Transition from 100LL to UL 91/94 Avgas for our Mooneys

[JohnB]

As you know there is a LOT of environmental pressure to phase out all sales of 100LL AV Gas and replace it with UL 91/94 everywhere, with some states like mine pushing to make this transition as early as 2027. While there is justified pushback to delay this time to transition from us and others, the likelihood is that it will happen sometime in next few years and 100LL will be no more.

Question - Can our Mooneys use the new unleaded fuel UL 91/94 without issues? Has Mooney already submitted type certificates/ allowed fuel type modification for all of our models to be able to use UL 91/94 or will there be some fuel system modification we will need to do to safely use this new fuel? Asking well in advance of the changeover as if there is some fuel system modification we will need done, it would be good to plan this in advance, or hopefully, it is just paperwork to be filed by Mooney Corporation which would would be easier for all of us.

 

 

[N201MKTurbo]

Would it be Mooney or Lycoming? Or somebody else? I think our engines could easily use the stuff if we retarded the timing a little bit. The problem is, that would change all the performance charts, a little bit. Somebody would need to update them. Mooney would be the best to do that, but why would they? What’s in it for them? Unless they could charge a boatload for the STC.

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, JohnB said:

As you know there is a LOT of environmental pressure to phase out all sales of 100LL AV Gas and replace it with UL 91/94 everywhere, with some states like mine pushing to make this transition as early as 2027. While there is justified pushback to delay this time to transition from us and others, the likelihood is that it will happen sometime in next few years and 100LL will be no more.

Question - Can our Mooneys use the new unleaded fuel UL 91/94 without issues? Has Mooney already submitted type certificates/ allowed fuel type modification for all of our models to be able to use UL 91/94 or will there be some fuel system modification we will need to do to safely use this new fuel? Asking well in advance of the changeover as if there is some fuel system modification we will need done, it would be good to plan this in advance, or hopefully, it is just paperwork to be filed by Mooney Corporation which would would be easier for all of us.

 

 

The things I read suggest that the 100 UL from the GAMI guys has won, not the 91/94.  The GAMI STC says it's a direct replacement for 100LL in every aviation engine known to man.

[EricJ]

21 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

The things I read suggest that the 100 UL from the GAMI guys has won, not the 91/94.  The GAMI STC says it's a direct replacement for 100LL in every aviation engine known to man.

RIght now the lack of insurance (or insurability) for the GAMI fuel has reportedly prevented the distributors from getting very excited about it.   Meanwhile Swift is pursuing full certification for their 100UL, which will allow distribution to be insured, which will eliminate that barrier to distribution.   Swift has indicated that they will replace their 91/94 distribution with 100UL when it becomes available.   So there's already a distribution network and infrastructure for them to build on.

The insurance issue seems to be a potential show-stopper for GAMI.   I'm not sure how they'll get around that, but in any case it looks to me like the Swift fuel has a much better chance of getting distribution before GAMI, if GAMI ever does.

[McMooney]

3 hours ago, JohnB said:

As you know there is a LOT of environmental pressure to phase out all sales of 100LL AV Gas and replace it with UL 91/94 everywhere, with some states like mine pushing to make this transition as early as 2027. While there is justified pushback to delay this time to transition from us and others, the likelihood is that it will happen sometime in next few years and 100LL will be no more.

Question - Can our Mooneys use the new unleaded fuel UL 91/94 without issues? Has Mooney already submitted type certificates/ allowed fuel type modification for all of our models to be able to use UL 91/94 or will there be some fuel system modification we will need to do to safely use this new fuel? Asking well in advance of the changeover as if there is some fuel system modification we will need done, it would be good to plan this in advance, or hopefully, it is just paperwork to be filed by Mooney Corporation which would would be easier for all of us.

 

 

my owners manual says never use aviation fuel lower than 91 octane or something,  don't remember the exact wording.    I'm guessing it was tested at some point

[Fly Boomer]

47 minutes ago, EricJ said:

RIght now the lack of insurance (or insurability) for the GAMI fuel has reportedly prevented the distributors from getting very excited about it.

Have not seen that.  Didn't even know gasoline was insured.  As Wanda Sykes would say, "Who Knew?"

[GeeBee]

4 hours ago, JohnB said:

As you know there is a LOT of environmental pressure to phase out all sales of 100LL AV Gas and replace it with UL 91/94 everywhere, with some states like mine pushing to make this transition as early as 2027. While there is justified pushback to delay this time to transition from us and others, the likelihood is that it will happen sometime in next few years and 100LL will be no more.

