TEL Factory

[chemgeek]

Or just buy some methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) and add it to the UL94. Good antiknock properties, not as toxic as lead.

MMT hasn't worked out as well as anticipated for aircraft, due to deposit/pre-ignition issues. The bottom line is that it is quite possible to make 100 octane aviation fuel sans lead. The only thing holding us back is foot-dragging. When I got the high compression STC for my Grumman, I had to switch from unleaded auto fuel back to 100 LL. Hello, lead fouling. I can keep it under control, mostly, but it was never an issue with unleaded fuel. Cleanest plugs and cylinders ever.

 

[chemgeek]

I am

More people die each year from water than 100LL, full stop



Too much of ANYTHING is bad, the tiny trace in 100LL is a nothing burger

Study after study after study show this

The only ones that show otherwise were skewed and proven so in many studies and lawsuits

There is ZERO logical scientific reason to try to ban 100LL

It will majorly degrade general aviation in the US, it will majorly degrade our ability to produce more pilots for everyone from military to airlines to medevac to cargo.

It’s cutting a appendage off for no good reason

Well, there is more than a trace of TEL in 100LL, as in several grams per gallon. While the atmospheric spread of lead is not likely significant (100LL is small potatoes in the transportation sector), handling it on a daily basis very likely increases your lead intake. TEL is lipophilic, so it can penetrate the skin. Pure TEL would be treated a as full-on hazardous substance in the lab requiring special PPE to handle. In term of the health risk of long-term exposure to 100LL, it would be hard to assess without measuring one's BLL. But blood concentrations as low as 50 ppb lead are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and neurological issues (e.g., essential tremor) in adults. If lead exposure can be avoided, and a single-source failure point in manufacture of TEL can be avoided, why not move on to UL fuels like we did for automobile gasoline in the 1970s? The main reason to moving to UL aviation fuels is to secure the supply of aviation fuel into the future. I suspect there is not a large profit to be had from manufacturing TEL, a bulk chemical with a limited and shrinking market.

 

[Kevin Eggert]

All this debate and talk about 100LL being a "must have" sort of ignores the fact that auto fuel STCs for a large number of aircraft are literally no more than a piece of paper and some stickers/placards to put in and on the aircraft. I'm sure there are some aircraft where this may be an issue, but the Lycoming O-320 and O-360 as well as the Continental O-470 (the three most common aircraft engines in general aviation aircraft) have STCs available to use auto fuel instead of 100LL and there is absolutely no modification needed to the engine or airframe.

 

[EdFred]

All this debate and talk about 100LL being a "must have" sort of ignores the fact that auto fuel STCs for a large number of aircraft are literally no more than a piece of paper and some stickers/placards to put in and on the aircraft. I'm sure there are some aircraft where this may be an issue, but the Lycoming O-320 and O-360 as well as the Continental O-470 (the three most common aircraft engines in general aviation aircraft) have STCs available to use auto fuel instead of 100LL and there is absolutely no modification needed to the engine or airframe.

So screw everyone with a T-520/540/550 eh? Let them eat cake!
540 is not able to use the Peterse(o?)n STC that's "just a piece of paper." Vapor lock issues in the PA24. So yeah, there is modification to airframes needed, even to non-turbo's.

Piper also says the gami fuel is a no-go in their planes.

 

[Kevin Eggert]

So screw everyone with a T-520/540/550 eh? Let them eat cake!
540 is not able to use the Peterse(o?)n STC that's "just a piece of paper." Vapor lock issues in the PA24. So yeah, there is modification to airframes needed, even to non-turbo's.

Piper also says the gami fuel is a no-go in their planes.

I never said it was a 100% fix, but let's not be completely ignorant of the fact that auto fuel STCs that require no modifications "literally a piece of paper" do exist for a majority of small aircraft. If you consider the STCs that require some modifications the number is even higher. I'm all for continuing the production and use of 100LL, but there is a distinct possibility that it will be unavailable at some point in the future. Preaching that the end of 100LL is equal to the end of all general aviation is at very least disingenuous and at most intentionally dishonest.

 

[Hang 4]

The planes that need 100 octane consume most of the fuel, like 70%. Not likely to get availability of Mogas at airports if consumption is 30% of 100LL.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Some of the PAFI/WAGLE fuels tried this. Massive plug fouling.

