100LL... any news?

M

MitchB

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
19
Display Name
Display name:
MitchB
As I am seriously considering purchasing an airplane for business / personal use, I've now been reading about 100LL fuel going away.

This is a potential show-stopper for me. Fuel costs look to be a major portion of my budget. If prices go higher than current 100LL costs, or there are significant costs to convert / upgrade (in my case, likely two..) engines, it may just be too much.

Researching on the Internet doesn't show much info posted in the last 12 months. Did I miss something?
 
MitchB said:
As I am seriously considering purchasing an airplane for business / personal use, I've now been reading about 100LL fuel going away.

This is a potential show-stopper for me.
Click to expand...

It would be a bit of a show-stopper for a few of us around here. :yikes:
 
There's some viable substitutes for the lower compression engines. Working out in the 94-98 octane range. Getting to the 100 that the high compression engines are designed around is a bit of an issue still it seems.

Shouldn't be a major issues for the 80 octane capable engines running around (320s, 360s, etc), but might be an issue for the turbos and the big-bore guys (540s and up) that are usually also higher compression.
 
Any news? None good so far. Wait about six months and check back. It will be either really really good, or really really bad.
 
MitchB said:
This is a potential show-stopper for me. Fuel costs look to be a major portion of my budget. If prices go higher than current 100LL costs, or there are significant costs to convert / upgrade (in my case, likely two..) engines, it may just be too much.
Click to expand...

If fuel costs going up will be a show-stopper for you, then now is probably a bad time to buy. I doubt seriously if fuel costs will be going down.

The MoGas and other items don't strike me as being hugely viable, unless they can actually run on car gas with ethanol. Keep in mind that the big consumers of 100LL, the Navajos, 402s, and 421s, need 100LL. Going to a fuel with less knock resistance will not work.

It's my feeling that 100LL will be around for another 5-10 years. That's long enough for me to be willing to put another pair of engines on the 310 to TBO. When those engines come their TBO, maybe it's time to look at something else. You know, like a nice, reliable, safe, MU-2. ;)
 
Anthony said:
Any news? None good so far. Wait about six months and check back. It will be either really really good, or really really bad.
Click to expand...

Is something going to happen in six months?
 
MOGAS availability at an airport is very limited. I would focus my search on a efficient airplane. For efficiency twins and turbochargers are rule out. Expect over $10/gallon before the end of the decade.

José
 
There are several 100-octane avfuels in work, some very close to certification. In addition, the FAA is committed to keeping 100LL available until an unleaded 100-octane replacement becomes available. No doubt there are those who are wringing their hands and crying "woe is me," thinking the Greens are going to force 100LL off the market tomorrow, but it's just not like that.
 
Nadir said:
There's some viable substitutes for the lower compression engines. Working out in the 94-98 octane range. Getting to the 100 that the high compression engines are designed around is a bit of an issue still it seems.

Shouldn't be a major issues for the 80 octane capable engines running around (320s, 360s, etc), but might be an issue for the turbos and the big-bore guys (540s and up) that are usually also higher compression.
Click to expand...

Maybe Ted can chime in here... but.......... 320's , 360's and most all aircraft engines have 5 1/4" big" bore cylinders.. The proper term would be "big Displacement" guys...:dunno:.. You are correct on Turbo and other force fed stuff though.
 
N801BH said:
Maybe Ted can chime in here... but.......... 320's , 360's and most all aircraft engines have 5 1/4" big" bore cylinders.. The proper term would be "big Displacement" guys...:dunno:.. You are correct on Turbo and other force fed stuff though.
Click to expand...

Correct. In the Lycoming world, the 540s have 360 equivalents. Compressions are the same. Of course, having 50% more displacement means they typically burn about 50% more fuel.

The turbocharged variants do tend to burn more fuel. They also tend to have lower compression, making them a bit less efficient.
 
Just avoid the HP turbo engine planes at the moment, they're pretty much the only planes that will need an engine replacement to fly on what is currently 94UL (100LL without the lead). I was discussing this with the Continental guys at Oshkosh last summer and he told me they had 94UL replacements for all their engines available including FADEC equipped & turboed engines. I couldn't see much sense in them since they have the Diesel projects underway which will, according to them, be about the same price point per HP when they come out; but they do exist.

