FAA wants the lead out by 2018

So, the article says "non-commercial aircraft" to have lead free fuel. Also referred to as the GA Fleet.

So what of the piston engine "Commercial aircraft"?
 
The FAA didn't say that. It was the usual mainstream presses characterization of GA as NON-COMMERCIAL. It was clear from the FAA quote that the FAA understands that there is substantial commercial GA even if the monkeys at the post don't understand.
 
The FAA could just ground all the aircraft that depend on leaded fuel. Problem solved. I wouldn't put it past them.
 
steingar said:
The FAA could just ground all the aircraft that depend on leaded fuel. Problem solved. I wouldn't put it past them.
Click to expand...

And that kind of collateral damage may happen with the folks that can't run whatever replacement fuel is approved. Some high-compression turbocharged engines may fall into that category.
 
It's going to be a painful transition for many no matter how it's handled - but I think we can all fairly agree it's going to happen sooner or later. This was one of the primary factors (cost being another) that drove me to build my experimental with an engine and fuel system that would be perfectly happy running 91-octane autofuel with ethanol.
 
Well, funny cause the FAA has been putting up all the roadblocks possible for the past 25 years. Interesting that they are now on the unleaded bandwagon.
 
Unleaded doesn't necessarily mean AutoGas. Continental has been following all the alternative fuels and they aren't particularly worried. They say they can make rated power even on some of the lower octane proposals.
 
Where is the AOPA on this?
 
Bob Noel said:
Where is the AOPA on this?
Click to expand...

Not yet paid off by a green avgas manufacturer, too smart to engage the earthies. Maybe they are doing their job and bribing pols on the sly. You can't win the leaded avgas argument in public, you'd just bury yourself faster as more people learned that there is lead falling from those little planes.
 
2018? So we'll have something (maybe) by 2028 then?


Maybe.
 
airguy said:
It's going to be a painful transition for many no matter how it's handled - but I think we can all fairly agree it's going to happen sooner or later. This was one of the primary factors (cost being another) that drove me to build my experimental with an engine and fuel system that would be perfectly happy running 91-octane autofuel with ethanol.
Click to expand...

Really you are running MoGas with ethanol. I didn't know anyone was doing that. What engine?
 
Foxhole said:
Really you are running MoGas with ethanol. I didn't know anyone was doing that. What engine?
Click to expand...

Several RV drivers have run ethanol laced fuel for years. It is all that is available in some areas. No problems. :dunno:

I would run it also, but I need the 92 octane for my Rotax 912s. It too can run ethanol up to 10% if the octane level is 92.
 
Last edited:
docmirror said:
Well, funny cause the FAA has been putting up all the roadblocks possible for the past 25 years. Interesting that they are now on the unleaded bandwagon.
Click to expand...

I sneek through the road blocks. :lol:

fuel_tank.JPG
 
Geico266 said:
Several RV drivers have run ethanol laced fuel for years. It is all that is available in some areas. No problems. :dunno:

I would run it also, but I need the 92 octane for my Rotax 912s. It too can run ethanol up to 10% if the octane level is 92.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I thought E-10 or E-15 was a no no. Let me ask this. Are there any certified AC engines that allow ethanol in them with an STC?
 
Geico266 said:
Several RV drivers have run ethanol laced fuel for years. It is all that is available in some areas. No problems. :dunno:

I would run it also, but I need the 92 octane for my Rotax 912s. It too can run ethanol up to 10% if the octane level is 92.
Click to expand...

Is the group from South Dakota that flies ethanol-powered RV-4's still floating around somewhere? I always liked it when they were on the ramp at Boone - it smelled like a Jack Daniel's distillery. :D
 
Foxhole said:
I didn't know that. I thought E-10 or E-15 was a no no. Let me ask this. Are there any certified AC engines that allow ethanol in them with an STC?
Click to expand...