Plugs had a matte almost sandy orangish color coating. Might have used too much or the wrong air/fuel ratio. Never went back.

MMT hasn't worked out as well as anticipated for aircraft, due to deposit/pre-ignition issues.

I respect your comments and experience, but I'll note that automobiles ran on MMT before it was phased out due to the phase in of catalytic convertors. They didn't have the fancy electronics back in the '70s that cars do now. How did they do it then?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I respect your comments and experience, but I'll note that automobiles ran on MMT before it was phased out due to the phase in of catalytic convertors. They didn't have the fancy electronics back in the '70s that cars do now. How did they do it then?

To be fair, in my case I was running a cam with a lot of overlap and a rich mixture, and plugs may not have been the right heat range. Maybe the window of forgiveness was a lot smaller.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Me? I'm flying Rotax powered right now, and we avoid 100LL as much as possible. I'm building an E/AB, and while I haven't selected an engine for it yet I can tell you that whatever it is, I'll make sure it can run unleaded auto gas with ethanol. That doesn't do the owners of a lot of Lycoming powered planes much good,

Right. It does most of GA no good at all.

There are a whole lot of planes that cannot fly on 94UL nor any other low octane fuel, including a fleet of very expensive larger, higher perfomance models (M-350, SR-22, Bonanza, et al).

Even if they could, automotive gas without ethanol is no more readily available than G100UL in most of North America.

If/when 100LL goes away, thousands of expensive planes will be grounded, including many that are less than a year old. Imagine taking delivery of a new $1.4M SR-22T, then finding out the next day that you cannot buy fuel for it. How long do you think it will take for someone with that sort of disposable income to call their congress-critter?

Home builts and experimentals aren't the issue, and they never were.

 

[Brad Z]

We're one executive order away from zero 100LL availability. If not this administration, quite likely the next.

 

[StraightnLevel]

We're one executive order away from zero 100LL availability. If not this administration, quite likely the next.

Right, and there is only one current replacement candidate fuel - G100UL.

The faster we ID the concerns with GAMI's fuel and address them, the lower the risk of rendering our planes obsolete will be.

 

[AV8R_87]

The planes that need 100 octane consume most of the fuel, like 70%.

Which means that the cost of an airframe/engine modification that would allow them to use an unleaded fuel of less than 100 octane would most likely be a drop in the bucket for them.

The average 100LL user flies 50-100 hours/year. That's $2000-4000 in fuel costs. The ratio of 320s/360s to 540s/550s is probably 10:1? (guessing here, somebody please correct me)
So by this simple (and possibly a bit flawed) logic, if the 320/360 base, flying an average of 75 h/yr, only uses 30% of the 100LL consumed, then a 540/550 that needs 100LL uses about $70000 worth of fuel every year, on average.
Yes, I am aware that enough private owners exist that fly their 540s less than 100 hours/year, and things will sting for them if a viable 100LL replacement isn't found. But for that "consume 70% of 100LL" to be true, a lot if them must be flying significantly more, at which point the conversion costs would not be significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[StraightnLevel]

Which means that the cost of an airframe/engine modification that would allow them to use an unleaded fuel of less than 100 octane would most likely be a drop in the bucket for them.

Full stop, right here. This line of thought is incredibly unhelpful

There is no mod at any price that will allow those planes to operate at their current performance and safety levels, other than a direct replacement for 100LL.

It's not about price, it's about functionality.

 

[TCABM]

Which means that the cost of an airframe/engine modification that would allow them to use an unleaded fuel of less than 100 octane would most likely be a drop in the bucket for them.

The average 100LL user flies 50-100 hours/year. That's $2000-4000 in fuel costs. The ratio of 320s/360s to 540s/550s is probably 10:1? (guessing here, somebody please correct me)
So by this simple (and possibly a bit flawed) logic, if the 320/360 base, flying an average of 75 h/yr, only uses 30% of the 100LL consumed, then a 540/550 that needs 100LL uses about $70000 worth of fuel every year, on average.
Yes, I am aware that enough private owners exist that fly their 540s less than 100 hours/year, and things will sting for them if a viable 100LL replacement isn't found. But for that "consume 70% of 100LL" to be true, a lot if them must be flying significantly more, at which point the conversion costs would not be significant in the grand scheme of things.

