What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Shell 100 unleaded

R

RFSchaller

Well Known Member
Possible 100 UL AVGAS

Today's AVWEB.com says Shell has developed an unleaded replacement for 100LL and will be submitting it to FAA for certification. Wouldn't that be great for ROTAX engines!
 
Only if it would be made available for purchase. With the large amount of engines in Experimentals that use Mogas or non-leaded high octane gas you'd think FBOs would have already implemented a supply option but I am having a hard time finding anything but 100LL and Jet A anywhere I go.
The only way this would really make a difference to us is if this new fuel would be made available as a full replacement for 100LL at the same or lower cost than the current 100LL. I don't think this is very likely when it comes to the price and I don't think any FBO would invest in an additional fuel truck or self-pump station to provide a lead-less option alone when their customer all use lead at this time.
 
AvWeb reports new fuel...
Shell Announces Unleaded 100-Octane Fuel
Shell Oil announced on Tuesday that is had developed an unleaded 100-octane piston engine fuel to replace 100LL and, presumably, the fuel will enter the FAA?s recently established fuel testing and certification process. In a press release, Shell said the fuel is a culmination of 10 years in R&D and initial testing has been done with two OEMs, Lycoming and Piper.
 
Question is will it be cheaper then 100LL or just more environmentally friendly (no lead). I guessing it will not be cheaper.
 
From todays AOPA story-

Michael Sargeant, avgas commercial aviation manager for Shell Aviation.

Sargeant said another design goal is to keep the retail price similar to avgas, though it is too early to know exactly what the new fuel would sell for.


It's a pity that cost is only a design goal and not a requirement...:)

They also seem to be brewing the hi-octane stuff at more cost rather than the 91/96 stuff that most of us need/use. Just ask at your local airport what the long term fuel sales trend is.
 
Bill,

There are more UL locations available.. I tried to post L77 (Chiriaco Summit, CA) and it was rejected because the source is the auto gas pump in the travel center 100 FT from parking. L37, Peach Springs, AZ is in the same boat. What we need is a site that posts all the locations with caveats.

Rich
 
Am I the only one who finds it at least remotely suspicious that we've never heard of this development before, and it only now pops up after Swift gets ASTM approval - the last step before FAA/manufacturer approval? Smacks a bit, even slightly, of a Big Oil company stomping competition before it's out of the gate.

Or it could be me hallucinating from Prosealing my aileron trailing edges in. :eek:
 
They also seem to be brewing the hi-octane stuff at more cost rather than the 91/96 stuff that most of us need/use.
Click to expand...

The reason is that most of the fuel used is not the "us need/use".

The entire fuel network is not going to tool up for multiple bowsers, so it need to be a one in all in fuel in the majority of cases.

The GA industry as a whole will do better when there is certainty in the market of a 100MON UL fuel. Everything from avionics suppliers to engine and airframe manufacturers.

This is not a small matter and just because an O-320 can run 94UL does not mean that everyone has to have it. GA needs a solution that works for everyone.
 
Shell has the money and network to make it happen. Not so sure about the other new players. In the fuel business, I think you have to expect competition from the big guys.

I'd be happy with anyone supplying decent, unleaded avgas if the price is reasonable.

I've de-rated my engine to run on 91 mogas. I wouldn't mind getting 20-30 hp back.
 
I think the Feds will eventually force 100LL off the market. The alternative will be to provide a drop in replacement or ground most of the GA fleet. It's hard to believe the Feds would push GA into a life or death situation. From the RV-12 point of view it should mean that in a few years we will have the option of 100UL at most airports.
 
Besides Shell Geelong, in Australia, where else in the world does Shell actually produce Avgas?

As best I can tell nowhere in North America and I have my doubts in Europe.

Anyone know for certain of any other sites?

It is rather odd. And they have a long road ahead, even by their own admission.
 
As soon as I read the FAA was involved I knew we were going to be in for a long haul. The Swift fuel people went the "drop-in replacement" route which meant that if they proved their fuel met or exceeded all test parameters of 100LL it automatically qualified as an approved fuel, preventing the Feds from halting the whole process with a wall of red tape. Apparently that didn't work because, 2 years or more after I was told that by the Swift group, we still can't buy any. This "alternative fuel" thing is taking on an air of hopelessness.
 
Did no one notice the photo? The solution is obviously the *real alternative*:

A properly designed & executed power plant (water cooled V-8).

Charlie
:)
 
RV10inOz said:
The reason is that most of the fuel used is not the "us need/use".

The entire fuel network is not going to tool up for multiple bowsers, so it need to be a one in all in fuel in the majority of cases.

The GA industry as a whole will do better when there is certainty in the market of a 100MON UL fuel. Everything from avionics suppliers to engine and airframe manufacturers.

This is not a small matter and just because an O-320 can run 94UL does not mean that everyone has to have it. GA needs a solution that works for everyone.
Click to expand...

I disagree if this wonderful new fuel ends up being 25% or more in cost that todays expensive 100LL.

A new self contained fueling system is around $110,000 - if it could sell fuel at several dollars below the projected super-duper lead free hi-test stuff the economics could work out.
 
