Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

cowman said:
Maybe I'm ignorant about some aspect of this but I don't even feel like o-rings and fuel lines should be that big of a deal to change out. I know there are going to be some sticking points with stuff like fuel bladders and maybe some fuel components needing either kits for field overhauls or having to be sent in but... rubber parts deteriorate with age normally anyway right? We eventually have to replace stuff anyway don't we? Is all that really that much worse than other maintenance issues we frequently run into? Like I keeping saying it's not as if there won't be any pain there but it's a path forward if we don't find anything better.
Click to expand...

All true, but we need to know for certain what materials are and are not compatible with any particular juice. If a wrong guess leads to a clogged fuel line, a gunked-up carb, or a fuel leak in the engine compartment, a person could have a Very Bad Day.

AFAIK, the GAMI STC does not require replacing any fuel lines, o-rings, etc. If George considers that to be important, he should have made it part of his STC. If someone destroys a plane or gets killed due to a compatibility issue, the lawyers will get rich and the rest of us will get screwed by the insurance companies.
 
Y'all forgot about the elephant in the room - Congress. What has previously been passed and is on the books - Congress can very easily kick the can down the road repealing that 2030 date. Attach simple repeal wording or change the date from 2030 to 2035 and attach that amendment into some other bill being passed and viola - more time to deal with this. I don't trust Congress.
 
Half Fast said:
All true, but we need to know for certain what materials are and are not compatible with any particular juice. If a wrong guess leads to a clogged fuel line, a gunked-up carb, or a fuel leak in the engine compartment, a person could have a Very Bad Day.
Click to expand...
AOPA had a recent article that claimed fluorosilicon, FVMQ, was compatible with all fuel chemistries. It was in the July 2026 Pilot, page 93
 
GLMS_NC said:
Y'all forgot about the elephant in the room - Congress. What has previously been passed and is on the books - Congress can very easily kick the can down the road repealing that 2030 date. Attach simple repeal wording or change the date from 2030 to 2035 and attach that amendment into some other bill being passed and viola - more time to deal with this. I don't trust Congress.
Click to expand...

You missed the part where there will be no TEL available to make 100LL. Innospec, the only company making TEL, is shutting down the single plant which makes it in 2028, or 2029 at the latest. And five year extension is doubtful enough to extend the life of the plant.

Tim
 
Cap'n Jack said:
AOPA had a recent article that claimed fluorosilicon, FVMQ, was compatible with all fuel chemistries. It was in the July 2026 Pilot, page 93
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read it. It was written by Mike Busch. Encouraging, but a magazine article isn't authoritative. I'd like to see testing by the FAA and something official be published.
 
GaryM said:
Make the UK the 51st, errrr 52nd, no 53rd state!
Click to expand...

Now look, we had enough trouble 250 years ago kicking those red-coated, monarch-loving, tea-sipping baztirds out of here. Let's not go through that again!
 
cowman said:
Maybe I'm ignorant about some aspect of this but I don't even feel like o-rings and fuel lines should be that big of a deal to change out. I know there are going to be some sticking points with stuff like fuel bladders and maybe some fuel components needing either kits for field overhauls or having to be sent in but... rubber parts deteriorate with age normally anyway right? We eventually have to replace stuff anyway don't we? Is all that really that much worse than other maintenance issues we frequently run into? Like I keeping saying it's not as if there won't be any pain there but it's a path forward if we don't find anything better.

And again there are other possibilities, who knows maybe something will get announced later this month at Oshkosh. There are a few years left and no doubt we'll see some big developments in the nearish future.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I honestly have no issues swapping out for fresh rubbers. And putting a piece of prop tape around the cap I can change out.

My issue or concern is what this stuff does to proseal, fiberglass tanks, and fuel lube.
 
Half Fast said:
Yeah, I read it. It was written by Mike Busch. Encouraging, but a magazine article isn't authoritative. I'd like to see testing by the FAA and something official be published.
Click to expand...
Just look at the solvent compatibility list from the FVMQ manufacturer. FWIW, that material seems rather impervious to solvent when used in chromatography equipment. There are many different solvents used, particularly normal phase. It's better than what is used now.
 
Half Fast said:
Now look, we had enough trouble 250 years ago kicking those red-coated, monarch-loving, tea-sipping baztirds out of here. Let's not go through that again!
Click to expand...
Call it reparations for the 200 years prior to that
 
There's nothing in any of the candidate fuels that will affect fluorosilicone o-rings. It's pretty impervious stuff.
 