I’d hazard 61/ 141 programs are the biggest consumer of 100LL.

My partnership puts 300hrs/year on our 172; our flight school next door is doing a 100hr inspection every other month on each of their eight 172s.

 

[AV8R_87]

Full stop, right here. This line of thought is incredibly unhelpful

No, this line of thought is what gets you out of trouble when, inevitably, the fresh bag of manure hits the rotary oscillator.
Just because I am looking at other options doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer a simpler/more straightforward one. I look for a forced landing spot if my engine quits, but I'd prefer it keeps running all the way to the destination.

There is no mod at any price that will allow those planes to operate at their current performance and safety levels, other than a direct replacement for 100LL.

That is a very bold statement. Almost on par with "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." said by the president of IBM in 1943.
You know you can't prove a negative, right?

It's not about price, it's about functionality.

Your 540 will be extremely functional when stuck on the ground with no fuel.

Yes, it would be ideal if G100UL or 94UL worked without also acting as paint and fuel tank sealant stripper and valve grinding compound, but it seems that is not the case right now. Which is unfortunate.

Having a bad case of rectal craniosis won't fix the problem. We know, as an industry, how to design redundancy and reliability. Having a system that injects an octane booster/anti-detonant mixture (be it ethanol, methanol or a water/methanol mix) straight into the throttle body when the conditions require it is not rocket surgery. It was being done in WWII. Yes, it didn't sell when it was available because it was simpler/cheaper to continue using 100LL. But if/when that isn't available anymore, and no suitable replacement is found, I suspect that STC would sell pretty well.

 

[EdFred]

I suspect that STC would sell pretty well.

Not when they try/have to sell it for six figures/aircraft. You think the FAA is going to once over the application and rubber stamp it in 2 days minimizing development/testing costs?

 

[AV8R_87]

I’d hazard 61/ 141 programs are the biggest consumer of 100LL.

My partnership puts 300hrs/year on our 172; our flight school next door is doing a 100hr inspection every other month on each of their eight 172s.

But do any of these applications need 100LL? I am still a bit intrigued by what happened at UND, vs the lack of similar issues reported by eveyone else using unleaded alternatives (94UL or mogas)

Not when they try/have to sell it for six figures/aircraft. You think the FAA is going to once over the application and rubber stamp it in 2 days minimizing development/testing costs?

If you think the market size is 30 aircraft and your certification costs were $1 million, then 6 figure pricing is what you'll ask for. If the market size suddenly becomes 3000 aircraft that are otherwise grounded, the smart STC owner would probably lower the price to ensure those 3000 planes consider it a worthy investment vs just scrapping the plane.

 

[Pinecone]

I am still a bit intrigued by what happened at UND, vs the lack of similar issues reported by eveyone else using unleaded alternatives (94UL or mogas)

It seems they were running the engines hard (75% power) and in at peak or slightly rich of peak for the highest cylinder pressures.

And may have been running in light detonation range leading to multiple pressure pulses per stroke. This lead to micro welding of the valves to the seats, eating away at the seats over time.

 

[TCABM]

But do any of these applications need 100LL?.

From a regulatory or practical perspective?

ETA: Hypothetical. Jan 1, 2030 comes to pass and there’s no 100LL and no suitable alternative, what options exist for the big 141 programs?

When do those programs have to make a decision to buy a trainer not dependent on 100LL so they can stay in business?

 

[EdFred]

But do any of these applications need 100LL? I am still a bit intrigued by what happened at UND, vs the lack of similar issues reported by eveyone else using unleaded alternatives (94UL or mogas)


If you think the market size is 30 aircraft and your certification costs were $1 million, then 6 figure pricing is what you'll ask for. If the market size suddenly becomes 3000 aircraft that are otherwise grounded, the smart STC owner would probably lower the price to ensure those 3000 planes consider it a worthy investment vs just scrapping the plane.

Only $1MM. Hahahaha. Oh man, if you only knew the cert costs on dealing with anything Federal. And no one is going to to an STC just to recoup costs.

 

[AV8R_87]

Only $1MM. Hahahaha. Oh man, if you only knew the cert costs on dealing with anything Federal.

Trust me, I do. Good knowlege of the regulations and FAA Orders will keep the costs under control. Plus knowing and having a good work relationship with the people in the FAA Certification Branch.

