Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

Jim_R said:
The fuel needs to not be a paint stripper / rubber destroyer first, and then get the ASTM.
Click to expand...
Q1: What's wrong with going to Viton gaskets and o-rings? Automotive applications had to change seals and materials for unleaded and ethanol fuels, so why is this a surprise?

Q2: Paint? Why not just teach people not to spill gas on their paint, or clean up spills?

In all seriousness, if my choice is to change seals, gaskets and o-rings vs. lowering power output, changing engines, or parking the plane, I'll take the material changes all day, every day.
 
I want to add a thought to this conversation:

At Airventure last week I was window-shopping new planes. While looking at one specific option, it occurred to me that it has not yet been approved for use of anything other than 100LL.

That made me stop and ask myself: Why would I spend a 7-digit sum on a plane that could be rendered obsolete in 4 years or less?

Why aren't the manufacturers forcing a resolution? Why aren't Cirrus, Piper, Textron, et al, showing any concern over this issue?
 
StraightnLevel said:
Q1: What's wrong with going to Viton gaskets and o-rings? Automotive applications had to change seals and materials for unleaded and ethanol fuels, so why is this a surprise?

Q2: Paint? Why not just teach people not to spill gas on their paint, or clean up spills?

In all seriousness, if my choice is to change seals, gaskets and o-rings vs. lowering power output, changing engines, or parking the plane, I'll take the material changes all day, every day.
Click to expand...

Total stereotyping answer.
1. Because pilots and owners think a rubber gasket from 1980 is new and does not need to change for another fifty years.
2. Owners in general are cheap and detest spending money on something does not go bling bling.
3. Owners say they love change and want something modern. But most have the attitude you can pry my magneto out of my cold dead hands.
4. Because the the Greatest Generation sold the Baby Boomers on the concept that a drop in replacement of 100LL could be done. And they passed it on to each generation after.
5. If you wanted to phase in 94UL and remove TEL, this should have started in the early 1970s when mogas was starting to change. (e.g. ban new TCs and STCs that require 100LL and require support 94UL).

Tim (I could not resist)
 
StraightnLevel said:
Q1: What's wrong with going to Viton gaskets and o-rings? Automotive applications had to change seals and materials for unleaded and ethanol fuels, so why is this a surprise?
Click to expand...
The vast majority of cars that were designed to use leaded fuels continued out their lifespan throughout the transition to unleaded fuels and were mostly end-of-life by the time leaded fuels became unavailable. Very few of them were retrofitted/re-engined to be compatible with unleaded fuels. Instead, the burden was on the manufacturers to design and produce engines to run on unleaded fuel.

That is a wholly different way of dealing with the problem than retrofitting an established fleet of aircraft.

Is it an impossible solution? No. Is it a trivially easy solution? Also no.

StraightnLevel said:
In all seriousness, if my choice is to change seals, gaskets and o-rings vs. lowering power output, changing engines, or parking the plane, I'll take the material changes all day, every day.
Click to expand...
You do realize this isn't a zero-sum game, right? It's not "which problem are we going to solve?", it's "How do we solve all the problems?"
 
StraightnLevel said:
Q1: What's wrong with going to Viton gaskets and o-rings? Automotive applications had to change seals and materials for unleaded and ethanol fuels, so why is this a surprise?
Click to expand...
Because at this point, substitution of a different o-ring may not be allowed without the aircraft manufacturer changing their parts lists. That doesn't affect my experimental, but what about TC'd aircraft where the manufacturer no longer exists? And bladders, and tank sealants...
StraightnLevel said:
Q2: Paint? Why not just teach people not to spill gas on their paint, or clean up spills?
Click to expand...
On my plane and many others it's near impossible to fuel without spilling a bit, and once it spills it runs down around the tank neck where it can't be wiped off. And a bit of fuel sometimes leaks out the vent when doing aerobatics.

And my fuel valve uses a lubricant which G100 attacks, and for which I know of no alternate, and then there's the shellac on the fuel gauge cork float, and...
 
G100UL ain't gonna go forward as it stands today. George has done a ton of work but it's not the solution the market needs. Seals, o-Rings, tank sealants, paint, and bladders are just too much.
 
GLMS_NC said:
G100UL ain't gonna go forward as it stands today. George has done a ton of work but it's not the solution the market needs. Seals, o-Rings, tank sealants, paint, and bladders are just too much.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I'd much rather just stay with 100ll and the blissful knowledge that I will never have a fuel leak.
 
StraightnLevel said:
I want to add a thought to this conversation:

At Airventure last week I was window-shopping new planes. While looking at one specific option, it occurred to me that it has not yet been approved for use of anything other than 100LL.

That made me stop and ask myself: Why would I spend a 7-digit sum on a plane that could be rendered obsolete in 4 years or less?

Why aren't the manufacturers forcing a resolution? Why aren't Cirrus, Piper, Textron, et al, showing any concern over this issue?
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this. My cynical answer? As @hindsight2020 is saying...the fix is in. They know it. They know how much power will be reduced, they know how much MP/RPM restriction will be required, and they are waiting for the government to be the "bad guy".
 
AV8R_87 said:
George would be better off creating STCs for gasket/seal/hose/bladder replacements. Sell those and keep G100UL STC-free.
Click to expand...
On Beechtalk George is saying there is already explicit FAA approval for the use of modern fuel system components by the following sections being added (at the request of the FAA) to the GAMI G100UL STC ICA.

From the ICA, under “HANDLING, SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE OF AIRCRAFT AND ENGINES WITH G100UL Avgas”:

“When replacing seals or O‑rings in the fuel systems of aircraft or engines operating on G100UL Avgas replace Buna N or nitrile fuel system components with components made of silicone or fluoropolymer elastomers (such as Viton) where practical. When replacing flexible fuel hose assemblies utilize tetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) lined hose assemblies per TSO C53a or TSO C140 where practical.”
Click to expand...
 
