Will 100LL really stop in 2029/2030?

DJTorrente said:
Quoted for emphasis.

Every time you hear about a needless aviation regulation, imagine what might happen if the same came from the "Federal Automobile Administration". Our parking lots would look like Havana in the 90's -- which is to say America in the 50's.
Click to expand...

A more granular analogy would be treating your personal non-revenue vehicle with the same chain of custody and paperwork rigor of an Orion launch module, on the justification that your daily hoopty might be used to Uber, once. That's the insanity we live under.
 
DJTorrente said:
Quoted for emphasis.

Every time you hear about a needless aviation regulation, imagine what might happen if the same came from the "Federal Automobile Administration". Our parking lots would look like Havana in the 90's -- which is to say America in the 50's.
Click to expand...
Then again, when an auto engine stops working, the car almost always coasts to a stop without injury or harm to the occupants. Other than outright driver error, there are very few scenarios in cars where injuries will result.

But if an aircraft engine stops, there's a good chance of major injury or death. Out of ~1300 Standard-Category fixed-wing aircraft accidents that involved a loss of engine power, there were about 450 people who suffered death or major injuries.

Sure, a lot depends on the decision-making and ability of the pilot involved. But if there was a common mechanical failure mode in cars where nearly a quarter of the all accidents resulted in major injuries or death, you're darn tootin' the "Federal Automobile Administration" would be chiming in.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Then again, when an auto engine stops working, the car almost always coasts to a stop without injury or harm to the occupants. Other than outright driver error, there are very few scenarios in cars where injuries will result.
Click to expand...

Then again, a brake failure, even something as simple as failure to tighten the bleed screw on a caliper, could be catastrophic. Yet I'm allowed to do my own brake jobs (and have done so many times). A blown tire could also be quite dangerous, yet I can plug my own tire punctures using a kit from the local zippy mart.

wanttaja said:
But if there was a common mechanical failure mode in cars where nearly a quarter of the all accidents resulted in major injuries or death, you're darn tootin' the "Federal Automobile Administration" would be chiming in.
Click to expand...

I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the automobile industry, without FAA-like regulation, has given us remarkably reliable engines (and other enhancements), while our planes are still using 1940s farm tractor technology under FAA regulation.
 
DJTorrente said:
Every time you hear about a needless aviation regulation, imagine what might happen if the same came from the "Federal Automobile Administration". Our parking lots would look like Havana in the 90's -- which is to say America in the 50's.
Click to expand...
Except that there would be the highly increased profit potential (due to the 5000x larger market) to incentivize the slog through those regulations.
 
Half Fast said:
I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that the automobile industry, without FAA-like regulation, has given us remarkably reliable engines (and other enhancements), while our planes are still using 1940s farm tractor technology under FAA regulation.
Click to expand...
Hasn't there been other regulation regarding fuel economy and emissions that contribute the enhancements, and potentially improve reliability in auto engines?
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Hasn't there been other regulation regarding fuel economy and emissions that contribute the enhancements, and potentially improve reliability in auto engines?
Click to expand...

Sure, that’s part of it but not all. Modern engines create more HP from less displacement than engines from 50 years ago, they have computer-controlled ignitions, start easily, go farther between oil changes, have comprehensive built-in diagnostics and even prognostics, have better cooling, etc., etc. Aircraft engines have not enjoyed similar progress.
 
The first things that come to mind are direct fuel injection and auto stop-start. Both have had negative effects on engine life. You can thank politicians who think they can legislate physics.
I would not consider buying any car made in recent years. Too many long-term problems.
 
Half Fast said:
Then again, a brake failure, even something as simple as failure to tighten the bleed screw on a caliper, could be catastrophic. Yet I'm allowed to do my own brake jobs (and have done so many times). A blown tire could also be quite dangerous, yet I can plug my own tire punctures using a kit from the local zippy mart.
Click to expand...
But I can’t get the manufacturer to install or sell me a seat belt that will keep me secure in my seat on windey roads.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Hasn't there been other regulation regarding fuel economy and emissions that contribute the enhancements, and potentially improve reliability in auto engines?
Click to expand...

Half Fast said:
Modern engines create more HP from less displacement than engines from 50 years ago, they have computer-controlled ignitions, start easily, go farther between oil changes, have comprehensive built-in diagnostics and even prognostics, have better cooling, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
Those same "modern engines" have become LESS reliable, not more.

The regulations have forced manufacturers to undersize the engines, add boost, run excessively lean, spec lightweight oils, and remove as much mass as possible while still getting enough power output to be acceptable to buyers.

