Open letter to the FAA on preserving Mogas

The GAfuels Blog is written by two private pilots concerned about the future availability of fuels for piston-engine aircraft: Dean Billing, Sisters, Ore., an expert on autogas and ethanol, and Kent Misegades, Cary, N.C., an aerospace engineer and aviation journalist.

Dear Administrator Babbitt:

I know that the FAA is working diligently with the EPA and the General Aviation Avgas Coalition to find a solution to the impending demise of 100LL avgas. Can you tell me what the FAA and EPA are doing to ensure that the other approved avgas will survive? It is facing a similar demise. Unleaded auto gasoline made to ASTM D4814 without ethanol is an approved aviation fuel. It has FAA approval through the STC process for more than 60,000 aircraft and is the recommended fuel for virtually 100% of the new Light Sport Aircraft. Because of the unintended consequences of the federal RFS mandate in EISA 2007 ethanol free unleaded auto gasoline is disappearing. It has already disappeared in the Northeast and California.

The EPA can remedy the situation by the sweep of a pen, since they are entirely responsible for implementing the RFS in EISA 2007. Renewable fuel is E85, not gasoline with 10% or 15% ethanol in it. The EPA has been asked by a number of aviation representatives to do so through the waiver comments for E15, including the EAA, Petersen Aviation and individuals, by prohibiting the blending of ethanol in premium unleaded auto gasoline throughout the U.S.

I urge the FAA to protect the “other avgas” as vigorously as it is working to find a solution to the 100 LL conundrum.

Sincerely, Dean Billing, Sisters, Ore.


  1. says

    Mike Winthrop –
    I agree that never getting a reply from a government bureaucrat is discouraging, but if we don’t try the outcome is guaranteed, we won’t have the fuel we need. My congressional representative claims he is on the GA caucus. I have called his office repeatedly, they never return calls, I have emailed him numerous times about ethanol and his staff never answers. I have written the FAA, the EPA, EAA and I don’t get replies. But if you don’t do it, there is only one outcome, nothing will happen.

    This is what I learned dealing with the Oregon legislature during the mandatory ethanol battle in 2007. One letter to a politician is not even noise. It gets tallied somewhere and forgotten. You might get a boilerplate reply that doesn’t even deal with the problem you wrote about. Ten letters gets the attention of some staffer who is tallying the letters by subject, it is now noise. The issue might start to get the attention of the politician. Once it gets above 10 letters or emails, especially if it is 100, you now have their attention and it is an issue, not noise anymore. There is a critical mass in there somewhere which is why I keep working on this issue and asking people to write the FAA and EPA administrators and cc the EAA and maybe even the useless AOPA. When they get enough letters or emails and see enough blogs and articles in GAN they might just notice us. And remember, you pay everyone of those people’s salary. At least with the aviation alphabets you can vote with your feet. I dropped my AOPA membership years ago when President Phil Boyer told me that there was going to be only one avgas and that was 100LL or whatever 100 octane fuel replaced it. At that point I lost interest in supporting his salary. BTW, that reply came after an email battle with his underlings over articles in the AOPA magazine that continually dissed mogas, that eventually bubbled up to him.

  2. says

    Walter Goedicke – “Hi, If a person added water to a container of auto fuel with ethenol, then drained the water back out (taking the ethanol with it ), would it be okay to use it in your low compression airplane engine ?”

    This is fraught with problems. E10 is increasingly being made with suboctane BOB. In most cases BOB is not legal gasoline, it doesn’t meet ASTM D4814 specs. So if you use water to remove the ethanol you end up with an unknown fuel of lower octane. For 87 AKI regular, that is around 84 AKI. Plus you now have a toxic remnant of water, alcohol and whatever they used to denature it, usually benzene or gasoline. This stuff is considered a hazardous material in most places, how are you going to dispose of it properly?

    If we just worked on protecting our supply of premium unleaded gasoline we wouldn’t be dreaming up all of these ways to work around the problem.

  3. Mike Winthrop says

    I wrote a letter to the EPA administrator last year on this subject. I was not even given the courtesy of a reply. We are whistling in the wind.

  4. says

    Greg Venner –

    “How would “auto gasoline made to ASTM D4814? compare in price with 100LL avgas? Would it be more expensive, less expensive or significantly more/less expensive?”

