Avgas Pricing Article

Jim K

Jim K

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
5,847
Location
CMI
Display Name
Display name:
Richard Digits
I don’t know where Paul Milner got their info. The STC is expected at $2000 + $1 a gallon premium for unleaded version.
 
You are agreeing though. Unleaded +$1 = typical 100ll = typical avgas unleaded.
 
And specifically where he got his information, “[worked at a] major oil company; his last decade there, Millner was manager of business development, and directed unleaded avgas development efforts.”
 
It would be interesting to see the comparison with 94UL.
 
Clip4 said:
I don’t know where Paul Milner got their info. The STC is expected at $2000 + $1 a gallon premium for unleaded version.
Click to expand...
Per GAMI when this came out the STC for G100UL would be 1.00-1.50 per horsepower
 
Clip4 said:
I don’t know where Paul Milner got their info. The STC is expected at $2000 + $1 a gallon premium for unleaded version.
Click to expand...

And where did you see that price?
The price quote from GAMI (George Braily) and others is that the STC will be priced roughly the same as the mogas STC.

Tim
 
tspear said:
And where did you see that price?
The price quote from GAMI (George Braily) and others is that the STC will be priced roughly the same as the mogas STC.

Tim
Click to expand...
If memory serves, the MOGAS stc was only a few hundred bucks for the engine stc. Where the problem arises on some models is the need to upgrade the fuel pump.

"In some airframes equipped with suction lift fuel systems (pump fed systems), different electric fuel pumps may need to be installed to insure adequate fuel flow, and/or the fuel pump locations must be moved. The STC for the PA-28-160, -161, -180, -181 requires the removal of the factory installed electric pump. This pump is replaced with two completely different pumps and a revised fuel system forward of the firewall. Installation on this airplane takes between four and six hours, approximately double that on 24 volt PA-28's." Cherokee 140, 150,151,235 dont require the alterations to fuel pump/plumbing and the stc cost 1.50 per horsepower.

https://www.autofuelstc.com/piper_airplanes.phtml

So the cost of the stc on the airframe MAY be significantly more because its not just the stc, but the equipment needed for the stc.

Now, per Tim Roehl (president and co-founder of GAMI and tornado alley) who posted on a few different forums..."Like other alternative fuels STCs (i.e. mogas) that have been around for some time, we anticipate the cost of the STCs to be based upon HP and in the same range, i.e. $200-$400 for most single engine aircraft." Now, will we need to upgrade the fuel pump like we would if we had the MOGAS stc? I don't believe so. But cant remember if I read that somewhere or just hopeful thinking
 
So Millner who writes for AOPA seems to be on board with G100UL and Swifts 100R. Yet Mark Baker defended the FAA and the need for another wasteful government acronym in EAGLE. I know Millner didn't actually pick sides rather just explaining the process. Done so in a way that gets me on board. And I could really care less about the environmental issues with lead. But look towards the performance benefits of unleaded.

My 180 is able to run on 94 UL. Being in the midwest there's a few airports that have it. East Troy currently is my closest and they price it the same as 100LL. 4.99 a gallon. Another turf field closer to me has it at 4.00 a gallon. But turf in April in a cherokee 180 with wheel pants...Ill hold off
 
Racerx said:
So Millner who writes for AOPA seems to be on board with G100UL and Swifts 100R. Yet Mark Baker defended the FAA and the need for another wasteful government acronym in EAGLE. I know Millner didn't actually pick sides rather just explaining the process. Done so in a way that gets me on board. And I could really care less about the environmental issues with lead. But look towards the performance benefits of unleaded.
Click to expand...

It's a weird thing. Aopa, eaa, Gama all on board with eagle. Are they just playing nice with faa? Know something we don't? Nefarious back room dealings? I HOPE they are buying time and holding off the epa to get production and distribution set up, because you know as soon as faa approves a fleetwide unleaded fuel, 100ll gets banned the next day. The fact that they seem to be cutting Braley out of the loop is concerning. It could just be his ego & impatience talking though.

I'm with you. The danger of lead is massively overblown. We're tilting at windmills though. Eventually the last TEL plant will be shut down, and I really want to keep flying my Lance. There are unquestionably benefits to ditching the lead, and if Paul is correct that after a few years the price will settle out to be not much higher, then I'm on board. I think even +50 cents might be close to breaking even considering reduced mx.

I was unaware that the ETBE swift is working on was derived from ethanol. Sounds good to me ;)
 
@Racerx

Fuel pumps would have been required due to the lower vapor pressure of mogas, which in such planes as the Piper could have caused vapor lock. Dual fuel pumps solves the issue by moving fuel via pressure versus suction.
The G100UL actually maintains or exceeds the vapor pressure of 100LL; therefore no fuel pump changes would be required.

Hence, we are back to the price of the STC. $1-1.50 per HP.

Tim
 
@Jim K

Actually, there is significant studies that show the danger of lead is significantly understated; however the EPA has pretty much refused to take up the issue. However, as a society we have a lot more danger from lead caused by construction stirring up all the lead particulates which settled into the ground from lead fuel used in cars for fifty years. Current Avgas usage is statistically low enough that it is cannot be a major source of lead pollution.

Tim
 
tspear said:
@Racerx

Fuel pumps would have been required due to the lower vapor pressure of mogas, which in such planes as the Piper could have caused vapor lock. Dual fuel pumps solves the issue by moving fuel via pressure versus suction.
The G100UL actually maintains or exceeds the vapor pressure of 100LL; therefore no fuel pump changes would be required.

