We are now well into 2017, so I thought I would review all of the significant advancements in the world of general aviation future fuels, especially the development of an unleaded 100 octane avgas.
But there were none.
We have had a lot of talk about the candidate fuels, testing, new specification, etc. We have also seen the engine manufacturers make small adjustments so their engines can maybe run on mogas or unleaded sub 100 octane unleaded fuel.
As always, no one talks about the elephant in the room. If a 100 octane unleaded fuel is ever introduced into the GA market, it will face a huge liability exposure from knocking complaints, which may lead to engine damage, exhaust valve recession claims, plus many other lawsuits.
But who will they sue?
The oil company that supplies the fuel will claim that it meets the new spec. The engine manufacturers will claim the FAA research said that it was safe. And it will go round and round — the lawyers will make money and GA will die a little more.
I have received numerous questions asking how the research into unleaded fuels hurts general aviation.
Well, it hurts the industry as a whole because instead of working on updating their engines to at least 1960’s technology, the engine manufacturers are playing with these fuels. They could be working on electronic fuel injection, electronic ignition, liquid cooling and many other technology advancements that the rest of the world has been using for almost 50 years.
So what is going to happen in the future?
There is a possibility that the new administration will look at the whole unleaded avgas thing and conclude it is just a complete waste of time and pull the plug on the funding. This would leave a bunch of companies holding the bag and no place to go.
However GA is such a small market, and it would not affect many people, so it would not generate any big headlines. So, the administration may not bother with it.
The other big effect that GA may note from the change in administration is the availability of mogas without ethanol. This is going to be a real crapshoot.
If the new administration looks at the big ethanol picture, it would cut all government subsidies and let ethanol fight it out in the marketplace. But that may not happen because this would hurt the Big Ag business community. And no politician wants to bite the hand that feeds them. I am guessing that not much will happen.
So what will change for GA in 2017? Not much, and I will probably recycle this column in 2018.
I agree. Leave the composition of AvGas alone! This 1940’s era fuel was designed for the 1940’s era piston engines it powers, and it works well.
TEL was removed from auto fuel circa 1975 to stop the spewing of lead compounds all over the country, and especially in urban areas. Seeing how the U. S. consumed 143 billion gallons of MoGas last year, the removal of TEL is understandable.
But at the same time, general aviation consumed about 400 million gallons of AvGas…….a small, small percentage of the total gasoline consumption.
I do not see how the amount of research and money spent in trying to develop unleaded AvGas is warranted or cost effective.
Also, ethanol is not friendly to aircraft piston engines or their fuel systems.
I agree. Leave the composition of AvGas alone! This 1940’s era fuel was designed for the 1940’s era piston engines it powers, and it works well.
TEL was removed from auto fuel circa 1975 to stop the spewing of lead compounds all over the country, and especially in urban areas. Seeing how the U. S. consumed 143 billion gallons of MoGas last year, the removal of TEL is understandable.
But at the same time, general aviation consumed about 400 million gallons of AvGas…….a small, small percentage of the total gasoline consumption.
I do not see how the amount of research and money spent in trying to develop unleaded AvGas is warranted or cost effective.
Also, ethanol is not friendly to aircraft piston engines or their fuel systems.
I know for a fact that sunoco base fuel is oxygenated it has 97 octane motor number, they make race fuel at 112 octane that has TEL added. i’m sure that AV fuel is 97 base plus TEL in small percent. Just leave it alone. Ethanol wouldn’t work in a AV application . My 2 cents worth
Well I hope you are correct that nothing will have changed. I don’t want to see 100LL go because I know that a cost effective alternative that is just as good as 100LL is impossible. We need to try to lobby this administration to legally grandfather in and protect 100LL. Think of all the warbirds from the greatest generation that need 100LL to fly. All of the antique aircraft that need it. We shouldn’t have to give it up because it is causing an imaginary problem.
Imaginary problem ? For who. How about the people that live in close proximity to busy general aviation airports where test on the air, soil, and people show a higher than normal level of lead. If it was one of your kids or grandkids It wouldn’t be such a imaginary problem would it.
Some very good comments and I thank you all for your time. A couple of things 100 octane unleaded and 100LL have very different anti-knock traits in an aircraft engine. Everyone thinks that they will be equal but as the people who commented about when we changed from 100/130 to 100/130LL commented, the is a very significant difference. The comment that you need oxygen sensors for electronic fuel injection is also incorrect. There are a number of systems the run without oxygen sensors. The other major point is that experience has shown that almost every aircooled aircraft engine needs to have some leaded fuel run during break-in to keep the valves from recessing into the head. The engine manufacturers may claim that their engines do not need it, but when they get into the field they have problems. So break in on 100LL and then switch to unleaded.
After having switched to MOGAS 5 years ago on both of my 8.5:1 compression engines, my engines run so much cleaner, spark plug maintenance is next to nothing, no lead build up on the exhaust valve stems destroying the valve guides, fuel related maintenance issues are way down. Pilots want to hang onto 100LL more because they are afraid of change than any other reason. If pilots realized how much less they would be putting into engine maintenance, they would be demanding an unleaded fuel replacement rather than dragging their feet and wanting to hang onto 100LL. Replacing the leaded fuels is a win-win deal. Let’s get on with it!
Mogas has a very low heat affected evaporation point compared to leaded Avgas. If you are flying hot and high you are chancing a vapor lock and the engine quitting suddenly. Be aware of that as you kid yourself about using Mogas in an aviation engine.
Thank you
While I am often dismayed at the lack of news coming from the PAFI initiative, what little news that trickles out seems to indicate that the PAFI program is on schedule and that we can begin seeing unleaded avgas by the end of next year. This cynical article only serves up unwarranted skepticism and I seriously wish I could recover the time I wasted reading it.
