20% consume 80% of the Avgas

[Domenick]

But business flying is more likely to be Mon-Fri. More bigger engines, more twins.

Another potential bias for a very short sample window. The longer the sample window the more valid the results.
I also expect a seasonal effect. Less recreational and training hours in the winter than summer. Perhaps more IFR and more HP aircraft.

This discussion of a simple, even trivial, statistical analysis illustrates PERFECTLY why other far more complex studies and the predictions based upon them must be suspect. No statistical study or their predictions should be taken at face value. Even in the mid-1800s it was understood that there are "lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[Jim K]

I've had the same question, but I feel like it's not a question we really need or even want an answer to. Say you find out the number is 50/50; do you want all high performance engines grounded? If that significant portion of the fleet is grounded, the costs go WAY up for everyone who is left. Traffic goes down, airports close and the death spiral of piston GA accelerates. We need one fuel that everyone can use. A two fuel solution is going to cost more for everyone as the (already small) volume of each is halved.

 

[focal_plane]

I've had the same question, but I feel like it's not a question we really need or even want an answer to. Say you find out the number is 50/50; do you want all high performance engines grounded? If that significant portion of the fleet is grounded, the costs go WAY up for everyone who is left. Traffic goes down, airports close and the death spiral of piston GA accelerates. We need one fuel that everyone can use. A two fuel solution is going to cost more for everyone as the (already small) volume of each is halved.

Jim, I don't think I've heard anyone suggest they are in favor of eliminating 100 octane fuel and grounding all high performance aircraft. We have 100LL now and 100UL will come to market at some point and replace 100LL (not withstanding CA and like minded areas that want to outright ban 100LL). I also don't believe that other than a handful of airports, will there be two avgas pumps servicing GA at a given airport. So, how might this play out? Depending on how shocking 100UL is priced, market forces may help make the decision. If 100UL is very shocking, some small GA airports that don't service a lot of HP aircraft may see 100UL sales dry up and decide to start selling 94/91 UL at a better price point. Of course, as we know, market forces aren't the only thing in play here. There are big fish that make decisions that override market forces all the time.

May we live in interesting times.

 

[Dana]

ok, thanks for your input. If an ADSB data mining can be accomplished, it should flesh out in the data.

Don't forget all the airplanes (like mine) that don't have ADS-B. Lower fuel usage, perhaps, but I'd wager nearly all of them don't need 100 octane fuel.

 

[focal_plane]

Don't forget all the airplanes (like mine) that don't have ADS-B. Lower fuel usage, perhaps, but I'd wager nearly all of them don't need 100 octane fuel.

Yeah, thought about that, don't have a good answer.

 

[Palmpilot]

There is already a bill introduced in the CA legislature to ban leaded fuel state wide.

And if they pass and sign it, there are several Me Too states that will follow CA.

It only takes one loon to introduce a loony bill.

 

[asicer]

But I also have been told, but someone in the industry, there is about a 2 year supply in the pipeline. So if UK closes the plant or it burns down, we do have a bit of time to make the switch. But things would have to move quickly to avoid any fuel shortages.

100LL has about half a gram of tetraethyl lead per gallon. How many gallons of 100LL does the world use each year?

 

[tspear]

Interesting discussion. But not sure how it moves the needle in any direction.

 

[Bell206]

How many gallons of 100LL does the world use each year?

Per the EIA the US sales/deliveries of avgas as of 2020 was about 412,000 gallons per day. Down from 1,047,000 gals per day in 1983. But private Part 91 aircraft are only a small percentage of that number with commercial/military use the bulk of it. For the rest of the world my guess would be take 30-40% of the 412,000 and add it to it for a total usage. There are other EIA charts that have more exact figures but this one is close enough.

 

[Pinecone]

Depending on how shocking 100UL is priced, market forces may help make the decision. If 100UL is very shocking, some small GA airports that don't service a lot of HP aircraft may see 100UL sales dry up and decide to start selling 94/91 UL at a better price point.