Question - Can our Mooneys use the new unleaded fuel UL 91/94 without issues? Has Mooney already submitted type certificates/ allowed fuel type modification for all of our models to be able to use UL 91/94 or will there be some fuel system modification we will need to do to safely use this new fuel? Asking well in advance of the changeover as if there is some fuel system modification we will need done, it would be good to plan this in advance, or hopefully, it is just paperwork to be filed by Mooney Corporation which would would be easier for all of us.

 

 

I can tell you that you will never run 94UL in that M20M

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, Fly Boomer said:

Have not seen that.  Didn't even know gasoline was insured.  As Wanda Sykes would say, "Who Knew?"

The vendor carries insurance, and the distributor carries insurance on top of that.   They cover things like crashes due to faulty or contaminated fuel, or damage due to fuel that turns out to be corrosive or otherwise damages equipment.   GAMI has already said that their fuel is harder on things like paint and some seals.  If the distributors aren't willing to or can't insure the fuel they're not likely to distribute it.   Since Swift is pursuing ASTM certification, that'll assure the fuel is compatible with existing standards and is far more likely to be insured by the distributors.   It's a big deal.   Our local fuel vendor cited this as a major issue.   

[Ragsf15e]

7 hours ago, JohnB said:

As you know there is a LOT of environmental pressure to phase out all sales of 100LL AV Gas and replace it with UL 91/94 everywhere, with some states like mine pushing to make this transition as early as 2027. While there is justified pushback to delay this time to transition from us and others, the likelihood is that it will happen sometime in next few years and 100LL will be no more.

Question - Can our Mooneys use the new unleaded fuel UL 91/94 without issues? Has Mooney already submitted type certificates/ allowed fuel type modification for all of our models to be able to use UL 91/94 or will there be some fuel system modification we will need to do to safely use this new fuel? Asking well in advance of the changeover as if there is some fuel system modification we will need done, it would be good to plan this in advance, or hopefully, it is just paperwork to be filed by Mooney Corporation which would would be easier for all of us.

 

 

I’m not so sure about all that.  Yes, clearly there’s people who want to get rid of the 100ll, but 91/94 isn’t an answer as there are lots of aircraft it’s not certified for and the faa isn’t going to just wave a magic certification wand to make it “ok”.  There are plenty of engines that won’t work as designed with lower octane without some kind of adjustment and recertification.  So I don’t agree that 91/94 is destiny.  
Now there may be some crafty local politicians who find a way to effectively ban 100ll and 91/94 might be the only option for those that can use it legally, but I think banning 100ll is a lot harder when there’s no currently available certified alternative.  100 gami UL seems like it would fix this issue but it’s stuck in distribution hell.

[Texas Mooney]

4 hours ago, EricJ said:

The vendor carries insurance, and the distributor carries insurance on top of that.   They cover things like crashes due to faulty or contaminated fuel, or damage due to fuel that turns out to be corrosive or otherwise damages equipment.   GAMI has already said that their fuel is harder on things like paint and some seals.  If the distributors aren't willing to or can't insure the fuel they're not likely to distribute it.   Since Swift is pursuing ASTM certification, that'll assure the fuel is compatible with existing standards and is far more likely to be insured by the distributors.   It's a big deal.   Our local fuel vendor cited this as a major issue.   

Would that be the same Swift that can't explain why its unleaded UL94 (with ASTM certification) is causing valve seat recession in Lycoming engines at UND?

- the same Swift which said at AirVenture 2022 that unleaded 100R would be in the market via STC by 2023?

- the same Swift which promised transparency at the same time, yet it has been radio silence since?

Swift Fuel: Drop in 100LL Replacement in 2023 - KITPLANES

The problematic Swift UL94 has carried an ASTM certification since 2011 which shows that "certification" is no guarantee that the fuel will not damage your engine.

The only news I see from Swift is Swift Fuels CEO Chris D’Acosta changing tune about an STC and dancing behind "claims that the lack of ASTM approval of the fuel means that it is not yet commercially viable because it likely will not be accepted by the aviation industry, insurance companies, distribution companies and fuel sellers without proper ASTM vetting."  He also made the lame and incorrect statement "The FAA does not certify or approve fuel in the marketplace."  ...sounds like a bit of desperation to me.

