What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Now that 100UL has the FAA stamp of approval-

Hartstoc

Well Known Member
Now that G100UL has the FAA stamp of approval-

A couple of thoughts come to mind-

1- With “No approved alternative” being pretty much the only remaining argument for legal availability of 100LL, how much time will pass before it becomes illegal, especially here in California? Might that motivate a rather speedy transition?

2- I wonder if we will be seeing the return of semi-synthetic(or even fully synthetic?) aviation motor oil availability.
 
Last edited:
From General Aviation News:

https://generalaviationnews.com/202...l-approved-for-all-general-aviation-aircraft/

"At SUN ‘n FUN 2022, Braly noted the first customers of G100UL will be airports where 100LL has been banned, such as Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV) in East San José and San Martin Airport (E16) in Santa Clara County in California."

and

"Other than being lead-free are there other benefits to G100UL? Spark plug maintenance and replacement intervals will improve with the absence of lead, while it is likely that over time oil change intervals will double. Without lead, it is also likely that synthetic oil will become available that will further increase oil change intervals, GAMI officials said."
 
I'd be cautious about making those assumptions. Think about how long it took for the fuel to get to this point. FAA and also the big engine manufacturers (not Rotax) move at the speed of slow. I doubt they will change anything and use the wait and see method. I don't agree with it but this has been their track record. Look at how long magneto replacements in the certified world took to become a reality after Emag had been putting them to shame for years. We still don't have any real modern engine option from lycoming or continental, modern as in built from the ground up like a modern engine. Not endorsing it, but Austro being an example. They have their problems but at least they tried. Maybe it will be different this time and I hope so, but I'm not counting on it.
 
We don't need an STC, but G100UL will unlikely be available for many years or even a decade. 100LL is still de facto fuel for piston engines, and 200 million gallons are sold a year. G100UL will have to have separate production, transportation and distribution, which does not exist. The special processes and production of additives also needs to be ramped up.

GAMI has one "agreement" with a major refinery. to be announced. Production, transportation and distribution need to be figured out. Cost is expected to be 50 to 80 cents more than 100LL.

California and Fed Gov has a bad habit of making mandates that technology can't support (like their recent mandate to produce all EV vehicles within a decade). If they force a ban on 100LL it will be a disaster for GA. It might take years or a decade to ramp up G100UL production.

Certified planes will all get STC's which requires testing and bureaucracy. For me the Mooney's with 180HP engine is the certified equivalent of my RV-7's installation. The 180HP Mooney had a STC for Mogas but it also had history of vapor lock issues in service. That is why I never went Mogas and other reasons. The biggest reason MOGAS is rare, hard to find. Mogas has been around for decades and in large parts of the USA is non existent.

Suspect the Mogas production and distribution could be replaced by G100UL first. However will G100UL be like Mogas and after a decade not be widely available. Why buy G100UL if you can still get 100LL cheaper. That will be the financial calculation the Petroleum companies must make. I believe 100LL is a money maker, even with low volume the price makes it profitable.

VERY interested in how this fuel will work in my O360 180HP Lyc in real world operations. RV'have tight cowls and fuel gets hot, so vapor pressure will be critical. Those with fire breathing IO390 with HC pistons I also wonder. I assume right or wrong 100 means it really does have 100 octane. I have never seen data of 100LL vs G100UL. Lead is bad to human health, it does have other good properties in engines besides increasing Octane it acts like lubrication. Lead fouling is of course the bad part, so G100GL promises to end plug fouling and lead deposits on valves.
 
Last edited:
Certified planes will have to all get STC's which requires testing.

from the GAMI website, emphasis mine:
General Aviation Modifications, Inc. (GAMI) is pleased to announce that we have received the FAA’s Approval of the expansion of our Supplemental Type Certificates on the use of our G100UL High Octane, Unleaded Avgas. The Approved Model List (AML) now covers every spark ignition piston engine and every airframe using a spark ignition piston engine(s) in the FAA’s Type Certificate database.

