Shell Announces Unleaded 100-Octane Fuel

[Check 6]

This is great news. From AVweb:


Shell Oil announced on Tuesday that is had developed an unleaded 100-octane piston engine fuel to replace 100LL and, presumably, the fuel will enter the FAA’s recently established fuel testing and certification process. In a press release, Shell said the fuel is a culmination of 10 years in R&D and initial testing has been done with two OEMs, Lycoming and Piper. Read More (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Shell-Announces-Unleaded-100-Octane-Fuel221070-1.html?ET=avweb:e2688:308668a:&st=email)

[Mike]

This is great news. From AVweb:

If its still 7$ bucks a gallon who cares, cept SHELL & smell'y liberal's. GA is dead where l live. 80 aircraft, no-one flies anymore.

[1600vw]

If its still 7$ bucks a gallon who cares, cept SHELL & smell'y liberal's. GA is dead where l live. 80 aircraft, no-one flies anymore.

One reason to go Sport Pilot or LSA or EAB. My airplane burns 1.5 per hr. cruises 70 if I cleaned her up with wheel pants and streamed line struts I could see 80. She has a VNE of 100. I may not be traveling places far. But I am flying and enjoying being one with my airplane.

Now step up to say a 912, you are still burning auto fuel and now you are going places, all on the cheap, as aviation goes. One reason SP program is taking off. More and more are going this route right out of the gate.

Tony

[Mike Berg]

Friend of mine just bought a load of 100LL for $4.60 per gallon which I thought was pretty reasonable. I usually mix with auto fuel about 50/50 in my 0200/L16 (Aeronca).

[Hal Bryan]

If its still 7$ bucks a gallon who cares, cept SHELL & smell'y liberal's.

Mike -

Don't do this. There's no room for political name-calling here, period.

- Hal

[Jeff Boatright]

If its still 7$ bucks a gallon who cares, cept SHELL & smell'y liberal's. GA is dead where l live. 80 aircraft, no-one flies anymore.

We have about a dozen planes at the grass strip where I'm based. Many of them fly on weekends and some on weekdays. I fly just about every weekend that the weather is good, burning 100LL in my C-85-powered Pietenpol. I use ethanol-free mogas when I can get it. I guess it's just a liberal thing - you know, being smart enough to calculate the various costs of flying and concluding that fuel costs are a relatively small portion of the overall. Of course, all my conservative pilot friends have figured this out, too, so maybe it's not a political thing at all. Who'd'a thunk, eh, Mike?

As to Shell's announcement, there's a pretty good conversation going on over at Mac's blog on this topic:

http://macsblog.com/2013/12/shell-is-saying-the-right-things-about-unleaded-avgas/

[Hal Bryan]

I guess it's just a liberal thing - you know, being smart enough to calculate the various costs of flying and concluding that fuel costs are a relatively small portion of the overall.

Jeff - please don't escalate this.


...so maybe it's not a political thing at all.

Much better. :)

Now if you guys don't mind, I'd like to stop moderating and get back to building an airplane!

[1600vw]

Much better. :)

Now if you guys don't mind, I'd like to stop moderating and get back to building an airplane!

May I join you? I would love to help......

[pacerpilot]

One reason to go Sport Pilot or LSA or EAB. My airplane burns 1.5 per hr. cruises 70 if I cleaned her up with wheel pants and streamed line struts I could see 80. She has a VNE of 100. I may not be traveling places far. But I am flying and enjoying being one with my airplane.

Now step up to say a 912, you are still burning auto fuel and now you are going places, all on the cheap, as aviation goes. One reason SP program is taking off. More and more are going this route right out of the gate.

Tony

What engine are you running to get a 1.5 gph fuel burn?

[1600vw]

What engine are you running to get a 1.5 gph fuel burn?



1/2 vw. I have yet to use two gallons of gas flying.

[Jeff Boatright]

Sure thing, Hal. Just trying to make it a teachable moment.