The good part about G100UL is that any refinery can blend it and sell it. The components are part of what comes out of the basic process.

So if the price gets up, more refineries will make it and drive the cost down.

Plus, since everyone can blend it, you have reduced prices of transport to the airport. I know one load of fuel for my field in NE MD last summer was trucked from Pittsburgh. That adds to the cost at the pump.

100LL need special handling of the TEL. The refinery has to buy and stock it. And keep it away from EVERY other product. 100LL also needs dedicated trucks to avoid contaminating no lead fuels.

Also, there is a big profit in 100LL. Refineries make more per gallon that on mogas. So there is room for price adjustment for competition.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

There are enough pilots on POA that you could probably get a reasonable sample of who needs 100LL and how much they burn.

I'll start: I don't need 100, and I have burned 0 gallons of avgas in the past couple years. (Schlep 5 gallon cans from the corner gas station.)

 

[WDD]

A two fuel solution is going to cost more for everyone as the (already small) volume of each is halved.

Spot on. How can the FAA even think of a three fuel solution (Jet A and two type of Av Gas) when the conversation just yesterday was about how fewer airports were going to be selling Av Gas of any grade - it was all going to be Jet A.

 

[Half Fast]

Can avgas be considered an owner produced part?

 

[focal_plane]

Spot on. How can the FAA even think of a three fuel solution (Jet A and two type of Av Gas) when the conversation just yesterday was about how fewer airports were going to be selling Av Gas of any grade - it was all going to be Jet A.

It’s been pretty much conceded that airports won’t be hosting two avgas dispensers. Some airports may choose to have 91/94 UL instead of 100UL, their choice. Depends on how the market shapes up. 91/94 UL is reality today so I don’t think any further FAA action is required. 100UL will come, FAA will approve. Some version of UL will be at your airport, predominantly 100UL I would think. Until then, 100LL rules the day.

 

[midwestpa24]

It’s been pretty much conceded that airports won’t be hosting two avgas dispensers. Some airports may choose to have 91/94 UL instead of 100UL, their choice. Depends on how the market shapes up. 91/94 UL is reality today so I don’t think any further FAA action is required. 100UL will come, FAA will approve. Some version of UL will be at your airport, predominantly 100UL I would think. Until then, 100LL rules the day.

I would be surprised to see airports choose 91/94 over 100. To do so would leave at least some % (which can be argued all day) of their potential customers without an option.

 

[WDD]

It’s been pretty much conceded that airports won’t be hosting two avgas dispensers. Some airports may choose to have 91/94 UL instead of 100UL, their choice. Depends on how the market shapes up. 91/94 UL is reality today so I don’t think any further FAA action is required. 100UL will come, FAA will approve. Some version of UL will be at your airport, predominantly 100UL I would think. Until then, 100LL rules the day.

Exactly! So why is the FAA even putting 94 UL in play? The market can barely support one option.

 

[focal_plane]

I would be surprised to see airports choose 91/94 over 100. To do so would leave at least some % (which can be argued all day) of their potential customers without an option.

Agree, although I think it should still be up to the airport to decide. Some airports only have one type fuel or no fuel at all. The market and airport economic circumstances generally inform that decision. We know we can’t get fuel there and plan for it. I don’t for one second believe that 100 octane fuel, LL or UL, won’t be widely available nor have I ever advocated leaving HP aircraft without a fuel option.

 

[focal_plane]

Exactly! So why is the FAA even putting 94 UL in play? The market can barely support one option.

Why would the FAA have anything to do with which fuel an airport hosts as long as it’s an approved fuel?

 

[tspear]

Exactly! So why is the FAA even putting 94 UL in play? The market can barely support one option.

Mostly optics. Too look like the FAA is doing something. In addition, it could have a significant reduction in lead released by GA (at a cost, how much is TBD). It could also significantly reduce some political pressure on some airports. It could help the largest provider of 94UL (Swift), it in theory could reduce logistics costs at many rural airports, lowering the costs of flying, again which is a political value for the FAA.

