Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

cowman said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, the question of availability is not a given in this case.

Of course, to the latter question my answer is that it doesn't matter. Anecdotally at least, 8 dollar gas was never a hobby-exiting price point for me, given my use case. And I exited the hobby due to cost mind you...fuel just wasn't it. Distinction without a difference? Maybe; then again there's nothing affordable about the current status quo post 2020 M2, and that's with 100LL around. I still contend engine costs and legacy maintenance rules/parts costs will kill this thing well before 10 dollar fuel runs anyone out of the airport.
 
as an owner of a non-blessed io-360-a1a ( high compression 8.9 omg ), my owners manual states do not use < 96 octane fuel, i'm not really feeling stressed. 100R/UL100e should work, if it doesn't melt the rest of the plane.
i have a surefly, can probably be updated to have timing curves appropriate for any fuel.
from my reading, wouldn't this only matter to us living at sea-level on 120 deg days???
from my uhmm less conservative driving days, a deg or two of timing didn't really change hp to any appreciable degree or atleast seat of pants degree.
also my timing was forced reduced from a few years back, thanks mooney/lycoming
 
AlleyCat67 said:
My biggest concern about GAMI isn’t paint or gaskets. It’s insurance companies. Until your carrier says it’s fine to use an alternative fuel, you’re running at risk of not being covered in case of an incident.
Click to expand...
So any airplane with an STC is not going to be covered in an incident?
 
Pinecone said:
So any airplane with an STC is not going to be covered in an incident?
Click to expand...
Agreed. A carrier denying a claim because of using an FAA approved fuel is opening themselves up for trouble. They're not a manufacturer denying a warranty claim
 
Racerx said:
Agreed. A carrier denying a claim because of using an FAA approved fuel is opening themselves up for trouble. They're not a manufacturer denying a warranty claim
Click to expand...

What trouble? pilots over 65 who are FAA approved are routinely not given coverage in certain planes. They can write whatever policy they want, or no policy at all. And they now have 600,000 little reasons to deny G100UL in their risk pool.
 
schmookeeg said:
What trouble? pilots over 65 who are FAA approved are routinely not given coverage in certain planes. They can write whatever policy they want, or no policy at all. And they now have 600,000 little reasons to deny G100UL in their risk pool.
Click to expand...
I agree that an insurance company can write whatever policy they want. However, I would think that the insurer would have to specify, in the policy, what fuel brands/types would cause a denial of coverage, and also what coverage would be denied if any of the problem fuels are used. This way, you know, before you fill-up, what fuels not to use.
 
JimBirk said:
I agree that an insurance company can write whatever policy they want. However, I would think that the insurer would have to specify, in the policy, what fuel brands/types would cause a denial of coverage, and also what coverage would be denied if any of the problem fuels are used. This way, you know, before you fill-up, what fuels not to use.
Click to expand...
That could be done simply with a clause along the lines of, "For aircraft that use avgas, use of any fuel other than 100LL voids all coverage of engine damage or any damage resulting from engine malfunction." (Written in appropriate insurance policy / contract legalese, of course.)
 
if I am following the landscape of things correctly, they could even do this with some parseltongue in the contract, and simply say any fuel used must be recommended by the *aircraft manufacturer* -- which for this fuel, is currently "none"
 
You guys are talking about a minority of the fleet requiring hight octane, which is true. But isn't it also true that the portion requiring it burns like 75% of the 100LL produced? That seems like a big deal. We know that FBOs aren't going to carry more than one kind of fuel. So we need a solution that works for the high compression engines that burn most of the gas produced.
 