Swift may intend to get 100R ASTM certified but I get the impression they are having more problems than they are admitting. Since Swift has missed every date that they previously projected to get 100R certified and to market without providing explanation, it appears that they have stopped projecting dates.  I think that they are just trying to delay GAMI and are using "insurance" as a smokescreen.  

At the same time EAGLE talks more about Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing as the leading contender.

 Swift Fuels Raps Environmentalists' 'Ultimatum' On Unleaded Fuel - AVweb

Drop-in unleaded replacement for 100LL expected to be approved in late 2025 — General Aviation News

[A64Pilot]

To use a non standard fuel is two fold, it needs to be approved by both the airframe and engine, likely by STC, but it could be done with a TC change.

There are a few ways to get lower Octane fuel in non turbo aircraft, one is by derating the engine, the one I’m hanging my hat on is alcohol / water injection which has been done very successfully since at least WWII and there are STC’s for other aircraft, but as 100LL has always been available except for niche instance like places where 100LL isn’t available it’s not been widely implemented, but it’s a well proven system, no rocket science.

In every instance I can think of to use a lower Octane fuel there are some downsides, lower power output or in the anti detonation injection instance there is weight and complexity of the injection system and of course you have to have the fluid, think similar to anti ice system.

On edit ADI can allow the use of Auto fuel, that’s why I hope to see it, because I believe that whatever replaces 100LL will come at a Premium price, by Premium I’m thinking quite a bit more expensive, IF ADI comes on line then having an alternative I think will help hold prices down.

Consumers win when there is more than one choice.

The issue is solvable and has been for decades, just requires the desire and money.

As far as valve seat recession, that’s likely from removing the lead and not due to anyone’s fuel, that too is easily solvable with different valve seats, back to the desire and money thing

[Pinecone]

16 hours ago, EricJ said:

RIght now the lack of insurance (or insurability) for the GAMI fuel has reportedly prevented the distributors from getting very excited about it.   Meanwhile Swift is pursuing full certification for their 100UL, which will allow distribution to be insured, which will eliminate that barrier to distribution.   Swift has indicated that they will replace their 91/94 distribution with 100UL when it becomes available.   So there's already a distribution network and infrastructure for them to build on.

The insurance issue seems to be a potential show-stopper for GAMI.   I'm not sure how they'll get around that, but in any case it looks to me like the Swift fuel has a much better chance of getting distribution before GAMI, if GAMI ever does.

HUH?  The current blender of the fuel, Vitor, HAS product liability insurance.  And is was covered for no additional cost over their previous coverage.

The no insurance BS is a smoke screen by anti G100UL people claiming that without adhering to an ASTM spec the the fuel was not insurable.  BULL.  Lots of products are insured without an ASTM spec.  All an ASTM spec does is allow Product B to say it is the same as Product A since it meets the same ASTM spec.

G100UL is blended to a spec, and each batch is required to be quality control tested before distribution.  It is more tightly controlled than 100LL is.

The fuel distributors ARE interested in G100UL, but no one wants to be first.  So Vitor is setting up their own distribution (they already own LOTS of rail cars) and will compete with the 4 previous aviation fuel distributors.

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

because I believe that whatever replaces 100LL will come at a Premium price, by Premium I’m thinking quite a bit more expensive, IF ADI comes on line then having an alternative I think will help hold prices down.

With 1.2 million gallons blended and tested, the current delta is $1 per gallon.  Which is way less than the price difference between airports.

200LL ranges from $4.30 to $14.00 per gallon.  $1 per gallon is lost in the noise.

[Pinecone]

UL94 is not usable in most Mooneys due to compression ratios.  Maybe the O-320 M20 or the 180 HP IO-360s.

I have an aerobatic airplane with an AEIO-360 180 HP, and it is a minimum AVGAS 91/96 (no longer made), so UL94 might work.

But in most places, UL94 is more expensive.  One local airport that has it charges $6.30 per gallon, versus their 100LL price of $5.95

Oh, and using UL94 also requires an STC.

[A64Pilot]

On 5/20/2024 at 10:51 AM, Pinecone said:

UL94 is not usable in most Mooneys due to compression ratios.  Maybe the O-320 M20 or the 180 HP IO-360s.

I have an aerobatic airplane with an AEIO-360 180 HP, and it is a minimum AVGAS 91/96 (no longer made), so UL94 might work.

But in most places, UL94 is more expensive.  One local airport that has it charges $6.30 per gallon, versus their 100LL price of $5.95

Oh, and using UL94 also requires an STC.

