Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (KBJC) in Denver has taken the next step in its Unleaded Fuel Transition Plan, adding Swift Fuels’ UL94 unleaded aviation gasoline.
For sale through the Sheltair Aviation FBO, the FAA-approved unleaded fuel is compatible with approximately two-thirds of piston-engine aircraft operating at the airport, airport officials noted. Aircraft owners do need to get an STC to use the fuel.
The project is funded through a partnership that includes FAA grant funding, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Aeronautics grant funding, and airport funds, officials added.
The airport’s “staged transition supports national efforts to scale production and availability of 100UL aviation fuel, which will ultimately enable a fully unleaded general aviation fleet,” airport officials concluded.
For more information: JeffCo.us/4862/Airport
I highly doubt that the use and impact of 100LL fuel to the environment by G.A. is even measurable. All of this is a total waste and for what..?
My mechanic tells me that valve seats will have to be replaced for unleaded gas use which will cost more than replacing the entire cylinder. The cost for cylinder replacement for a 182 in today’s dollars; $20-$30 grand. At 85 I had decided perhaps it was time for me to give up flying and this hastened my decision to sell while prices are up rather than waiting until this modification became necessary and I would get half of what I unloaded my plane for.
a 4 cylinder kit is $5,000+ , plus labor., maybe 1 hr per Cyl.
https://www.aircraftspruce.com/pages/ep/cylinders/superiormillenium08-10908.php
So, not very expensive, and the engine has a top overhaul.!
The unleaded fuels that are being promoted today for aircraft use contain a multitude of chemicals that may be much more of a environmental issue that the minute amount of lead in use today. If you really believe that lead is the big issue that the EPA says it is, then all of us older people should have been dead long ago because we were exposed to very much higher lead concentrations than the small amount used in aircraft fuel. Think of the items that contained lead in the past such as auto gas, paint, solder, and many others. We also have no idea of the long term effects these fuels will have long term on fuel hoses, fuel cells, gaskets, and other parts that may be exposed to the new fuels and other possible environmental issues . It would be much wiser to continue the use of leaded fuels. It is absolutely ridiculous that millions of dollars have been spent trying to find a replacement fuel for something that works well.
University of North Dakota tried Swift fuels. Burnt up their engines. They know how to properly maintain their aircraft engines.
Anybody that wants to give it a shot in their engine have at it. Best of luck.
I do not know why know Cynthia Hauke is saying that the University of North Dakota Burnt up their engines using Swift UL 94. There is no information that I know of that shows that ever happened. There is information that the school put out that said that they were discontinuing the use of Swift UL 94 because they suspect it was causing a problem with valve seat recession.
The school seemed to have a very aggressive, leaning procedure for their engines, which may have actually caused this problem.
There is also a higher cost associated with using the Swift UL 94 Fuel which may have influenced their decision to discontinue its use.
It appears the school thought that using the unleaded fuel would lower their maintenance cost, especially when it came to reducing the number of oil changes required, spark plug costs, and reduced wear on the engines overall. Lead deposits are also considered a problem with valves where it can lead to burnt valves in part because of deposits in valves guides that imped their movements.
I was at Oshkosh. I met the people from Swift. I met the people from the University of North Dakota. I met the Lycoming people. I went back-and-forth talking to all three of them and getting the story. University of North Dakota ran their engines exactly the way that Lycoming said for them to run.
The Lycoming people said they will not approve that fuel. The Lycoming guys said they will not approve that fuel for their engine engines so are you completely clear with that?
The Swift guys have only run one engine up to 400 hours. You wanna try it go for it.
They should have added lead-free aviation fuel 50 years ago when the FAA approved autogas STCs. Gasoline is headed to under $2/gallon, thanks to President Trump. The world’s largest aircraft engine producer, Rotax, has a policy that all its engines are designed to run best on autogas. We are so backwards in aviation policies and fuel in this country.
In Europe, where they have ASTM approved UL 91 available, it is cheaper than 100 LL. In the United States, the FAA said they would give a fleet authorization for UL 91 but then that’s been about two years now and has not happened like the FAA promised.
Because the FAA has not done their job, we are stuck with Swift UL 94 which is way too expensive.
As long as the FAA and AOPA are continuously blocking the transition to unleaded fuel with their mandate for leaded fuel and not progressing to promote UL91, little progress will be made as they try to find a drop in replacement for 100 LL which will never happen. With the lack of any meaningful support from the FAA and the AOPA unleaded fuel probably won’t progress in any meaningful way in the United States future.
The EAGLE program is just a program to try to pacify the public and really has no teeth to make any changes.
They already have a drop in replacement for 100LL. It is GAMI G100UL. Since the industry has blackballed this fuel, and they support an inferior unleaded fuel (UL94 which only promises to be used in all piston engine planes) the EAGLE can complete the task that they set out to do – ensure that leaded fuel will never be eliminated.
So, at $7.05 per gallon, vs $5.39 for 100LL , who will buy it.??
This kind of pricing for UL fuels will kill a lot of GA flying.