172andyou said:
But isn't it also true that the portion requiring it burns like 75% of the 100LL produced?
Click to expand...
That seems to be based on stats from a while back, most likely not true these days. Good conversation here:

AV8R_87

Post in thread 'Transition to UL Fuel'

OneCharlieTango said:
Some say 80%, but I don't know where that came from.
Click to expand...
I looked into it a while back. It's from the 80s/90s when checks were flown overnight and other stuff like that.
I highly doubt that figure is accurate today.
Also, a good number of aircraft need 100LL on paper, because they need more than 87 but nothing else was available below 100 when certified. Case in point: an O-320 with "high compression" pistons. It'll run just fine on premium (or even mid-grade) mogas, but in the avgas world, it's 100LL or nothing. Yes, we still have the UND valve recession incident, but I still...
  • Like
 
One thing missing in the discussion- any timing change, derating, or capping of RPM/HP to avoid detonation will require new performance figures for the POH. This resets the GARA liability clock for all of the manufacturers. Maybe your HP single uses more runway, or climbs slower at retarded timing, but every twin out there is going to get very interesting.
 
AV8R_87 said:
That seems to be based on stats from a while back, most likely not true these days. Good conversation here:

AV8R_87

Post in thread 'Transition to UL Fuel'

OneCharlieTango said:
Some say 80%, but I don't know where that came from.
Click to expand...
I looked into it a while back. It's from the 80s/90s when checks were flown overnight and other stuff like that.
I highly doubt that figure is accurate today.
Also, a good number of aircraft need 100LL on paper, because they need more than 87 but nothing else was available below 100 when certified. Case in point: an O-320 with "high compression" pistons. It'll run just fine on premium (or even mid-grade) mogas, but in the avgas world, it's 100LL or nothing. Yes, we still have the UND valve recession incident, but I still...
  • Like
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. Would love for that to be true. But, equally, it looks like speculation built on speculation. Kind of nuts that we don't seem to have anything science based to lean on.
 
write-stuff said:
We've known that the supply of tetra ethyl lead would soon dry up for over 20 years. No surprise.
Click to expand...
Be careful when using the collective "we". There are some of us here like
stickers-ostrich-hiding-head-in-sand.jpg.jpg
 
AV8R_87 said:
Brew some moonshine and convert your plane to 100% ethanol.
Click to expand...
The gov't (esp. federal) has been cracking down on that since long before the Wright Brothers, almost as long as we've been a nation.
 
172andyou said:
You guys are talking about a minority of the fleet requiring hight octane, which is true. But isn't it also true that the portion requiring it burns like 75% of the 100LL produced? That seems like a big deal. We know that FBOs aren't going to carry more than one kind of fuel. So we need a solution that works for the high compression engines that burn most of the gas produced.
Click to expand...
Which is why diesel cycle was the obvious choice for piston-power ICEs -- everyone from the trainers to the bizjets can burn some flavor of kerosene. If we're talking about Cape Air 402s in Part 121 service, then there has been more than enough time to plan for and execute capital upgrades (and they have, to Tecnam P2012s, others to PT6-powered ships like Pilatus PC-12s and Grand Caravans). If we're talking aout Joe and his pretty yellow cub, well, sorry for the inconvenience, Joe, but you're gonna have to carry mogas out to the field -- you really don't burn all that much anyway.
 
Jim_R said:
That could be done simply with a clause along the lines of, "For aircraft that use avgas, use of any fuel other than 100LL voids all coverage of engine damage or any damage resulting from engine malfunction." (Written in appropriate insurance policy / contract legalese, of course.)
Click to expand...

So, 100LL goes away, no piston plane is flying and their income????
 
Pinecone said:
So, 100LL goes away, no piston plane is flying and their income????
Click to expand...

If there is no 100LL blessed by the FAA via EAGLE or no 100UL blessed by STC and ATSM, most airports will switch to Jet-A, Mogas, or Swift 94UL. That is basically the options they have. Depending on where they are, and who their customer base is, this may or may not make much of a difference. A number of public comments from FBO's have stated the ATSM is needed for insurance coverage, a few anonymous sources I have read said the insurance companies want ATSM because they view it as a "testable" standard.

BWTHDIK?

Tim
 
Insurance companies are going to have a hard time denying coverage based on fuel if the loss isn't caused by the fuel. Are there any examples of denials with similar circumstances? Say, base-to-final spin while running non-STC'ed tires?
 