Regarding operation with high compression, from their FAQs document:
At the conclusion of the two days of detonation testing, GAMI elected to complete an optional test item from the FAA approved test matrix.
That test item was to determine the maximum Brake Horsepower (BHP) at which the 8.7:1 CR IO-550 turbo-charged test engine could be operated and continue to pass a standard Part 33.47 FAA full power detonation test. With redline cylinder and induction air temperatures, the engine easily operated at 41.4” MP, 380 actual BHP (414 BHP when corrected to Standard Day conditions). We were unable to determine how much more additional HP could be obtained because the pressure relief “pop-off” valve on the induction system was limit-ing further increases in manifold pressure.

They've really done their homework on this stuff over more than a decade of testing.
 
Paul’s Guest

Paul’s guest on one of his videos suggest the G100UL is just the 100/150 fuel developed shortly after WW2. Seems the technology is not on the cutting edge, but uses well proven chemistry.
 
Already on the early list of approved engines months ago was the R2800 which are typically run at a de-rated 52-54 inches when operated on 100LL.

A 390 will not have to worry here.
 
Higher, better faster?

Already on the early list of approved engines months ago was the R2800 which are typically run at a de-rated 52-54 inches when operated on 100LL.

A 390 will not have to worry here.

Also in one of Paul's video, the GAMI God says that the octane could be as high as 100/160. I was wondering if this fuel will allow more power to be created (higher MP) than standard 100LL?
 
Last edited:
from the GAMI website, emphasis mine: Regarding operation with high compression, from their FAQs document: They've really done their homework on this stuff over more than a decade of testing.
I know it is approved by the Feds, what could go wrong. Ha ha. I saw that yesterday. We shall see. It has to be equivalent or better than 100LL in regards to resisting detonation and resistance to vapor lock. I am sure they researched this in 13 years they worked on it. Fingers crossed. We will not know until it is put into wide use. I am optimistic. The production, distribution, and cost at .the pump are the things I'm concerned about. But this is good news and progress.
 
Last edited:
like most things, economics will win. Cost.
You think an FBO will carry it if the airports around it are selling 100LL for 2$ less a gallon?
 
You think an FBO will carry it if the airports around it are selling 100LL for 2$ less a gallon?

It will be like ADSB, 406mz ELTs, etc were very few make switch (spend money) until they absolutely have to either by previous option goes away or they mandate all must make change. And even then it took a government subsidy for people to update.
I sure can’t see the average GA owner/pilot spend $500 for STC so they can pay over $500 more per year for fuel.
 
Last edited:
But the point was:

Embedded in the opening post of this thread was the point that an enormous level of hostility toward the continued use of TEL in fuels for any internal combustion engines exists out there, and that body of sentiment is pretty well “lawyered up”. Until September 1 that group has been held at bay solely by the FAA’s insistence that there is no approved, viable replacement for leaded avgas. The threat to aviation safety thereby trumped environmental concerns.

Now that the FAA has issued a blanket endorsement of G100UL as a replacement for 100LL for ALL spark ignition aircraft engines, the teeth may have been completely removed from that argument.

Some have suggested that user acceptance will take a long time so 100LL will be around for the foreseeable future, or that its lower price will keep it around, but I could imagine it disappearing rather quickly by edict. On the bright side, that would certainly free up plenty of tanks for distribution of G100UL! -Otis
 
I could imagine it disappearing rather quickly by edict.

Yep.

I would not put money on continued availability of 100LL five years from now.
I'd be reluctant to put money on continued availability of 100LL three years from now.

At this stage there's an outside chance of shortages caused by TEL bans occurring faster than the G100UL supply chain can ramp up. A city or a statehouse can limit TEL sales (or tax it badly enough to be like a limit) overnight if they want to.

The next few years are going to be unstable. Seems unlikely that it'll be a gradual transition.