    Looks like nobody answered your question, so I will. Gasoline made to ASTM D4814 is our present day unleaded auto gas that you find at any service station. The ASTM spec is required for a mogas STCs, just like ASTM D910 is the spec for 100LL avgas. Premium unleaded auto gas will always cost less that 100LL or whatever 100 octane gasoline replaces it and auto gas, or “mogas” as we call it for aviation use, is the most ubiquitous gasoline on the planet. Every refinery that makes gasoline has made unleaded auto fuel to ASTM D4814, but that is changing now and refineries are changing over completely to making Blendstock for Oxygenated Blending (BOB) which is a suboctane blendstock to mix with ethanol that results in legal E10. It is seldom a legal finished gasoline and the highest “octane”, or AKI, is 90 so premium unleaded gasoline is disappearing, the kind of gasoline that is necessary for 100 HP Rotax engines, high compression Petersen STCs and can be used by everyone who needs ethanol free unleaded gasoline.

  5. says

    Twenty years ago, I asked my father-in-law, an aviation fuels chemist for Shell Oil, about the best fuels for my Super Cub as 87-octane was disappearing. He said: Best Choice is 87 octane. Next best: One fill-up of 100 LL, then 5 fill-ups of premium uleaded ethanol-free autogas. Next best: ethanol-free autogas. Worst: 100LL every time. Now, 100LL and ethanol-free autogas are disappearing.

    Sounds like the EAA should buy a small refinery and become the primary seller of AvGas.

  6. Cherokee Dan says

    I have a PA-28-140 and have a STC for mogas. Non-ethanol gas is virtually impossible to get; so, I have come up with my own strategy and it has worked well. I have asked several A&Ps why auto gas with ethanol is incompatable with aircraft such as mine and did not get an answer other than that ethanol drys out rubber fuel bladders and lines. What I have done, for the last 8 years, is to mix a little more than the recommended dose of Marvel Mystery Oil in the mogas, which I put in one tank (the tank I normally run on) and keep avgas in the other. Most of my flying does not require switching to the avgas tank. I am convinced that the Marvel Mystery Oil mitigates the drying out effects of the ethanol(born out by many trouble free hours of flying and eight, and counting, annuals that have shown no ill effects to the fuel system—it also helps prevent sticking valves). Why do I keep one tank of avgas? When I am on final and done with flying for the day—which means, for me, a week or more—I switch to the avgas so the fuel lines and carburetor are purged of the mogas and they sit idly immersed in avgas. In this way, a tank of expensive avgas lasts me a long time. I don’t recommend my strategy to those obsessed with the strict rule of law but it works well for myself and a couple of Cessna owners I know.

  7. Kent Misegades says

    Herr Fecht: meine 2. Heimat ist der Bodensee…

    Page 8 of Rotax SI-912-06 does indeed set a 10% limit of ethanol by volume for the latest generation of the 900 series of engines, but it also has a long list of warnings considering the prolonged use of ethanol. While researching my two part series for EAA Sport Pilot last spring (“Fuels and Engines for EXP/LSA”), I contacted Rotax and was advised that their recommended fuel remains 91 AKI octane (or higher) unleaded, ethanol free fuel. Since ethanol blends are rare in Europe, the company focuses on ethanol-free fuels in its work. Note that if one does use ethanol blends in a Rotax engine, one must pay particular attention to lubricants that are attacked by them. The critical power and range requirements of aircraft and the fact that they are flown far fewer hours per year mean that they can not be treated as an automobile. Most experts agree that once the E10 limit is exceeded, power reductions will become apparent, and that can not be tolerated in an airplane, unlike a car.

    Joe V. – you have many sources for ethanol free fuel in Florida. See for listings.

    All – contact the EPA Administer, Lisa Jackson, She has the power to prohibit ethanol in premium gasoline across the nation with the simple stroke of her pen. And she needs to do this to satisfy the needs of the hundred millions of engines that will never run on E10, let alone E15 that was just approved for new cars.