Rotax and Jabiru allow it (up to E-10) without an STC in both type certificated and experimenal versions (there are some exceptions as a function of the airframe / fuel tank)

Lycoming and Continental engines in a type certificated aircraft - no.
 
If I continue to fly 125 tach hours/year, my engine will only be midtime by 2018. Guess I'd better start flying more. ;)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Rotax and Jabiru allow it (up to E-10) without an STC in both type certificated and experimenal versions (there are some exceptions as a function of the airframe / fuel tank)

Lycoming and Continental engines in a type certificated aircraft - no.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation. Learn something every day. :yesnod:
 
Of course, GAMI G100UL has been flight tested for a few years now, and appears to be a drop in replacement, and even can be mixed with 100LL in the same tank.

Swiftfuel also seems to work well, and is even fairly economical, from what I understand, if you eliminate the "bio" part and just use commercial acetone feedstock.

Not sure what the drama is about.

Richman
 
Richman67 said:
Of course, GAMI G100UL has been flight tested for a few years now, and appears to be a drop in replacement, and even can be mixed with 100LL in the same tank.

Swiftfuel also seems to work well, and is even fairly economical, from what I understand, if you eliminate the "bio" part and just use commercial acetone feedstock.

Not sure what the drama is about.

Richman
Click to expand...

Does "flight tested" equate to "certified for use" in place of 100LL?

In other words, if I pull up to the pump in my turbocharged Cessna/Piper/Beech where 100LL would be dispensed and I am offered GAMI G100UL, or the Swift equivalent, am I legally allowed to put it in the tank?
 
docmirror said:
Does "flight tested" equate to "certified for use" in place of 100LL?

In other words, if I pull up to the pump in my turbocharged Cessna/Piper/Beech where 100LL would be dispensed and I am offered GAMI G100UL, or the Swift equivalent, am I legally allowed to put it in the tank?
Click to expand...

No. But they've apparently done a lot of flight testing.
 
docmirror said:
Does "flight tested" equate to "certified for use" in place of 100LL?

In other words, if I pull up to the pump in my turbocharged Cessna/Piper/Beech where 100LL would be dispensed and I am offered GAMI G100UL, or the Swift equivalent, am I legally allowed to put it in the tank?
Click to expand...

My understanding from their talks at osh is that the specification for 100LL has as one of it's requirements that it be petroleum based. Swiftfuel meets every other requirement but can't meet that one ( no duh!) Getting a new spec issued without that requirement is a massive undertaking that may take years and that is where they are now.
 
docmirror said:
Does "flight tested" equate to "certified for use" in place of 100LL?

In other words, if I pull up to the pump in my turbocharged Cessna/Piper/Beech where 100LL would be dispensed and I am offered GAMI G100UL, or the Swift equivalent, am I legally allowed to put it in the tank?
Click to expand...

According to my memory (which is always questionable), the Swift fuel has only a handful of componants in place of the broad spectrum of stuff that you get with gasoline. So, even though it works fine in an aircraft engine, it doesn't match the distillation curve limits that were developed for petroleum based gasoline.

Dunno about GAMI
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
According to my memory (which is always questionable), the Swift fuel has only a handful of componants in place of the broad spectrum of stuff that you get with gasoline. So, even though it works fine in an aircraft engine, it doesn't match the distillation curve limits that were developed for petroleum based gasoline.

Dunno about GAMI
Click to expand...

All that is very illuminating and certainly fodder for POA discussion. However, it doesn't mean squadoosh if it's not authorized by STC for putting in the tanks of the GA fleet which now rely on 100LL.

I have to say, based on FAA talking out both sides of it's head, or perhaps one head one azz, or both azzes as the case may be -- it appears that they are trying to squeeze the GA fleet on purpose. It's like the proverbial catch 22, deny any new fuels an STC, or even a TSO, or whatever and at the same time demand that lead be removed from fuel. The very real consequence is that any airplane not certified for auto gas(sans Eth), will become a shiny monument to govt regulation, and the GA airports across the nation will become the plinths on which they sit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top