- mark
 
So I’m back into the engine compression decision process

I have a new CAS IO-540 on order from Thunderbolt (ordered 14 months ago, looks like another 6 months before I get it).

I was offered 9 to 1 pistons at no extra charge. They would give me a few more ponies and perhaps a small gain in cross country fuel efficiency. The mess in California pushed me to staying with standard 8.5 pistons as I considered there to be a small risk the EPA would find a way to follow California’s lead. The 8.5 pistons mitigated this risk as the engine would run just fine on Swift 94 or ethanol free 93 pump gas. The pump gas has the vapor pressure issue so that needs to be incorporated into aircraft procedures.

As it now appears the DC crowd has a path to force the transition from 100LL, I worry that as they are not paying to fill up my plane fuel cost is low on their lists of concerns. While I too heard the “$0.60 to perhaps $1 more for 100UL” statement, I also heard “when in full production”. For me this translates to fuel cost now being the central issue. I have no doubt the ~$7 we recently paid for 100LL will return as the underlining situation driving up that price still exists. I consider $7/gallon a tipping point for many. $8/gallon might prove to be unsustainable for us working slobs.

Bottom line - I’ll stay with the 8.5 to 1 pistons.

Carl
 
All a matter of perspective.

Taking this topic to a reasonable conclusion via discussion has made my eyes roll over for 45 yrs. It is time for the field to test one of these fuels. Yes, a field test, and that is the category it is in, and will be, until we have 300,000 hours of field usage. Only then will we begin to see what the benefits and hidden issues are. At $1/gal, that is only $5M. Don't we spend literally trillions on on other environmental issues? The EPA has extra billions - why not pick high use airports and just supply this fuel to them at, say, $1.gal less than 100LL. It could not cost more than $10-15M, and let the people use it?? Why don't we (EAA, AOPA, APA) sue them and make them do this?


Otherwise, it will be a complete mess for the industry from now on, but less than we see on the news each day already.

For the record, IMO, the gloom and doom lead effects are far-far less of an environmental factor than solar panel, and EV battery issue at EOL, end of life, so if the EPA is going to be used as a club, lets get our own and make it work for aviation.

Sorry too much of a rant, I might delete the post anyway.
 
Last edited:
Now that the FAA has issued a blanket endorsement of G100UL as a replacement for 100LL for ALL spark ignition aircraft engines, the teeth may have been completely removed from that argument.

I think you're correct. It would just take congress to sunset 100LL, and it'd be game over. That'd get the G100UL process moving right quick.
 
I have a new CAS IO-540 on order from Thunderbolt (ordered 14 months ago, looks like another 6 months before I get it).

<snip>
Bottom line - I’ll stay with the 8.5 to 1 pistons.

Carl

Carl, George Braly said in a video, that he tested for the detonation limit in a specific engine and could not make it happen. High CHT, high inlet temperatures and timing etc. I was surprised. Now, it is his baby, and it is supposed to make him rich, so I would have to see that to believe, but it should be a part of the FAA records.
 
Last edited:
I understand that somebody ought to pay the GAMI folks for their excellent work and diligence to get this to happen.
But if we as aviation consumers are going to be forced to take this route, why do we have to pay for this. The tree huggers need to cough it up.
As other posts above have said, did we have to pay to go 100LL?
 
One of Paul' Avweb videos mentions 3 Municipal airports in California plan on a banning the sale of 100LL avgas. They get federal funds for their airports. Need to put a stop to unilateral ban of 100LL. There is no federal law to phase out of 100Ll yet. I was afraid California would start banning 100LL before G100 UL is available. Looks like they may try. Hope cool heads prevail.
 
Last edited:
What is more, George Braley also mentioned in an interview that they were carful to make sure that any combination of G100UL and 100LL would be deemed safe as part of the STC, so you could top off a partially full bulk tank of 100LL with G100UL, and use the resulting mixture to top off aircraft tanks containing any amount of 100LL. The 100LL component of ALL tanks would then harmlessly trend toward zero over time. What could make for a smoother transition than that?
 