I was not implying that it would cost 1MM, it was just a numbers exercise to show how it could cost six figures per aircraft if the market for the product was low.

And no one is going to to an STC just to recoup costs.

Even in my fictional example, 30 aircraft x 100k/per was 3MM. Not running a charity here. You will be sued when someone crashes a plane with your STC on it, even if the NTSB determines that it was caused by loss of control in IMC.

 

[StraightnLevel]

My statement:
"There is no mod at any price that will allow those planes to operate at their current performance and safety levels, other than a direct replacement for 100LL."

Your response:

That is a very bold statement. Almost on par with "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." said by the president of IBM in 1943.

It's not "bold" at all. It is factual.

Please name the STC that allows a SR-22/SR-22T to run with anything other than 100LL or G100UL. One will do. Note that for the past several years, these are among the highest selling planes in North America, so we're not talking about antiques, nor are we talking about fringe one-off designs.

The same holds for the Bonanza, which has been in continuous production for many decades.

 

[Daleandee]

We're one executive order away from zero 100LL availability. If not this administration, quite likely the next.

And one judge away from blocking it ...

 

[robin ardoin]

What's with the negative waves?

ARF, ARF, ARF...

 

[EdFred]

Trust me, I do. Good knowlege of the regulations and FAA Orders will keep the costs under control. Plus knowing and having a good work relationship with the people in the FAA Certification Branch.

I was not implying that it would cost 1MM, it was just a numbers exercise to show how it could cost six figures per aircraft if the market for the product was low.

Even in my fictional example, 30 aircraft x 100k/per was 3MM. Not running a charity here. You will be sued when someone crashes a plane with your STC on it, even if the NTSB determines that it was caused by loss of control in IMC.

Then why don't you use something a little more realistic? It's not going to be a slap it on solution. You have every airframe, every engine to do it for. There's a reason that even now E-0 mogas is approved for the O-540, but not in certain airframes. Mine being one of them. This "easy and simple" STC is neither easy nor simple, and if you work with the FAA you either know that and are being disingenuous, or you don't actually actually with with the FAA but it sounds good on a forum. Even just getting a turbo put on my O-540 (and the STC is already out there for it) is ridiculously expensive and that's a whole lot simpler (and already existed) than some injection system which is going to require design and approval for how many different airframes??

 

[AV8R_87]

My statement:
"There is no mod at any price that will allow those planes to operate at their current performance and safety levels, other than a direct replacement for 100LL."

I read that as there is no mod that will do that at any point in the future. The whole conversation was about what can be done, not what is being done now. There is no need for that mod today, but there might be a need in the near future.

Then why don't you use something a little more realistic?

Because making a point about the economics of an installation doesn't need that level of precision. The real number might be 3 or 5 mil, but 1 mil drives the point across just as well.

You have every airframe, every engine to do it for.

OR you work smarter, understand what the common denominator is for all the engines/airframes, and you end up with let's say five installation packages that cover 95% of the fleet. The rest can be addressed as minor deviations if a mounting bracket/routing path needs to be modified for an oddball airframe/engine combo.

Case in point - a fuel flow indicator. Instead of testing every airframe/engine combo, they tell the installer to ensure adequate fuel flow post-installation, and they give you guidelines on sensor placement that you must meet. How you get there is on the installer, not the STC holder.

There's a reason that even now E-0 mogas is approved for the O-540, but not in certain airframes. Mine being one of them.

Do you understand why that is the case?

This "easy and simple" STC is neither easy nor simple, and if you work with the FAA you either know that and are being disingenuous, or you don't actually actually with with the FAA but it sounds good on a forum.

It's much easier and simpler if you understand the regulations and guidance materials and you don't have to pay a DER $250/hr for hundreds of hours of him just explaining them to you. On top of that, you have to understand the engineering scope and what is the best way to show compliance to the appropriate regulations.
One quick (and very simplified) example (plays into your E0 aporoval): ensuring adequate fuel flow in all flight regimes. You could go flying for tens/hundreds of hours at all sorts of altitudes, attitudes and temperatures, with all the costs of using a plane, burning gas and paying for an experimental test pilot. Or you can design and build a test rig that simulates that, write (if needed) an issue paper that explains to the FAA how you're going to do it, and validate your test rig findings with only a few hours of flight testing.
One approach will cost you 1MM, the other one might only cost you 200k. Work smarter, not harder.