Limited availability drives prices up. Economy of scale in reverse. If UL 94 is actually just 100LL without lead, then it ought to cost less, but the severely limited volume I think makes it cost more, and I’d bet lunch it too will cause valve recession.

In my opinion until the GAMI fuel is for sale in multiple airports we won’t know what it will cost. 

Everything in Aviation is that way, what was the Eclipse jet going to cost, $950,000 in 1998? $125 spark plugs, yadda, yadda.

Not knocking GAMI, but if I understand they aren’t the ones who will set the price?

[McMooney]

On 5/20/2024 at 10:42 AM, Pinecone said:

HUH?  The current blender of the fuel, Vitor, HAS product liability insurance.  And is was covered for no additional cost over their previous coverage.

The no insurance BS is a smoke screen by anti G100UL people claiming that without adhering to an ASTM spec the the fuel was not insurable.  BULL.  Lots of products are insured without an ASTM spec.  All an ASTM spec does is allow Product B to say it is the same as Product A since it meets the same ASTM spec.

G100UL is blended to a spec, and each batch is required to be quality control tested before distribution.  It is more tightly controlled than 100LL is.

The fuel distributors ARE interested in G100UL, but no one wants to be first.  So Vitor is setting up their own distribution (they already own LOTS of rail cars) and will compete with the 4 previous aviation fuel distributors.

Vitol is just an energy trader, i can guarantee they want nothing to do with long term support/liability for your dinky airplane and most likely didn't think one bit about it.

actually know them, could just call and ask. 

seeing what happened at und and even having a sense of airplane legal stuff, i bet if they had exposure, they'd probably BURN all million gallons rather than sell it

[Ryan ORL]

I would be absolutely thrilled to adopt an unleaded Avgas, as long as it was 100 octane.  I don't care if it's the GAMI one (I don't mind the STC), and the small cost increase doesn't bother me.  Lead is disgusting, dirty stuff to have clogging up your engine.

[GeeBee]

What I find interesting about the "insurance issue" is we have not heard from the insurance companies themselves. That tells you something.

 

[Pinecone]

22 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

In my opinion until the GAMI fuel is for sale in multiple airports we won’t know what it will cost. 

Not knocking GAMI, but if I understand they aren’t the ones who will set the price?

True, but the cost of the first batch is $1 per gallon more 100LL, at the refinery.  And transport should be cheaper as there are not the issues with lead contamination of the tankers used.

Long term, the price could go lower as just about any refinery can blend G100UL.  Today there only a few refineries that can make 100LL due to having to handle the TEL and the lead contamination of the equipment.

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, GeeBee said:

What I find interesting about the "insurance issue" is we have not heard from the insurance companies themselves. That tells you something.

 

Has anyone asked them?

Vitor has insurance, through Lloyd's of London.

[GeeBee]

Lloyds is the house, not the underwriter.

 

[Pinecone]

Sort of. 

Lloyd's is a market of members, not an insurance company. As the oldest continuously active insurance marketplace in the world, Lloyd's has retained some unusual structures and practices that differ from other insurance providers today. Originally created as a non-incorporated association of subscribing members, it was incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 and is currently governed under the Lloyd's Acts of 1871 through to 1982.

Lloyd's does not underwrite insurance business itself - its members do. The Society effectively acts as a market regulator, setting rules under which members operate and offering centralised administrative services to them.

[GeeBee]

2 hours ago, Pinecone said:

Sort of. 

Lloyd's is a market of members, not an insurance company. As the oldest continuously active insurance marketplace in the world, Lloyd's has retained some unusual structures and practices that differ from other insurance providers today. Originally created as a non-incorporated association of subscribing members, it was incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 and is currently governed under the Lloyd's Acts of 1871 through to 1982.

Lloyd's does not underwrite insurance business itself - its members do. The Society effectively acts as a market regulator, setting rules under which members operate and offering centralised administrative services to them.

And that was my point. Lloyds would not speak to the issue, the underwriters would within Lloyds house. 

[Pinecone]

But not exactly like a typical broker.

[tony]

On 5/19/2024 at 4:09 PM, N201MKTurbo said:

Would it be Mooney or Lycoming? Or somebody else? I think our engines could easily use the stuff if we retarded the timing a little bit. The problem is, that would change all the performance charts, a little bit. Somebody would need to update them. Mooney would be the best to do that, but why would they? What’s in it for them? Unless they could charge a boatload for the STC.

Its really both.  Remeber the STC for mogas?  My F wasn't included because of vaporization issues experienced with the fuel system during testing.