VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-07-2022, 07:24 PM
gmcjetpilot's Avatar
gmcjetpilot gmcjetpilot is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,834
Default

One of Paul' Avweb videos mentions 3 Municipal airports in California plan on a banning the sale of 100LL avgas. They get federal funds for their airports. Need to put a stop to unilateral ban of 100LL. There is no federal law to phase out of 100Ll yet. I was afraid California would start banning 100LL before G100 UL is available. Looks like they may try. Hope cool heads prevail.
__________________
George
Raleigh, NC Area
RV-4, RV-7, ATP, CFII, MEI, 737/757/767

2023 Donation Made!

Last edited by gmcjetpilot : 09-07-2022 at 07:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-07-2022, 07:24 PM
Hartstoc's Avatar
Hartstoc Hartstoc is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Sebastopol,CA
Posts: 394
Default

What is more, George Braley also mentioned in an interview that they were carful to make sure that any combination of G100UL and 100LL would be deemed safe as part of the STC, so you could top off a partially full bulk tank of 100LL with G100UL, and use the resulting mixture to top off aircraft tanks containing any amount of 100LL. The 100LL component of ALL tanks would then harmlessly trend toward zero over time. What could make for a smoother transition than that?
__________________
Otis Holt-
RV-7A (bought but massively modified)
Built Monnett Moni 1982
Frmr Pilot/Author CAFE APR's:
RV-8A, S-7C, Europa, Glastar.
-2022 VAF donation!!-
"RV-Fun is inversely proportional to RV-Weight!"
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-07-2022, 07:58 PM
MacCool's Avatar
MacCool MacCool is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: central Minnesota
Posts: 1,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartstoc View Post
Embedded in the opening post of this thread was the point that an enormous level of hostility toward the continued use of TEL in fuels for any internal combustion engines exists out there, and that body of sentiment is pretty well “lawyered up”. Until September 1 that group has been held at bay solely by the FAA’s insistence that there is no approved, viable replacement for leaded avgas. The threat to aviation safety thereby trumped environmental concerns.

Now that the FAA has issued a blanket endorsement of G100UL as a replacement for 100LL for ALL spark ignition aircraft engines, the teeth may have been completely removed from that argument.

Some have suggested that user acceptance will take a long time so 100LL will be around for the foreseeable future, or that its lower price will keep it around, but I could imagine it disappearing rather quickly by edict. On the bright side, that would certainly free up plenty of tanks for distribution of G100UL! -Otis
I suspect that the overt hostility for TEL that you see in California is not universally mirrored around the country. No doubt there are indeed pockets of hostility, but I don’t see any thing like that around here. TEL is kind of a yawner in these parts. This is a pretty liberal state but I don’t envision any such edicts here.

I suspect this switchover will take a long time. Money notwithstanding, most of the airports here in the hinterlands are single-tank operations except for the few that have JetA. Even the regional airport where I hangar, which is supplied by AvFuel, only has two trucks. Personally, I’m glad to see the switch (now that I know that it is indeed a drop-in), but I’m not holding my breath til the day I call the FBO on final and ask that the G100UL fuel truck meet me at my hangar.
__________________
RV-9A, 2011, bought flying
IO-320D1A (factory new), C/S
Dual Pmags
IFR equipped
AFS 5400/3500, G5, IFD440 navigator,
bunch of other stuff
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-07-2022, 09:52 PM
Hartstoc's Avatar
Hartstoc Hartstoc is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Sebastopol,CA
Posts: 394
Default We may be smaller than we imagine…

[quote=MacCool;1632960]I suspect that the overt hostility for TEL that you see in California is not universally mirrored around the country. No doubt there are indeed pockets of hostility, but I don’t see any thing like that around here. TEL is kind of a yawner in these parts. This is a pretty liberal state but I don’t envision any such edicts here.

Mr. MacCool- I read you 5x5, but I actually think the entire 100LL market is pretty fragile, barely worth the trouble for an Exxon or Shell to be involved in. California by itself is a pretty big “pocket” of TEL hostility, and combined with a few smaller ones could break the camel’s back for current 100LL producers(who themselves do-not want to be seen as anti-environment).

On the flip side, a Shell or an Exxon could very easily ramp up G100UL in short order and save the day. I’d bet money that Mr. Braley has already received calls from an Exxon or two(as opposed to the other way around). Just a hunch- Otis
__________________
Otis Holt-
RV-7A (bought but massively modified)
Built Monnett Moni 1982
Frmr Pilot/Author CAFE APR's:
RV-8A, S-7C, Europa, Glastar.
-2022 VAF donation!!-
"RV-Fun is inversely proportional to RV-Weight!"