Even just getting a turbo put on my O-540 (and the STC is already out there for it) is ridiculously expensive and that's a whole lot simpler (and already existed) than some injection system which is going to require design and approval for how many different airframes??

Going back to my original message, what do you think the market is for that turbo?
Do you think they sold ten thousand STCs, or less than one thousand?
What was their certification approach and how did that impact their costs? I don't know, and neither do you.

 

[EdFred]

Yes I know why E0 is not available for my airframe.
Comparing an entire injection system to a fuel flow gauge as an equal comparison? It's not even worth having the discussion.

 

[AV8R_87]

an entire injection system

"A supplemental additive injection system". Choosing your words carefully is how you ensure your certification plan isn't DoA.

a fuel flow gauge

that, if it failed (due to component or installation failure), could starve the engine and cause a complete loss of power?

Here's a bit of info on aircraft certification: one of the key pieces of information that you include in the certification plan you submit to the FAA is a functional hazard assesment, where you identify how your system is supposed to work and what will happen if it fails.
You make a wrong decision at that level, you could be stuck in certification hell for years.

 

[focal_plane]

The planes that need 100 octane consume most of the fuel, like 70%. Not likely to get availability of Mogas at airports if consumption is 30% of 100LL.

Please cite the supporting data.

 

[172andyou]

Please cite the supporting data.

Someone should be along with a citation shortly, it's been posted here several times though my google-fu wasn't sufficient to find it immediately.

The interesting part is that like 75% of the fleet doesn't require it.
But that 75% of the consumption is by the 25% of the fleet that does.

 

[jsstevens]

How many of the larger consumers could switch to some form of turbine if TEL goes away?

 

[Bell206]

OR you work smarter, understand what the common denominator is for all the engines/airframes, and you end up with let's say five installation packages that cover 95% of the fleet.

FYI: that is not possible with the STC approval process on a couple levels even though you use a common item to modify the airframe and engine on the same aircraft.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Someone should be along with a citation shortly, it's been posted here several times though my google-fu wasn't sufficient to find it immediately.

The interested part is that like 75% of the fleet doesn't require it.
But that 75% of the consumption is by the 25% of the fleet that does.

Navigating pathways to an unleaded future

AOPA President Mark Baker cuts through misinformation and confusion with a few simple facts about the push to make unleaded fuel available for every aircraft as quickly as possible, and what it will take to achieve the shared goal.

www.aopa.org

 

[StraightnLevel]

I read that as there is no mod that will do that at any point in the future. The whole conversation was about what can be done, not what is being done now. There is no need for that mod today, but there might be a need in the near future.

The conversation is about what MUST be done, and what SHOULD be done, not what someone could possibly dream up to be done in the future.

We MUST find a replacement for 100LL before it becomes unavailable. If it goes away next week, yapping about some non-existent concepts that might be possible to develop and get approved many years and millions of dollars in the future is a complete waste of time and energy.

TODAY we have G100UL and the accompanying STC. The problem is 99% solved right now with a developed, approved alternative.

If G100UL were available at or near my hangar, I would be running it today. We don't need to cloud the issue with pie-in-the-sky proposals to use lower octane fuels that will require richer mixtures - and thus reduce range and/or useful load.

 

[Hang 4]

Someone should be along with a citation shortly, it's been posted here several times though my google-fu wasn't sufficient to find it immediately.

The interesting part is that like 75% of the fleet doesn't require it.
But that 75% of the consumption is by the 25% of the fleet that does.

From an AOPA article posted by @Cap'n Jack - The article doesn't cite a source, but here's what they said;
"While airplanes with lower compression engines make up 70 percent of the GA piston fleet, they only burn about 30 percent of the 100LL. Higher compression engines use 70 percent of the 100LL supply. This is, in part, the reason we need 100LL available at our airports during this transition. More importantly, it is a matter of safety—exactly why Congress has included language in the FAA reauthorization bill that would require that 100LL remain available at airports while we transition to unleaded fuel."

I suspect the underlying explanation has a couple of parts;
- Lot's of twins need higher octane and by definition burn 2x the fuel
- The planes with high compression engines are flown a lot more hours e.g. Alaska, parachute drops zones, glider tows etc
- A significant % of the planes that can get by on lower octane aren't flown very much (flight schools the exception)

 

[hindsight2020]

which places the recreational high compression/turbo user in the predicament of having to align with the revenue operators that don't want to incur the equipment cost/retrofit to JetA.

