Post moved to existing 100UL thread
Hi there. ..
Maybe I open an useless thread but u haven’t found any on this topic.
Apparently there are two last short listed candidates for the FAA & EPA story of banning lead AVGAS and find a cost neutral and dispatch able new gasoline fuel for a 1950 to 2016 engine….
Have you heard anything of shells and / or swiftfuel?
Anybody involved in this process. Swiftfuel also opened a GmbH in Germany to be able to produce UL102 for the European market!
Would be Intrested and what’s going on there and how huge the impact of a bean of lead in avgas will be (or won’t be)
Thx again
Ps. Special interest would be the older turbocharged engines from lycoming like used in many pipers, mooneys ect.
Swiftfuel also opened a GmbH in Germany to be able to produce UL102 for the European market
Now that is really interesting!
I wonder what Warter Fuels are doing. They are really keen to produce avgas and have always rubbished the claims of the big boys about its widely predicted demise. The European avgas business is worth a few hundred million € a year…
Swiftfuel and Shell were selected as the two remaining fuels for the final phase of testing on the whole range of engines including helicpter and turbocharged engines. The field-test phase is projected to last until end of 2018.
I am very interested in the findings since my Franklin engine runs with a compression ratio of 10,5: 1 which is very demanding on the fuel in regard to detonation.
Just been reading an article in the US AOPA mag on the progress of a replacement for 100LL.
The FAA started with four fuels in 2014 (not named in the article).
In 2016 they got it down to two: Shell UL100 and Swift UL102.
But this is where it got stuck. From the article:
They should go via EASA then…
Rwy20 wrote:
Planes aren’t certified to be able to fly with full tanks, and mass and balance isn’t based on litres, but lbs/kg, so nothing needs to change IMO.
Well yes, but most POH/AFM’s list the allowable types of fuel, plus the weight&balance tables/graphs may include calculations in litres, which become misleading if a fuel with a different density is used.
Peter wrote:
Can you post some detail, @mh, on how the FAA could go via EASA?
Not the FAA, but Swift. Or any other vendor. Like Oratex fabric, you need to adress every aircraft. But once you established sufficient engineering data, you can base essentially all aircraft on one STC. Then you could accept an EASA STC for the FAA. For further details, feel free to contact us. (www.aircraftdc.de)
How do you ensure all the various fuel systems are compatible? After all, any 100LL replacement must contain chemicals which are not in 100LL.
In practice, most fuel systems will be “ok” because they use PR1422 to seal the tanks (if metal tanks) but the seals in the fittings will vary. Hence some due diligence is required to show compatibility. And “most” is not same as “guaranteed all”.
If this was this easy, you would be extremely rich!