Embedded in the opening post of this thread was the point that an enormous level of hostility toward the continued use of TEL in fuels for any internal combustion engines exists out there, and that body of sentiment is pretty well “lawyered up”. Until September 1 that group has been held at bay solely by the FAA’s insistence that there is no approved, viable replacement for leaded avgas. The threat to aviation safety thereby trumped environmental concerns.

Now that the FAA has issued a blanket endorsement of G100UL as a replacement for 100LL for ALL spark ignition aircraft engines, the teeth may have been completely removed from that argument.

Some have suggested that user acceptance will take a long time so 100LL will be around for the foreseeable future, or that its lower price will keep it around, but I could imagine it disappearing rather quickly by edict. On the bright side, that would certainly free up plenty of tanks for distribution of G100UL! -Otis
I suspect that the overt hostility for TEL that you see in California is not universally mirrored around the country. No doubt there are indeed pockets of hostility, but I don’t see any thing like that around here. TEL is kind of a yawner in these parts. This is a pretty liberal state but I don’t envision any such edicts here.

I suspect this switchover will take a long time. Money notwithstanding, most of the airports here in the hinterlands are single-tank operations except for the few that have JetA. Even the regional airport where I hangar, which is supplied by AvFuel, only has two trucks. Personally, I’m glad to see the switch (now that I know that it is indeed a drop-in), but I’m not holding my breath til the day I call the FBO on final and ask that the G100UL fuel truck meet me at my hangar.
 
We may be smaller than we imagine…

I suspect that the overt hostility for TEL that you see in California is not universally mirrored around the country. No doubt there are indeed pockets of hostility, but I don’t see any thing like that around here. TEL is kind of a yawner in these parts. This is a pretty liberal state but I don’t envision any such edicts here.

Mr. MacCool- I read you 5x5, but I actually think the entire 100LL market is pretty fragile, barely worth the trouble for an Exxon or Shell to be involved in. California by itself is a pretty big “pocket” of TEL hostility, and combined with a few smaller ones could break the camel’s back for current 100LL producers(who themselves do-not want to be seen as anti-environment).

On the flip side, a Shell or an Exxon could very easily ramp up G100UL in short order and save the day. I’d bet money that Mr. Braley has already received calls from an Exxon or two(as opposed to the other way around). Just a hunch- Otis
 
Last edited:
One of Paul' Avweb videos mentions 3 Municipal airports in California plan on a banning the sale of 100LL avgas. They get federal funds for their airports. Need to put a stop to unilateral ban of 100LL. There is no federal law to phase out of 100Ll yet. I was afraid California would start banning 100LL before G100 UL is available. Looks like they may try. Hope cool heads prevail.

Too late. 100LL was banned at two California airports earlier this year in January, Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV) and San Martin Airport (E16).



And, from General Aviation News:


"At SUN ‘n FUN 2022, Braly noted the first customers of G100UL will be airports where 100LL has been banned, such as Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV) in East San José and San Martin Airport (E16) in Santa Clara County in California."
 
Last edited:
Mr. MacCool- I read you 5x5, but I actually think the entire 100LL market is pretty fragile, barely worth the trouble for an Exxon or Shell to be involved in. California by itself is a pretty big “pocket” of TEL hostility, and combined with a few smaller ones could break the camel’s back for current 100LL producers(who themselves do-not want to be seen as anti-environment).

On the flip side, a Shell or an Exxon could very easily ramp up G100UL in short order and save the day. I’d bet money that Mr. Braley has already received calls from an Exxon or two(as opposed to the other way around). Just a hunch- Otis

According to an interview that AvWeb’s Paul Bertorelli did with a guy in the avgas industry, refineries make good profit margin on 100LL to the tune of over 80 cents per gallon where profit margin on mogas is only 3-4 cents per gallon. I am sure that margin more than covers their “pain” in making avgas.
Sounds to me there will be some financial incentive (profit margin) for more refineries to get into G100UL due to being lead free and not contaminating their facility with lead, which was a reason there were not more refineries making avgas.
Large refineries may not be interested even in G100UL just because it is still and always will be a small volume, but I hoping plenty of others smaller refineries look at it from profit margin.
 