If there's going to be any kind of subsidy/protectionism, it'll be due/for revenue operators. There's certainly not enough political mass for the 100LL captured recreationalist to effect this stonewalling alone, absent the flight schools and part 134.5s carrying the bucket for them.

I'm on a bit of an accelerationist kick these days, so I welcome the chaos. Asset class deflation makes me go from six to midnight. I'm also not persuaded by the national security argument in the least; we don't need 100LL to operate our air war machine nor train/replace their pilots.

 

[focal_plane]

From an AOPA article posted by @Cap'n Jack - The article doesn't cite a source, but here's what they said;
"While airplanes with lower compression engines make up 70 percent of the GA piston fleet, they only burn about 30 percent of the 100LL. Higher compression engines use 70 percent of the 100LL supply. This is, in part, the reason we need 100LL available at our airports during this transition. More importantly, it is a matter of safety—exactly why Congress has included language in the FAA reauthorization bill that would require that 100LL remain available at airports while we transition to unleaded fuel."

I suspect the underlying explanation has a couple of parts;
- Lot's of twins need higher octane and by definition burn 2x the fuel
- The planes with high compression engines are flown a lot more hours e.g. Alaska, parachute drops zones, glider tows etc
- A significant % of the planes that can get by on lower octane aren't flown very much (flight schools the exception)

This is cited consistently as fact. Folks hear it and regurgitate it as fact. I still have never seen any substantiation of it with data. If memory serves, it was written 30 or so years ago. Even if they did as good a job as possible gathering data, does it hold today? The notion sounds somewhat believable, but it seems to have become a truth that folks cite as gospel without knowing the source. It has been repeated so many times, it is defacto truth. I like seeing the data; then it is possible to become a believer. That said, the need for a 100 octane fuel is undisputed and I believe it will be available in some form continuously. However, I don’t believe it should preclude the availability of a 94UL or equivalent fuel for lower compression engines solely based on an article written by AOPA.

Yet, it is wizzing in the wind. I don’t believe any or very few FBOs would stock both 100 and 94. Too much overhead, not enough volume from either to make it work. So one fuel, and almost certainly 100.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

This is cited consistently as fact. Folks hear it and regurgitate it as fact. I still have never seen any substantiation of it with data. If memory serves, it was written 30 or so years ago. Even if they did as good a job as possible gathering data, does it hold today? The notion sounds somewhat believable, but it seems to have become a truth that folks cite as gospel without knowing the source. It has been repeated so many times, it is defacto truth. I like seeing the data; then it is possible to become a believer. That said, the need for a 100 octane fuel is undisputed and I believe it will be available in some form continuously. However, I don’t believe it should preclude the availability of a 94UL or equivalent fuel for lower compression engines solely based on an article written by AOPA.

Well, unfortunately this data is pre-aggregated so it's hard to draw any conclusions. However, the FAA has the source data, so they should be able to form a reasonably plausible answer to the question.

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/cy2023

Yet, it is wizzing in the wind. I don’t believe any or very few FBOs would stock both 100 and 94. Too much overhead, not enough volume from either to make it work. So one fuel, and almost certainly 100.

Most FBOs wouldn't even stock 100LL if they could get away with it. I got to see this in action when my company built an FBO. We had every intention of offering fuel as cheaply as possible and no ramp fees for piston singles. When all was said and done, though, we ended up with a used 100LL truck and simply purchased fuel from another FBO on the field because the cost of another tank for 100LL was so prohibitive it would have never broken even. Granted, there's not a ton of piston traffic at that airport but it's probably no worse than your average GA facility either.

In the end, if we hadn't been required to pump 100LL by the airport authority, we wouldn't have bothered. Even at nearly $7/gal with ramp fees up around $40 for a piston single, we were losing money on piston traffic. The numbers just absolutely suck.

 

[StraightnLevel]

In the end, if we hadn't been required to pump 100LL by the airport authority, we wouldn't have bothered. Even at nearly $7/gal with ramp fees up around $40 for a piston single, we were losing money on piston traffic. The numbers just absolutely suck.

