A quick search shows 415 stations offering non-ethanol gasoline in Missouri. It seems to be readily available in a lot of areas around the country just not at every corner pump.
Last edited:
Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Unleaded Avgas Progress
- Thread starter Steve Iacoviello
- Start date
- Status
Amadeus
Well Known Member
Buckee's has it. Southern States Co-op has it. BP at the lake has it. The distributor in my town has it and will deliver it to private tanks on farms, at airports, at private boat docks, etc. (unfortunately my airport does not allow private tanks at hangars).
But I get what you're saying: "It is readily available!"
I have seen mogas for sale right along 100LL at several airports - most recently at KGIF Winter Haven, Florida on a recent Bahamas trip a couple weeks ago. That, I believe, will continue to be more common as pressure mounts to get rid of 100LL. The infrastructure (tanks/pipes/pumps) associated with 100LL cannot be used with an unleaded fuel (all contaminated with lead, exceedingly difficult to clean that) so when a transition is made to fully unleaded fuel, those 100LL facilities will be scrapped out, not converted to another version of unleaded fuel.
Why not? Around my part of the country, many stores are now carrying ethanol-free blends, though admittedly it's usually 87 octane.
Interesting - all the previous rhetoric I've heard was saying that you CAN'T reuse the facilities with unleaded fuel. Of course, if you're willing to accept trace lead contamination you certainly can - I'm surprised that would even be DISCUSSED in California.
Carl Froehlich
Well Known Member
But….
One place ~30 min from me carries 93 octane ethonal free. Checking it out I also find this independent dealer gets a dedicated delivery from the refinery. But, the price of a gallon of this gold is now well over $6 (~$2 more than local 93 octane E10), and more expensive than 100LL near me.
Other than the immediate 3% reduction in fuel efficiency with E10, and the fact that E10 absorbs water better than Bounty, what are the other downsides of E10? I have verified the fuel system is compatible.
Carl
I pick up my new TB IO-540 next month. 8.5 pistons as I see a future of hauling mogas to the plane.
I hear this quite often, that E10 picks up and holds water. I consider that a plus, not a negative.
First lets look at total water availability. Where is it coming from? Leaky fuel caps? Fix them - that affects 100LL ops just the same, so that argument in a non-starter. Humidity from the air vent into the tank? Ok, I'll grant you that one. So if you fill up a tank, burn almost all of it, replacing that void space with outside air - how much water is there? Let's be generous and say you inhale 18 gallons of air (each tank), at say 90% humidity. In flight the water level in the air will be much lower, but you will eventually have to land and the higher pressure and humidity there will be your worst-case scenario, so let's go with that. 18 gallons is 2.406 cubic feet of air inhaled to replaced the 18 gallons of fuel burned. At 86 degrees F (yes, I know, just looking at an average here) air has a maximum moisture content of .0019 pounds of water per cubic foot (commonly available moisture tables - let Google be your friend). That works out to .00457 pounds of water inhaled at 100% humidity, or .00411 pounds at a generous 90% humidity. For simplicity of the next part I'm going to jump to SI units now - that .00411 pounds is 1.87 grams of water, or 1.87 cubic centimeters of water volume. There are 20 drops of water in a single CC, so we are talking about 37.4 drops of water in a worst-case scenario. E10 fuel can hold 0.41% water IN SOLUTION (no separated water, all dissolved). So 1.87 CC divided by .0041 gives us a remaining fuel volume of 456 CC's that is able to hold that much water in solution without separating. That's literally a PINT OF FUEL. How far down into the empty tank zone do you consider to be your limit before stopping for fuel? Because the math says that if you run E10, and have at least a PINT left in the tank before refilling, it's not possible to pull enough moisture out of the air to make liquid water in the tank.
Go ahead, check my math. I'll wait. For reference, 100LL's ability to hold water is about 2% of E10 - which means you will need 50 times as much final fuel volume to hold that water in suspension - just over 6 gallons in this scenario. This scenario also ignores the fact that some of that total moisture inhalation is mixing with the fuel during flight and being burned through the engine - so the final resting volume of water available prior to the next fillup is, in reality, much less.
I know I have 1620 hours and 8 years running E10, and I've never found any water in my sumps.
Last edited:
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
I have always understood that in California the tank system that once carried leaded fuel is now “poisoned“ forever. Whether that’s true or not is somewhat irrelevant to my question about multiple tank systems being economically viable. As I illustrated earlier, I remember airports carrying three distinct products (100LL, 80/87, and JetA). Why was that “a thing” in the late 90’s, but now not? What changed?
