as numerous, where the four cylinder Cirruses, Cessnas and Pipers are used for training and pleasure flying, and that will hold up better on the weekend as well.
 
asicer said:
The company is Innospec. The plant is located here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Innospec+manufacturing+plant,+Oil+Sites+Road+Ellesmere+Port,+Chester,+United+Kingdom/@53.2843321,-2.8793651,17z/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x487adfb12e8d3649:0x42ecb20a1d5da75a!8m2!3d53.2838033!4d-2.8791367!16s/g/11h1yvccm6

There are rumors that China might be making the stuff, but that's still unclear. Even if they did, who knows whether they're willing to export it or if we're willing to import it.
Click to expand...

But I also have been told, but someone in the industry, there is about a 2 year supply in the pipeline. So if UK closes the plant or it burns down, we do have a bit of time to make the switch. But things would have to move quickly to avoid any fuel shortages.
 
FormerHangie said:
I'm thinking that back in the 80's and 90's that the 80/20 rule was valid. For the most part, other than for flight training, working airplanes are turbines. There are a few exceptions (Cape Air, Air Bemidji) but they are few.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of small Part 135 operations flying pistons. A friend just did a charter to get his parents to make a last visit to a relative. The aircraft was a Seneca II
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top