  8. G Morton says

    >>Come to think of it, do you work for AOPA?<< Dean Billing – Nope. Just a long time pilot and aircraft owner (in ethanol saturated Calif.) concerned with the future of our ability to fly our airplanes affordably and safely. I believe if one sector of GA is negatively impacted by this avgas conundrum, it will (negatively) affect us all. Resenting one sector of aviation because they use the only fuel available at this time to fly will not help rid us of ethanol, but help divide GA and its ability to collectively resolve our fuel dilemma. PS I am also frustrated with the homogenized actions and inability to take a definitive stand by the AOPA.

  9. says

    Dietrich – In order for new airplanes, sLSA and especially TCd aircraft, to use E10, both the airframe and engine must be certified. While Rotax may say that it is OK to use E10 with their engines, practically no sLSA airframes are certified and in reality Rotax does not recommend that you use E10, just like they don’t recommend that you use 100LL. There are so many additional problems with using ethanol blended gasoline in aviation, not the least of which is less power and affinity for water in our vented fuel systems, the question is, why would you do it, when it is possible to have ethanol free fuel.

  10. Dietrich Fecht says

    Regarding Rotax 912 and 914 engines: I asked Rotax in Austria yesterday how much alcohol (ethanol) in fuels used in this engines is allowed. They send me Service Instruction SI-912-016 R3 and SI-914-019 R3 dated July 13, 2010. Under § 5.1.1 is written: “E10 (Unverbleiter Kraftstoff mit 10 % Ethanolbeimengung)“, translated: “E10 (unleaded fuel with 10 % ethanol admixture)”.

    And further under § 5.1.1: “Zusätzlich zu AVGAS und unverbleitem Auto-Kraftstoff (MOGAS) kann nun auch E10 für den ROTAX Motor Type 912 und 914 Serie verwendet werden. Kraftstoffe mit mehr als 10 % Ethanol sind von BRP-Powertrain nicht getestet und sind daher auch nicht zur Verwendung freigegeben.“

    Translated: „In addition to AVGAS and unleaded automobile fuel (MOGAS) can now be used E10 for the ROTAX engine type 912 and 914 series. Fuels with more than 10% ethanol are not tested by BRP-Powertrain and are therefore not approved for use”.

    That means eventually more than 10 % ethanol could be o.k. in ROTAX engines in the future.

    We are on the way to use auto-fuels in general aviation airplanes. What is missing are auto gas stations with access for airplanes (perhaps through the fence). Then aircraft can be refueled at prices well as cars.

    Again: New planes should be built with engines for auto fuel requirements.

  11. says

    G. Morton – I do not deem the maybe 20% of pilots that maybe use 60% of the avgas which needs to be 100 octane as “fat cats”, but yes they are forcing 100LL down my throat and damn right I resent them for it. I have watched for years as every aviation alphabet, except LAMA, pander to 100LL users and tell me that there will be only one avgas on our airports, 100LL or whatever replaces it, especially AOPA.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be an unleaded 100 octane replacement no matter what happens with ethanol and mogas. I have never claimed that it must be ethanol free mogas or nothing for GA. I resent you putting words into my mouth. Why must I sit by patiently and silently while ethanol is put in all the mogas in the hopes that someday there will be a 100 octane unleaded avgas at an unknown cost that I don’t even need. I will not support a single avgas solution that is only 100 octane, especially when there is already an ubiquitous unleaded avgas already available that works in 80% of our airplanes if the pilots want to use it. It is economic suicide for the emerging LSA market and the recreational aviation market, as many of the messages above attest, if we must sit silently by and wait for unleaded 100 octane avgas.

    What is truly ironic is your compromise isn’t compromise at all, it is shut up and use 100LL and wait for the unleaded 100 octane replacement. Come to think of it, do you work for AOPA?

