Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

455 Bravo Uniform said:
Pretty realistic summary of where we are and likely where some of us will end up. Orphaned aircraft is a good way to put it. Look for another power plant that is already or may in the future be STC’ed for your airframe.

How about a running list of possibly orphaned aircraft rather than ones potentially approved for one of the new fuels?

-Twin Cessna 300s & 400s
-Cirrus SR22 & SR22T
-Piper Malibu, Mirage, Navajo, Seneca
-Bonanzas from H35 onward
-Some of the high-wing Cessnas like the 200 series, 180/185s, and my own STCed 182…
-Warbirds
-What about some of the seaplanes that serve commerce in tourism, missions, or medical/food/supply delivery to remote areas?

I’m not as familiar with some of these and other airplanes as some of you, so feel free to correct and add to my list.

By the way, whatever Innospec, EPA, and FAA are doing is not only going to affect recreational GA in the US. Global orphanity (new word) or reduced safety of flight is a real possibility if/when 100LL supply is lost. Guessing maybe the Chinese will step up, but also that it will be unavailable in the US due to environmental regulatory restrictions.
Click to expand...
+Tecnam P2010 w/ 215hp IO-390 engine
 
I went to most of the seminars on unleaded fuels. It was stated repeatedly that the producer of TEL has informed the FAA they intend to support the transition to unleaded and have not decided to end production on a certain date.

The spokeswoman from Lycoming offered her opinion that based on the information presented to her, the 2030 date (which is a suggestion, not a federally binding mandate) will most likely have to be extended.

Swift is further along, of the three and I applaud their decision to join the PAFI program.
 
I am counting on the swift and VP fuels to come up with something soon. Sadly in all the talks at Airventure, no mention of the 540s in my RV10. I am hoping if they come up with something for the 550 for the cirrus, I should be OK.
 
Jeff Hall said:
Swift is further along, of the three m
Click to expand...
What's your basis for this statement?

G100UL works for the entire fleet. No other supplier has achieved and verified this. Yes, it has other problems, but from a fleet performance standpoint G100UL is way ahead of the rest.
 
StraightnLevel said:
What's your basis for this statement?

G100UL works for the entire fleet. No other supplier has achieved and verified this. Yes, it has other problems, but from a fleet performance standpoint G100UL is way ahead of the rest.
Click to expand...

Concur. AFAIK, GAMI has stuck a fork in it and called it "Done." I haven't heard that they're doing anything about the reported issues, other than telling people to replace things their fuel eats. It seems they're as far along as they're going to go. With fleetwide approval in hand, they'd only be taking a risk by making changes and having to retest.
 
StraightnLevel said:
What's your basis for this statement?

G100UL works for the entire fleet. No other supplier has achieved and verified this. Yes, it has other problems, but from a fleet performance standpoint G100UL is way ahead of the rest.
Click to expand...
Swift has an established distribution network in several states and countries. They went the STC route but also the ASTM route, and now stated they will join PAFI. So, I believe they are being more transparent and have a leg up on getting the fuel distributed faster.

Reading the room at OSH, I don’t think GAMI is going to make it unless they seriously change their approach to transparency.
 
Jeff Hall said:
Swift has an established distribution network in several states and countries. They went the STC route but also the ASTM route, and now stated they will join PAFI. So, I believe they are being more transparent and have a leg up on getting the fuel distributed faster.
Click to expand...
Widely distributed fuel that won't work in half of the fleet is of no benefit.
 
StraightnLevel said:
What's your basis for this statement?

G100UL works for the entire fleet. No other supplier has achieved and verified this. Yes, it has other problems, but from a fleet performance standpoint G100UL is way ahead of the rest.
Click to expand...
GAMI got the fleetwide STC Sep 1st, 2022. It is now approaching four years, and per the GAMO website the fuel is available at three locations. That does not bode well.

Tim
 
StraightnLevel said:
Widely distributed fuel that won't work in half of the fleet is of no benefit.
Click to expand...
Yes and the jury is still out on how that will turn out with the other candidates. Again if you read the room, it’s very possible the higher performance engines will need an adjustment (Lycoming says they will do everything they can to minimize but they can’t guarantee a drop in is possible).

Thus, another reason I suspect this whole issue gets kicked down the road to 2035 or later.
 
Taking a different tack here …. Just imagine how many fewer FAA folks will be needed if all those big bore planes stop flying. Seems the FAA folks need motivation. But of course that is just fanciful thinking
 
Domenick said:
Find another spokesperson and keep George off the podium and gagged.
Click to expand...
You have a point. A really good marketing team could probably manage to turn the tables and sell G100UL as an industry savior, while publicly acknowledging and minimizing the transition costs for individual airframes to clean up the fuel systems.
 
GLMS_NC said:
We can all take a breath. No fixed date from Congress to eliminate 100LL and TEL is gonna still be made.
Click to expand...

Not sure. Innospec has to apply for, and be granted multiple permits and certifications with the UK government to continue the manufacturing and export of TEL. From what I have read, a number of theses grants/permits/certifications all expire around 2030. They are not cheap, but TEL is just one of the many chemicals Innospec deals with that are on these permits. What I have not seen, and is likely not public, is the incremental cost (if any) for TEL.

Tim
 
It's been the same basic discussion points repeated each time a new person chimes in for pages now. This dead horse can be considered thoroughly beat, although I suppose anyone following along is at least fully up to speed on the current state of things.... unless....