Many planes are already as is capable of not only running 94UL, but MOGAS as well, so if you look through Petersen's and EAA's list of Mogas STC equipped planes, any of those choices will leave you in fine condition for finding fuel when lead goes away.
 
Ron Levy said:
There are several 100-octane avfuels in work, some very close to certification. In addition, the FAA is committed to keeping 100LL available until an unleaded 100-octane replacement becomes available. No doubt there are those who are wringing their hands and crying "woe is me," thinking the Greens are going to force 100LL off the market tomorrow, but it's just not like that.
Click to expand...

Got a reference for that?
 
Piloto said:
MOGAS availability at an airport is very limited. I would focus my search on a efficient airplane. For efficiency twins and turbochargers are rule out. Expect over $10/gallon before the end of the decade.

José
Click to expand...

We just got MOGAS at W29, but they don't sell it as far as I know. Chesapeake Sport Pilot uses it for its own planes. That stuff reeks!
 
Henning said:
Many planes are already as is capable of not only running 94UL, but MOGAS as well, so if you look through Petersen's and EAA's list of Mogas STC equipped planes, any of those choices will leave you in fine condition for finding fuel when lead goes away.
Click to expand...
The Petersen site is pretty interesting. They actually have the STC for MOGAS approved for the R-1340, and R-1830. However, they do have a disclaimer that your TBO will likely be reduced and they recommend running the radials with a mix of 25% 100LL and 75% auto fuel.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Fearless Tower said:
The Petersen site is pretty interesting. They actually have the STC for MOGAS approved for the R-1340, and R-1830. However, they do have a disclaimer that your TBO will likely be reduced and they recommend running the radials with a mix of 25% 100LL and 75% auto fuel.
Click to expand...

Been running Mogas in 985s and 1340s for years with no problems and minimal plug maintenance.
 
Henning said:
Been running Mogas in 985s and 1340s for years with no problems and minimal plug maintenance.
Click to expand...

No wonder why Rotor is worried about your safety record.
 

Attachments

  • laughing.gif
    laughing.gif
    23 KB · Views: 146
Try finding Mogas without ethanol. Most Mogas STCs require no ethanol.
 
BillTIZ said:
Try finding Mogas without ethanol. Most Mogas STCs require no ethanol.
Click to expand...

That is true, but what seems more significant is that as it stands now, there appears to be a viable alternative for many of the piston GA engines, even high HP engines. If 100LL were somehow banned in the near future, FBOs could start stocking MOGAS with no ethanol. It doesn't seem like too big of a stretch.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is true, but what seems more significant is that as it stands now, there appears to be a viable alternative for many of the piston GA engines, even high HP engines. If 100LL were somehow banned in the near future, FBOs could start stocking MOGAS with no ethanol. It doesn't seem like too big of a stretch.
Click to expand...

With out the ability of a Mo-Gas to set in a tank for long periods of time there will be aircraft dropping out of the sky like aluminum rain.

Dufus will fill it up and put it away like he always has. wait 6 months and try to fly.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is true, but what seems more significant is that as it stands now, there appears to be a viable alternative for many of the piston GA engines, even high HP engines. If 100LL were somehow banned in the near future, FBOs could start stocking MOGAS with no ethanol. It doesn't seem like too big of a stretch.
Click to expand...
Really big "if."
 
Henning said:
Just avoid the HP turbo engine planes at the moment, they're pretty much the only planes that will need an engine replacement to fly on what is currently 94UL (100LL without the lead). I was discussing this with the Continental guys at Oshkosh last summer and he told me they had 94UL replacements for all their engines available including FADEC equipped & turboed engines. I couldn't see much sense in them since they have the Diesel projects underway which will, according to them, be about the same price point per HP when they come out; but they do exist.

Many planes are already as is capable of not only running 94UL, but MOGAS as well, so if you look through Petersen's and EAA's list of Mogas STC equipped planes, any of those choices will leave you in fine condition for finding fuel when lead goes away.
Click to expand...

Some Sunocos in Maryland have 100UL.

I'm assuming UL means unleaded.
 
Tom-D said:
What is the basic problem of using Ethanol?
Click to expand...

