Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

100UL (merged thread)

Mooney_Driver wrote:

In any case, we need a solution which, like 100LL, fits all.
This would be convenient if you need that kind of fuel, but I’m not so sure that is the solution that’s going to happen. Either the GAMI fuel is widely adopted as a replacement for Avgas, everywhere, – or, what I expect to happen, there will be many pumps with varying qualities and anyone with ‘special requirements’ will despair looking for places to refuel while everyone with a modern engine will grind their teeth for having to pay inflated prices subsidizing fuels they don’t actually need, lobbying for ‘their’ fuels at their local airport.
And with that, there will be more pressure on the market to flush out these stone age technology engines, their prices will drop accordingly. This again will push more and more pilots towards ultralights, which in turn again decreases the demand for the avialability of high octane fuels everywhere. You see where this is going.
Berlin, Germany

There is no good technical reason why we don’t have 100UL – it’s all about money. And the money is in 100UL, not 91UL since in the market that matters, something like 70-80% of fuel is consumed by the higher end aircraft which need the octane rating.

100LL can be produced by “anyone” who can produce it to the official specification.
GAMI 100UL is proprietary and a producer will have to pay a licensing fee to GAMI.

So the classic producers want an official specification to avoid the cost of having to pay GAMI (and, other than “upstream” production, “downstream” refining and distribution is a low-margin business and every penny counts). They also want to prevent GAMI and one or two licensed suppliers from having first-mover advantage and tying up the market before they have their act together.

GAMI could “donate” their specification and licence it for free – but they of course want to make money from their invention.
The authorities also could approve the GAMI fuel – but the vested interests do everything to prevent that.

Biggin Hill

So, with the recent news (no approval of 100UL by the FAA in sight, and no ban of TEL imports into Europe), we will likely have no real change at the fuel front for at least another 10 years here in European GA.

The light end of piston GA (Rotax, etc.) uses mogas, either from pumps (where available at airfields) or from jerry-cans/small trailers parked in hangar corners. Where both is unavailable, they will begrudingly use expensive UL91, or, if that is not available, 100LL.

The mid range of piston GA (low compresion Lycos/Contis) uses mogas, where approved and available, or UL91, or, if that is not available, 100LL.

The heavy end of piston GA (high compression/turbo Lycos/Contis) uses 100LL.

Mainz (EDFZ), Germany

Inkognito wrote:

which in turn again decreases the demand for the avialability of high octane fuels everywhere

or for an increased demand for Jet-A1 for all the future turbo props (according to Aero Friedrichshafen).

I think we also should not forget Diamond. More and more of those diesel aircraft are entering the market, while the fleet of Cessna and Piper is getting increasingly older. As of now we have already Cuba conditions regarding aircraft.

The FAA is obviously pushing towards standard fuels (Jet, diesel, mogas, ethanol). If that is not possible, leave things as they are. Yet another type of fuel is probably the least wanted thing we don’t need.

ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

FAA continues to block G100UL unleaded 100LL replacement

The latest in the saga:

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/v1uh4a/g100ul_post_sun_fun_update_faa_breaches_agreements/

I wonder if GAMI has considered trying for EASA approval (I’ve not seen anything about them trying), and whether EASA would be more constructive. For GA’s medium/long term future we really do need to have a replacement for 100LL.

Andreas IOM

This is more complicated – see Cobalt’s post above.

GAMI have probably not heard of Europe.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I wonder if GAMI has considered trying for EASA approval (I’ve not seen anything about them trying), and whether EASA would be more constructive.

I’m afraid they’d need to do all testing all over again. Not sure this is financially sane for GAMI. I have the impression that AOPA is dropping the ball on this one 🙁

EBST, Belgium

I’m afraid they’d need to do all testing all over again

That would appear to contradict a lot of stuff which has been written here

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I doubt they would have to go testing again

Paris/Essex, France, , United Kingdom

Based on what ? They carried out the FAA required tests and it led to nowhere. Now they can start over again to satisfy EASA test requirements. This isn’t some “mutual STC recognition programme”; there is no STC !

EBST, Belgium
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top