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
And to Greg’s point, I can run E10 in my airplane too. And I would run unleaded at the fuel pump if available, but I’m going to pick the least expensive option. Unfortunately, in California that means 100LL. Last Wednesday I filled the Rocket with 100LL and then later filled my Corvette at the corner station on the way to work. Paid $5.33 for the 100LL and $5.70 for the unleaded.
Benefit of the doubt, assumed boundary conditions, other disclaimers, interjected here.
Small amounts of bulk water can stall injected engines; not going to state any more about that sometimes debated topic.
I fully agree that the small amount ethanol is actually good for holding any water in suspension. The fuel drying additives are IPA and Methanol, IIRC. If you want evidence of IPA's ability to suspend water, look at what the commercial products have done to increase profits; 30% H2O in some IPA offerings.
Main issue would be insuring good fuel quality (dryness) when you buy it or fill your tanks. "Saturated" fuel is gonna pass through the last-chance coalescing filter element. Just a point.
Environment regulations and liability, most likely.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Not at all surprising that environmental regulations are actually preventing a more environmentally responsible option from being an economic reality in California. It s what we do best here.
Since HQ is literally right around the corner from us, we invited AvFuel to give a talk and have a Q&A session at our EAA chapter gathering last fall. While I was not smart enough to take notes, here are a few highlights having a chance of me remembering correctly: 1. AvFuel will deliver G100UL from/to anywhere. 2. Distribution is a problem far more significant than I realized. Gasoline infrastructure while omnipresent is designed for a commodity with orders of magnitude higher rate of consumption than aviation gasoline. A split 94/100 retail unleaded market therefore unlikely. If I remember right, Avgas in this region is delivered in a slug via pipeline to Toledo from Louisiana and delivered by truck from there. That might be replicated today for G100UL, it would be a significant gamble for the entity willing to front the cost for a product with an uncertain market. Like, if a slug of G100UL showed up in Toledo today, would any retailer actually take delivery? The chicken or the egg. 3. Having a friend who is happy to pay $12/gallon for 105 octane leaded fuel for his race car, I asked about a convergence of those small markets into 1 larger market (G100UL is, I think, 105 R+M/2), their rep said that is exactly what VP Racing, a PAFI participant, sees. 4. The pilot/owners present were fairly unanimous in conveying that they'd prefer, if not too expensive, unleaded fuel today.Some of you are 1-2 years behind the news. I can't help that.
There is a tiny insignificant company.....AvFuel.....ya probably never heard of them.
As for compatibility while G100UL and leaded avgas are fully fungible, it will be up to others that follow to be compatible. The PAFI process is a flawed and costly (taxpayer) exercise and anything that is promoting now is years away from the market even if the FAA only halves what they did to GAMI.
As for point 3 about being a fleet wide drop in? Yes. G100UL is. Fully. And just in case you are wondering I have had as close as one could get involvement in this product development without actually working for GAMI.
I came away hopeful for the future, but not for today.
Amadeus
Well Known Member
A factor to keep in mind is that E10 isn't necessarily "E10."
E10 has a MAXIMUM of 10% ethanol. Tests by third party groups indicate that actual ethanol is often in the 5% to 6% range.
Let me add to the hear say to counter the $750k - $800k cost to add a pump with tank.
Ten years ago I was a member of a Florida Yacht Club. We had no fuel and the closest was 2 miles away and expensive.
The club started talking about adding two tanks. My thought was " no way. With the environmental requirements, it would cost more than the club could afford."
I was wrong, we added the two pumps. If I remember correctly, the cost was only about 10k per tank and pump. Keep in mind these were 10' from the water.
All very professionally done with retaining walls.
So even if my numbers are wrong and it is 100k now. That is a whole lot different than the previously mentioned price.
Just found an old article about the same subject.
They mention $35k in 2012
www.aviationpros.com
Ten years ago I was a member of a Florida Yacht Club. We had no fuel and the closest was 2 miles away and expensive.
The club started talking about adding two tanks. My thought was " no way. With the environmental requirements, it would cost more than the club could afford."
I was wrong, we added the two pumps. If I remember correctly, the cost was only about 10k per tank and pump. Keep in mind these were 10' from the water.
All very professionally done with retaining walls.
