AOPA's opinion on 100LL

Jkkinz · #1 10-21-2008, 12:02 PM

I just got a chance to read my new AOPA magazine last night. They had an article that I think most of you will find of interest, especially if you are looking for an engine like me.

It appears from the article that we aren't the only ones that are concerned about the availability of 100LL. Both AOPA and the engine manufacturers are looking to find a suitable replacement for 100LL.

This will give you an idea on what Lycoming and Continental are looking at.

Quote:

"The two dominant piston engine manufacturers, Continental and Lycoming, are pursuing a broad array of strategies for an unleaded future. Both are exploring electronic controls that would allow their current and future engines to run on unleaded fuel, as well as new, purpose-built diesel engines designed exclusively for aircraft."

?There are a number of forces that will influence the future availability of avgas?and we want our customers to have as many options as possible,? said Ian Walsh, Lycoming?s executive vice president and general manager. ?At some point in the next 10 years, there has to be an approved, affordable, unleaded avgas. One-hundred low lead is going to be around for a certain period of time, but eventually it?s going to dwindle away?and its price is going to move as a result.?

"Walsh said Lycoming will push to ensure any new, unleaded aviation fuel is compatible with existing engines. But the company also has been working for years on a diesel broadly based on its existing engine designs. And sophisticated electronic controls could allow future engines to use a variety of fuels."

There is lots more in the article...hope you can access it

Bob Axsom · #2 10-21-2008, 04:37 PM

AOPA has been crying wolf for several years and the supply remains. During Dan Goldin's time as the Administrator of NASA, money was provided to engine companies to develop aircraft propulsion systems. I'm sure information was learned from the studies but nothing revolutionary has come of the effort as viewed by the user. There does not appear to be the creative genius and development motivation needed for a breakthrough. Money is not the answer - necessity may be. As a builder, I think you have to put your head down and make system decisions based on what is available now and push on through if you seriously want to complete and fly your RV. There are so many system interactions that major items like the engine can't be left undecided for long after the basic airframe is done and system installations begin.

Bob Axsom

the_other_dougreeves · #3 10-21-2008, 04:58 PM

I don't see much new here. Everyone is willing to work towards using a new fuel, but nobody has said "Ok, this is the fuel we are going to use". Plenty of followers, no leaders. In the meantime, the clock is ticking on 100LL.

TODR

Mel · #4 10-21-2008, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Axsom

AOPA has been crying wolf for several years and the supply remains.

Actually in one of Paul Poberezny's columns in Sport Aviation in 1978, two of the major topics were FAA user fees and 100LL going away.

Geico266 · #5 10-21-2008, 05:17 PM

I've been using 92 Octane unleaded for a couple of years now. This spring I switched my IO-540 to 100% 92 octane where I was mixing it 50/50 with 100ll. Engine runs just fine.

RScott · #6 10-21-2008, 05:55 PM

The new EPA standard for lead may force the issue and 100LL may change to something like 100 Very Low Lead or go away completely sooner than it would have without the EPA intervention.

An aviation version of unleaded and a standard for it exist but you can only get the gas in parts of Europe. Octane isn't high enough for the engines with the highest compression ratios but would be suitable for all O-320's & 360's in stock compression ratios. Don't know about the 540's.

breister · #7 10-22-2008, 08:06 AM

There are solutions cooking, so to speak.

Swift Enterprises is still getting press, and this article has comments from AOPA:

?What we?ve heard sounds very interesting, but there are a lot of open questions,? said Chris Dancy, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, which has been briefed by Swift on the new fuel. ?An alternative that has the potential to lower prices?who knows if it will, that?s one of the questions?is something we?re interested in exploring.?

Ron Lee · #8 10-22-2008, 09:03 AM

Swift may or may not be the solution.

The AOPA article also points out that 30% of the fleet uses 70% of the fuel that requires the high octane of 100LL. I am probably in that 30% since my compression is 9.5:1

breister · #9 10-22-2008, 10:31 AM

Yep, I'm at 10:1. I'm an "all of the above" sort when it comes to pursuing alternatives. I'd be ok with using pure ethanol and accept the shorter range, but only if it were widely distributed.

Distribution is one reason I'm hopeful Swift will succeed - because it can be inserted seamlessly into the existing distribution channel. I think their cost estimates are too optimistic - and once you add distribution and taxes it will cost about the same or even slightly more than current 100LL. That would be ok for the extra 10% range.

jonbakerok · #10 10-31-2008, 04:11 PM

I ran across this on a Harley site I frequent:

http://www.sunocoinc.com/site/Consum...T100Locations/

Tell me again why we need 100LL?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to be forced to burn low-octane ethanol in your airplane just do nothing. But if you want a choice about whether some type of unleaded AVGAS exists in the future, get on board for ELIMINATING 100LL!

Write your congressman.