Hence, we are back to the price of the STC. $1-1.50 per HP.

Tim
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be higher vapor pressure causing the issue?
 
Jim K said:
It's a weird thing. Aopa, eaa, Gama all on board with eagle. Are they just playing nice with faa? Know something we don't? Nefarious back room dealings? I HOPE they are buying time and holding off the epa to get production and distribution set up, because you know as soon as faa approves a fleetwide unleaded fuel, 100ll gets banned the next day. The fact that they seem to be cutting Braley out of the loop is concerning. It could just be his ego & impatience talking though.

I'm with you. The danger of lead is massively overblown. We're tilting at windmills though. Eventually the last TEL plant will be shut down, and I really want to keep flying my Lance. There are unquestionably benefits to ditching the lead, and if Paul is correct that after a few years the price will settle out to be not much higher, then I'm on board. I think even +50 cents might be close to breaking even considering reduced mx.

I was unaware that the ETBE swift is working on was derived from ethanol. Sounds good to me ;)
Click to expand...

I can't say I blame Braly for his impatience. They've been working on this for 12 years. Created what is essentially the holy grail. Only to have the powers that be say let's invest in something to figure it out. Do we remember his announcement at Oshkosh last year? Essentially railing against the FAA for their incompetence. I think we all got behind him for that. So his venting has remained unchanged.

Of course the farmer is on board with ethanol derived etbe
 
tspear said:
, as a society we have a lot more danger from lead caused by construction stirring up all the lead particulates which settled into the ground from lead fuel used in cars for fifty years
Click to expand...
I can believe that. I guess I should've said the danger of lead emissions from aviation is massively overblown. I would bet that if you could get a fair study, eliminating lead from avgas wouldn't even be detectable. That said, the benefits to our engines will be very real.
 
Last edited:
Kenny Phillips said:
Wouldn't that be higher vapor pressure causing the issue?
Click to expand...

No clue which way it is supposed to be expressed :D I just know it is a problem with mogas and suction; especially combined with higher temps. And 100LL does not have the problem, and neither does G100UL.

Tim
 
Jim K said:
I can believe that. I guess I should've said the danger of lead emissions from aviation is massively overblown. I would bet that if you could get a fair study, eliminating lead from avgas wouldn't even be detectable. That said, the benefits to our engines will be very real.
Click to expand...

consider this:

Blood lead levels have fallen in the past 40-50 years with the elimination of leaded gas for cars (and paint and etc). Before 10 µg/dL was pretty normal. Now the expectation is less than 5 µg/dL.

and we haven't changed anything wrt lead emissions from aviation.
 
Bob Noel said:
consider this:

Blood lead levels have fallen in the past 40-50 years with the elimination of leaded gas for cars (and paint and etc). Before 10 µg/dL was pretty normal. Now the expectation is less than 5 µg/dL.

and we haven't changed anything wrt lead emissions from aviation.
Click to expand...

Actually we have. Avgas usage is down, and continues a downward trend. I still doubt there is a statistically verifiable connection. But avgas usage has also decreased while lead in blood has decreased.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Actually we have. Avgas usage is down, and continues a downward trend. I still doubt there is a statistically verifiable connection. But avgas usage has also decreased while lead in blood has decreased.

Tim
Click to expand...
Well the lead varnish on my crib I gnawed off as a toddler is no longer produced either...
 
It might be the fight to get rid of lead is more appealing than actually getting rid of it. When it's gone, what will all of those EAGLE people do?
 
WDD said:
It might be the fight to get rid of lead is more appealing than actually getting rid of it. When it's gone, what will all of those EAGLE people do?
Click to expand...

They are never satisfied. They will move on and begin the next battle. What will that be? Afraid to ask. Maybe they will go after a bigger fish if they want to continue to attack things that fly ...

From the article:
Research has found that human exposure to jet fuel can hinder neurobehavioral and cardiac health, as well as pulmonary function. The jet fuels JP-5 and JP-8, as well as Jet A fuels, may also be linked to hearing loss among veterans.
Click to expand...

https://www.hillandponton.com/jet-fuel-exposure-syndrome-symptoms/
 
I feel like the gas issue will eventually be fixed. We'll never fix the noise complaint issue. I'm more scared of that one.
 
tspear said:
And where did you see that price?
The price quote from GAMI (George Braily) and others is that the STC will be priced roughly the same as the mogas STC.

Tim
Click to expand...
GAMI when they announced their unleaded fuel last summer.
 
Clip4 said:
GAMI when they announced their unleaded fuel last summer.
Click to expand...
"Braly said GAMI expects to begin selling STCs in the first half of 2022 but hasn’t set a price. The price of the fuel itself also hasn’t been determined." AOPA article after the Oshkosh announcement.
 
How do you eat an elephant?



It’s the classic metaphor in the battle to eliminate fossil fuels. Aviation fuel is a low hanging fruit.
 
Racerx said:
"Braly said GAMI expects to begin selling STCs in the first half of 2022 but hasn’t set a price. The price of the fuel itself also hasn’t been determined." AOPA article after the Oshkosh announcement.
Click to expand...

let me know when it’s available anywhere other than Ada, OK. I’m not buying **** till I know it’s actually widely available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top