Trouble is, all of those things are problematic from a reliability standpoint. Those "longer oil change intervals", for example, are NOT a benefit to the consumer. They have been engineered to reduce manufacturer costs and survive to the warranty mileage - but no further. The use of lightweight oils increases fuel mileage, but at the expense of higher wear. The use of boosted (turbocharged) engines allows the manufacturers to use under-sized engines and claim very low fuel consumption, but in real life the turbo runs far more often than the "specs" quoted, and the result is worse fuel economy, lower torque, and shorter life.


Now, to be fair, if we go back 20 years we see real improvements that were driven at least in part by regulation. Electronic ignition, coil-on-plug, closed-loop controls, variable injection, variable valve timing, tighter machining tolerances, etc. These change resulted in much better performance, both in efficiency and power output. Trouble is, the regulators couldn't leave it alone once we achieved really solid performance....so now we have pushed the technology farther than it should go.

All of that being said, a lot of these things COULD theoretically be implemented in aircraft...but the complexity is problematic when the volumes are as low as ours....and the vicious cycle continues.
 
737steve said:
The first things that come to mind are direct fuel injection and auto stop-start. Both have had negative effects on engine life. You can thank politicians who think they can legislate physics.
I would not consider buying any car made in recent years. Too many long-term problems.
Click to expand...
I don't think you quite remember the cars from yesteryear the same way i do. my direct injected, stop start car is going on 130000 miles and hasn't visited the shop except for oil changes. (okay and pneumatic suspension parts at 105000 miles ). my yesteryear cars, can't run a year between shop visits
 
StraightnLevel said:
Those same "modern engines" have become LESS reliable, not more.

The regulations have forced manufacturers to undersize the engines, add boost, run excessively lean, spec lightweight oils, and remove as much mass as possible while still getting enough power output to be acceptable to buyers.

Trouble is, all of those things are problematic from a reliability standpoint. Those "longer oil change intervals", for example, are NOT a benefit to the consumer. They have been engineered to reduce manufacturer costs and survive to the warranty mileage - but no further. The use of lightweight oils increases fuel mileage, but at the expense of higher wear. The use of boosted (turbocharged) engines allows the manufacturers to use under-sized engines and claim very low fuel consumption, but in real life the turbo runs far more often than the "specs" quoted, and the result is worse fuel economy, lower torque, and shorter life.


Now, to be fair, if we go back 20 years we see real improvements that were driven at least in part by regulation. Electronic ignition, coil-on-plug, closed-loop controls, variable injection, variable valve timing, tighter machining tolerances, etc. These change resulted in much better performance, both in efficiency and power output. Trouble is, the regulators couldn't leave it alone once we achieved really solid performance....so now we have pushed the technology farther than it should go.

All of that being said, a lot of these things COULD theoretically be implemented in aircraft...but the complexity is problematic when the volumes are as low as ours....and the vicious cycle continues.
Click to expand...
i must not be buying the same new cars you guys do, i haven't had issues with anything made since about 1996. hell my 1996 camaro, purchased brand new still starts first try. Actually, take that back, i did crack a thermostat housing at 60000 miles doing burnouts and donuts one day. how much more reliable can you get ?
 
One factor working against the reliability of new cars are the additional features and functions.

My first cars didn't have AC. Didn't have ABS. Didn't have air bags. Didn't have backup cameras. etc etc etc.

Stuff you don't have can't break.
 
Whew. I just read these 253 posts. In them, I did not find a single firsthand report of "G100UL wrecked my airframe." It was the same citations of some rando from YouTube, the same Swift vs GAMI stuff, the same UL94 stuff, the same Chicken Little stuff.

Nonetheless, I tend to side with the camp that believes TEL's days may truly be numbered.

Tomorrow (7/23), I will be flying KPIR (central SD) - KVNC (Venice/Sarasota-area, FL). It'll be close to direct if I get it on my IFR flight plans, although I generally fly through the HEVVN waypoint when I get to the Gulf.

If someone wants to find me an airport that has G100UL at it along my route of travel, I'll happily stop, pick up a couple of gallons of it, and bring it to my hangar to run tests. Tell me where to acquire whatever rubbers you want soaked in it, or send me/tell me how to prepare whatever painted materials you want to see exposed to it, and I'll run some firsthand tests so we don't all have to rely on a couple of YouTube videos.
 
StraightnLevel said:
Those same "modern engines" have become LESS reliable, not more.
Click to expand...
Usually I agree with you.
This time I think you are wrong. Modern engines are so reliable you almost forget about them. They just run and run for hundreds of thousands of miles.