As to increased mileage, best thing I've found so far is replacing my Stromberg with a Marvel-Schebler with effective mixture control. I'm seeing under 3 gal/hr at 2100 rpm for puttering in the Piet on the C-85. I can actually get around 2 g/h if I really push the lean (I have CHT probes on all 4 cylinders) and keep rpm set such that I'm barely maintaining altitude. However, replacing the Stromberg with the M-S was done to address other issues with the Stromberg and I got a deal on the M-S.

The Shell fuel is intriguing if it's based on their racing fuel. I don't know a thing about the chemistry, but the claim is that the anti-detonation properties are not due simply to slowing the flame wavefront by increasing octane number. Slowing the burn decreases the probability of detonation, but apparently lowers potential torque output of an engine that doesn't need the higher octane. If all of this is true, then the Shell fuel, which would work for higher compression engines, also could be used in the smaller Continentals and Lycomings without a torque penalty. Win-win!

[1600vw]

I remember back in the late 60's and early 70's they started saying things like, by 2000 we will not have gas. We all are doomed. Today we find America is now producing more oil then other counties whom produce the most and here we are at 2014.

Tony

[pacerpilot]

5 years ago Mogas was $1.65 gal around here and Avgas was $3.25 gal. They're $3.10 and $5.70 respectively now. I also paid $180 a month for my family medical then-now $560. I believe this "new" gas is nothing more than a ploy to steal more money from the citizenry under the guise of "environmental conscience". I hope everyone has noticed consumer goods prices have risen significantly over the last few years. You can thank the new EPA regs for diesel exhaust fluid system requirements. This has effectively junked tens of thousands of trucks. They'll still be on our roads-burning lots of diesel-with Mexican registrations. Rest assured, anything that carries a government mandate is nothing more than a bought and paid for money grab by politicians.

[Mike Berg]

I believe (CNG) compressed natural gas is the fuel of the future. Many trucks and buses are already running on CNG. It's cleaner, cheaper and still uses the old familiar piston engine. I know this is off the 'airplane subject' but.............

[Hal Bryan]

In my Law Enforcement days (about 20 years ago), our patrol cars were dual-fuel, switchable on the fly between regular gas and CNG. The CNG, at that time anyway, was great for normal patrol, but for "running code" (driving fast with lights and siren, the best part of the job), we'd always switch to real gas. As I understand it, it's come a long way over the last couple of decades.

Anyway, Mike, this isn't off-topic at all: :)

http://www.airventure.org/news/2013/130730_cng-husky-av-fuel-game-changer.html

[pacerpilot]

CNG is good stuff. I've seen propane forklift engines that had 30 years of running two shifts, 6-7 days a week that were spotless inside. Issues with the "bottled fuels" are freeze up of the induction system and the fact you've got a pressure tank of gas riding with you. If there was a way to resolve these things I'd be up for it. As for unleaded avgas; I remember when 100LL came out and was supposed to be the greatest thing. We all know that 100LL has 11 times the lead of regular 100. My concern is that we'll get unleaded, but it'll have more of other more detrimental stuff too. That being said, I'm all for unleaded. I'm tired of cleaning plugs on my Continental and replacing them on my Corvair.

[1600vw]

CNG is good stuff. I've seen propane forklift engines that had 30 years of running two shifts, 6-7 days a week that were spotless inside. Issues with the "bottled fuels" are freeze up of the induction system and the fact you've got a pressure tank of gas riding with you. If there was a way to resolve these things I'd be up for it. As for unleaded avgas; I remember when 100LL came out and was supposed to be the greatest thing. We all know that 100LL has 11 times the lead of regular 100. My concern is that we'll get unleaded, but it'll have more of other more detrimental stuff too. That being said, I'm all for unleaded. I'm tired of cleaning plugs on my Continental and replacing them on my Corvair.