So even if my numbers are wrong and it is 100k now. That is a whole lot different than the previously mentioned price.
Just found an old article about the same subject.
They mention $35k in 2012
Self-Service Fuel: Airport Money-Maker
An in-depth look at the benefits of self-serve fueling systems for airports
Amadeus
Well Known Member
I, too, doubted the number being quoted. However it was a common number regardless of airport location (Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri). I personally investigated the price of storage tanks, pumps, credit card station, labor, etc, etc, and found that it could all be done for about $90,000. Next visit to one of those airports that quoted these numbers replied: "You've obviously never had to go to the FAA, EPA, State or County regulatory departments for approval of anything."
Interesting that without any *actual* knowledge about what any state's *actual* regulations on fuel storage tanks are, that's become the cause célèbre keeping UL fuel off the market.
Maybe it is just our airport manager making up a reason why he does not want to bother with it.
PilotjohnS
Well Known Member
If G100UL is mixed in a heritage 100LL ground tank, what is the problem? Every aircraft that can use G100LL can also use 100LL. I would think after flushing 10 tankfulls of G100UL there wont be much lead left.
Clostermann
Member
Thanks Lucky ! You seem to have more first hand information than RV10inOz, who claims that GL100UL is deployed but cannot provide a single example of location, price, or any information about the fuel. Makes you wonder who is spreading the BS....
Your information is more consistent with what is evident, which is that major distributors have not begun to distribute the fuel anywhere in the country, despite claims that Vitol has blended a million gallons, enough to supply the US market for less than three days. Big whoop.
12vaitor
Well Known Member
Talked to a Titan Fuels rep today at our new FBO grand opening, they have no plan to distribute G100UL or Swift as there is no market demand. Interestingly, on the JET-A side there is demand for SAF and you have the same problem with needing another tank/truck setup. Apparently, some places are mixing SAF and JET-A and calling it SAF. His opinion is to watch what happens in CA with the 100LL ban and the commercial availability of G100UL and expect that to replicated everywhere else.
The PAFI/EAGLE announcement that Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing 100UL is expected to be approved by the end of 2025 was interesting as that fuel will NOT be compatible with all piston engines in the fleet. Leave it to the government to fix a problem in the future with a less optimal solution than already exists. I expect the Titan guy is correct, this is a problem that will require a political fix (taxes, subsidies, laws, regs) at the end of the day.
John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
The PAFI/EAGLE announcement that Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing 100UL is expected to be approved by the end of 2025 was interesting as that fuel will NOT be compatible with all piston engines in the fleet. Leave it to the government to fix a problem in the future with a less optimal solution than already exists. I expect the Titan guy is correct, this is a problem that will require a political fix (taxes, subsidies, laws, regs) at the end of the day.
John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
MacCool
Well Known Member
Are you speaking about G100UL hitting the market in Australia, or in the US?
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
US, but I am working on the upside down version in a very small way at this point in time. That is a fair way off at present. But will happen.
PilotjohnS
Well Known Member
My fear is that the PAPI or EAGLE fuel initiative will produce an inferior fuel to the GAMI G100UL. But the PAPI/EAGLE fuel will be approved and promoted because it is a result of an FAA program, while the GAMI fuel will be left out in the cold, even thou it is far superior.
I hope the powers that be get this right and we get the best unleaded fuel, and not a political decision.
I hope the powers that be get this right and we get the best unleaded fuel, and not a political decision.
RV10inOz
Well Known Member
That is a real issue, however I am confident the horse has bolted already and if there is one thing that the US legal system learned back in the mid 1980's, when American tobacco industries literally dodged a bullet in a David & Goliath battle. The US justice system had a wake up call from a little known (at the time) aeronautical engineer and his wife from a little three letter town, Ada OK.
I am blessed to call these folk friends.
Enjoy these and many more if you search.
There was a movie made about the story, and in true Hollywood style they fancied many things, including divorced lawyers (they never were) but there are many true story lines along with the general theme which is somewhat close to reality.
You’re correct in your assertion that e10 will trap and hold water however this is not the mechanism by which we run into problems with ethanol fuels and moisture. The trouble is not from the air volumes that replace the fuel used each flight, or water ingress from rain, it’s the cyclic “breathing” that tanks do on a daily basis from temp fluctuations, mostly day and night. Each day the tank will warm, expel air and then gulp some in at night. The fuel absorbs this and when it hits a saturation point it drops the water out as a nasty sludge. It happens all at once and it’s truly disturbing and gross (Think balsamic Italian dressing). So this is mainly a problem during storage, and worst in high humidity and low fuel volume conditions. I had doubts too until I finally saw it first hand. Since then I always store tanks as full as possible if forced to use e10, this reduces the volume of air that gulps with each temp change, and also gives more volume of ethanol to absorb whatever water is present.