Not doubting your experience, but how do fields like Hartford (KHXF) and Dodge County (KUNU) manage to do it? Wisconsin Aviation has a sign on the side of the KUNU FBO touting their non-existent ramp fees, and their fuel is reasonably priced.

It seems to me that the problem you may have had was the lack of piston-engine traffic, which is driven even lower by the ramp fees and higher fuel prices - stall/spin and tightening the turn on the way down. Even if you lowered prices for small planes, you may also face a problem that those planes don’t really want to share space with bizjets and larger twins. Volume is necessary to absorb the base overhead costs that you really cannot control, so unless you can attract a bunch of SR20/22s and Bonanzas as daily customers it’s going to be problematic at best.

Perhaps the reality is that a single business model won’t meet everyone’s needs; a given FBO can’t effectively serve both jet/business traffic and personal piston/GA traffic effectively.

In any case, we need a solution that allows existing planes to use a fuel without TEL, or we are all at risk of having our planes turned into very expensive paperweights.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Not doubting your experience, but how do fields like Hartford (KHXF) and Dodge County (KUNU) manage to do it? Wisconsin Aviation has a sign on the side of the KUNU FBO touting their non-existent ramp fees, and their fuel is reasonably priced.

Hartford probably does it by not having any full time staff at the airport... Just self serve pumps. And, of course, there is no FBO there, it's just the municipality. So, they don't much care whether they make any money, and can even get away with operating at a loss, justifying it by saying it brings business into town.

Wis Av at HXF, like their other locations, is full service with a flight school and maintenance shop. I wouldn't be surprised if their 100LL operation is break-even at best, and even HXF has a couple of jets based there.

Wis Av at Madison would be an interesting operation to see the numbers for. They're the sole-source FBO at an airport with a very wide variety of traffic, and they fuel the airliners too, as well as plenty of transient military traffic (I think the based military traffic has their own fueling equipment). I'm pretty sure the airport owns the fuel farm there, though, and the airliners make the fueling operation as a whole plenty profitable.

In fact, I can't think of a single place that has an FBO *without* an attached flight school or maintenance shop that has full line services. If there's no flight school or shop to keep the lights on, there's just a self serve pump that's probably owned by the city. There are exceptions (like the self serve at KBPK), but I don't think those exist to make a profit either.

Even if you lowered prices for small planes, you may also face a problem that those planes don’t really want to share space with bizjets and larger twins.

I would say that KMSN disproves that. They have airlines, cargo, military, business aviation, and piston GA all mixing it up, and all of the above are in pretty large numbers. I do think that the lack of ramp fees there helps, as do the friendly controllers. And the Jet Room restaurant. If you only saw aviation from the perspective of that airport, you'd think it's all thriving.

Volume is necessary to absorb the base overhead costs that you really cannot control, so unless you can attract a bunch of SR20/22s and Bonanzas as daily customers it’s going to be problematic at best.

But an SR22 or Bonanza is going to burn maybe 15gph (normally aspirated anyway). Most of them are going to travel an hour or less to get to you, with the occasional 3-4 hour leg. Figure you're going to maybe pump 20-25 gallons per plane as it is. As busy as Madison is, with the most generous interpretation of their traffic numbers, they get 21 transient piston aircraft per day. So, you're talking 400-500 gallons per day at best - And that's with every single plane that shows up getting fuel. And if we're really generous again and figure they're able to sell fuel for $2/gal more than they buy it for, you're talking $800-$1K per day in gross profit. Pay for one lineman at $20/hr and half of that is gone (they are open 24/7). A new avgas truck costs $158,900. I don't remember what the tank cost but I found a used one without the truck refueling equipment was another $125,000; I think the new one was more like $300K. And of course you have to buy gas/diesel to run the fuel truck, maintain it, and all of that.

Perhaps the reality is that a single business model won’t meet everyone’s needs; a given FBO can’t effectively serve both jet/business traffic and personal piston/GA traffic effectively.

The reality is that either piston traffic is effectively subsidized by jet traffic, or the fueling operation is subsidized by the flight school and maintenance shop. "Subsidized" might not be the right word, the flight school may well be able to make more profit by having a fuel operation attached, but the effect is essentially the same.

In any case, we need a solution that allows existing planes to use a fuel without TEL, or we are all at risk of having our planes turned into very expensive paperweights.

Yup.