Personally, I eagerly await the arrival of unleaded avgas. Ask anyone who runs on mogas and they will tell you that their spark plugs are cleaner and their oil lasts twice as long. Engines run much better on unleaded. I expect that we will see fewer exhaust valve problems with unleaded thanks to lower buildup of deposits on valve stems. Not to mention that since their is no known safe level of lead, the sooner we rid ourselves of exposure to leaded avgas, the better. TEL has long overstayed its welcome and I will be happy to see it go (and so will my engine).
80/87 octane fuel was phased out, as the market for it was very small. Well, compared to other markets for MoGas, the aviation demand for Avgas is also very small, by comparison. My vote is to leave 100 LL alone, and dispense with this “kingdom” that has been created with regards to alternative fuels. The hype is costing way too much money (correction: wasting money).
Now, the Germans wasted no time in developing synthetic fuel in WW II out of a dire need, but here in the US, what could be done relatively quickly will take years and years due to politics, and from the fact that people are getting rich doing “research”. This is all a con game.
I agree with you 100%
Maybe this administration will agree too and we will get to keep 100LL. We should try to get something together that shows that general aviation lead emissions are NOT a problem. If they were then how were people born in the 1940s through 70s when all gas was highly leaded even alive and not retarded??? But seriously we need to fight to keep our great fuel that isn’t hurting anyone.
Not to mention you know the new fuel will be hugely expensive. Itll probably be that Shell fuel given that they are the only big company that entered a product and that fuel is based on their URT unleaded racing fuel. Go look up the price of that!! No thanks, I’ll stick with 100LL.
“If a 100 octane unleaded fuel is ever introduced into the GA market, it will face a huge liability exposure from knocking complaints” No more then current 100LL. What makes you think leaded 100 octane will prevent knocking any better then lead free 100 octane? Mr. Visser is selling you some all natural fertilizer. I don’t understand if he ignorant on fuels, or he willfully misleads the readers.
It’s funny how this guy is simply repeating the same baseless claims the oil companies made when lead was removed from automotive gasoline.
These articles from Ben Visser continue to discredit General Aviation News. Really sad.
Oh, and on that whole fuel injection thing…. If we want fuel injection system like on cars, we MUST have lead free fuel. O2 sensors can’t handle leaded fuels. Until then, the systems will still require mixture adjustments by the pilot. Liquid cooled engines already exist in AV. As does electronic ignition. Mr. Visser appears to know very little about the subjects he writes. Very odd.
As one who was in aviation when 100LL was introduced I would support Mr Visser concerning “knock”. The 100LL avgas was a replacement for grade 100 and 80, able to be used in both engines,the end result was a fuel that causes lead deposit problems in engines designed for grade 80 or lower avgas. It also caused knocking and full-blown detonation in engines designed for grade 100, I have reamed many a valve guide due to lead build-up as well as replacing cylinders and entire engines due to detonation damage precipitated by the 100 low lead fuel. The problems went away as different operating procedures were developed for the engines such as “aggressive” leaning on the ground and before shut down to scavenge lead from the cylinders. The liquid cooled and electronic ignition reference is most likely concerning full production engines from Continental or Lycoming neither of which have PRODUCTION engines that are liquid cooled or have full electronic ignition or fuel injection that are approved for the legacy air frames that are still in production.
If you were in aviation when 100LL was first introduced, you surely remember all the light planes that had problems with sticky/hung valves due to excessive lead build up. Where were all the lawsuits then? They never materialized. We just bit the bullet and fixed the engines, then learned out to deal with the lead. Run leaner, add TCP, new overhauls with looser valve guide clearances to accommodate the lead, etc.
Simple answer for the fuels. If we get a 94 octane fuel, reference your manufacturers fuel recommendations and plan accordingly. If you need a 100 Octane fuel, plan to buy from a supplier that carries a 100 Octane fuel. The pilot is responsible to ensure the plane gets the right fuel; not the supplier. There is no sane reason why all of us should have to continue damaging our engines with lead to satisfy those that require 100 octane fuel.
Would love to get free of the ethanol lobby so ethanol free mogas was more freely available. I average saving roughly $1500/year in fuel costs by burning premium E0 Mogas, but I also save significantly in maintenance costs. I would happily pay the same price as 100LL for an unleaded alternative at the airport.
LOL so because you had issues with 100LL in your low compression engines when it came out now you want revenge on the people who need 100 octane fuel? I think that is the gist of your post.
Bradley I think you’re ignorant on fuels. It has been well documented that leaded and unleaded fuels of the same octane rating are not created equal and that the leaded fuel provides superior knock resistance.
Wow Bradley I should have read your whole post before replying immediately after I read the part about octane rating. You really made a fool of yourself here. You do NOT need o2 sensors. There are racing engines that use leaded fue and EFl. They are often used on boats. Look at mercury racing and they have an efi engine that REQUIRES 116 octane race fuel which is a leaded fuel. Other sensors such as throttle position, mass airflow, MAP and even others that can be used. O2 sensors are really more of a fine tuning device to make sure the mixture is perfect so the catalytic onverter functions well. They are also used post cat to monitor the functionality of the cat.
I think maybe we finally have a chance to get free of the Ethanol lobbies with the new administration. But who knows, it might slide right to the very bottom of the list. I am excited about the progress that Swift Fuels has made with their unleaded 94. I think it is a much better alternative anyway to buying unleaded gas at the car pump and then moving it to the airport.
Ben,
This has been going on for 30 years. I must concur with you on your article as nothing
will happen. There is no substitute for TEL without engine modification and it would be
a painful, expensive modification.
Will
There has never been any science to back the myth that the small amount of lead in aviation fuel harms anyone on the ground. To say such a thing strips you of any credible complaining.