Its hard on the fuel system if you try to run this as a dual fuel. In a fork lift that is using nothing but CNG it works fine. But when you try to use it with something that runs gasoline through it too now you start to have problems.
This has been around for a long time, I was using it back in the early 80's but it has its draw backs and this is just one. There is a reason this never caught on. The general public looks at that tank or bottle that this is stored in as a bomb. It looks the part to them anyway and scares them to DEATH, and really they are not far off. I myself would not want one in my car or under my car or in the trunk. Not for my family. When was the last time a forklift was in a 70mph crash. Imagine a road full of cars with these in them and we have a 100 car bile up. It happens. Can anyone say...BOOM

[Mike Berg]

While I'm hardly an expert on the subject I believe there is a place for CNG. Especially with large vehicles (think trucks, buses, tractors, stationary engines). I'm an old diesel mechanic by trade but let's face it even the clean diesels have their issues and the EPA keeps throwing out new regulations on emissions. As far as fuel tank storage I'm guessing it's not an insurmountable problem and I'm pretty sure highway safety won't allow some company to just stick a tank in your trunk. Although they are different: propane tends to go to the ground with a leak (heavier) where as CNG tends to rise. I notice the truck that delivers the propane for my shop runs on propane.

Don't think I'll ever be flying my Aeronca on propane or CNG although the Chief I'm rebuilding has a 15 gallon gas tank over my knee and a 8 gallon tank behind my head. How's that for safe?
Mike

[Jeff Boatright]

5 years ago Mogas was $1.65 gal around here and Avgas was $3.25 gal. They're $3.10 and $5.70 respectively now. I also paid $180 a month for my family medical then-now $560. I believe this "new" gas is nothing more than a ploy to steal more money from the citizenry under the guise of "environmental conscience". I hope everyone has noticed consumer goods prices have risen significantly over the last few years. You can thank the new EPA regs for diesel exhaust fluid system requirements. This has effectively junked tens of thousands of trucks. They'll still be on our roads-burning lots of diesel-with Mexican registrations. Rest assured, anything that carries a government mandate is nothing more than a bought and paid for money grab by politicians.

Five years ago demand was way down (The Great Recession?) and there was a supply glut; pricing followed. As the economy picked up, demand went up, prices followed. Five-year gasoline price trends before and after that nadir are nearly identical. This doesn't appear to have to much to do with federal regulation, and nothing to do with "new" gas. Seems more like regular supply and demand. Here's a link with summary data and discussion: http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/04/threat-of-higher-gasoline-prices-is.html

My health insurance prices have steadily gone up, as they have ever since I've had insurance, but nothing like yours. Have you had a chance to shop around? Regardless, I don't see the connection to a discussion on new fuels for general aviation.

As to the effects of Tier 4 (in part, mandated use of diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF), I haven't been able to find anything that indicates that anyone agrees with the claim that tens of thousands of trucks will be junked. In fact, from what I've found from industry sites (trucking sites, farm sites, and smaller truck sites), there's lots of agreement that the cleaner running is a good thing. There also appears to be increased fuel efficiency in DEF-equipped vehicles; 5-9% better mileage and lower oil consumption. Of course, all this is taken with a grain of salt; it appears that there's lots of reasons efficiencies have gotten better. One site that discusses some of this is:
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/news/1102dp_new_emissions_and_fuel_efficiency_standards/

The one web source I could find that decried the new EPA regulations was a rebuttal from a guy running for Congress who, while documenting the upfront costs to his trucking business, completely ignored medium and long term savings from efficiencies. I'm not saying he's not right or wrong about the upfront costs, but the unwillingness to discuss what everyone else in the industry appears to be recognizing suggests that ideology is trumping facts when it comes to this guy's business decisions.

I haven't been able to find anything about how the EPA regulations have led to increased consumer goods prices. I've found plenty of politically-oriented sites that predict dire outcomes, but none that shows a connection. Since we're several years into the Tier system, there should be some data on this. I'm sure someone will provide us hard data on this since so many people are convinced it must've happened. Seems to me that the whole ethanol imbroglio would be more to blame, if indeed blame was to go to some fuel-related factor in consumer prices.

