LETTER TO THE EDITOR from TOM MULLER, Poland Spring, Maine
I was impressed with Michael Kraft’s thoughtful article on the replacement for 100LL (Guest Editorial: Beware the “sound bite solution: There are no easy answers to the complex avgas issue). Several aviation writers seem to be assuming that because 94UL is already on the market in Europe, that it is the de facto winner of the search for a 100LL replacement. Europe is not the USA and the last thing we should do in aviation is to adopt a standard just because Europe uses it. We have more airplanes, particularly low-cost older airplanes, a wider variety of types and, in all likelihood, more hours flown per aircraft than in Europe. I suspect that 94UL will cost more and deliver less performance.
We need to look at all the alternatives, particularly the homegrown Swift fuel, which promises better performance, lower cost per gallon and no aircraft modifications.
The final decision should be based on hard science and hard economics (the life cycle costing kind), not on fads or politics. I am pleased to see that Lycoming supports an objective evaluation and hope the oil companies will do the same.