Hang 4 said:
I'll take a cut at summarizing where I believe we are. As I posted earlier the signal to noise ratio on this is awful right now. If I was explaining it for the first time;
- There have been issues with G100UL out in the market
- These issues got on to several pilot forums and got amplified. By that I mean it's hard for someone to understand the true scope of these issues as there is not firm data on the number and severity
- Luvara's youtubes have been accepted by many as "Science" - they may or not be correct, but there's not been any way to validate them.
- GAMI has just whined and name called vs being definitive about the issue or providing a way to refute it. Pictures of planes with 100LL leaks is interesting but not informative
- Swift had jumped all over GAMI's problems to the point where their website basically says "our stuff is not G100UL". They don't seem to spend a lot of time on what it is - e.g. does it derate my airplane's power? They are also toast if they don't win being the unleaded supplier of choice as there's no reason to buy 94UL (Their sole fuel product now) once a 100 octane alternative exists
- Lyondell/VP racing seems to be the high road supplier and the only F500 company in the mix. They are also cagey about detonation in higher compression engines.

We need an unleaded solution
- Innospec will be out
- The Chinese suppliers are 90% fictional and getting any oil major to use them is highly unlikely.
- Airport opponents are using lead as a reason to shut down airports. Whether that is justified or not has little relevance, it's just one more nail in the "for the children" coffin
- Lead has a real impact on engine life and maintenance. GAMI testing shows much lower contaminants in fuel analysis, oil change intervals can go up and valve guides and spark plugs will have less lead bromide contamination
- The path we are on now isn't working. On paper, EAGLE should be a good path, but the Reagan in me is skeptical that they will get to a solution in time.
Click to expand...
you forgot swift is replacing their own 94ul with 100R
 
MackMooney said:
you forgot swift is replacing their own 94ul with 100R
Click to expand...
I may not have said it clearly enough, but my point was if their 100R isn't picked, they are totally out of the fuel business which is pretty much their only business. They have more incentive than others to win as they don't have much of a business if they loose. Lyondell is a multi billion dollar chemco and even GAMI has a business that's not fuel.
 
Hang 4 said:
I may not have said it clearly enough, but my point was if their 100R isn't picked, they are totally out of the fuel business which is pretty much their only business. They have more incentive than others to win as they don't have much of a business if they loose. Lyondell is a multi billion dollar chemco and even GAMI has a business that's not fuel.
Click to expand...
you didn't, you said there's no reason to buy 94ul once a 100 octane fuel exist, which even swift has said and stated they are replacing 94ul with their own 100R. as for being the only business they have, i'd hope not but who knows.

now that i think more about it, i also wonder why gami hasn't refuted the testing done by random internet guy? oh yeah random internet guy is presenting at osh, wouldn't him saying untrue things get him dragged into court? isn't gami run by lawyers? hmmm just thinking
 
MackMooney said:
you forgot swift is replacing their own 94ul with 100R
Click to expand...
They may say that, but 100r is currently vaporware though. Nothing on their AML touches angle valve lycos or 8.7+CR equivalent Contis. I didn't read all 9 pages so I'm open to stand corrected, but everything I skimmed on that list under lyco or conti can already make rated power on their own 94UL, because they're all legacy 91/96 installations. Swift telling us "trust me bro" isn't gonna cut it when coo coo bird gami guy is successfully burning his paint thinner all over angled-valve turboboosted kingdom come.

Haven't heard of the VP racing formulation, but they're quoted in AvWeb as reiterating that "no drop in replacement is possible", and that (paraphrasing now): some type holders may have to learn to live with performance reductions via paper ops limits or actual mechanical modification$, to make any of the formulations work without detonation.

Given they're the only ones purported to be going through the FAA-sanctioned PAFI process, and whose formulation shares the same ETBE deus ex machina that 100R hangs its hat on, that's not exactly reassuring for the folks hand wringing over 100LL 1:1 octane replacement.

So if I was Swift I dunno, I wouldn't mothball the 94UL recipe just yet....It'd be funny as hell if Hjelmco (91/96UL) went on to sneak up and end game win this entire saga, because all other parties were too busy food fighting over a workable octane replacement that was never gonna materialize in the first place. :biggrin:
 
hindsight2020 said:
They may say that, but 100r is currently vaporware though. Nothing on their AML touches angle valve lycos or 8.7+CR equivalent Contis. I didn't read all 9 pages so I'm open to stand corrected, but everything I skimmed on that list under lyco or conti can already make rated power on their own 94UL, because they're all legacy 91/96 installations. Swift telling us "trust me bro" isn't gonna cut it when coo coo bird gami guy is successfully burning his paint thinner all over angled-valve turboboosted kingdom come.