As to what all this has to do with a new fuel for general aviation, it's an interesting hypothesis that you're proposing, to wit, "that this "new" gas is nothing more than a ploy to steal more money from the citizenry under the guise of "environmental conscience"." I guess Big Oil could be making out like bandits on this issue. That industry generally calls the tune and is, after all, the most profitable endeavor in the history of mankind. But, I'm not seeing how getting rid of lead in avgas is a ploy to steal more money from us. It just doesn't seem like there's enough market here to make it worth their while. However, I certainly agree with the sentiment that if there is a way for Big Oil to screw the little guy, it'll happen or it is already happening.

Your stance also suggests that you don't think the lead in avgas is any big deal. I'm not convinced either way, yet. I'd like to see some numbers on this from EPA and industry that take into account not just what is exhausted in to the air, but rather what is the total "lead impact" (for want of a better phrase) of producing and using 100LL. The most recent study I'm aware of indicates that kids who live near general aviation airports actually do have higher levels of lead in their blood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lead+poisoning+children+aviation

That of course begs the question: what level is acceptable? The answer may be "none": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19344860

[Skyhook]

I noticed the remark that the general aviation community is so small the 100 oct no-lead fuel would not warrant a big outlay.
I wonder if maybe other markets might also be interested in that fuel? Boating comes to mind as does every small-engine activity-- IF alcohol is omitted, that is.

[pacerpilot]

Five years ago demand was way down (The Great Recession?) and there was a supply glut; pricing followed. As the economy picked up, demand went up, prices followed. Five-year gasoline price trends before and after that nadir are nearly identical. This doesn't appear to have to much to do with federal regulation, and nothing to do with "new" gas. Seems more like regular supply and demand. Here's a link with summary data and discussion: http://scottgrannis.blogspot.com/2012/04/threat-of-higher-gasoline-prices-is.html

My health insurance prices have steadily gone up, as they have ever since I've had insurance, but nothing like yours. Have you had a chance to shop around? Regardless, I don't see the connection to a discussion on new fuels for general aviation.

As to the effects of Tier 4 (in part, mandated use of diesel exhaust fluid, or DEF), I haven't been able to find anything that indicates that anyone agrees with the claim that tens of thousands of trucks will be junked. In fact, from what I've found from industry sites (trucking sites, farm sites, and smaller truck sites), there's lots of agreement that the cleaner running is a good thing. There also appears to be increased fuel efficiency in DEF-equipped vehicles; 5-9% better mileage and lower oil consumption. Of course, all this is taken with a grain of salt; it appears that there's lots of reasons efficiencies have gotten better. One site that discusses some of this is:
http://www.dieselpowermag.com/news/1102dp_new_emissions_and_fuel_efficiency_standards/

The one web source I could find that decried the new EPA regulations was a rebuttal from a guy running for Congress who, while documenting the upfront costs to his trucking business, completely ignored medium and long term savings from efficiencies. I'm not saying he's not right or wrong about the upfront costs, but the unwillingness to discuss what everyone else in the industry appears to be recognizing suggests that ideology is trumping facts when it comes to this guy's business decisions.

I haven't been able to find anything about how the EPA regulations have led to increased consumer goods prices. I've found plenty of politically-oriented sites that predict dire outcomes, but none that shows a connection. Since we're several years into the Tier system, there should be some data on this. I'm sure someone will provide us hard data on this since so many people are convinced it must've happened. Seems to me that the whole ethanol imbroglio would be more to blame, if indeed blame was to go to some fuel-related factor in consumer prices.

As to what all this has to do with a new fuel for general aviation, it's an interesting hypothesis that you're proposing, to wit, "that this "new" gas is nothing more than a ploy to steal more money from the citizenry under the guise of "environmental conscience"." I guess Big Oil could be making out like bandits on this issue. That industry generally calls the tune and is, after all, the most profitable endeavor in the history of mankind. But, I'm not seeing how getting rid of lead in avgas is a ploy to steal more money from us. It just doesn't seem like there's enough market here to make it worth their while. However, I certainly agree with the sentiment that if there is a way for Big Oil to screw the little guy, it'll happen or it is already happening.