How do the various alternative fuels respond to being flown LOP vs ROP? :D
 
Innospec's production future production plans for TEL have not been made public.
Considering the legal hot water they have encountered in the past regarding that product, I'm not surprised at the lack of information.
There are simply no guarantees. Shop accordingly.
 
737steve said:
Innospec's production future production plans for TEL have not been made public.
Considering the legal hot water they have encountered in the past regarding that product, I'm not surprised at the lack of information.
There are simply no guarantees. Shop accordingly.
Click to expand...
...so....I need to sell the Bonanza and start looking for a SETP? I'll tell my wife that it's mandatory due to upcoming fuel changes, and that the cognoscenti at POA guarantee that it's the only realistic option that I can pursue.

:thumbsup:
 
No mandate? I wonder if Congress agrees. This language

In Sec 827 the law says that the FAA shall continue the EAGLE initiative thru 2030 and ‘facilitate’ (word pulled from the law): The safe elimination of leaded aviation gasoline by the end of 2030 ...

sure sounds like a mandate to me.
 
Half Fast said:
No mandate? I wonder if Congress agrees. This language

In Sec 827 the law says that the FAA shall continue the EAGLE initiative thru 2030 and ‘facilitate’ (word pulled from the law): The safe elimination of leaded aviation gasoline by the end of 2030 ...

sure sounds like a mandate to me.
Click to expand...

the get-out-of-jail card might be the word "safe"

ETA: "safe" is a concept not well understood by most people.
 
StraightnLevel said:
...so....I need to sell the Bonanza and start looking for a SETP? I'll tell my wife that it's mandatory due to upcoming fuel changes, and that the cognoscenti at POA guarantee that it's the only realistic option that I can pursue.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Well, no. A jet should also be on the table.

Pro tip: lead with the HondaJet first. That will soften the blow for the turboprop.
 
StraightnLevel said:
...so....I need to sell the Bonanza and start looking for a SETP? I'll tell my wife that it's mandatory due to upcoming fuel changes, and that the cognoscenti at POA guarantee that it's the only realistic option that I can pursue.

:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
I mean, it IS the only realistic option right now. send it.
 
So, is Congress gonna open a TEL facility? That's some breaking news if so. Or do you mean they are going to send Innospec a sternly written letter to keep sending the stuff or, else? :rofl:

I love the Forever-TEL crowd. A masterclass in religious fervor if I ever saw one.:thumbsup:
 
hindsight2020 said:
So, is Congress gonna open a TEL facility? That's some breaking news if so. Or do you mean they are going to send Innospec a sternly written letter to keep sending the stuff or, else? :rofl:

I love the Forever-TEL crowd. A masterclass in religious fervor if I ever saw one.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
And if a major Atlantic storm shuts down the factory, what are the odds they'll restart it?
 
tspear said:
Not sure. Innospec has to apply for, and be granted multiple permits and certifications with the UK government to continue the manufacturing and export of TEL. From what I have read, a number of theses grants/permits/certifications all expire around 2030. They are not cheap, but TEL is just one of the many chemicals Innospec deals with that are on these permits. What I have not seen, and is likely not public, is the incremental cost (if any) for TEL.

Tim
Click to expand...
In the article it states innospec never said there were going to stop production in 2030.
 
Absolutely correct. Who knows what, if anything, was revealed by Innospec.
At some point, production will cease. No one outside the company knows when, or can compel the company to answer that question. It will happen when profitability ends, the readiness of the aviation market notwithstanding.
Backpedaling by U.S. politicians is irrelevant.
 
DJTorrente said:
According to the 2025 ASI McSpadden Report, fully 85% of non-commercial fixed wing accidents involve no fatalities -- I say again -- no fatalities. It will take additional time I don't have at the moment to filter out loss of power from other causes, but at first glance, even a loss of power in flight is hardly a death sentence.
Click to expand...
Well, sure. Most airplane accidents are "fender benders", as are car accidents. I had an engine retire and landed safely. But not over mountains, at night, for example.
 
DJTorrente said:
According to the 2025 ASI McSpadden Report, fully 85% of non-commercial fixed wing accidents involve no fatalities -- I say again -- no fatalities. It will take additional time I don't have at the moment to filter out loss of power from other causes, but at first glance, even a loss of power in flight is hardly a death sentence.
Click to expand...
I have a collection of ~5700 Standard-Category aircraft accidents. My results pretty much match; 15.7% of the accidents involved at least one fatality, which comes to 84.3% non-fatality cases.

Of that 5,700 accidents, 1,307 involved a loss of engine power, due to both mechanical and pilot issues. Of those 1,307 accidents, 113 produced at least one fatality: 8.6%.

Yes, loss of power in flight is highly survivable.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
I have a collection of ~5700 Standard-Category aircraft accidents. My results pretty much match; 15.7% of the accidents involved at least one fatality, which comes to 84.3% non-fatality cases.

Of that 5,700 accidents, 1,307 involved a loss of engine power, due to both mechanical and pilot issues. Of those 1,307 accidents, 113 produced at least one fatality: 8.6%.

Yes, loss of power in flight is highly survivable.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
And those are the ones that got reported. Tons of loss of power incidents don't even get reported.
 
someone posted a message showing a page with ul100e having completed testing on a io-390, good/bad don't know but completed. gives me good feelings about 2030. io-390 has something like 8.9 compression, which is about the highest compression most of us tin can flyers worry about. woot. thank you for your service innospec
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top