Last edited:
What we need to do

So what we need to do now is fly more. Make the consumption of avgas higher so other producers will get into the market and lower costs.

I think you all can help me with that?

We should really try and support those FBOs that are willing to get G100UL out to market, even if it is a little more per gallon right now.
 
Where some non-lead economics may come into play, however, is that up until now all avgas was transported by truck to avoid contaminating pipelines with lead. Without lead, pipelines (much cheaper than trucks) are suddenly viable.

Low-quantity product, like avgas, can be problematic in pipelines because of the time and cost required for product switchover, and the volume of product wasted at that switchover. If we had more pipelines, maybe not as big an issue, but the current war on petroleum pipelines isn’t going to help the situation.

Maybe someday for pipeline distribution, but if we’re relying on AvFuel to lead the way on G100UL, well…they already have a distribution network.
 
The refineries do not deal with the lead, they just manufacture (refine) the base stock. The TEL is added to the base stock just prior to loading the fuel in the truck at the distribution facility.

Watch the video, as what you stated is NOT correct. Yes, refining and blending are different operations, but blending is a large scale, complex process with tight standards and testing involved;It is NOT done at the distribution center. Only a handfull of plants do it due to the regulatory and safety issues related to dealing with TEL. There is NOT some guy pouring lead into the truck to make it avgas. 100LL is manufactured/blended in a plant and THEN sent on to the distribution network.

FYI, there are numerous components blended to make 100LL. It is not just normal auto gas with lead added.

Larry
 
Last edited:
The refineries do not deal with the lead, they just manufacture (refine) the base stock. The TEL is added to the base stock just prior to loading the fuel in the truck at the distribution facility.

Where some non-lead economics may come into play, however, is that up until now all avgas was transported by truck to avoid contaminating pipelines with lead. Without lead, pipelines (much cheaper than trucks) are suddenly viable.

Did you watch the AvWeb’s Paul Bertorelli interview of Paul Millner?
 
Based on what I'm seeing and hearing in these excellent interviews, we'll have a lot of blenders competing for the G100UL fuel business, which seems like a good thing to me.
 
supply and demand

Based on what I'm seeing and hearing in these excellent interviews, we'll have a lot of blenders competing for the G100UL fuel business, which seems like a good thing to me.

So more demand, lower cost. Who wants to go fly?
 
Mr. MacCool- I read you 5x5, but I actually think the entire 100LL market is pretty fragile, barely worth the trouble for an Exxon or Shell to be involved in. California by itself is a pretty big “pocket” of TEL hostility, and combined with a few smaller ones could break the camel’s back for current 100LL producers(who themselves do-not want to be seen as anti-environment).


This is what worries me. A few of the Avweb and AOPA videos reference a number of annual gallons of 100LL produced in the 200mm range. That's a literal drop in the bucket for oil companies, refiners, and distributors.

We have few nice new toys in aviation thanks to liability and an unwillingness of a lot of companies to take on aviation-specific risks.

Let's say some plane running on UL has an engine failure and comes out of the sky. Cause is hard to determine precisely, but, hey, the new fuel is an easy place to blame, say the lawyers.

200mm gallons a year times $5 a gallon is a billion dollar industry. Split that a bunch of ways between the 5 blenders, the additive makers, GAMI, etc and no one is making enough money to cover a $50mm award when a jury says the fuel is to blame.

I worked for a company in an entirely different industry that completely abandoned a small but lucrative market segment because there was higher liability risk. This reminds me a lot of that. Who starts to drop avgas as a product because they don't want the risk of a new fuel?
 