  12. G Morton says

    >>Besides, we don’t need a 100 octane solution for 80% of GA, especially when all we have to do is keep ethanol out of premium unleaded mogas, which despite what you think is actually doable.<< Dean Billing – What happened to the “General” part of General Aviation? I believe the solution to “our” problem will include some type/s of compromise. It sounds as if your approach only relates to 80 percent of GA that only uses approximately 30 percent of all avgas/mogas in the U.S.. If the other 20 percent of GA are deemed as “fat cats” forcing 100LL down your throats and you resent them for that, then the avgas issue is not fully understood and addressed on your part. Those whom fly aircraft with higher octane requirements, and I personally am NOT one of them, shouldn’t be thrown under the bus by any group within GA. They did not cause the problem! Like it or not, there is not just one avgas (100LL or mogas containing ethanol) issue. They need to succeed together, even as separate fuels. As you may already know, if 100LL (or a replacement) is not available, this would affect all of GA, not just Bonanza’s and the like. It would also set up the demise of General Aviation. If you’re not part of the (whole) solution…then you’re part of the problem. With your influence, why not support a fuel solution for all of GA and not be tunnel-visioned and fueled by just one? Just getting rid of ethanol in mogas will not solve the GA avgas issue. The wrong solution that may win a battle, just may lead to the loss of the war for a 100 percent of GA. I suggest you use your power wisely for all of GA.

  13. John Peeler says

    In the metro St. Louis area, ethanol free auto fuel is no longer available. I’m not sure if it is still available anywhere in Missouri. I am forced to use 100LL or not fly.

    I flew my Cessna 150 for many years on 87 octane auto fuel, with the proper STCs and had no problems. When I was forced to change to 100LL my Continental O-200 engine started having leading issues. I began adding TCP to the 100LL to counter those leading probelms.

    I currently fly an aircraft with a Lycoming O-320, 150 HP engine. I could use ethanol free auto fuel, with an STC, but the ethanol free auto fuel is not available in my area. All of my former and current low compression aircraft engines have run better ( no leading issues) on autofuel vs. 100LL.

    In the interim between the end 100LL and the start of a new lead free Avgas, why not make ethanol free auto fuel available again throughout the country?????

    In all reality I am being forced, un-necessarily, to emit lead into the air, whenever I fly because I can’t obtain ethanol free auto fuel anywhere in my area. The best price for 100LL in my area currently is $ 4.05 gallon. 87 octane autofuel is $ 2.55 gallon. Not only am I forced to pollute the air with lead when I fly but I must pay another $ 1.50 per gallon for that “privilege.”

    Just imagine how much lead emissions could be reduced during the iterim between the end of 100LL and a new lead free Avgas, which still may be years in the future. The EPA / FAA working together should jump all over this and quickly.

  14. LEON KAY says




  15. says

    Here in central Illinois I have been burning “100% gasoline” (marked on the pump) in my C-150 for the last ten years with no problems. It averages around $3.00/ gal. I don’t think for a minute that if the same fuel truck delivered the same gasoline to a tank on my airport that it would still sell for $3.00/ gal. because now it is an aviation fuel. The acronyms that are fighting the ethanol war have to lump us car gas users in with the 100 unleaded group so they have a number large enough to impress everyone to the need for change. I wrote to the AOPA writer and stated that after the 100 unleaded is developed, no matter who does it, and the FAA blesses it, I will still be buying my “100 % gasoline” at the local gas station for $3.00/ gal and saving $2.00/ gal. over the FBO price. We are fortunate here in Central Illinois to still be able to get the fuel at several different gas stations in the city.

  16. Dan Nelson says

    It is increasingly difficult to find any non-ethanol laced gasoline in Utah. I have a Cessna 182 STC’d to burn mogas, but if the mogas has any ethanol in it, it rots the crossover feeds and the rubber tank bladders. I realize I can buy 100LL at the airport, but the prices are out of sight and 100LL burns too hot for my engine. Also, it is full of lead and fouls the plugs. I would love to see the EPA mandated to prove that ethanol has any environment benefit, especially with it’s decreased octane equivalency and decreased mileage history. Let’s see a reasonable offer by the Administration, EPA and the refineries to make un-laced mogas available for aircraft owners, boaters, ski mobilers and lawnmower operators.

  17. says

    Tigerpilot –

    “E15 is going to kill the marine industry outright.” So far the EPA has exempted the marine industry from the effects of the E15 waiver. The waiver ONLY applies to 2007 and newer cars which is pretty damn funny when you consider that warranties of none of those cars includes E15, so why would someone put a fuel in the tank that would void the warranty, decrease their mileage and cost more than E10, because right now ethanol is more expensive than gasoline … once again. E15 is DOA.

  18. says

    Gary Sturdy –
    “I had better luck with state representatives.”