Perhaps you are thinking of auxiliary systems like AC, computers, brakes etc. I had to have the brakes repaired on my last ICE car at ~60k miles. They said they couldn't turn the rotors because to save cost and weight the rotors were not thick enough to be turned even once. But modern engines are incredibly reliable. I remember having to replace points and plugs around every 15k miles on my old muscle car. And replace the car itself before it got to 100k miles.
 
traumamed said:
Whew. I just read these 253 posts. In them, I did not find a single firsthand report of "G100UL wrecked my airframe." It was the same citations of some rando from YouTube, the same Swift vs GAMI stuff, the same UL94 stuff, the same Chicken Little stuff.

Nonetheless, I tend to side with the camp that believes TEL's days may truly be numbered.

Tomorrow (7/23), I will be flying KPIR (central SD) - KVNC (Venice/Sarasota-area, FL). It'll be close to direct if I get it on my IFR flight plans, although I generally fly through the HEVVN waypoint when I get to the Gulf.

If someone wants to find me an airport that has G100UL at it along my route of travel, I'll happily stop, pick up a couple of gallons of it, and bring it to my hangar to run tests. Tell me where to acquire whatever rubbers you want soaked in it, or send me/tell me how to prepare whatever painted materials you want to see exposed to it, and I'll run some firsthand tests so we don't all have to rely on a couple of YouTube videos.
Click to expand...
That's the problem...i think the closest g100ul to that route is in Louisiana somewhere.
 
traumamed said:
Whew. I just read these 253 posts. In them, I did not find a single firsthand report of "G100UL wrecked my airframe." It was the same citations of some rando from YouTube, the same Swift vs GAMI stuff, the same UL94 stuff, the same Chicken Little stuff.

Nonetheless, I tend to side with the camp that believes TEL's days may truly be numbered.

Tomorrow (7/23), I will be flying KPIR (central SD) - KVNC (Venice/Sarasota-area, FL). It'll be close to direct if I get it on my IFR flight plans, although I generally fly through the HEVVN waypoint when I get to the Gulf.

If someone wants to find me an airport that has G100UL at it along my route of travel, I'll happily stop, pick up a couple of gallons of it, and bring it to my hangar to run tests. Tell me where to acquire whatever rubbers you want soaked in it, or send me/tell me how to prepare whatever painted materials you want to see exposed to it, and I'll run some firsthand tests so we don't all have to rely on a couple of YouTube videos.
Click to expand...
You may find it at Sebring KSEF
 
I'm taking my Bonanza in for a complete paint job soon. Does anyone know of anything I should ask for (like type of paint or finish) that might stand up better to G100UL?
 
JOhnH said:
Have you seen it there? Foreflight shows 100ll and UL94 (plus Jet A and A+)
I'd likely fly there to get some if they have it.
Click to expand...
The UL94 comes from the same manufacturer, not sure they have switched out yet, but they will.
 
MackMooney said:
i must not be buying the same new cars you guys do, i haven't had issues with anything made since about 1996. hell my 1996 camaro, purchased brand new still starts first try. Actually, take that back, i did crack a thermostat housing at 60000 miles doing burnouts and donuts one day. how much more reliable can you get ?
Click to expand...
Have you not seen the recent recalls?
Ford twice:



gmauthority.com

GM 6.2L V8 L87 Recall: New Engines Get Extended Warranty

All vehicles affected by the recent General Motors 6.2L V8 L87 engine recall will receive extended warranty coverage, including units that receive a new engine.
gmauthority.com gmauthority.com
www.autoguide.com

GM's Recalled 6.2L V8s Are Still Blowing Up Even After Being 'Fixed'

Federal safety regulators are once again taking a look at General Motors’ 6.2-liter V8 after receiving dozens of complaints from owners who say their engines blew up even after the prescribed recall fix was performed.According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of...
www.autoguide.com www.autoguide.com
Nissan twice:
www.autoguide.com

Almost Half A Million Nissans Could Have Defective Engines

Nissan just announced a major recall affecting 443,899 vehicles across both Nissan and Infiniti brands due to a risk of catastrophic engine failure.
www.autoguide.com www.autoguide.com
www.consumerreports.org

More Nissan Rogue SUVs Recalled to Fix Faulty Engines - Consumer Reports

Over 300,000 2023-2025 Nissan Rogue SUVs are being recalled to fix potentially serious engine throttle body and engine bearing issues.
www.consumerreports.org www.consumerreports.org

www.roadandtrack.com

NHTSA Probes 1.4 Million Honda V-6 Engines, Potentially Expanding a 2023 Rod Bearing Failure Recall