Haven't heard of the VP racing formulation, but they're quoted in AvWeb as reiterating that "no drop in replacement is possible", and that (paraphrasing now): some type holders may have to learn to live with performance reductions via paper ops limits or actual mechanical modification$, to make any of the formulations work without detonation.

Given they're the only ones purported to be going through the FAA-sanctioned PAFI process, and whose formulation shares the same ETBE deus ex machina that 100R hangs its hat on, that's not exactly reassuring for the folks hand wringing over 100LL 1:1 octane replacement.

So if I was Swift I dunno, I wouldn't mothball the 94UL recipe just yet....It'd be funny as hell if Hjelmco (91/96UL) went on to sneak up and end game win this entire saga, because all other parties were too busy food fighting over a workable octane replacement that was never gonna materialize in the first place. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Correct. Swift was testing 100r on the only io550 already able to run on ul94. It's been my biggest issue with swift's testing. They're not testing on engines that actually need the octane for detonation margins.
 
How do different oil companies create 100LL today? Do they each use their own individually devised formula? And if they do, how do they know their 100LL fuel is compatible with every other 100LL fuel?

I may be out of my mind (well, actually, I probably am), but if 100UL is to truly replace 100LL, shouldn't there just be one fuel called "100UL" that would be the same (or close enough to the same) formula everywhere; like 100LL currently is? This would solve the problem of mixing fuels on cross country trips.

-- Jim (who can barely spell chemistry and is thinking wishfully)
 
JimBirk said:
How do different oil companies create 100LL today? Do they each use their own individually devised formula? And if they do, how do they know their 100LL fuel is compatible with every other 100LL fuel?

I may be out of my mind (well, actually, I probably am), but if 100UL is to truly replace 100LL, shouldn't there just be one fuel called "100UL" that would be the same (or close enough to the same) formula everywhere; like 100LL currently is? This would solve the problem of mixing fuels on cross country trips.

-- Jim (who can barely spell chemistry and is thinking wishfully)
Click to expand...
Apparently 100ll varies a good bit. The formula is pretty loosey goosey.

@PaulMillner could hopefully explain it.
 
I can still go down to the hardware store and buy Chlordane, right? It's on the shelf right beside the 1,1,1.

Sure, we'll have 100LL forever.
 
Half Fast said:
Yeah, I read it. It was written by Mike Busch. Encouraging, but a magazine article isn't authoritative. I'd like to see testing by the FAA and something official be published.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, George is on it!
 
Racerx said:
Yeah. I honestly have no issues swapping out for fresh rubbers. And putting a piece of prop tape around the cap I can change out.

My issue or concern is what this stuff does to proseal, fiberglass tanks, and fuel lube.
Click to expand...
See an earlier post of a video of GAMI’s testing which included coupons sealed to fiberglass using Proseal.
 
Racerx said:
Correct. Swift was testing 100r on the only io550 already able to run on ul94. It's been my biggest issue with swift's testing. They're not testing on engines that actually need the octane for detonation margins.
Click to expand...
Of course they aren't. Sunk cost fallacy on here are naturally inclined to believe that's just a "gee chucks, those engines were on the next page and we haven't got to them yet..." happenstance... 24-36 monthfrom innospec pulling the plug on this moribund hobby for the rest of our collective lives? hope springs eternal.

Here's a "wild" idea; folks with engines that resemble the remark may just want to consider that the ETBE approach (swift, VP) folks may just know... they can't make the number work. Could help bridge the gap of why everybody except paint thinner guy have refrained from actually tackling the bona fide technical problem at hand, this close to the sunset.

I'm not saying they won't be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat, for everybody's sake I hope they do. But my political theory is that since VP is the only one undegoing the motions of the PAFI kabuki, their hope might be the FAA will eventually give them the political greenlight to tell the market the cavalry ain't coming fam. Thence, paper horsepower downrating (usually RPM cap) or cylinder CR replacement (unlikely for most angle valved lycos) will be the only way forward for those who can't make original power on a 91/96UL octane spec. I think swift knows what VP knows, but they don't have the funding to go through the PAFI kabuki like VP can. That's the bad news. the good news is there's physical evidence paint thinner guy has some sauce that can run it. Better than nothing at this juncture.

One thing you can take to the bank though. The FAA will not put their thumb on the scale to save the resale values of a few 10%ers though. This isn't the housing market.... :fingerwag:
 
tspear said:
You missed the part where there will be no TEL available to make 100LL. Innospec, the only company making TEL, is shutting down the single plant which makes it in 2028, or 2029 at the latest. And five year extension is doubtful enough to extend the life of the plant.