    You bring up a valid point. EISA 2007 that is causing the problem is NOT a mandatory E10 law. States have passed mandatory E10 laws, therefor states can pass laws prohibiting the blending of ethanol in their gasoline. There is no federal preemption at this time. It would be wise of states to pass a measure to protect their marine, aviation, recreational vehicle and public safety industries before one of their citizens dies in a marine event or because a portable tool used in public safety craps out or doesn’t start because of ethanol.

  19. Joe V. says

    I use premium unleaded auto gasoline in my aprilia and in their manual it says not to use blended fuel The fuel injection system wasn’t desighed for it. In Florida all auto gas is 10% ethanol now and am forced to use it. My mileage has dropped almost 10 miles per gallon less now, was 65mpg. If they go to 15% I cannot drive my motorcycle anymore and will be force to only drive my truck that gets 16mpg on a good day. As for aircraft how much power loss will they have and can it cause a fatal crash on a day that requires the most power on takeoff. All the charts for figuring power to weight will be wrong. Whos fault would it be then? I do small engine repairs and have seen many problems with etanol added to gasoline from simple power loss to complete fuel systems failure. two stroke engines require more monitoring as there have been issues with heat on small aircraft, ultralight and sport, EGT CHT, etc. Anyway I hope that the FAA thinks, and does whats right for that pilots and their aircraft.

  20. says

    Bob Leonard, NM

    New Mexico is NOT a mandatory E10 state, there are only four active ones, Minnesota, Hawaii, Missouri and Oregon and Washington has a useless 2% volumetric law. Florida will join us at the end of the year as a mandatory E10 state. All mandatory E10 states have exceptions for aviation, marine use, off road recreational vehicles, antique / classic cars, small engines but not one of them requires that ethanol free gasoline be available. Everyone else, too bad, you are going to get E10 everywhere. Of course the exceptions will become meaningless by 2012 because the gasoline producers will have ethanol coming out of their ears with no place to put it.

  21. says

    Hi, If a person added water to a container of auto fuel with ethenol, then drained the water back out (taking the ethanol with it ), would it be okay to use it in your low compression airplane engine ?

  22. Norman Davis says

    As I have been informed by local fuel distibutors, the ethanol is mixed in at the distributorship. At our airport, RMY, in Marshall, MI we have 93 octane mogas available at a considerable savings over 100LL. The airport council and city board are rather enlightened in this regard. To them my hat is off.

    Seems like a simple thing to rectify the situation, but I’ve never known the FAA powers that be to think clearly. It’s always CYA and be surley to all those of us who are regulated by them. A fine example is the rediculously convoluted Light Sport regulations.

    But I digress. I would like to see 87 or 93 ethanol free gas available, but maybe the corn industry would be up in arms about it. Maybe EPA and FAA are in their pockets. I fear the above letter will be read by blind eyes and heard by deaf ears.

  23. says

    G. Morton – your logic completely fails me. So I will pass this one simple concept along to you. The “federal mandate” you mention is the RFS section of EISA 2007. I suggest you read it: It is in Section 201 on page 28 and goes for about 30 pages. Pay particular attention to the tables in Section 202, and scan the document for E10 or E15 or 10% or 15%. Notice anything strange? Now scan for E85. It should be apparent to you now. That law is a corporate welfare act for the production and distribution of E85 and flex-fuel vehicles. E10 is NEVER mentioned in the act. E15 is NEVER mentioned in the act. The ONLY definition of Renewable Fuel in the act is E85. Now look at the table in Section 202 again and tell me what we are going to do after 2012 when ALL of the gasoline in the U.S. is E10? And I can guarantee you E15 is DOA. If you want to understand why, read my blog

    There is one peculiar thing that you will notice in the act though. The EPA is the only federal agency with the authority to implement the RFS in EISA 2007. It CAN DO ANYTHING IT WANTS. IT HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT THE BLENDING OF ETHANOL IN PREMIUM UNLEADED gasoline, because EISA 2007 is NOT a mandatory E10 law, it is a Renewable Fuel standard and E85 is the only Renewable Fuel defined; E10 and E15 are nothing more than gasoline laced with ethanol. The EPA has already made one huge exception to the act. This year the ethanol industry was supposed to produce 100 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol but among 30+ companies, they couldn’t do it, despite the hundreds of millions of your tax dollars that have been thrown at them for the last 30 years, so EPA administrator Jackson said they only had to produce 6.5 million gallons.