Last edited by Hartstoc : 09-07-2022 at 09:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-07-2022, 10:28 PM
RV8JD's Avatar
RV8JD RV8JD is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot View Post
One of Paul' Avweb videos mentions 3 Municipal airports in California plan on a banning the sale of 100LL avgas. They get federal funds for their airports. Need to put a stop to unilateral ban of 100LL. There is no federal law to phase out of 100Ll yet. I was afraid California would start banning 100LL before G100 UL is available. Looks like they may try. Hope cool heads prevail.
Too late. 100LL was banned at two California airports earlier this year in January, Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV) and San Martin Airport (E16).
https://generalaviationnews.com/2022...in-california/

And, from General Aviation News:
https://generalaviationnews.com/2022...tion-aircraft/
"At SUN ‘n FUN 2022, Braly noted the first customers of G100UL will be airports where 100LL has been banned, such as Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV) in East San José and San Martin Airport (E16) in Santa Clara County in California."
__________________
Carl N.
RV-8
KAWO

Last edited by RV8JD : 09-07-2022 at 10:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-08-2022, 05:53 AM
plehrke's Avatar
plehrke plehrke is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defiance, MO
Posts: 2,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartstoc View Post

Mr. MacCool- I read you 5x5, but I actually think the entire 100LL market is pretty fragile, barely worth the trouble for an Exxon or Shell to be involved in. California by itself is a pretty big “pocket” of TEL hostility, and combined with a few smaller ones could break the camel’s back for current 100LL producers(who themselves do-not want to be seen as anti-environment).

On the flip side, a Shell or an Exxon could very easily ramp up G100UL in short order and save the day. I’d bet money that Mr. Braley has already received calls from an Exxon or two(as opposed to the other way around). Just a hunch- Otis
According to an interview that AvWeb’s Paul Bertorelli did with a guy in the avgas industry, refineries make good profit margin on 100LL to the tune of over 80 cents per gallon where profit margin on mogas is only 3-4 cents per gallon. I am sure that margin more than covers their “pain” in making avgas.
Sounds to me there will be some financial incentive (profit margin) for more refineries to get into G100UL due to being lead free and not contaminating their facility with lead, which was a reason there were not more refineries making avgas.
Large refineries may not be interested even in G100UL just because it is still and always will be a small volume, but I hoping plenty of others smaller refineries look at it from profit margin.
__________________
Philip
RV-6A - flying 1000+ hours
Donated to VAF yearly since 2007. Why? Because it is worth every penny and more.

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. —MARK TWAIN

Last edited by plehrke : 09-08-2022 at 06:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-08-2022, 07:16 AM
PilotjohnS PilotjohnS is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Southwest, USA
Posts: 2,607
Default What we need to do

So what we need to do now is fly more. Make the consumption of avgas higher so other producers will get into the market and lower costs.

I think you all can help me with that?

We should really try and support those FBOs that are willing to get G100UL out to market, even if it is a little more per gallon right now.
__________________
John S

WARNING! Information presented in this post is my opinion. All users of info have sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for their use.

Dues paid 2023, worth every penny

RV9A- Status:
98% done, 2% left to go
To Go: wing mounting, engine baffles, wing tips, move to airport
www.pilotjohnsrv9.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-08-2022, 08:24 AM
MacCool's Avatar
MacCool MacCool is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: central Minnesota
Posts: 1,480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airguy View Post

Where some non-lead economics may come into play, however, is that up until now all avgas was transported by truck to avoid contaminating pipelines with lead. Without lead, pipelines (much cheaper than trucks) are suddenly viable.
Low-quantity product, like avgas, can be problematic in pipelines because of the time and cost required for product switchover, and the volume of product wasted at that switchover. If we had more pipelines, maybe not as big an issue, but the current war on petroleum pipelines isn’t going to help the situation.

Maybe someday for pipeline distribution, but if we’re relying on AvFuel to lead the way on G100UL, well…they already have a distribution network.
__________________
RV-9A, 2011, bought flying
IO-320D1A (factory new), C/S
Dual Pmags
IFR equipped
AFS 5400/3500, G5, IFD440 navigator,
bunch of other stuff
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-08-2022, 08:38 AM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 8,061
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airguy View Post
The refineries do not deal with the lead, they just manufacture (refine) the base stock. The TEL is added to the base stock just prior to loading the fuel in the truck at the distribution facility.
Watch the video, as what you stated is NOT correct. Yes, refining and blending are different operations, but blending is a large scale, complex process with tight standards and testing involved;It is NOT done at the distribution center. Only a handfull of plants do it due to the regulatory and safety issues related to dealing with TEL. There is NOT some guy pouring lead into the truck to make it avgas. 100LL is manufactured/blended in a plant and THEN sent on to the distribution network.

FYI, there are numerous components blended to make 100LL. It is not just normal auto gas with lead added.

Larry
__________________
N64LR - RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
N11LR - RV-10, Flying as of 12/2019

Last edited by lr172 : 09-08-2022 at 08:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-08-2022, 08:40 AM
plehrke's Avatar
plehrke plehrke is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Defiance, MO
Posts: 2,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airguy View Post
The refineries do not deal with the lead, they just manufacture (refine) the base stock. The TEL is added to the base stock just prior to loading the fuel in the truck at the distribution facility.

Where some non-lead economics may come into play, however, is that up until now all avgas was transported by truck to avoid contaminating pipelines with lead. Without lead, pipelines (much cheaper than trucks) are suddenly viable.
Did you watch the AvWeb’s Paul Bertorelli interview of Paul Millner?
__________________
Philip
RV-6A - flying 1000+ hours
Donated to VAF yearly since 2007. Why? Because it is worth every penny and more.

There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. —MARK TWAIN
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:49 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.