Tim
Click to expand...
When there is more demand.... they will keep making. When they see regs demand elimination I would shut my plant too.
 
Just a stupid pre-coffee idea, but if none of the fuels are ready by time there is no more TEL, would it be possible for GAMI (or anyone) to bottle a fuel additive to add to 94UL to bring the octane level up? I know there would be lots of "IFs" and "buts", like how much additive do you add if you buy the minimum fuel (~10gal) to avoid FBO fees -vs- How much do you add if you buy 100 gallons of 94UL? At least I might be able to fly my IO520 a little longer and perhaps when the disappearance of TEL actually occurs we would get on with producing a real solution to a real problem instead of a potential problem.
 
JOhnH said:
would it be possible for GAMI (or anyone) to bottle a fuel additive to add to 94UL to bring the octane level up? I know there would be lots of "IFs" and "buts", like how much additive do you add
Click to expand...
Back in the 1980s when leaded auto has was being passed out you could buy bottles of "octane booster" at any auto parts store. Most did nothing, but one or two contained real tetraethyl lead. One can per tank did it. Of course you can't buy that stuff any more.

GAMI and the others now are achieving high octane by blending high octane stocks that are a significant percentage of the fuel, not with a small amount of additive. So the answer is "no".
 
JOhnH said:
Just a stupid pre-coffee idea, but if none of the fuels are ready by time there is no more TEL, would it be possible for GAMI (or anyone) to bottle a fuel additive to add to 94UL to bring the octane level up? I know there would be lots of "IFs" and "buts", like how much additive do you add if you buy the minimum fuel (~10gal) to avoid FBO fees -vs- How much do you add if you buy 100 gallons of 94UL? At least I might be able to fly my IO520 a little longer and perhaps when the disappearance of TEL actually occurs we would get on with producing a real solution to a real problem instead of a potential problem.
Click to expand...
If it was that easy to get the necessary octane, it would have been done long ago
 
JOhnH said:
Just a stupid pre-coffee idea, but if none of the fuels are ready by time there is no more TEL, would it be possible for GAMI (or anyone) to bottle a fuel additive to add to 94UL to bring the octane level up? I know there would be lots of "IFs" and "buts", like how much additive do you add if you buy the minimum fuel (~10gal) to avoid FBO fees -vs- How much do you add if you buy 100 gallons of 94UL? At least I might be able to fly my IO520 a little longer and perhaps when the disappearance of TEL actually occurs we would get on with producing a real solution to a real problem instead of a potential problem.
Click to expand...

all the concerns with mixing the new unleaded stuff with 100LL would apply to whatever additive you want to use. Is the additive really compatible with all the fuel system components? Does it mix well with all the formulations of 100LL? In short, is it known to be safe (enough)?
 
Racerx said:
If it was that easy to get the necessary octane, it would have been done long ago
Click to expand...


If it was all about octane, we'd be done. GAMI got the octane long ago. Unfortunately, there are concerns about material compatibility (probably solvable) and there are politics (harder to solve).
 
My plan remains the same: Enjoy the hell out of my plane while I can still get 100ll, then reassess.

There's a nonzero chance I get stuck with a worthless plane, a decent chance I get stuck with a less useful plane, and a good chance it all works out.
 
Would probably be cheaper (in aviation terms) to retrofit a water/methanol injection system for take-off and full power climbs and use UL94 (or whatever we call 100LL without TEL) with a slight derate for cruise vs trying to get new bladders and fuel system components that could deal with all the proposed paint strippers and rubber solvents posing as 100LL drop-in replacements.
 
Jim K said:
My plan remains the same: Enjoy the hell out of my plane while I can still get 100ll, then reassess.

There's a nonzero chance I get stuck with a worthless plane, a decent chance I get stuck with a less useful plane, and a good chance it all works out.
Click to expand...
Will the homebuilt 390 require 100ll? What if it had the 360 jugs?
 
Racerx said:
Will the homebuilt 390 require 100ll? What if it had the 360 jugs?
Click to expand...
Well, that ship sailed when I had the case cut for 390 cylinders, but the angle valve 360 is also "high" compression. Id guess we'll have an answer by the time I build the engine, so I'm sure id be able to come up with some lower compression pistons if that's what it comes to. I'm only into it for 6k at this point too, so I'm not out that much if I have to pivot entirely.
 
Last edited:
We're probably asking the wrong question here with all of this. We're asking if fuel will be available... probably should be asking if it's going to be affordable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top