    And BTW, I wouldn’t bet my future on Swift Fuel being “renewable”. It is two hydrocarbon molecules that can be purchased off the shelf today. That is how they make the test fuel that they have been sending around to the FAA and ERAU. Unfortunately one of those molecules is very expensive to make and they were hoping to come up with a bio-mass process for that molecule that would bring it down from the present $20 / gallon. Last I heard they had pretty much abandoned the bio-mass process and were looking at some way to get the oil companies involved. Besides, we don’t need a 100 octane solution for 80% of GA, especially when all we have to do is keep ethanol out of premium unleaded mogas, which despite what you think is actually doable.

  24. says

    Folks, stopping ethanol’s use altogether is like arguing in favor of leaded fuels – these fish are too big to fry for our relatively small community. But the EPA has a real problem on its hands in both cases. They can not end 100LL use overnight and destroy G.A., and they can not force higher grades of ethanol into the hundreds of millions of engines that ethanol will damage. The EPA can solve both problems by prohibiting the blending of ethanol in premium gasoline. That will preserve a fuel for all those who need it, and allow our airports to make the investment in a 2nd pump for Mogas. For G.A. this means lower operational and maintenance costs for airplanes that do not need a 100 octane fuel, and it might take some of the pressure off of the EPA to replace 100LL soon. It also hedges against the sudden loss of all aviation fuel should something happen at Innospec, the last producer of TEL. We are one business decision or one plant explosion away from losing our sole producer of TEL and with it the entire supply of 100LL. Mogas could still power 70%-80% of the piston-engine fleet in this case, but only if we keep the ethanol out of it. All you boaters out there please contact your organizations and ask them to support this. There are over 16 million of you in the U.S. alone, making G.A. seem tiny by comparison.

  25. Gary Sturdy says

    In response to Harold Christmas, writing to my US representatives and senators in WA fell on deaf ears. I had better luck with state representatives.

  26. Gary Sturdy says

    In responsee Greg Venner, I pay $5.20 for 100LL at KBVS, western WA and $3.75 for 87 at KPUW eastern WA. I can not detect a difference in performance or fuel usage.

  27. Tom Spann says

    I was lucky enough to talk with Donna Yeargan of Sen. Lincoln’s office over lunch today. Sen Lincoln is on the Senate GA caucus. None to my suprise she did not have a clue to the crisis facing General Aviation on several fronts. User fees pushed by FAA. Rauthorization of FAA funding. The unavailability of 100LL avgas or ethonol free mogas for aviation use is reaching the critical level in Arkansas. I not think many legislators offices are much differant. They hear better for the environment and vote for it. Alternate energy and vote for it. Better security and vote for it. Photos on Pilot certificates vote for it. How many pictures of my self do I need in my possession to prove to someone who I am.

  28. Pete says

    I emailed the AOPA with the request that take up the torch for mogas and essentially was blown off.

    So far I have to “wash” the ethanol from the automobile gas which I use in my Kitfox III.

  29. Tigerpilot says

    The ethanol issue is nothing more than our crooked congress throwing yet another bone to the large industrialized farming interests. ADM and their friends spend tens of millions of dollars on congress pushing their agenda. Corn as food is worth a lot less than corn as vehicle fuel. E15 is going to kill the marine industry outright. It’s going to go a long way toward killing general aviation, especially the recreational pilot. The problem that is really difficult is that both of the crooked political parties jumped on the E15 bandwagon because of the payoffs.

  30. says

    All, remember to check for places selling ethanol-free gasoline. If you find one not on this list, please add it. Jim, Gray’s Creek and Kennebec both had Mogas until a few years ago, otherwise you are correct, there is no Mogas on NC airports. But due to our marine industry you can find it at marinas and gas stations near lakes.

