Carl Froehlich
Well Known Member
The first domino for 100LL going away has fallen (the current California 100LL banning). The approach is viable as I do not see the FAA or the EPA engaging in a “local issue”. In other words the 100LL replacement can has been kicked down the road as far as it will go.
I note with interest the remarkable FAA turnaround this last year to grant STC approval for a bunch of engines to run GAMI 100UL. All well and good other than the projected price. Current estimate is ~$1 more than 100LL but considering track records of such things I would guess much closer to $2 more. For us slobs still paying for our own flight hours, $7+ a gallon may tip the scales to walk away.
Swift 94UL avgas is available now, and is expanding to step in to more markets. It is cheaper to produce than 100LL and has none of the transportation restrictions associated with leaded fuel. In a free market it would be selling today at a significant discount to 100LL.
My question. Swift 94UL has been demonstrated to be a very good fuel for parallel valve Lycoming engines (8.5 to 1 pistons), with many advantages over 100LL. Does anyone know of real engine test data that can demonstrate if angle head (8.75 to 1 pistons) Lycoming engines can be configured to run on 94UL? I assume some change in timing or such will be required but I’m just guessing. If Lycoming has this test data they are not sharing it.
Thanks,
Carl
I note with interest the remarkable FAA turnaround this last year to grant STC approval for a bunch of engines to run GAMI 100UL. All well and good other than the projected price. Current estimate is ~$1 more than 100LL but considering track records of such things I would guess much closer to $2 more. For us slobs still paying for our own flight hours, $7+ a gallon may tip the scales to walk away.
Swift 94UL avgas is available now, and is expanding to step in to more markets. It is cheaper to produce than 100LL and has none of the transportation restrictions associated with leaded fuel. In a free market it would be selling today at a significant discount to 100LL.
My question. Swift 94UL has been demonstrated to be a very good fuel for parallel valve Lycoming engines (8.5 to 1 pistons), with many advantages over 100LL. Does anyone know of real engine test data that can demonstrate if angle head (8.75 to 1 pistons) Lycoming engines can be configured to run on 94UL? I assume some change in timing or such will be required but I’m just guessing. If Lycoming has this test data they are not sharing it.
Thanks,
Carl