Tim

 

[WDD]

That action just for optics will make things much worse as it means some airports don’t have 100 octane. And without the economies of scale one fuel would provide the costs / price per gallon will be higher for all.

 

[Bell206]

Too look like the FAA is doing something.

If you look back far enough and deep enough you'll find the push behind the unleaded avgas move is/was the EPA. This was not a "priority" for the FAA and were caught up in the political optics. One thing the FAA doesn't like is another agency messing around on their turf and if they had their way 100LL would still be the only needed avgas. Regardless, any decisions on what type of avgas will be available at airports will be determined more by local environmental issues or input rather than aircraft needs and areas/regions like Alaska with their unique requirements will be the last hold outs for 100LL both in the US and overseas.

 

[WDD]

Given the amount of Avgas being sold, I can't believe refineries would make anything other than one "flavor".

 

[focal_plane]

Some comments since starting the thread. I've changed my opinion from "why not host two avgas fuels at a given airport" to "that isn't going to happen and economically makes no sense." We couldn't seem to find a reference to supporting data for the 20% burns 80% argument but it seems logical that the HP aircraft do consume more, exactly how much is a question we probably won't ever know. I also changed my opinion on the need to know. I don't think it really matters any more. I fully believe a 100 octane aviation fuel will always be available to the market and have never thought otherwise. Whether an additional lower octane fuel remains in play is TBD and the markets should drive that. The future will unfold and absolutely nothing discussed or argued about here will matter a whit.

I think the thread has run its course from my point of view so I will resist point/counterpoint replies unless I get the "why do you want to ground all HP aircraft?" Thanks all for your thoughtful inputs.

 

[WDD]

The future will unfold and absolutely nothing discussed or argued about here will matter a whit.

Well, yeah, but what's the fun of that?

 

[Half Fast]

The future will unfold and absolutely nothing discussed or argued about here will matter a whit.

Careful. That sounds like the hazardous attitude of resignation.

 

[1RTK1]

Something worth clarification: when we're talking about "requiring" high octane how much of that is because the engine needs it and how much of it is because they are not certified to burn anything else? Because if it's the latter, a little FAA will to do something about it to get the ball rolling on unleaded avgas could go a long way.
.

Agree, but this BS they tout about 80/20 makes it sound like no one else in GA is using/needing 100LL but 20% of GA.

 

[schmookeeg]

There are enough pilots on POA that you could probably get a reasonable sample of who needs 100LL and how much they burn.

I'll start: I don't need 100, and I have burned 0 gallons of avgas in the past couple years. (Schlep 5 gallon cans from the corner gas station.)

Probably worth a poll and have folks bucket their annual gallon usage and 100 or not

I'm in for about 2000 gals of 100LL only a year.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

2250 gallons for me and I need 100.

 

[Lance F]

8,000 for me (and I fly LOP in cruise). Gotta be 100. TSIO520NBs.

 

[bluerooster]

300 for me, and most is 90UL booze free car gas.

 

[Pinecone]

I have burned 1000 gallons in 10 months. I need 100.

 

[cowman]

2250 gallons for me and I need 100.

So, our planes are kinda what I have in mind while I dissent. The compression ration on an N/A Lance is 8.7:1 which isn't particularly high so we probably don't need 100 octane. If there is some reason we need 100LL(aside from the obvious lack of an STC to burn something else) it would probably have something to do with the fuel system design and potential for vapor lock.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

So, our planes are kinda what I have in mind while I dissent. The compression ration on an N/A Lance is 8.7:1 which isn't particularly high so we probably don't need 100 octane. If there is some reason we need 100LL(aside from the obvious lack of an STC to burn something else) it would probably have something to do with the fuel system design and potential for vapor lock.

You can be the test pilot.

 

[WDD]

The 20% / 80% is fairly universal. 20% of a customer base for just about anything consumes 80% of the product. Which is why you never do market research showing that a majority of your customers like XYZ. You always SHOULD weight it by each respondent's buying rate.

I can see how the 20% of planes that consume 80% of fuel probably would be higher performance, needing 100 octane.