Right. I get it.... Use my fuel....PLEASE! But first, go replace all your fuel lines, sender and related seals, every o-ring in fuel selectors, connectors, and other connections, tank sealant, bladders, and ANYTHING else that may come in contact with my fuel. And for your paint - not much I can say there other than your system should not be leaking and "sorry about that". But hey - you should have replaced all these pieces before now, right? Aren't they way past their lifespans, forget the fact they have been exposed to 100LL for YEARS with ZERO PROBLEMS?

Whatever they are smoking in Ada must be pretty good. I just can’t see this approach working and anyone agreeing this fuel with these requirements will get the stamp of approval.
 
Last edited:
GLMS_NC said:
Right. I get it.... Use my fuel....PLEASE! But first, go replace all your fuel lines, sender and related seals, every o-ring in fuel selectors, connectors, and other connections, tank sealant, bladders, and ANYTHING else that may come in contact with my fuel. And for your paint - not much I can say there other than your system should not be leaking and "sorry about that". But hey - you should have replaced all these pieces before now, right? Aren't they way past their lifespans, forget the fact they have been exposed to 100LL for YEARS with ZERO PROBLEMS?

Whatever they are smoking in Ada must be pretty good. I just can’t see this approach working and anyone agreeing this fuel with these requirements will get the stamp of approval.
Click to expand...
If the choice is between doing this and flying or not flying, I can guess what will happen. Maybe I should buy stock in a fuel line company....

Tim
 
StraightnLevel said:
Yes, exactly. Choice between replacement of a 50- year-old fuel system, reduced performance, or parking it permanently, I'm buying new parts.
Click to expand...

New aircraft today are being delivered with 50 year old fuel systems?

Of course not. Talking about 50 year old fuel systems is silly.

What do people with brand spanky new aircraft do?

Perhaps you meant 50 year old fuel system designs.
 
Bob Noel said:
New aircraft today are being delivered with 50 year old fuel systems?

Of course not. Talking about 50 year old fuel systems is silly.

What do people with brand spanky new aircraft do?

Perhaps you meant 50 year old fuel system designs.
Click to expand...
People talk about us flying with 100-year-old engine technology…seems like talking about 50-year-old fuel system technology would be appropriate.
 
StraightnLevel said:
I want to add a thought to this conversation:

At Airventure last week I was window-shopping new planes. While looking at one specific option, it occurred to me that it has not yet been approved for use of anything other than 100LL.

That made me stop and ask myself: Why would I spend a 7-digit sum on a plane that could be rendered obsolete in 4 years or less?

Why aren't the manufacturers forcing a resolution? Why aren't Cirrus, Piper, Textron, et al, showing any concern over this issue?
Click to expand...
I bought my plane in 2019 with the same logic. I only shopped for those that could use mogas.
 
MountainDude said:
I bought my plane in 2019 with the same logic. I only shopped for those that could use mogas.
Click to expand...
That's great for pilots who don't actually fly anywhere distant. Like 94 UL, it's great for trainer planes, but not for cross country machines.
 
I haven’t seen any mention of what effects this will have on planes without bladders, what effects does this have on tank sealants (both current or older versions)?
 
StraightnLevel said:
That's great for pilots who don't actually fly anywhere distant. Like 94 UL, it's great for trainer planes, but not for cross country machines.
Click to expand...
All C182s up to 1976 (O-470S and earlier) can use mogas. C182 is a XC machine.
 
MountainDude said:
All C182s up to 1976 (O-470S and earlier) can use mogas. C182 is a XC machine.
Click to expand...
I take your point, but even getting MOGAS on-field is a challenge for most pilots. Few fields sell it. Even fewer of those are the reliever airports that cater to "cross-country machines". I don't pretend to know the specifics, but even if 100LL ceases to exist, an FBO that wanted to sell [MOGAS] would need to at least purge, or perhaps replace, their tank and pumping system to accomodate the switch.
 
Last edited:
StraightnLevel said:
Yes, exactly. Choice between replacement of a 50- year-old fuel system, reduced performance, or parking it permanently, I'm buying new parts.
Click to expand...

Luvara's testing was done with new materials. "50-year-old" isn't the entire problem. Using different materials for o-rings and hoses might help, but other things like sealants and lubes were also effected.
 
Anything is a x/c machine.
e2238dca691a5019b62fe162f6f9c8e2.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
StraightnLevel said:
The speed for a given route where the commercial route including connections, TSA, and boarding time is exceeded by the flight time.
Click to expand...
That would make it impractical. Not incapable. I enjoy flying myself. I do not enjoy tsa, airlines, or small confined spaces with other people. Especially ones who feel their lap should be by armrest like it was deeded to him with his ticket.

That has to count for like 100 knots to not have to deal with right?
 
As highway speeds have crept upwards, and also car comfort levels.
What qualifies as a market XC machine has gradually picked up speed. I have seen ads for a 172 as a family cross country machine in the 70s. 182s in the early 80s. By the late 90s, Cirrus upped the game even further.
We have gone from a cruise speed of 110 being good enough in the 70s. To the 130 range in the 80s. Now most want to be 150, preferably 160+ knots.

I think, you give it another decade or two and it will go one of two directions, 200+ for travel, or super comfortable evtol doing 120 knots. (speed takes power, and batteries will not have power to spare).

Tim
 
Dana said:
I flew my ultralight on a 100 mile XC, carrying camping gear, and back the next day. One fuel stop each way. Does that count?
Click to expand...
I consider that a breakfast run, not a X-Country. (X-County maybe).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top