WASHINGTON, D.C – The FAA has selected four unleaded fuels for the first phase of testing at the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center. The goal is for government and industry to work together to have a new unleaded fuel that reduces lead emissions for general aviation by 2018.
Shell and TOTAL, with one fuel each, and Swift Fuels, with two fuels, will now work with the FAA on phase-one testing, which will begin this fall and conclude in fall 2015.
“We’re committed to removing harmful lead from general aviation fuel,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “This work will benefit the environment and provide a safe and available fuel for our general aviation community.”
In July, fuel producers submitted their replacement fuel proposals to the FAA for further evaluation as part of the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), an industry-government initiative designed to help the general aviation industry transition to an unleaded aviation gasoline. The FAA assessed candidate fuels in terms of their impact on the existing fleet, the production and distribution infrastructure, the impact on the environment, toxicology, and the cost of aircraft operations.
Based on the results of the phase-one laboratory and rig testing, the FAA anticipates that two or three fuels will be selected for phase-two engine and aircraft testing. That testing will generate standardized qualification and certification data for candidate fuels, along with property and performance data. That entire testing process is expected to conclude in 2018.
For Phase 1 testing, fuel developers supply 100 gallons of fuel, and successful fuels will move on to aircraft and engine testing. Phase 2 will require 10,000 gallons of fuel and will generate standardized qualification and certification data, as well as property and performance data.
Approximately 167,000 general aviation aircraft in the United States rely on 100 low-lead aviation gasoline for safe operation. Low-lead is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United States that contains lead, which is considered a toxic substance. The small quantity of lead in the fuel creates the very high octane levels needed for high-performance aircraft. Most commercial airplanes do not use leaded gas.
PAFI is facilitating the development and deployment of a new unleaded aviation gasoline that will have the least impact on existing piston-engine aircraft, FAA officials noted. PAFI will play a key role in the testing and deployment of an unleaded fuel across the existing general aviation fleet.
Congress authorized $6 million for the fiscal year 2014 budget to support the PAFI test program at the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center.
“This is another important milestone in the collaborative effort between the aviation community, fuel producers, and the FAA to find future replacements for 100 low-lead fuel for GA aircraft,” said Jack Pelton, EAA’s chairman of the board. “We all have a single goal: Finding the best possible outcome for the widest spectrum of the GA fleet. EAA stands ready to continue its active participation in this important initiative.”
For more information: FAA.gov
Be a better informed pilot.
Join over 110,000 readers each month and get real-world news and information direct to your inbox, each day.
As far back as the 1990’s, studies conducted on over 300 lead free fuels, have not yielded a satisfactory replacement for lead, and some alternatives have proven to be far more toxic!
Has anyone been able to come up with a definitive answer on the dangers of 100LL/AVGAS? Can they conclusively document that a danger even exists? What about a delivery infrastructure for the new alternative fuel they choose? I find it very hard to believe this entire “alternative-lead-free-fuel” push will not cost the GA industry a fortune! Follow the money: who’s going to profit from this? (at the expense of the American people)
Why should some third party be the “end all” in proving that some new formula will not destroy my Lycoming. Thee FAA should be funding the engine manufactures instead. I do wonder how one tests on 100 gallons. Whose engine are they using? How many engines are being tested? BUT THERE IS A BOTTOM LINE TO THIS SILLY FIASCO. The contrails at 30,000 feet are doing more damage to the environment then a few hundred 100LL airplanes every day. That’s the dirty little secret. This 100LL thing is a joke.
Every reader comment above supports mogas. Only the wizards of smart who have wasted decades chasing unicorns seem to be out in left field and ignore the most logical future fuel, mogas. Avweb’s Paul Bertorelli claimed in an article in Kitplanes last year that FBO’s are enjoying a profit margin of up to $1.50 on Avgas. Gas stations earn literally pennies per gallon. Low fuel costs lead to more flying, duh. High Avgas costs are turning our GA airports into airplane boneyards.
As long as premium nonethanol mogas remains available I will be using that fuel in my STC’d airplane. If the new unleaded fuel is more expensive than 100LL, maybe more aircraft that are approved to burn mogas, but are not using mogas because they don’t have a STC for its use, will apply for the STC. Also, there are STC’d aircraft that for various reasons the owners are not using mogas many because they still under the assumption their planes perform better on 100LL. Remove the lead and they may switch to mogas, especially if they save on the cost of flying.
Fuel can’t lubricate anything since it has solvent properties. I think it will be more expensive but we don’t know what is going to happen with fuel prices that far in the future. If we would elect the right people maybe we could eliminate ethynol build pipelines, etc. and lower gas prices overall. The real solution for us recreational pilots is a good quality 93oct eth-free mogas available more readily. My experience running mogas at 91 or 93 octane in an 0-360A1A is that the engine runs cooler with no appreciable effect on performance.
Since both mogas and the new avgas is/will be unleaded, there is no “valve lubrication” with either one of them. The answer is new spec valve seats which have been available on Lycoming and Continental engines for at least the past 15 years. Mogas does away with lead fouling as will the new avgas – again, because they’re both unleaded.
135,000 airplanes out of that 167,000 figure, could use ethanol free autofuel right now with little to no modifications. With already known and proven modifications, most of the rest of them could use it too.
Yes it will cost more, but do we have a choice? Unleaded fuel without alcohol (MOGAS) is not really a good answer for most due to the lack of valve lubrication. I would go with the new fuel if it has the same qualities as the old 100LL without the fouling.
By taking the TEL out of the fuel, you remove the cost of a very pricey substance made by only one supplier. By taking the TEL out of the fuel, you may use less expensive methods of transporting the fuel from the refinery to the distributor, and from the distributor to the end user. Yes, there will be R&D and certification costs. I think the unleaded aviation product should sell for about $1 over the cost of premium mogas, and yet I bet it will come in at a higher price than the current 100LL. What are the thoughts of others?
MOGAS without ethanol and without lead would not cost any more than the same stuff that we can burn in our automobiles and doesn’t need any “R & D”. Don’t be fooled by folks that just want to make money off of us general aviation types. Be more concerned about orange balls on power lines and getting rid of the third class medical. Thanks.