This is not the first time that the 3.5-liter V-6 found in certain Acura and Honda SUV and sedan models has been investigated.
www.roadandtrack.com www.roadandtrack.com
 
Last edited:
With regards to auto engine reliability what are we calling modern? IMHO overall reliability probably peaked sometime around the mid-90s to early 2000s…. which is now over 20 years ago but I’m old and still think of that as ‘modern’ sometimes.
 
cowman said:
IMHO overall reliability probably peaked sometime around the mid-90s to early 2000s….
Click to expand...
Sounds about right. That was the peak of non-turbo, port injected engines. After that things went in experimental mode with turbocharging and direct injection. That's when reliability took a plunge. It'll take a few more years for the lessons to be properly learned and implemented.
 
Direct injection itself isn't the problem - it's the EGR system that dumps exhaust back into the intake system, which on direct injection systems, causes carbon deposits on the intake valves. Eliminate the EGR, that problem goes away. Or, run port injection, which while not quite as efficient, is still leaps and bounds better than mechanical injection.

Most of the reliability issues with modern engines aren't the basic technology, but rather with the emissions systems that were added.

Side rant: We're a 'disposable' society, by and large. What used to get fixed is now discarded and replaced. Even supposing a large percentage could be recycled, I just don't see how that is better for the environment.
 
Florida Flyer said:
The UL94 comes from the same manufacturer, not sure they have switched out yet, but they will.
Click to expand...
UL94 is Swift. G100UL is GAMI. Not the same company or the same fuel. Swift has a 100 unleaded in the pipeline (significantly discussed in this thread). The "where can you buy it?" question was regarding G100UL.

Tupelo Mississippi, KTUP is the closest that has G100UL to the route @traumamed was taking.
 
Darryl Snover said:
Direct injection itself isn't the problem
Click to expand...
No, everything else that's needed to make it happen is. Fuel pumps that now need to run at 2000+ psi (instead of 30), injectors that need to survive combustion events, intake valves that get gummed up because they don't get cleaned by fuel anymore (partially mitigated in engines that retain port injection on top of direct injection, but now we have a lot more parts to fail).

EGR on top of that, although crankcase ventilation systems do their fair share of fouling up engines.
 
traumamed said:
Whew. I just read these 253 posts. In them, I did not find a single firsthand report of "G100UL wrecked my airframe." It was the same citations of some rando from YouTube, the same Swift vs GAMI stuff, the same UL94 stuff, the same Chicken Little stuff.

Nonetheless, I tend to side with the camp that believes TEL's days may truly be numbered.

Tomorrow (7/23), I will be flying KPIR (central SD) - KVNC (Venice/Sarasota-area, FL). It'll be close to direct if I get it on my IFR flight plans, although I generally fly through the HEVVN waypoint when I get to the Gulf.

If someone wants to find me an airport that has G100UL at it along my route of travel, I'll happily stop, pick up a couple of gallons of it, and bring it to my hangar to run tests. Tell me where to acquire whatever rubbers you want soaked in it, or send me/tell me how to prepare whatever painted materials you want to see exposed to it, and I'll run some firsthand tests so we don't all have to rely on a couple of YouTube videos.
Click to expand...
I believe the only one that side of, well, interstate 5 is in Tupelo MS.

Since you set the standard as firsthand wrecking of airframes, I think the only test I'd want from you is a full tank of the fuel in your plane, run to VNC and back, and report in on the lack of damages and leaks.
 
traumamed said:
Whew. I just read these 253 posts. In them, I did not find a single firsthand report of "G100UL wrecked my airframe." It was the same citations of some rando from YouTube, the same Swift vs GAMI stuff, the same UL94 stuff, the same Chicken Little stuff.

Nonetheless, I tend to side with the camp that believes TEL's days may truly be numbered.

Tomorrow (7/23), I will be flying KPIR (central SD) - KVNC (Venice/Sarasota-area, FL). It'll be close to direct if I get it on my IFR flight plans, although I generally fly through the HEVVN waypoint when I get to the Gulf.

If someone wants to find me an airport that has G100UL at it along my route of travel, I'll happily stop, pick up a couple of gallons of it, and bring it to my hangar to run tests. Tell me where to acquire whatever rubbers you want soaked in it, or send me/tell me how to prepare whatever painted materials you want to see exposed to it, and I'll run some firsthand tests so we don't all have to rely on a couple of YouTube videos.
Click to expand...
How does that make you any different than the rando guy on YouTube. I went to his talk here at Oshkosh. It was pretty interesting.
 