We already have UL96 on sale in UK. Most airfields selling it also sell 100LL so the doubts about a dual distribution system seem unfounded. However, it's not going to work for those with the high power 10:1 compression engines.
 
rvsxer said:
As soon as I read the FAA was involved I knew we were going to be in for a long haul. The Swift fuel people went the "drop-in replacement" route which meant that if they proved their fuel met or exceeded all test parameters of 100LL it automatically qualified as an approved fuel, preventing the Feds from halting the whole process with a wall of red tape. Apparently that didn't work because, 2 years or more after I was told that by the Swift group, we still can't buy any. This "alternative fuel" thing is taking on an air of hopelessness.
Click to expand...

But to my knowledge the Swift fuel has not proven itself to be a "drop in" replacement (yet) and has not (yet) met the complicated avgas fuel standard.

And if an aircraft was certified under the basis of using 100LL fuel, as most piston engine aircraft have over the past four decades, then using anything else requires some sort of re-certification or approval process for each aircraft type. Hopefully, it would be by the FAA issuing a blanket "100 UL is approved for any aircraft in place of 100 LL" but that is moving down an uncharted path.

Technically a different case for experimental aircraft but we are pretty much all in the same boat together.

I think the Shell announcement is important as most aviation media reports have suggested the "drop-in" replacement was not feasible and other alternatives were going to have to be pursued. Unblended mogas would probably work fine for 80% of the general aviation fleet. But what about the other 20%?
 
Can Swift really produce enough for the GA fleet? That's the big question. They have no track record on production and distribution at the levels required to supply the GA fleet. Shell has the money and experience to do this at least.
 
aerovin said:
.....
I think the Shell announcement is important as most aviation media reports have suggested the "drop-in" replacement was not feasible and other alternatives were going to have to be pursued. Unblended mogas would probably work fine for 80% of the general aviation fleet. But what about the other 20%?
Click to expand...

That was my point earlier... an expensive (cost per gallon) solution to take care of the 20% could start driving the other 80% out of recreational flying...:(

Shell only had cost as a "goal".

I vote for a lower octane, lower cost solution and a octane booster additive for the high compression guys...:D
 
We already have UL96 on sale in UK. Most airfields selling it also sell 100LL so the doubts about a dual distribution system seem unfounded. However, it's not going to work for those with the high power 10:1 compression engines
Click to expand...
Interesting, Paul. Can you tell us how the price compares with 100LL in general? It's about the same or a few pence cheaper. Mind you, we pay around $10/USG...........
Click to expand...
UL91 was launched with a fanfare, and considerable cheaper than 100LL. Airfields obliged and invested in being able to supply it.

Funny old thing, as soon as a reasonable distribution system was in place, the price went up. As Paul says, price is now pretty much the same.

As hinted in earlier posts, do not think the fuel cost to the end user has a direct correlation to manufacturing / transport costs. It will "cost" what the customer is willing to pay :eek:
 
Sorry, yes, UL91 - I was getting confused with the continental 91/96UL.....

I'm pleased to say that Lycoming have approved UL91 for pretty much all of the standard compression engines. Even most 8.5:1 IO540s, even though they weren't previously approved for MOGAS. So the fuel is there for all but the exotic engines. Rotax certainly prefer unleaded and I suspect it's going to mean less plug fouling for Lycomings too. Not to mention the environmental aspects - not that GA really puts THAT much lead into the atmosphere.
 
RV10inOz said:
Besides Shell Geelong, in Australia, where else in the world does Shell actually produce Avgas?

As best I can tell nowhere in North America and I have my doubts in Europe.

Anyone know for certain of any other sites?

It is rather odd. And they have a long road ahead, even by their own admission.
Click to expand...

Shell has one place in Europe where avgas is produced, Pernis in the Netherlands. Total in France also produces avgas. There are others that sell avgas as well, but as far as I know they get their fuel from the refinery at Shell, Total or Warter Aviation in Poland.
 
paul330 said:
We already have UL96 on sale in UK. Most airfields selling it also sell 100LL so the doubts about a dual distribution system seem unfounded. However, it's not going to work for those with the high power 10:1 compression engines.
Click to expand...

Besides some home built aircraft and turbo engines, this should work.

Don't forget, home built aircraft are not figured into the "drop in" equation, only the limited number of TSIO-??? engines do.

Those who optioned for the higher compression engines may (will?) have to change out their pistons, which is a small price to pay to continue flying.
 
stuff that don't make sense.....

not to derail a good discussion, but my brain is just old enough to remember some, and forget other pertinent facts.
....like, when I was a kid, our tiny airfield had 2, and for a while, 3 pumps, with red, green & blue gas. perhaps 80/87, 91/96?, and 100/130. Somehow they made a profit driving small tankers of this stuff from gawd-knows-where, and there were only 30-40 planes on the field ( which means 20 flying!)
rumour was it came from alberta, or some refinery 'out east'....maybe even the deep south !
Now there's commuter planes, corporate jets, and heli training there, so a tank of JP4 takes up half the ramp.
IF we had a crystal ball, would the last 25 years have been better off getting our planes to run on Canola and Soy, rather than the zillions spent chasing 'the new AvGas'?
I guess I'm just as skeered as you that the new fuel, tanked from 8,000 miles away, is going to be double the price.:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top