Another negative effect of e10 is a loss of total energy from the fuel as ethanol has less energy than gasoline, which results ina hp loss. Also ethanol can wreak havoc on some rubber seals and hoses too, as well as corrode metals. This is experience I have from working on motorcycles and old cars.
Amadeus
Well Known Member
Um. How can actual demand be gauged when they have nothing to meet demand?
I'm always asking, you are obviously asking, how many times can an FBO manager reply to inquiries "there is no demand" before the light goes off that there is actually a demand?
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Lots of talk in this thread concerning “demand”…. If your local gas island offers 100LL as well as some UL option, how many are going to choose the cheapest of the two? I know I will. I look forward to UL availability, but I’m only using it if it’s the least expensive option.
Amadeus
Well Known Member
Factor the cost of doubling your oil change frequency when you are doing your calculations.
In my case I NEVER use leaded fuel. Just having UL available along the flight route saves me from borrowing a crew car and taking my Alaska Airframes collapsible fuel bladders to a nearby automotive gas station then filling my tank myself. It will always be more expensive to buy UL on the airport versus automotive stations but SO MUCH more convenient.
I will gladly pay more for UL fuel and I really hope it's available before I finish my build. I don't want all the contaminates that 100LL adds to the oil, spark plugs, valves, etc.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
How much more? Given the choice of 2 fuels with difference in price, what price point would drive you to the 100LL option?
For me, it’s one cent per gallon.
Please explain why you’d happily pay $2-3 more per gallon for UL?
8 gal/hr X 2000 hrs is an extra $32,000-48,000 in added operating cost for the life of the engine.
What maintenance will you be saving with UL that will offset the cost?
For $48k I’ll just buy a spare engine
Last edited:
Valid point - and problem solved - park the plane with full tanks. That's the way I was taught as a student.
You should also factor in the costs associated with detrimental health effects as a result of prolonged lead exposure, whether that's through increased health insurance premiums, taxes, etc. These effects are well known and can affect all persons that come in contact with lead, not just to residents living near airports. You'd be fooling yourself to believe that the price of lead is only measured in terms of $ per gallon, or that it's a decision that only affects you.
I ate paint chips as a kid, always stand down wind of anything burning avgas or race fuel (love the smell), and spent years working in a metal smelter breathing and ingesting lead. Tested every year for heavy metals and never saw a change. (My hair did turn neon green for a bit but that's not lead related hahaha)
I'm pretty sure y'all will be fine puttering around behind a lead burner for a few hundred hours a year.
I don’t believe that’s realistic, but granting for the moment that it is, an oil change costs less than $150 every 30 hours. Cut that in half and you save $75 every 30 hours, or $2.50 per hour. At 8gph, that’s $0.315 per gallon. No one thinks G100UL will be that close.
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
Yes… there is a lot of erroneous information being spread around, both about the cost of tank systems, and California specific invironmental and regulatory “information”. Having budgeted for and overseen the installation of numerous above ground fuel tanks here in California, I can assure you that it can be done for less than $100,000 - depending on tank size and existing site prep. As far as the “onerous” permitting process, that is typical overblown, oft-repeated hype. Do your research. Most agencies have the info needed on their website. Submit your PROPERLY completed plans, application, and associated permit fees (yes, usually a couple hundred dollars/per… not tens or hundreds of thousands!) to the AHJ for Planning/Building/Fire/Environmental Health-HazMat/AQMD. Most agencies have a 14 day (occasionally 21 day) permit turnaround policy. Do your part, and you’re usually ready to start install in about 30 days.
The number one issue in the permitting process is incompetence and laziness on the part of the contractors/installers. (Per my wife who works for a large agency involved in permitting). They don’t know the basic codes as required by their license, and are too lazy to do any research; preferring to pencil whip the paperwork, try to cut corners, and BS their way through the process. Over and over again. Ok… off our soapbox.
That all said - we are a capitalistic society. Anything a business can do to generate additional profit will be done. Nobody providing fuel is doing it for an altruistic reason. I fully expect this UL fuel - from whomever to be $2.00 a gallon more than current 100LL with all the anticipated excuses being used. That’s probably my Grumpy Old Man personality showing.
