New avgas fuel

[Bill Greenwood]

There has been an effort for years to find a replacement fuel for avgas that does not have lead in it, due to the dangerous effects of lead on people and envirionment.I just read the article in Airventuree news and heard a talk on it by the reps for GAMI. .
To parashrase , best I can without notes: Several firms were participating in developing the new fuel as part of a govt/industry program, something like PAFI?, don't have the exact name.
Anyway, the agency narrowed it down as announced this week, to two Swift fuel and Shell. Of those two some say Swift is the closest. They will contiiune till 2018 to devlop.
Meanwhiile GAMI did not participate in the govt sponsored program, rather has developed their new fuel on their own outside the program and the gAMI fuel seems to meet most of the 5 or so main requirements. Being 100 oct is the first reqirment, others are must be ok with fuel system gaskets bladders etc, and compatable with current avgas mixing.

I guess we will see in the next few years what develops. And if GAMI or anyone else does come up with the "right stuff" fuel, I hope they get an even chance to have it tested.
As you can imagine there is a lot of $$$ at stake and lots of airplanes that need it. Sure lots of planes may run on less than 100 oct but some of the best and most historic do better on 100.
Lead is a poison , but I don't know how much a problem the small amount of lead remaining in 100 low lead is to the larger picture of the environment. Lead has been a sure way to get that last few octane numbers since WWII, and a lot of research has gone inot trying to clean it up as it were, but no panacea has jumped out. It took a lot of work and expense but car exhaust is much cleaner than years ago and city air has benefited. Don't think planes can as easily accomadate catalytic converters and all the rest.

[1600vw]

Seeing how general aviation itself is declining in numbers, and how most the new small airplane purchases are experimental and most use auto fuel. IMHO the small amount of lead being used is nothing like what was being used in auto's and such. We will not see the pollution as we saw back in the day's in cities from these airplanes. Also one must understand anything that uses Jet-A is burning nothing but Kerosene. Most airplanes in the sky today we see flying over head at thousands of feet use this Jet-a and not Avgas.

[TedK]

Will either of these Fuels require an STC?

A year or two ago, Swift Fuels was preparing a different blend that required an administrative STC. It galled me to think that I was going to have to pay several hundred dollars for the privledge of buying Swift's fuel.

I get that Swift, and others, have a cost to bring a fuel to market, but they should recoup that cost thru the sale price at the pump.

[wltrmtty]

I get that Swift, and others, have a cost to bring a fuel to market, but they should recoup that cost thru the sale price at the pump.

I suppose it boils down to economics. If the market can support them charging for the right to use their product (a license, if you will), then they may charge it. If buying the STC minus the savings of using the fuel at my consumption rate doesn't justify using the fuel, then I won't buy it. That's how a free market works. They are free to charge and I am free to pass.

[S3flyer]

Y'all have combined a couple different fuel topics.

The FAA has narrowed their two finalist to Shell and SWIFT UL 102. One or both of these may be chosen as the successor and drop in replacement of 100LL. The testing and selection of the 'winner' (or winners) will be in 2018. In the meantime, SWIFT is marketing their 94UL through the STC process. My guess is that SWIFT is building their distribution network and will utilize it if/when their UL102 as the 100LL replacement.

[VFR-on-top]

AVgas now accounts for half the lead in the atmosphere (as of 2012). The sooner we get rid of this potential GA PR nightmare, the better.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-fuel/

[Low Pass]

Who's the holdup?? Oh yea, the FAA. What was it an FAA admin said last week about the FAA unable to act on part 26 reform?? Paraphrasing, "The FAA is not improving GA flight safety because they can't modify their own regulations, because of hindrances from their own bureaucracy and regulation."

[DaleB]

I filled up on the way to OSH with 94UL. I was surprised and happy to find it at C47 for $3.25 a gallon. The plane didn't seem to mind. I hate putting leaded gas in the Rotax.

[Frank Giger]

AVgas now accounts for half the lead in the atmosphere (as of 2012). The sooner we get rid of this potential GA PR nightmare, the better.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lead-in-aviation-fuel/

While I agree we need a non-lead aviation fuel, that article is pure propaganda and full of statistical hocus-pocus.

Saying that aviation is the majority user of leaded fuel is like saying the Amish are a majority user of horses for transportation and the primary cause of manure on roadways.

AFAIK, aviation is the only consumer of leaded fuel in the USA.

I do agree it's a PR nightmare. But that's all it really is when we dig down into the actual impact on the environment.

[1600vw]

While I agree we need a non-lead aviation fuel, that article is pure propaganda and full of statistical hocus-pocus.

Saying that aviation is the majority user of leaded fuel is like saying the Amish are a majority user of horses for transportation and the primary cause of manure on roadways.

AFAIK, aviation is the only consumer of leaded fuel in the USA.

I do agree it's a PR nightmare. But that's all it really is when we dig down into the actual impact on the environment.

When I moved up into the mountains of Colorado a friend and I went on a hike. We came across a few old closed down mines. These were lead mines. There was lead all over the place. I mean everywhere. We found chunks of lead everywhere. When I saw this my thoughts went to how people complain of lead in fuel and it getting into the air. This stuff was just a few hundred feet from a major water source. That being a stream that feeds the lakes up in the mountains. But it does get worse. The water flowing from these closed down mines was blood red. My buddy told me its all the minerals in the water that make it this color. But all the lead had me concerned. But no one else seemed to mind.

[TedK]

Will either of these Fuels require an STC?

A year or two ago, Swift Fuels was preparing a different blend that required an administrative STC. It galled me to think that I was going to have to pay several hundred dollars for the privledge of buying Swift's fuel.

I get that Swift, and others, have a cost to bring a fuel to market, but they should recoup that cost thru the sale price at the pump.
I wish to correct myself and offer an apology to Swift.

i now have a much better understanding of when one needs to purchase the Swift STC to use 94UL.

Simply put, if your engine airframe combination is authorized for 80/87 or MoGas, you can legally use 94UL without the Swift STC. However, if that is not the case, then your engine/airframe combo has to be evaluated for compatability with 94UL, and if compatible, then the Swift STC documents that compatability and then authorizes your usage of 94UL.

I might quibble with Swift's STC Pricing, from $0 on some combos to $450 on others, but the logic of getting the evaluation and assuring compatability before use seems sound.