Your stance also suggests that you don't think the lead in avgas is any big deal. I'm not convinced either way, yet. I'd like to see some numbers on this from EPA and industry that take into account not just what is exhausted in to the air, but rather what is the total "lead impact" (for want of a better phrase) of producing and using 100LL. The most recent study I'm aware of indicates that kids who live near general aviation airports actually do have higher levels of lead in their blood: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=lead+poisoning+children+aviation

That of course begs the question: what level is acceptable? The answer may be "none": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19344860

Well, it appears you've convinced yourself.

[jethro99]

Sure thing, Hal. Just trying to make it a teachable moment.


As to increased mileage, best thing I've found so far is replacing my Stromberg with a Marvel-Schebler with effective mixture control. I'm seeing under 3 gal/hr at 2100 rpm for puttering in the Piet on the C-85. I can actually get around 2 g/h if I really push the lean (I have CHT probes on all 4 cylinders) and keep rpm set such that I'm barely maintaining altitude. However, replacing the Stromberg with the M-S was done to address other issues with the Stromberg and I got a deal on the M-S.

The Shell fuel is intriguing if it's based on their racing fuel. I don't know a thing about the chemistry, but the claim is that the anti-detonation properties are not due simply to slowing the flame wavefront by increasing octane number. Slowing the burn decreases the probability of detonation, but apparently lowers potential torque output of an engine that doesn't need the higher octane. If all of this is true, then the Shell fuel, which would work for higher compression engines, also could be used in the smaller Continentals and Lycomings without a torque penalty. Win-win!
Do you have any links to official oil company/gasoline suppliers data that substantiates that a slower burn rate decreases the probability of detonation?

[Jeff Boatright]

Well, it appears you've convinced yourself.

I guess I went overboard trying to figure out your post. Personal medical insurance costs? Tens of thousands of trucks taken off the highway?

Wouldn't have given a flip except so many of your other posts seem to me to be on-point and comprehensible; I assumed you had a point this time, too. So yes, I've convinced myself... See? We agree again!

;)

[Jeff Boatright]

Do you have any links to official oil company/gasoline suppliers data that substantiates that a slower burn rate decreases the probability of detonation?

I don't have a link to an official oil company/gasoline supplier data, I'm just going by what one of the bloggers posted from his interview with a racing fuels guy:

http://forums.stlmustangs.com/index.php?/topic/195113-picked-up-10-gallons-of-shell-urt-advanced-unleaded-race-fuel/

As I mentioned, I have no idea about the chemistry myself, so if my statements are wrong, please correct me.

[Aaron Novak]

Jeff,
A fuels "burn rate" and its ability to "resist detonation" are independent of eath other. Detonation is not "too fast" of a burn, but rather a spontaneous global ignition of a large percentage of the fuel mass ( i.e. it all goes at once), vs normal combustion which is like a "wall of fire" that travels from the ignition point to the far reaches of the chamber over a period of time.

[Joe LaMantia]

I noticed the remark that the general aviation community is so small the 100 oct no-lead fuel would not warrant a big outlay.
I wonder if maybe other markets might also be interested in that fuel? Boating comes to mind as does every small-engine activity-- IF alcohol is omitted, that is.

If my memory serves me, there is only one refinery that actually produces 100LL and that it isn't totally dedicated to AV gas as it's output. It would be great if this new formula works in other market segments to broaden the market and reduce costs. The are two issues, first off we have to find a lead free fuel that actually works in the current GA fleet, and then we need to make sure it is affordable. The recent information from Shell is that they think they've found a lead free formula that works, no information on cost at this time. Given what we're seeing at the auto gas pumps, prices are generally falling from the $4 level to the $3 level per gallon that's 25%. This is due in part to lower demand, more efficient cars and slower economy, but also an increase in supply thanks to new drilling technology. If we could get a 25% reduction in AV gas we'd be paying $4.50/Gal instead of $6! That would put more aircraft in the air and more dollars flowing down to grass roots aviation.

Joe
:cool: