carusoam Posted August 2, 2021 Report Share Posted August 2, 2021 A few of the class A would be cooler than the class B… For discussions on AAPL around here…. Bob B explained his retirement funding… Somebody used the example of Forest Gump… who accidentally bought shares in a fruit company… aka apple… For fun… look up the reference, find the market price on the day the movie was released, compare to today’s price… mr. Gump was brilliant! there is a quirky finance thread around here somewhere…. How did you afford or pay for your Mooney… Some of the responses with 20/20 rear view vision must be interesting… Keep an eye on the realities of inflation as we go forwards… PP thoughts only, not a market maker or economist… Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N201MKTurbo Posted August 2, 2021 Report Share Posted August 2, 2021 11 minutes ago, carusoam said: A few of the class A would be cooler than the class B… For discussions on AAPL around here…. Bob B explained his retirement funding… Somebody used the example of Forest Gump… who accidentally bought shares in a fruit company… aka apple… For fun… look up the reference, find the market price on the day the movie was released, compare to today’s price… mr. Gump was brilliant! there is a quirky finance thread around here somewhere…. How did you afford or pay for your Mooney… Some of the responses with 20/20 rear view vision must be interesting… Keep an eye on the realities of inflation as we go forwards… PP thoughts only, not a market maker or economist… Best regards, -a- You don’t own BRK.A to get rich, you own it to stay rich.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradp Posted August 2, 2021 Report Share Posted August 2, 2021 Not an economist but I don’t see this as anything but leading to both increased costs across the board. George B mentions that the STC will be about the same as the Peterson Mogas STC you’ll see for C’s, Franklins etc. So somewhere between $2-3/hp for the STC. At some point the availability of UL will impact the availability of LL. We all know that LL is not favored by refiners. Nor will any municipality put in the $$ for a new pump setup to offer both fuel types, exclusive of the liability coverage needed to do so. So we’ll be in some future environment where there’s impacted LL supply and some weird demand pressures that are satisfied by neither. I hope there’s continued work on fuels not requiring an STC or pushing market pricing upward. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeOH Posted August 2, 2021 Report Share Posted August 2, 2021 42 minutes ago, bradp said: Not an economist but I don’t see this as anything but leading to both increased costs across the board. Neither am I, but I agree with you 100%. This does NOT bode well for GA costs. Also, expect to be pelted with guilt tripping when you are viewed as "anti-green" by not wanting to pay more for UL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted August 2, 2021 Report Share Posted August 2, 2021 I'm not an economist either, but I would be willing to play one on tv. My feeling is that costs for GA will not change abruptly by much beyond what they might change anyways with or without 100LL. In an efficient market doesn't price find its demand? I know we as airplane owners are a bit more insensitive to pricing than many other markets, but still... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted August 3, 2021 Report Share Posted August 3, 2021 Good thing most of fly very efficient airplane that get good gas mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hector Posted August 3, 2021 Report Share Posted August 3, 2021 I used to have a V-twin bike with CHT gage and it ran a bit hot here in Florida. I switched to synthetic oil and temps dropped 25 degrees. Although the higher price for this fuel concerns me, much of this concern will dissipate if I can switch to a synthetic oil. Specially for older Mooneys with a doghouse, 20-25 degree reduction in CHT would be immensely welcomed. This, in addition to a cleaner engine, longer oil change intervals, will be enough to win me over. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will.iam Posted August 3, 2021 Report Share Posted August 3, 2021 I thought with our air cooled looser tolerances will there not still be the same blow by with synthetic as Dino oil? Yes we are getting rid of the lead but that is only one part of the acids carbon etc that the oil still has to keep in suspension or it turns into sludge. I’ll stick with the cheaper Dino oil for now as it gives me more times to check the filter and screen for metal. Especially since I’m coming up on TBO and I’ve got looser tolerances already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeOH Posted August 3, 2021 Report Share Posted August 3, 2021 5 hours ago, aviatoreb said: I'm not an economist either, but I would be willing to play one on tv. My feeling is that costs for GA will not change abruptly