Or…

The risk of a new ignition system, fuel system, avionics system, or heaven forbid, new engine system…exactly why we can’t leverage modern tech…so we are stuck in a “that’s the way it’s always been done” infinite loop.
 
The risk of a new ignition system, fuel system, avionics system, or heaven forbid, new engine system…exactly why we can’t leverage modern tech…so we are stuck in a “that’s the way it’s always been done” infinite loop.

We're not stuck there - at least not "we" in collective sense in the EAB world. Those of us running SDS or EFII systems have shown it can be done, and even with E10 premium pump gas. The entirety of the EAB world can do that, but the large majority is not comfortable trying it.

I'm paying $3.50 per gallon for 93E10 and running all over the place with it. You can too.
 
I'm just curious, in auto racing we've had unleaded 100 octane for decades, running in all kinds of very high compression, high heat, carbs and FI.

Why can't this stuff just be adapted to run in aircraft engines?
 
We're not stuck there - at least not "we" in collective sense in the EAB world. Those of us running SDS or EFII systems have shown it can be done, and even with E10 premium pump gas. The entirety of the EAB world can do that, but the large majority is not comfortable trying it.

I'm paying $3.50 per gallon for 93E10 and running all over the place with it. You can too.

Maybe "resistance" would be a better word.

My point is that anybody trying to leverage new tech, whether it is EFII, Avionics, Engines, etc. is met with huge resistance...and now it is beginning to come from vendors as well as individuals. The refusal to work on avionics panels including EFII and SDS comes to mind. This resistance stifles progress; it doesn't stop[ it but it does slow it down.

The good news, as you have stated, is that we can do it anyway. The bad news is that it is much harder for the Trail Blazers to move forward. Leaders will always find a way, though...
 
We're not stuck there - at least not "we" in collective sense in the EAB world. Those of us running SDS or EFII systems have shown it can be done, and even with E10 premium pump gas. The entirety of the EAB world can do that, but the large majority is not comfortable trying it.

I'm paying $3.50 per gallon for 93E10 and running all over the place with it. You can too.

It can be done, but at least for me and many others there's no infrastructure to support it unless I want to lug several five-gallon cans and do my own fueling. I have zero interest in that level of inconvenience even if pump gas was approved by Lycoming. I find it very convenient to just radio the FBO on final and have the fuel truck meet me at my hangar. Therefore I'm pretty much relegated to using whatever they have on the truck. Fuel at the regional airport where my plane is hangared is managed by AvFuel, so I'll be interested to see how that eventually translates to G100UL availability for me as well as what it will cost, and whether or not 100LL will still be available.
 
I would argue that it is easier than ever to be a "trailblazer". I was a hardcore Bendix FI guy until I started playing with the SDS ignition and that opend a new world. Did some research, defined requirements and I ended up building an auto gas compatable Lycoming with essentially off the shelf parts. That was a couple years ago, but today all you need is a respectable forum (with data, not anecdotes), a credit card and boom, you are in the modern world.
 
I would argue that it is easier than ever to be a "trailblazer". I was a hardcore Bendix FI guy until I started playing with the SDS ignition and that opend a new world. Did some research, defined requirements and I ended up building an auto gas compatable Lycoming with essentially off the shelf parts. That was a couple years ago, but today all you need is a respectable forum (with data, not anecdotes), a credit card and boom, you are in the modern world.

I agree with all of that but "easier than ever to be a "trailblazer"" isn't the same thing as "easy to be a "trailblazer"". We all have different expectations for our aviation hobby. Some get their gratification out of building, some like to blaze trails, and some just want to fly....in various combinations of those things.

I’m OK with fuel injection and electronic ignition…I’ve been very confident in both of those components on my airplane and I’m glad I have them as long as I know that they were expertly installed and are expertly maintained by someone a lot smarter than me about that stuff. To that extent, I guess I’m a trailblazer but it’s more accurate to say that I hire my trailblazing out. “Trailblazing by proxy” as it were….;)
 
Last edited:
We're not stuck there - at least not "we" in collective sense in the EAB world. Those of us running SDS or EFII systems have shown it can be done, and even with E10 premium pump gas. The entirety of the EAB world can do that, but the large majority is not comfortable trying it.

Airguy- speaking as a member of this crowd, I think respect is due to the “large majority not comfortable trying it(EFII)” If you have followed any of my threads, like the recent one featuring my Garmin panel, you will see I’m no shrinking violet where technology is concerned. My RV has no magnetos and no engine driven fuel pump. I have Dual PlasmaIII’s with over-rev protection and a bullet-proof dual electric fuel pump system with fuel return lines that I will be reporting on soon.

Still, I chose Airflow Performance Bendix type FI because I adhere to one limiting rule about technology: I DO NOT PERMIT THE OPERATION OF MY ENGINE TO RELY UPON ANY SOFTWARE-DEPENDENT DEVICES.

PlasmaIII’s operate via hard-wired logic and are software/firmware free. The reason for this personal rule is that the population of aircraft users of these products is so small that ALL users are forever condemned to be beta-testers for each and every firmware/software update that comes along during the life of the product. The risk of being the poor sod who happens to have the magic combination of settings/devices or whatever that triggers a bug in the update is not acceptable to me. Just call me conservative.

That said, and much more on-topic here, there are many strategies for optimizing flow distribution and atomization with Bendix-type systems that can also make them candidates for operation on lower-octane fuels. Much more on this topic also to come.- Otis
 
Maybe "resistance" would be a better word.

My point is that anybody trying to leverage new tech, whether it is EFII, Avionics, Engines, etc. is met with huge resistance...and now it is beginning to come from vendors as well as individuals. The refusal to work on avionics panels including EFII and SDS comes to mind. This resistance stifles progress; it doesn't stop[ it but it does slow it down.

The good news, as you have stated, is that we can do it anyway. The bad news is that it is much harder for the Trail Blazers to move forward. Leaders will always find a way, though...

I believe trailblazing is very cyclical. It starts with people in their garage (in aviation that is us), moves to small entrepreneurs selling to people in their garage, then [maybe] catches on with the mainstream suppliers/retailers to mass market. We (experimental amateur built) over the last decade have transitioned many items to mass market. Proof is how many small companies that made stuff for us experimentals have been bought up by the big names.
It is up to us to be tinkering with what’s next. if it is good and profitable it will eventually be picked up by the big names companies (except maybe Lycoming)
 
I agree with all of that but "easier than ever to be a "trailblazer"" isn't the same thing as "easy to be a "trailblazer""...

And I agree with your full post. It is not "easy" to adopt a new"ish" technology like EFI, but consider the resistance the GA crowd has with E-AB aircraft in general. Many pilots today would never be caught dead in anything with an Experimental sticker near the cockpit. And then consider the population at large - many of whom think "little airplanes" are insanely dangerous. So its all relative. Just about anyone is capable (with a bit of effort) to start taking flying lesson, and there are plenty of opportunities for the jaded GA pilot to try out an experimental, and thanks to vendors like Ross, proven automotive tech is sorted out and offered to any E-AB owner, gift wrapped and essentially turn key.

Few things in aviation are "easy", but we have many, many more choices today than 20 years ago. The hard part is not the access to technology, its the prejudice and comfort level (rational or otherwise) of the individual buyer. Cant hang that on anyone but us pilots.
 
And I agree with your full post. It is not "easy" to adopt a new"ish" technology like EFI, but consider the resistance the GA crowd has with E-AB aircraft in general. Many pilots today would never be caught dead in anything with an Experimental sticker near the cockpit. And then consider the population at large - many of whom think "little airplanes" are insanely dangerous. So its all relative. Just about anyone is capable (with a bit of effort) to start taking flying lesson, and there are plenty of opportunities for the jaded GA pilot to try out an experimental, and thanks to vendors like Ross, proven automotive tech is sorted out and offered to any E-AB owner, gift wrapped and essentially turn key.

Few things in aviation are "easy", but we have many, many more choices today than 20 years ago. The hard part is not the access to technology, its the prejudice and comfort level (rational or otherwise) of the individual buyer. Cant hang that on anyone but us pilots.
All true. I’ve been a pilot for a long, long time but never considered Experimental aviation until prompted to take a hard look at it by a friend a few years ago while looking for a new, more “interesting” airplane. I was amazed at what E-AB had become while I wasn’t paying attention and I’m very grateful for him opening my eyes to it.
 
Many pilots today would never be caught dead in anything with an Experimental sticker near the cockpit. And then consider the population at large - many of whom think "little airplanes" are insanely dangerous.

While that attitude is still prevalent today, I think within a decade (possibly 2) the idea will be mainstream. Vans Aircraft is putting more airplanes in the sky each year than Piper and Cessna combined, worldwide. The numbers are on our side, we won't be the "small minority" for much longer. At $400k+ for a new Cessna 172 ($432K base model 2021) versus an RV, the numbers guarantee the EAB growth.
 
Last edited:
While that attitude is still prevalent today, I think within a decade (possibly 2) the idea will be mainstream. Vans Aircraft is putting more airplanes in the sky each year than Piper and Cessna combined, worldwide. The numbers are on our side, we won't be the "small minority" for much longer. At $400k+ for a new Cessna 172 ($432K base model 2021) versus an RV, the numbers guarantee the EAB growth.

In the immortal words of Han, don't get cocky.

han-solo-star-wars.gif
 
Trust

I seem to have trust issues. As a person that engineers software solutions for a living, I do not trust any software running my engine systems. I can deal with instrument failures, radios out, etc, but I cannot deal with engine issues that would question my faith the engine will keep turning in times of emergencies. That being said, I trust this new G100UL fuel is safe and will be as reliable on each flight as anything previous. This is not to say it may not have a maintenance issue, bit I trust there has been enough testing, that on every flight, this fuel will get me to my destination. So I don't put this new fuel in the same category as new, software-driven, engine systems. JMHO.
 
I seem to have trust issues. As a person that engineers software solutions for a living, I do not trust any software running my engine systems. I can deal with instrument failures, radios out, etc, but I cannot deal with engine issues that would question my faith the engine will keep turning in times of emergencies. That being said, I trust this new G100UL fuel is safe and will be as reliable on each flight as anything previous. This is not to say it may not have a maintenance issue, bit I trust there has been enough testing, that on every flight, this fuel will get me to my destination. So I don't put this new fuel in the same category as new, software-driven, engine systems. JMHO.

I guess your car doesn't count?
 
I seem to have trust issues. As a person that engineers software solutions for a living, I do not trust any software running my engine systems. I can deal with instrument failures, radios out, etc, but I cannot deal with engine issues that would question my faith the engine will keep turning in times of emergencies. That being said, I trust this new G100UL fuel is safe and will be as reliable on each flight as anything previous. This is not to say it may not have a maintenance issue, bit I trust there has been enough testing, that on every flight, this fuel will get me to my destination. So I don't put this new fuel in the same category as new, software-driven, engine systems. JMHO.

What about redundant systems?

SDS, for instance, has dual boards available - each of which fire one set of spark plugs and either can fire the injectors with a flip of one switch. The primary board has a full suite of sensors and allows you to tweak and dial in the engine operation as you desire. The backup board is more a "Keep It Simple Stupid" program without all the extra inputs, intended to keep you in the air in the event of any failure.

And yes, I've needed the backup board once in flight, glad I had it. I also run two fuel pumps and two alternators. I've lost one of each of those two also, which is kinda the whole point of having redundancy. I also run dual comms, dual EFIS screens (plus a 3rd backup) and have GPS and VHF nav capability for the same reasons.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top