Domenick said:
Personally, I think the paint, seals, and bladders issue was definitively demonstrated by Michael Luvara in his video series. Jeff Hall posted this in #5 above, but it seems to have gone unnoticed. I've watched them all, and I am convinced.
Click to expand...
I watched a few and all it did is confirm what we know: there is no direct replacement for 100LL.

The auto/marine/small engine industry when through this with ethanol blend. So its time for the FAA to start some sort of process to allow for removal and substitution of those materials.

I'll say this AGAIN: we should switch to 100% ethanol. The FAA already KNOWS it works with almost no modification to type certified AC other than a jet change. Baylor University has the details.. search online.
 
pfarber said:
I watched a few and all it did is confirm what we know: there is no direct replacement for 100LL.

The auto/marine/small engine industry when through this with ethanol blend. So its time for the FAA to start some sort of process to allow for removal and substitution of those materials.

I'll say this AGAIN: we should switch to 100% ethanol. The FAA already KNOWS it works with almost no modification to type certified AC other than a jet change. Baylor University has the details.. search online.
Click to expand...

You are overstating it I believe. The same issues plaguing GAMI G100UL, of material incompatibility also affect ethanol. Also, one of the largest consumers of 100LL are now composite aircraft. As a general rule, using a fuel which melts the resin which holds the plane together is probably not a good idea. In addition, they never solved the volume problems, cold weather issues....
The list of issues never resolved is rather substantial.

Tim
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Insurance companies are going to have a hard time denying coverage based on fuel if the loss isn't caused by the fuel. Are there any examples of denials with similar circumstances? Say, base-to-final spin while running non-STC'ed tires?
Click to expand...

Denial of a base-to-final spin over a tire technicality would be bad faith since the tires were not causal.

The $600K claim C421 was melted down by gamifuel, thus, an explicit prohibition (for the next plane) would give them good faith denial if a plane with such a clause was then also dissolved by the stuff.
 
A couple of decades ago, a low-time pilot experienced spatial disorientation in a Cherokee rented from a nearby FBO. He crashed into a lake.
Among the companies sued by the family were Parker-Hannifin, the manufacturer of the wheels and brakes. Crazy things happen.
 
pfarber said:
I'll say this AGAIN: we should switch to 100% ethanol. The FAA already KNOWS it works with almost no modification to type certified AC other than a jet change. Baylor University has the details.. search online.
Click to expand...
You are wrong again. I've read through the Baylor data.
 
pfarber said:
I'll say this AGAIN: we should switch to 100% ethanol. The FAA already KNOWS it works with almost no modification to type certified AC other than a jet change. Baylor University has the details.. search online.
Click to expand...
Have you been drinking the ethanol? "Almost no modification"... except for replacing seals, hoses, bladders, diaphragms, etc., and living with a significant reduction in power and range.
 
To be sure, significant modification would be required. Perhaps the same could be said for a new unleaded gasoline in some engines.
While ethanol doesn't have the energy density of gasoline, you can burn it at a higher rate and get even more power from an engine than gasoline would typically allow.
There's a reason methanol is used in dragsters. Ethanol has even more energy per gallon than methanol.
I hope there is an unleaded gasoline solution, but I don't hold any hope that it will be a seamless transition.
 
737steve said:
I hope there is an unleaded gasoline solution, but I don't hold any hope that it will be a seamless transition.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like ethanol would be seamless, either.

Dana said:
Have you been drinking the ethanol? "Almost no modification"... except for replacing seals, hoses, bladders, diaphragms, etc., and living with a significant reduction in power and range.
Click to expand...

737steve said:
To be sure, significant modification would be required. Perhaps the same could be said for a new unleaded gasoline in some engines.
Click to expand...


Let me see if I've got this straight.

- With G100UL, I would have to buy an STC which is available today, and I might have to replace some of my fuel system hoses, o-rings, and seals, and I might have a problem with my paint if I allow the fuel to remain in contact with it. My engine will still make full power and my plane's performance will be the same. The juice is also compatible with existing infrastructure (FBO fuel pumps, fuel trucks, interstate transport, etc.) and it's fungible with existing 100LL.