Hang 4 said:
Tupelo Mississippi, KTUP is the closest that has G100UL to the route @traumamed was taking.
Click to expand...
Almost perfectly on my route. I'll try to plan a stop there to pick up a couple gallons.
schmookeeg said:
I believe the only one that side of, well, interstate 5 is in Tupelo MS.

Since you set the standard as firsthand wrecking of airframes, I think the only test I'd want from you is a full tank of the fuel in your plane, run to VNC and back, and report in on the lack of damages and leaks.
Click to expand...
Not sure where you got the idea that I was some G100UL fanboi. I'll pass on that idea till I decide for myself it isn't a risk, but thanks for your input.
NealRomeoGolf said:
How does that make you any different than the rando guy on YouTube. I went to his talk here at Oshkosh. It was pretty interesting.
Click to expand...
To you, it doesn't. To me, well there's just about no one I trust more. Feel free to treat anything I post about my backyard experiments with G100UL with the same level of scrutiny as you would (and should) when considering anything posted by some random stranger on the internet.
 
traumamed said:
Not sure where you got the idea that I was some G100UL fanboi. I'll pass on that idea till I decide for myself it isn't a risk, but thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're a fanboi of. You seemed allergic to the "some rando on the internet" anecdata, and I assumed you were wanting to offer more than "yet another rando's anecdata". Alas.
 
schmookeeg said:
I have no idea what you're a fanboi of. You seemed allergic to the "some rando on the internet" anecdata, and I assumed you were wanting to offer more than "yet another rando's anecdata". Alas.
Click to expand...
If the only form of data that works for you is "my airplane melted," hey, you do you. :thumbsup:

The materials testing videos done by Michael Iuvara are useful data points. As with any scientific process, repeatability is important. I don't know who Michael Iuvara is, and what, if any, conflicts of interest he may have.

I also have specific concerns. I am mainly interested in seals/rubber compatibility. I could care less about risk to paint. I am a big boy. I can fill up my tanks without spraying fuel all over my wing, just like I can eat without getting food all over the table.

...Then again, I think back to my days of being a restaurant server, and that's a pretty tall ask for apparently more than half of restaurant-going folks.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
He's been spouting this nonsense for a couple of years now....you found everything that is out there.
Click to expand...
i've linked to the FAA study done by Baylor at least half a dozen times. If you can't find it you're not trying.

All you have to do is email the Baylor Aviation email and ask. they know all about it. they can forward your message to the principals.

Its LAUGHABLE that its inferred that I'm making it up when I linked to the PDF multiple times and its all over google.

Its HILARIOUS that the usual suspects are trying to imply that 'its a big nothing' when there is an STC issued, a 12+ year FAA study and currently a flight school trying to implement it for commercial ops.

You can also search for the STC. I mean i've been *told* by many people here that they are more knowledgeable than I yet many of those same people can't do 5 minutes of work and find the information like I did.

Seriously... here's a hint: https://aviation.ecs.baylor.edu/ folks need to put on your big boy/girl/they/them pants and educate themselves.
 
JOhnH said:
Usually I agree with you.
This time I think you are wrong. Modern engines are so reliable you almost forget about them. They just run and run for hundreds of thousands of miles.
Click to expand...
I agree. Growing up my dad and I tinkered with an old Triumph TR6 and that thing, while dead simple, was never that reliable. His teen and 20s years were filled with stories of cars dying and having to fix random little things. I’ve almost never had to wrench any car I’ve owned. Reminds me of the click and clack bit about “nowadays you get in the car, turn the key, and it just starts. Where’s the fun in that??”
 
StraightnLevel said:
Which company does the actual production for each? AFAIK, neither of them own a refinery or production scale blending facility
Click to expand...
GAMI had 1 million gallons produced that are stored by Vitol, a trading company. The base stock provider is unknown.
Swift does their own blending, not sure of base stock supplier for them.

All of the companies are basically providing an additive package to an aviation grade base stock. Blending is a pretty low capital intensive process relative to refining. The base stock comes from the oil majors (Shell, ExxonMobil etc)
 
traumamed said:
I also have specific concerns. I am mainly interested in seals/rubber compatibility. I could care less about risk to paint. I am a big boy. I can fill up my tanks without spraying fuel all over my wing, just like I can eat without getting food all over the table.

...Then again, I think back to my days of being a restaurant server, and that's a pretty tall ask for apparently more than half of restaurant-going folks.
Click to expand...

I think back to the random location of leaks on the wet wing tanks of the Aerostar I had. I would be less concerned about owner refill spillage, and more about the hidden leaks...

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top