Kellym
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 1705
Location: Sun Lakes AZ
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 7:18 pm Post subject: Unleaded aviation fuel - what are our General Aviation cham |
 |
|
So far testing has not ruled out either the Swift Fuels 100UL, nor the
GAMI 100UL as drop-in replacements.
Since nearly 80% of all 100LL is burned by 20% of the fleet that
requires it, you are unlikely to see any FBOs willing to carry two
grades of fuel, thus a 100UL fuel will be the only choice. As it is,
most of the recip cargo planes are already operating at reduced power
from the 115/145 they were designed for. (Think DC-6, DC-7, etc.) Other
commercial aircraft like C414, C402, C421, PA-31. etc. also require 100
octane minimum. The privately flown lower compression aircraft that can
operate on 96 or lower octane only purchase something less than 20 % of
avgas sold, so are very unlikely to ever have a separate fuel stocked
for them.
When FBOs needed to stock Jet A, that spelled the end of 80/87, as no
one is going to spend the money to have 3 sets of tanks and pumps.
On 4/24/2013 5:48 PM, Carl Froehlich wrote:
[quote]
Not really RV related, so delete now if you like.
While Lycoming is taking a much needed step toward a fuel that we can
actually afford, I'm afraid our aviation champions simply reject any
option other than a still non-existent 100LL drop in replacement.
Below is an email I wrote to both the EAA and AOPA last January. EAA
did not respond. AOPA sent a disjointed response about auto fuel
availability in Virginia.
Perhaps if we all pinged on AOPA and EAA they may hear us over the
turbine noise.
Carl
I note with interest articles such as in General Aviation on aviation
fuel predictions:
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013/01/predictions-aviation-fuel-in-2013/?utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers&utm_campaign=6f588e756e-TP2013&utm_medium=email
After a couple of decades of study and discussion, my evaluation is we
are on a trajectory toward avgas prices that simply end the private
pilot aspect of general aviation. We no longer have the luxury of time
to cling to the only acceptable option for 100LL as a full replacement
drop in. I have reviewed the “70%/30%” argument; 70% of all piston GA
aircraft can run on non-ethanol unleaded premium auto fuel based avgas
such as 91/96UL, but the remaining 30% of the piston GA aircraft that
need 100LL consume 70% of the fuel. This logic has run its course and
now needs to be revised in the light of current realities. I also
question if we can rely on this argument’s base assumptions as they
are untested by market demand as no affordable unleaded aviation fuel
is readily available, and is a backward look at the legacy
engine/aircraft population, not new engines/aircraft that would be
tailored for a 91/96UL environment.
For the private pilot segment of general aviation, a non-ethanol
premium auto fuel type product like 91/96UL is exactly the right
solution and the market base for the fuel makes it continued
availability, at reasonable prices, assured. While it is not a
perfect, the clock is running out on producing a 100LL replacement
fuel. If such a full replacement is ever delivered, the price for this
novelty fuel is already estimated to be $.50 to $1 per gallon more
than today’s 100LL. The added cost will accelerate the private pilot
death spiral.
Although there are a few FBOs offering non-ethanol premium auto fuel
the market penetration is dismal. I also note little evidence of
organized efforts to promote widespread FBO, engine and aircraft
manufacture embracing of existing unleaded aviation fuel options. I
recommend a new strategy. I believe we have opportunity to bridge this
fuel gap by a managed portfolio of options. Some FBOs may choose to
carry both 100LL and the lower octane unleaded fuel, others may carry
only one or the other based on their customer demand. What is needed
is advocacy to establish the required policies and regulations, and
collaboration with fuel suppliers, FBOs, aircraft and engine
manufactures, state and federal agencies. This will mitigate the
primary obstacle for 91/96UL adoption, legal risk.
While continued study of aviation fuel options is needed I believe we
are at a tipping point. $6+ per gallon is not sustainable for the
majority of private pilots paying for fuel out of their pocket. At the
very least an affordable unleaded aviation fuel option would help slow
the continued decline in the number of active private pilots.
Immediate action is needed to make an affordable 91/96UL type aviation
fuel widely available .
--
| | - The Matronics RV10-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List |
|
_________________
Kelly McMullen
A&P/IA, EAA Tech Counselor # 5286
KCHD |
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
