100VLL Avgas

TMetzinger

TMetzinger

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
9,660
Location
Northern Virginia
Display Name
Display name:
Tim
From the FAA today...

This Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin (SAIB) advises aircraft operators, Fixed Base
Operators (FBOs), FAA repair stations and Flight Standards District Offices, and Foreign Civil
Aviation Authorities that grade 100VLL aviation gasoline meeting the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM) fuel specification D910 is acceptable for use on aircraft and engines
certificated for operation with D910 grades 80, 91, 100, and 100LL aviation gasolines. Grade
100VLL meets all the performance requirements of grades 80, 91, 100, and 100LL and therefore
meets the approved operating limitations for aircraft and engines certificated to operate with these​
other grades of aviation gasoline
 

Attachments

And since there will be less TEL in it, it will be cheaper right? :rofl:

The interesting thing will be, who actually starts carrying it.
 
Well that is interesting! Perhaps this will help open up the dorr to "synthetic" aviation fuels. From what I understand SwiftFuel already meets the ASTM D910 specification.

Gary
 
Gary said:
Well that is interesting! Perhaps this will help open up the dorr to "synthetic" aviation fuels. From what I understand SwiftFuel already meets the ASTM D910 specification.

Gary
Click to expand...

Speaking of which...also out today, synthetic Jet-A is good to go.
 

Attachments

EdFred said:
The interesting thing will be, who actually starts carrying it.
Click to expand...

Everybody will, because the refineries will likely stop making 100LL. Why should they continue making it if the 100VLL meets all specs for 100LL engines?

Dan
 
EdFred said:
And since there will be less TEL in it, it will be cheaper right? :rofl:
Click to expand...

No, it should be more expensive. It starts with the best of the best of the best parts of the oil (more $$$ than our current best of the best). The cost with lead ends up being in the infrastructure requirements, and any lead will require that.

At least, that was my last understanding, which might be out of date.

The interesting thing will be, who actually starts carrying it.
Click to expand...

That depends on what the regulations allow. If the government says "No more 100LL, you need to go to 100VLL", then everyone who carried 100LL will carry 100VLL. What is a bigger question is what the oil manufacturers will say of it.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
. What is a bigger question is what the oil manufacturers will say of it.
Click to expand...

Heck,,, that easy....
They will say " Sure we can produce it... at 10 bucks a gallon":hairraise::hairraise::hairraise::eek:.

Jus kiddin.:yesnod: They will charge just 9 bucks a gal. :dunno::idea:

Ben.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Everybody will, because the refineries will likely stop making 100LL. Why should they continue making it if the 100VLL meets all specs for 100LL engines?

Dan
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing with you, but if that happens, wondering how 100VLL is going to effect the vintage aircraft/warbird operators?
 
I'm guessing anything that was certified with the old 80/87 gas will be MUCH happier. Not sure about the old high compression engines, but I'm guessing they'll be ok.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Not disagreeing with you, but if that happens, wondering how 100VLL is going to effect the vintage aircraft/warbird operators?
Click to expand...

Probably no differently than 100LL impacted them.
 
steingar said:
Might be worth it to keep the EPA off our six.
Click to expand...

Problem is, at $9/gallon when Jet A is less than half the price, suddenly you can fly an older Citation for about the price of a Navajo. Once you get rid of the Navajos/421s, then it becomes hard for anyplace to justify having AvGas.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Problem is, at $9/gallon when Jet A is less than half the price, suddenly you can fly an older Citation for about the price of a Navajo. Once you get rid of the Navajos/421s, then it becomes hard for anyplace to justify having AvGas.
Click to expand...


Awww. The old catch 22 syndrome..:yesnod::yesnod::yesnod:

Ben.
 
100VLL is not a replacement for 100LL. It is the same stuff that you get at the pump today. The 100LL spec, D910 spec only states a maximum amount of lead that can be in 100LL, not how much should be in it. In reality our current 100LL does not have the max allowable amount. So they decided to establish a new spec that reflects current lead amounts.

When the EPA and others calculate the amount of lead being released in the environment, they use the max allowed amount. Since we can now provide a spec that lines up with common usage, the EPA can use those numbers.

So, there is no change to the fuel, just a spec change that better reflects what the fuel really is. So no problem wiht refining, distribution, etc. Although no guarentee the price won't go up.
 
Grade 100VLL is identical to 100LL in all aspects, except that the maximum lead content is reduced by about 19%. The specification criteria for lead content is expressed as only a maximum value [snip]. FAA survey data has shown that the lead content can vary by up to 39% from the maximum lead value listed in the specification...
Click to expand...
So chances are that the 100LL you bought last week might already meet the spec for 100VLL.

Not much of a real change. More of a "change the name so people feel better" change.
 
Good news simply for getting a "new" fuel spec issued, moving in the right direction at least.
 
Did I read it correctly? The new standard has 19%* less lead (max), right? That's it? [edit: don't get me wrong, I like the progress/direction. I'll take it. It's just that I had an expectation that it would be more significant than that. ]

(*I don't think we need to quibble about what exactly is the 19%, the point is there the 100VLL still has a lot of lead).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top