- With ethanol, I will need some sort of FAA approval which does not exist today. I would have to replace hoses, o-rings, and seals at least; other material compatibilies have not yet been tested. My engine would no longer make full power, and might require modifications. With less than full engine power, my plane's performance will be reduced; that in itself might require an STC, and would certainly require changes to the performance charts in the POH. I suspect ethanol would require infrastructure changes, and it's certainly not fungible with 100LL, making a transition much more difficult.

If all that's correct, ethanol certainly doesn't seem the correct path forward, at least for legacy aircraft any time in the foreseeable future. What am I missing here?
 
737steve said:
While ethanol doesn't have the energy density of gasoline, you can burn it at a higher rate and get even more power from an engine than gasoline would typically allow.
Click to expand...
Yes, but unless I'm mistaken you'd need a higher compression ratio (not a simple mod) to get that power, and you'd still have the reduced range.
 
if it happened, don't think you'd have to worry about it being fungible with 100LL 8). let's just go e85 and call it a day
 
cowman said:
I'd rather go to the expense of overhauling my fuel system for G100UL than deal with ethanol. If you fly frequently all year around it might not be an issue but if that stuff sits for any period it attracts moisture which leads to corrosion.
Click to expand...
Nit pick. I am sure there is a chemist here who can correct me if I get this wrong.
Ethanol by nature contains some level of water in suspension.
The ethanol evaporates, leaving more water in the liquid than can be suspended.

The result is the belief the ethanol collects water.

Tim
 
was joking but e85 just doesn't sound terrible, common fuel, somewhat cheaper prices, not controlled by a single company, fuel doesn't melt my plane, works for me.
 
MackMooney said:
was joking but e85 just doesn't sound terrible, common fuel, somewhat cheaper prices, not controlled by a single company, fuel doesn't melt my plane, works for me.
Click to expand...
Please see this post: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/2-stroke-expectations.152825/post-3693946

To save people looking for it, here is a screenshot. E85 has most of the issues of ethanol. Please scroll up and down from the link above as there are other issues with ethanol as well (water miscibility, effects on fuel systems, and so forth).

1783800528219.png
Pfarber never did disclose the flight school or other information requested in that thread.
 
Last edited:
tspear said:
Nit pick. I am sure there is a chemist here who can correct me if I get this wrong.
Ethanol by nature contains some level of water in suspension.
The ethanol evaporates, leaving more water in the liquid than can be suspended.

The result is the belief the ethanol collects water.

Tim
Click to expand...
I think it's more like water collecting ethanol.

Every time I put a load of auto fuel in my airplane, I put water in a test tube to 10% of its volume, and fill the rest with the gas. I then shake it for a few seconds, then check the "water" level.

If it's higher than it was from the start, then the water had extracted ethanol and the gas goes in the car, ot the airplane.

Ron Wanttaja
 
We have enough engineers on here, I have read/heard a few times that multi-fuel vehicles (e.g. E85 and mogas) are less efficient with E85 only because they are not tuned for it. In Brazil with alcohol, they run much higher compressions as a result they effectively extract close to equal power.
1. Is this correct?
2. This would require a complete replacement of all engines in the fleet....

Tim
 
tspear said:
We have enough engineers on here, I have read/heard a few times that multi-fuel vehicles (e.g. E85 and mogas) are less efficient with E85 only because they are not tuned for it. In Brazil with alcohol, they run much higher compressions as a result they effectively extract close to equal power.
1. Is this correct?
2. This would require a complete replacement of all engines in the fleet....

Tim
Click to expand...
Please see my post #157, where I compare the energy content of ethanol and gasoline on a per-gallon basis. It is in the screen shot. The alcohols are partially oxidized, and each ethanol molecule contains 2 carbons. this translates to less energy per molecule than gasoline that contains anywhere from 5 through 8 or 9 carbons. Ethanol has a higher-octane rating than a hydrocarbon fuel allowing higher compression.

There are probably some compromises needed to run multi-fuel that affect efficiency- such as designing the engine to run on the lowest octane fuel as you may be alluding to. However, ethanol doesn't have the same energy density as gasoline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top