Damages seals not designed with it in mind. Lower energy density requires higher flow rate to compensate. Nothing impossible to deal with, just very expensive to retrofit to legacy equipment.
 
Just as Brian said; from the Lycoming site: "Most assume that the restrictions on ethanol are related to corrosion. That is just one factor. The other equally important parts are (a) that the automotive gasoline specifications allow vapor pressure to rise outside of the base control limits as you add ethanol and (b) ethanol reduces the energy density of the fuel, increasing fuel consumption. Lycoming restricted ethanol more for vapor pressure control and fuel burn rates than corrosion."

http://www.lycoming.com/support/tips-advice/unleaded-fuels/pump-gas-is-not-mogas.html
 
Nadir said:
Damages seals not designed with it in mind. Lower energy density requires higher flow rate to compensate. Nothing impossible to deal with, just very expensive to retrofit to legacy equipment.
Click to expand...

Ethanol isn't what ruins seals, that's the benzene and toluene that does that, because the seals were getting ruined long before we saw ethanol.

the lower energy content is the problem.
 
Yeah, ethanol is more of an emissions reducer than anything. I believe that's why it was implemented in high congestion areas.
 
HerrGruyere said:
Yeah, ethanol is more of an emissions reducer than anything. I believe that's why it was implemented in high congestion areas.
Click to expand...

I've always figured it was an evil plot to make us buy new cars, since the inability of older cars to handle it properly results in our older engined cars slowly knocking themselves to death on it. :-)
 
I think it was more of an evil plot by Conagra to pump up corn sales and prices.
 
Tom-D said:
What is the basic problem of using Ethanol?
Click to expand...

Needing 60% more of it for same work produced is the big issue for me. I remember when I was a kid drilling out a set of jets to run ethanol through a Holley carb and all I could think is "Damn I'm gonna run out of fuel fast."
 
Last edited:
Re: ethanol problems

I run a few companies in the marine (boats) industry. We are all too familiar with ethanol problems . . . and some of the worst ones I don't think have been mentioned so far (I didn't read page 1 thoroughly).

Ethanol is a very powerful SOLVENT. This is a major problem for many reasons. For one, If you have aluminum fuel tanks you will have some oxidation/corrosion in them over time. When you add ethanol enriched fuel to those tanks it will dissolve all that oxidized material and introduce it into your fuel system. It will then clog up all filters, injectors, carbs, etc downstream and your engine will not run (or run very poorly) and will be headed in for some repairs (read $$$$). This material will appear like white powder in your filters.

It will also dissolve the inside of older non-ethanol compliant rubber fuel lines and seals. This will have a similar effect as above, except the clogged filters will have black material in them.

Ethanol also has a very serious problem with phase separation if it sits for long.

Ethanol also has a strong affinity for water.

If you see any gas stations around saying that their fuel contains NO ETHANOL it is not because they are selling "better" fuel (IMHO they are) it is because their equipment (i.e. the pumps) is older and cannot handle ethanol due to the material the hoses and seals are made of: ethanol will dissolve them.

Typically in autos, which are driven frequently enough that the fuel doesn't just sit around, ethanol is not such a huge deal. In boats (and I will extend/assume this to aircraft) and aircraft that are prone to not as frequent usage, the fuel will attract water, and phase separation will ensue.

Believe me when I tell you, you do not want to see ethanol fuel in your aircraft. Especially the vast majority of GA aircraft which are older!

Not to mention it takes more energy to make ethanol than you get out of it! Bigtime seantors and lobbyists from the central U.S. pushed this one through. Price of corn is way up, they are very happy in the midwest.

-Rob
 
OP, what planes are you considering and what type of flying/commuting are you planning to do?
 
dell30rb said:
Its not that hard. pure-gas.org Its simple to test, too.

6-7 places in town that sell it here in Raleigh.
Click to expand...

Very much a regional thing. Zero stations anywhere near me...
 
rbhankins001 said:
It will also dissolve the inside of older non-ethanol compliant rubber fuel lines and seals. This will have a similar effect as above, except the clogged filters will have black material in them.
-Rob
Click to expand...

Most of your post is spot on, but the above portion I do not agree with, because we were have rubber problems prior to the addition of Ethanol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top