Lastly - while many aircraft can, and do use auto fuel, I recently compared two local airports hanger/tie-down rental agreements, and both specifically stated that NO outside fuel is allowed to be brought on to the property.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
The levels of lead in residents near airports is no different than other neighborhoods within the same geographic region, as recent well funded studies have shown. I’ll burn unleaded because for me there is no reason to add lead, but let’s not go all “chicken little” on the lead thing. We have enough of that from outside the aviation community to go around. If you have actual, verifiable maintenance or other natural free market economic numbers that make a compelling case for paying MORE for unleaded, I’d sure like to hear it. But if anyone starts down the “…but think of the CHILDREN…” path, my brain turns off to further discussion.
Amadeus
Well Known Member
No FBO has ever stopped or forbid me from using my Alaska Airframes collapsible fuel bladders that I used the courtesy car to go buy UL mogas but your point emphasizes how airports need to adapt to meet the needs of the pilot/aircraft owner/customer so that bringing outside fuel to the airport is not necessary.
Your math doesn’t math. $3/gal extra is enough over the life of the engine to buy a spare engine. Not sure how that’s worth it as an extra cost to prevent all the “googled issues” with lead
If it was 30 cents more then you might have an argument
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
I'm convinced that lead has some downsides in an engine... But "how" bad? Come up with numbers to accurately justify or offset an additional cost of UL fuel and there will be a convincing discussion. Without either number, it's just pure emotion and speculation.
12vaitor
Well Known Member
Your statement reflects exactly why it will take government action to force 100LL off the market. I told an AOPA VP recently that relying on pilots to choose UL over 100LL will never work because pilots are a bunch of cheap bastards. As long as 100LL is lower priced than any UL, the UL volume will not be economically sustainable. If the EPA does not outright ban the sale of 100LL (i.e. California model), I expect an excise tax of $2/gal only for 100LL might do the trick (if you have both fuels to pick from).
John Salak
RV-12 N896HS
Steve Iacoviello
Active Member
Where did you see it published that the "PAFI fuel will NOT be compatible with all piston engines"? I do not believe this is true. The stated goal of the PAFI program is fleet wide approval, and the current PAFI fuel has passed all the FAA testing to date. No other fuel has passed this FAA testing.
Steve Iacoviello
Active Member
What makes you believe that the GAMI fuel is "even thou it is far superior" ? Did GAMI tell you that? They may have a bias. I don't know who has the better fuel but I trust data generated by the FAA more than data generated in house. Other fuels have failed the FAA testing and we now have a fuel that is progressing. What's wrong letting this play out?
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Not asking you - pointing to the group as an exercise in critical thinking. In a free market, it's a math problem: The do the benefits of unleaded fuel financially offset the cost increase? There are plenty of Lycomings that make TBO and well beyond with nothing but a diet of 100LL, so what is the realized additional benefit of unleaded? That realized benefit (longer life, deferred maintenance actions, better fuel economy, etc) is implied, but nobody can quantify it.
Example: Southwest (I think) would pressure wash the engine core between flights in an effort to eke out a bit more efficiency. This process has a discrete financial value (labor, materials, etc) that can be quantified. The resulting efficiency increase also has a discrete financial value. The engine clearly runs better with the pressure wash, but you can BET that the first flight this process costs more than the fuel saved, Southwest is going to stop doing that.
Same thing holds true here. If it can be shown that the Unleaded fuel offsets some other cost and can end up even or somewhat ahead, then it makes sense. But to pay any cost just because it's "better" is not good financial planning.
PilotjohnS
Well Known Member
I don't mean to assume any fuel is superior, but this was meant as a what if scenario about my fears. Just asking a question about any potential bias.
Steve Iacoviello
Active Member
Thanks for the clarification. Speaking of bias, and full disclosure, I retired from Lyondellbasell but I never worked in the fuels division. Big company that few have heard of. Over 2,000 employees.
Toobuilder
Well Known Member
Id like to think aviators have a "heightened sensitivity to a favorable value proposition"... The rest of your post reflects government manipulation and social engineering of a free market and will quickly become political, so I'll just say that if one wants to bring a better mousetrap, then it should stand on it's own merit as a superior value proposition compared to the incumbent product.
Last edited:
Phyrcooler
Well Known Member
That’s a new one on me…!- Status