by much beyond what they might change anyways with or without 100LL. In an efficient market doesn't price find its demand? I know we as airplane owners are a bit more insensitive to pricing than many other markets, but still... The key words are "in an efficient market". THAT will NOT be the case if the government bans LL when there is an UL choice. And, with only one STC product that is UL I'm pretty sure I know what's going to happen to the price in that "market" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted August 3, 2021 Report Share Posted August 3, 2021 8 hours ago, MikeOH said: The key words are "in an efficient market". THAT will NOT be the case if the government bans LL when there is an UL choice. And, with only one STC product that is UL I'm pretty sure I know what's going to happen to the price in that "market" I agree - that's why I said efficient market since that is the underlying assumption of market forces to work well. But - there must be some market response - forget the government for a sec - think of the FBOs pricing the Gami 100UL - if they price it too high then they will actually make less money because so many fewer people will buy it that their bottom line will suffer. And it is the same with 100LL - they want to price it higher but they price it as high as they think they can and still be at that point were the bottom line profit is maximized. That process will still be at play when 100LL is gone and we have just the gami stuff. My guess - we will be paying more for fuel, but on the order of $1 per gallon because it is in the FBOs interests to not increase too much. Separate - you notice that the wording from gami is it costs .60 yo .90 more as it leaves the refinery. OK, but in principle this stuff could actually save money during the delivery process - it doesn't require special handling. Separate leaded infected trucks will be a thing of the past. It could even be sent by pipe systems I presume to distribution sites. That might save a lot. Whether that savings is passed on to us or not - see my opening paragraph to this post. The FBOs could care less about us when it comes to pricing, other than pricing as high as they think they can get away with and still make the maximal profit. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlunseth Posted August 3, 2021 Report Share Posted August 3, 2021 Eric, those are all good thoughts, but the market never seems to work that way. If there is an opportunity to raise prices with a narrative of how difficult it is to deliver the fuel, however true or untrue, then the price goes up, not down, and prices that go up never seem to go down again unless the product is something truly fungible, a commodity. I don't think the GAMI guys will drive the price high, they are pilots, they are of a mind not to fleece other pilots. It is the middle men who won't care, or rather, care only about how much they can make. So my guess is that the price per gallon will be no less than $1.50 per gallon more than current fuel ( the "2 times" rule in retail, 2 x .60-.90) and more likely it will be between 2 and 5$ gallon more, in other words as much as double the current cost of fuel. It won't start out that way or it will not be able to develop a market, but it will end that way. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted August 3, 2021 Report Share Posted August 3, 2021 4 hours ago, jlunseth said: Eric, those are all good thoughts, but the market never seems to work that way. If there is an opportunity to raise prices with a narrative of how difficult it is to deliver the fuel, however true or untrue, then the price goes up, not down, and prices that go up never seem to go down again unless the product is something truly fungible, a commodity. I don't think the GAMI guys will drive the price high, they are pilots, they are of a mind not to fleece other pilots. It is the middle men who won't care, or rather, care only about how much they can make. So my guess is that the price per gallon will be no less than $1.50 per gallon more than current fuel ( the "2 times" rule in retail, 2 x .60-.90) and more likely it will be between 2 and 5$ gallon more, in other words as much as double the current cost of fuel. It won't start out that way or it will not be able to develop a market, but it will end that way. We aren't too far off. I guessed about a $1 and you guessed a number (no less than) $1.50. If they would raise it say, $5 across the board, then there would be a lot less product sold since many people would quit aviation and others would start flying a lot less and I think they would respond to maximize their profit margin. But as we know, we stupid pilots are avgas addicts and the phrase I used before - insensitive to pricing compared to many other kinds of customers and markets. That's our fault - and the FBO kings know it. So this is far from an efficient market but not fully inefficient. I am pretty sure we will be paying more, but I am not too worried it will be a lot more. If I am wrong and it is a lot more, I will fly a little less to stabilize my annual budget. And the FBOs can just go ahead and get a little less from me. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeOH Posted August 4, 2021 Report Share Posted August 4, 2021 11 hours ago, aviatoreb said: I agree - that's why I said efficient market since that is the underlying assumption of market forces to work well. But - there must be some market response - forget the government for a sec - think of the FBOs pricing the Gami 100UL - if they price it too high then they will actually make less money because so many fewer people will buy it that their bottom line will suffer. And it is the same with 100LL - they want to price it higher but they price it as high as they think they can and still be at that point were the bottom line profit is maximized. That process will still be at play when 100LL is gone and we have just the gami stuff. My guess - we will be paying more for fuel, but on the order of $1 per gallon because it is in the FBOs interests to not increase too much. Separate - you notice that the wording from gami is it costs .60 yo .90 more as it leaves the refinery. OK, but in principle this stuff could actually save money during the delivery process - it doesn't require special handling. Separate leaded infected trucks will be a thing of the past. It could even be sent by pipe systems I presume to distribution sites. That might save a lot. Whether that savings is passed on to us or not - see my opening paragraph to this post. The FBOs could care less about us when it comes to pricing, other than pricing as high as they think they can get away with and still make the maximal profit. Well, I don't think you can just "forget the government" even for a second! I believe the politics of "evil lead" will force their hand; there has been plenty of pressure over the fact GA is "still spewing poison" into the air. But, until this development of a satisfactory UL there has been no choice; GA is too important economically to just ban leaded avgas and destroy GA. Now that there is an alternative, the barrier to government sanctions/mandates/penalties is gone. So, yeah, we are going to be paying more. Based on a $0.90 mfg cost increase (I NEVER believe low end numbers for ANY proposed new product, so forget the $0.60!), even 'efficient markets' enjoy a 2X markup from wholesale to retail. And, this will NOT be a market with any competition, at least for a good long while. Sadly, I suspect we are going to be paying north of $2 more per gallon The general consensus is that the GAMI folk are good guys but, let's face it, they are in business to make money. If they were really altruistic they would NOT be forcing an STC! They would make their money off a per gallon royalty. So, on top of the higher cost per gallon, we will be paying the STC cost. There is no way FBOs are going to have both LL and UL on hand. In fact, my cynicism suspects that's exactly why GAMI is going the STC route: once government pressure gets applied vendors will be forced to start offering UL, they'll shut off the LL, and we all will be forced to purchase the STC. Cha-ching! But, you are correct that we chumps will still be lining up to buy it! I'm not sure where I'd throw in the towel over avgas price, but it's going to be lot before that happens. As the sole owner of my M20F, at 70-100 hours per year, fuel is not the majority of my cost: I burn about 9 gph, overall, so for 100 hours and $5/gal, that's $4,500 in fuel per year. I spend $15-$20K all-in. Therefore, a $2/gal adder is another $1800... painful for sure, but even double and I'll still be flying. I truly hope your optimism prevails over my cynicism, but I am reminded of an old Mark Twain quote, "The only thing sadder than a young pessimist, is an old optimist!" Here's to proving him wrong! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted August 4, 2021 Report Share Posted August 4, 2021 There are some companies that sell fuel as a service… To the flock of airplanes that rent tie-downs… The cheapest fuel in NJ is at one of these places… Pricing strategies are not always maximizing profit on the one commodity… Hmmm… commodity probably isn’t the right word for avgas… Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yetti Posted August 4, 2021 Report Share Posted August 4, 2021 So the big tank gets filled with something else because the other stuff got outlawed. you roll into town and need some stuff. Short of the STC police standing at the pump checking paperwork, what are you going to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeOH Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 12 hours ago, Yetti said: So the big tank gets filled with something else because the other stuff got outlawed. you roll into town and need some stuff. Short of the STC police standing at the pump checking paperwork, what are you going to do? Well, yeah. But, what happens if you have an incident? Will the insurance decline coverage? That would be my concern. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 Yeaaaaaah…. Hmmmmm….. If every small airport has only one fuel tank…. Sounds like a federal trade commission kind of challenge… and an FAA kind of challenge… What happens if there is a technical reason, an STC is not available for your plane…? The technical reason could be as simple as… the wallet doesn’t have a spare c-note in it for an STC…. Its all fun and games until the whole world goes G100UL and your plane still needs 100LL… or 100. Anyone have a spec for Avgas 100? (Mentioned in Mooney POHs in 1994) Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 7 hours ago, carusoam said: Anyone have a spec for Avgas 100? (Mentioned in Mooney POHs in 1994) Isn't it the same as 100LL, just with more tetraethyl lead? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N201MKTurbo Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 8 hours ago, carusoam said: Yeaaaaaah…. Hmmmmm….. If every small airport has only one fuel tank…. Sounds like a federal trade commission kind of challenge… and an FAA kind of challenge… What happens if there is a technical reason, an STC is not available for your plane…? The technical reason could be as simple as… the wallet doesn’t have a spare c-note in it for an STC…. Its all fun and games until the whole world goes G100UL and your plane still needs 100LL… or 100. Anyone have a spec for Avgas 100? (Mentioned in Mooney POHs in 1994) Best regards, -a- Avgas 100 was the green gas that was common when I started flying. 6 gm/gal of TEL. 100 LL was originally 4 gm/gal TEL, but I think it is around 2.5 now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 10 hours ago, MikeOH said: Well, yeah. But, what happens if you have an incident? Will the insurance decline coverage? That would be my concern. Exactly - that is what I would expect to happen. We can break any rule we think we can get away with, as long as we don't get caught - and if you have an incident where the ntsb gets involved look out. Experimental avionics - sure. Experimental parts? Sure. Illegal airframe mods. Sure. Why not? Fuel requiring an stc without the stc. Go for it. No medical? Who needs em'? No annual - well annuals are expensive and they are for chumps. Fly ifr without certification. Fly over gross. Fly an uncertified for compensation operation. There's all sorts of ways to break the rules. No one is looking down our necks 24-7 but there are ways and times that compliance to rules are found out. Until the ntsb finds out. And the insurance is denied, that renegade pilot owner is feeling pretty fat and happy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N201MKTurbo Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 (edited) Unless you do something to really make the insurance company mad, I doubt they would deny a claim because of the fuel you were using unless that fuel was directly the cause of the incident. As it was explained to me, if an insurance company starts doing those BS kind of things, people will stop buying insurance from them. the word gets around quickly in the aviation world. Edited August 5, 2021 by N201MKTurbo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mkruger2021 Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 I kinda thinking the engine manufacturers are going to sign off on this fuel and amend there manuals.....Correct me if I am wrong but an STC will no longer be needed.....I pretty sure they have done this with Mogas on certain engine types all ready? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A64Pilot Posted August 5, 2021 Report Share Posted August 5, 2021 (edited) I don’t understand the STC thought process. My little airplane was never Certified for 100LL and a great many still flying weren’t, but now 100LL is all there is, and no one that I know of had to buy an STC to burn it. ‘On edit after reading the post above, very often for alternate fuels it’s not so much the engine being Certified for it, it’s the Airframe. For example Avgas is an alternate fuel for a PT-6 engine, and I had to fly a hot fuel test with heated Avgas to Certified altitude to show that the airframe wouldn’t vapor lock with hot Avgas. Edited August 5, 2021 by A64Pilot 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragedracer1977 Posted August 14, 2021 Report Share Posted August 14, 2021 Well, this kinda stuff doesn't bode well for reducing/removing TEL and increasing aromatics.... https://www.casa.gov.au/file/203356/download?token=5kUK1-c3 https://austhia.com/PDfs/AHIA-piston-engine-durability-report.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will.iam Posted August 14, 2021 Report Share Posted August 14, 2021 Wow that was a long read but information rich. Would gave been nice to see how gami fuel differs in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.