  31. Dave Wilkie says

    The trouble with adding ethanol to mogas is the reduction of fuel milage (avg 2 mpg reduction for me) which entirely offsets any added value of having ethanol in it in the first place. You end up using just as much fuel as before except now you’ve added the cost of ethanol along with all of its peripheral costs.
    I don’t see any indication that ethanol mixed with mogas has helped with either pollution control or fuel expenditure and it certainly makes owning an STC for mogas totally worthless!
    One more jewel in the crown of The United States of America being plucked- General Aviation.

  32. Dietrich Fecht says

    For the future of general aviation with piston powered gas engines it is necessary that auto fuels with alcohol (ethanol) can be used in airplanes.

    Laws and regulations should be established in the nearer future that this is possible. Corresponding STC`s are required. Engine manufacturers should offer suitable engines and modifications. New planes should be built with engines for this requirements.

    Airports should open gas stations which serve street vehicles (autos) and airplanes through the fence out of the same tanks (one side of the fence autos, on the other side airplanes).

  33. G Morton says

    The U. S. is committed by federal mandate to having a percentage of renewable blendstock in mogas. If we want to continue to use mogas as avgas, attempting to convince the petroleum industry (including the ethanol industry),refineries and politicians everywhere to eliminate ethanol in mogas, will be very difficult, if not ultimately in time, impossible; THEY WANT TO ESCALATE IT! My point is, don’t continue to fight a losing battle about removing ethanol on a wide scale throughout the U.S… Change strategy and support replacing ethanol with a different RENEWABLE (or petroleum based during transition to renewable) blendstock such as Swift Fuel. If all mogas had Swift Fuel as the blendstock instead of ethanol, I believe FBO’s would be more open to having mogas pumps, partly due to less liability without the possibility of ethanol tainted mogas. And, gas stations would be ethanol free too, making it much easier for those whom tote it to their planes, without the concern that it may contain any ethanol. In the end we all could benefit by having a mogas for low compression aircraft, boats, snowmobiles, farm equipment, etc and also have an affordable 100 plus octane avgas, due to the volume of swift Fuel produced to accommodate all. This will allow the current renewable fuel (ethanol) to be replaced by Swift Fuel as a blendstock. Thus presenting an option to both the ethanol industry and government that would allow for continued uninterrupted production and profit for both. In fact, possibly more profit since Swift Fuel can be derived from a less expensive feedstock than corn; more profit per acre for farmers, than corn for ethanol. The REPLACING of ethanol will be much more of a possibility than attempting to eliminate ethanol on a large scale, only to benefit a small sector of demand in their eyes.

  34. Greg Venner says

    How would “auto gasoline made to ASTM D4814” compare in price with 100LL avgas? Would it be more expensive, less expensive or significantly more/less expensive?

  35. Byron says

    75 percent of the general aviation fleet will run just fine on 87 octane. I’ve been running my 172 and 182 on autogas for 10 years with no problems. Until recently. We can no longer find ethanol free gasoline in Maryland. The cost of my flying just doubled.

  36. Jim Murray says

    NC is difficult to find non ethanol gas as it is one of a few states not requiring a label at the pump. EAA and AOPA should partner with the small engine people and the marine industry. They are having many issues with ethanol fuels. If a large coalition of industry shows a need for non ethanol maybe free enterprise will determine the market.
    Some SC gas stations are now advertising ‘ethanol free gas’ to draw in boaters and small engine users. They have to label content at the pumps.

    I have had a Rotax that is much better off with Mogas and my Maule has the mogas STC. To my knowledge there is not one airport in NC selling non ethanol mogas.

  37. Jack Thompson says

    I think it is important to point out that every gallon of unleaded auto gasoline made to ASTM D4814 that is burned instead of 100LL is a step in the direction of lead reduction, the EPA’s goal, and it requires no development or regulatory action on the part of the FAA other than taking the penstroke to assure it remains available. I have used 87 octane mogas in my Skylane since the EAA obtained the STC and I have had nothing but good experience. Mogas w/o ethanol is getting to be very hard to find. Your initiative is well reasoned and critical to a number of fuel consumers that hve no toleance for ethanol.

  38. Harold Christmas says

    It seems the Feds have wanted to deminish or eliminate the GA fleet for years by legislative restriction. Are they now going to be allowed to do it by sneaking in the back door with the fuel issue.

    Each aviation minded citizen should stop right now and write or call every congressman and senator in their state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *