What's new
Van's Air Force

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

"California FBOs Ordered To Stop Selling 100LL, Switch To G100UL"

RV8JD

Well Known Member
"California FBOs Ordered To Stop Selling 100LL, Switch To G100UL"

"Most if not all FBOs in California will be required to replace 100LL with General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s (GAMI’s) G100UL starting in the first half of 2024 thanks to a nine-year-old court ruling. That consent judgment, issued in favor of the Center for Environmental Health in December of 2014 by the California Superior Court in Alameda, says that as soon as there’s an approved commercially available replacement for 100LL, FBOs have to stop selling 100LL. CEH’s lawyers have sent notice to all California FBOs to switch to G100UL as soon as it becomes commercially available to them. If they don’t, they could be found in contempt and face heavy fines.
GAMI head of engineering George Braly said Vitol Aviation, the producerr/refiner now licensed to produce G100UL, is scheduled to produce large batches of the fuel later in the spring. Braly said it will “take a few months” to ramp up production and to supply all of the dozens of fuel sellers covered by the order after which it will be able to maintain a steady supply to them.
...
Braly said the raw cost of the components in the fuel vary with the price of crude oil but over the past year have averaged 85 cents to $1.15 per gallon more to make than 100LL. It’s not clear how that will translate to the price at the pump after going through wholesale, distribution and retailing steps in the supply chain.
..."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EDIT: See post #32 for Swift Fuels' counterpoint, "Swift Fuels Raps Environmentalists ‘Ultimatum’ On Unleaded Fuel"
 
Last edited:
"California FBOs Ordered To Stop Selling 100LL, Switch To G100UL"

"Most if not all FBOs in California will be required to replace 100LL with General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s (GAMI’s) G100UL starting in the first half of 2024 thanks to a nine-year-old court ruling. That consent judgment, issued in favor of the Center for Environmental Health in December of 2014 by the California Superior Court in Alameda, says that as soon as there’s an approved commercially available replacement for 100LL, FBOs have to stop selling 100LL. CEH’s lawyers have sent notice to all California FBOs to switch to G100UL as soon as it becomes commercially available to them. If they don’t, they could be found in contempt and face heavy fines.
... "
Big surprise. On the positive side, this might stimulate other FBOs in other parts of the country to take G100UL seriously. My only hope is that my own FBO will sell both until the cost of G100UL comes to less breathtaking levels than projected.
 
A good guess is that G100 UL will be a dollar or so more than current 100LL prices currently fluctuating between 6 and 7 dollar.
Wile I am glad that this fuel is finally getting a foothold around airports and delivering a well deserved financial return to GAMI, I cannot wait to see $8/gal avgas.:rolleyes:
Currently, Mogas is about 2 dollars less than avgas in the Bay Area and probably $3 less when the long awaited G100UL arrives.
If $3 per gallon difference is not persuading you to start using mogas, I don't know what will??
 
A good guess is that G100 UL will be a dollar or so more than current 100LL prices currently fluctuating between 6 and 7 dollar.
Wile I am glad that this fuel is finally getting a foothold around airports and delivering a well deserved financial return to GAMI, I cannot wait to see $8/gal avgas.:rolleyes:
Currently, Mogas is about 2 dollars less than avgas in the Bay Area and probably $3 less when the long awaited G100UL arrives.
If $3 per gallon difference is not persuading you to start using mogas, I don't know what will??
A lot of us have engines that wouldn't run well on mogas - even 94UL doesn't work well on many of them. Things like high-compression pistons make a difference here.

(Personally, I'm also fortunate enough to not care how much the fuel costs, so the price would not be a factor to push me to it regardless)
 
...
Braly said the raw cost of the components in the fuel vary with the price of crude oil but over the past year have averaged 85 cents to $1.15 per gallon more to make than 100LL. It’s not clear how that will translate to the price at the pump after going through wholesale, distribution and retailing steps in the supply chain.
..."
The excessive cost increase will be a death nail.

If you order an engine today that cannot run in premium mogas, assume you will be paying through the nose for 100UL.

Those 8.5 to 1 parallel valve Lycoming engines are looking better. The DeltaHawk Jet A engine is looking even better.

Carl
 
If $3 per gallon difference is not persuading you to start using mogas, I don't know what will??

Warm engine vapor lock at low power setting during ground operation. Have had the engine quit on the ground more than once. Ran fine during tests in the air at cruise power. I was too scared to try long low power setting in flight where I could not make the runway if the engine quit.
 
I rebuilt last year and stayed with 8.5/1 pistons for this inevitable increase in operating cost. At just over $1.00 delta, it wasn’t worth the effort, at $3-4/gallon I can change to mogas and save enough to pay both my insurance and hangar expense.
 
Mogas was available on the trucks here at our regional airport a few years ago but was terminated due to insufficient demand. The tank is now empty but still maintained, I'm told. Currently they're trying to figure out their plan for G100UL and when they want to make that jump (they use AVFuel here). I don't think Mogas is on the table, but who knows? For my part, fuel storage in the hangars is verboten and even if there was a source of Mogas around here that would be acceptable to Lycoming, have zero interest in filling my airplane from 6 gallon cans. The fuel I use will have to come on the truck.
 
The excessive cost increase will be a death nail.

If you order an engine today that cannot run in premium mogas, assume you will be paying through the nose for 100UL.

Those 8.5 to 1 parallel valve Lycoming engines are looking better. The DeltaHawk Jet A engine is looking even better.

Carl
Regardless of what engine you have, only the 100LL replacement will be sold by the FBO.
 
California has a long history of mandating change on a state level that eventually spreads to the rest of the country, and sometimes the world.

About G100UL pricing, looking at this table, the prices in any region already vary by more than $3 per gallon. Not a big fan of cities subsidizing UL fuel, they should probably use that money to fund a UL fuel truck and a couple of people to operate it.
 
California has a long history of mandating change on a state level that eventually spreads to the rest of the country, and sometimes the world.

About G100UL pricing, looking at this table, the prices in any region already vary by more than $3 per gallon. Not a big fan of cities subsidizing UL fuel, they should probably use that money to fund a UL fuel truck and a couple of people to operate it.
The government already subsidizes oil companies and I don't like it but if they can subsidize the new aviation fuel to lower the cost, then I'd have to accept that too.

Plus the more it spreads and becomes available around the country, the lower the cost will get.
 
Just what GA needs, More Expensive Fuel. I have a good job that pays a good salary. But when the fuel prices are up it reflects on my decision to go out and fly, I don’t fly as much. Example: I’ve been working on my commercial rating and already passed the knowledge test. I’ve started the flight maneuvers: I love flying and enjoy learning the maneuvers but to get them all down correctly, stay proficient and complete the flight review I’ve realized it’s going to cost me a bunch of fuel money and so I’ve stalled on my training, my 2 year knowledge period expires next month.

When I attend our local airport flight club meetings and listen to new members who state “I’d like to get more training time logged but the hourly fee is more than I can afford”. I don’t think another $20-30/hour in fuel coats is going to help.

There are groups and individuals who either don’t care or have the benefit to fund at any cost.

IMO, I just don’t see how higher fuel is going to help GA!
 
Getting this thread within Doug’s rules, as the price of avgas has increased I have reduced throttle on my weekend freedom to fly flights. I used to fly around locally at 70-75% throttle as I like to go fast. Price of gas went up so then changed to 65-70% throttle, then 65-70% throttle with aggressive leaning. I guess now I will now need to drop another 5% in throttle to keep within reasonable $$/hour. Good thing RVs are just as fun to fly slower as they are to fly fast. Maybe in a few years all my flights will be at the OSH arrival speeds.🤔
 
This (fuel cost) is the main reason I set my airplane up to burn premium octane auto fuel in the first place. You can too, it's easy with an injected engine. Carbureted engines will not do well on autogas. I'm currently running 93 octane premium (yes, with ethanol) from Walmart, literally. I ran 91 octane for about 800 hours until there was a change at a couple local stores and they offered 93, my airplane had no problems with either one and I routinely fly in the mid-upper teens on that fuel, almost 1600 hours now. $3.25/gal locally for me...

I was unleaded before unleaded became cool... (y)
 
This (fuel cost) is the main reason I set my airplane up to burn…
Me too, but my 540 eats “regular” grade California junk formulation without complaint. I would run a lot more of it, but in wonderful SoCal, there really isn’t much of a price difference between regular from Wallyworld and 100LL. It’s all about $5 bucks. If this new product provides enough of a price delta to make my home refueling station worth it, then I’ll start using it again.
 
I ran 91 octane for about 800 hours until there was a change at a couple local stores and they offered 93, my airplane had no problems with either one and I routinely fly in the mid-upper teens on that fuel, almost 1600 hours now. $3.25/gal locally for me...
I figure if 91 octane is enough to avoid detonation at 8.5:1 CR (?) flying out of low-elevation airports, it should be safe at 9:1 flying out of high elevation (5600'+) airports in Colorado.
 
This (fuel cost) is the main reason I set my airplane up to burn premium octane auto fuel in the first place. You can too, it's easy with an injected engine. Carbureted engines will not do well on autogas. I'm currently running 93 octane premium (yes, with ethanol) from Walmart, literally. I ran 91 octane for about 800 hours until there was a change at a couple local stores and they offered 93, my airplane had no problems with either one and I routinely fly in the mid-upper teens on that fuel, almost 1600 hours now. $3.25/gal locally for me...

I was unleaded before unleaded became cool... (y)
Can you point us in the right direction to set one up this way. I’ve read a few things here and there over the years. I’m not quite at the stage of ordering an engine yet, but I am starting to pay attention so I know what to ask when I get there.
 
Or a pretty big hammer. Just because it's only available in limited quantities doesn't mean it's not available. Supply/demand will drive price up.
Will there be competition to drive down costs or will Gami be the sole supplier? If not the sole supplier, will Gami charge such a high licensing fee that prices will stay high?
 
I figure if 91 octane is enough to avoid detonation at 8.5:1 CR (?) flying out of low-elevation airports, it should be safe at 9:1 flying out of high elevation (5600'+) airports in Colorado.
As long as you don't ever go anywhere else at a lower altitude, sure. First time you fly to Oshkosh or Sun and Fun or anywhere else out of the mountains though, and it's a different story.

Yes, I have 8.5:1 compression, I bought the engine like that with 105 hours TTSN and kept that compression specifically because I was planning on running junk fuel and didn't want to fight detonation, or limit manifold pressure on takeoff.
 
Will there be competition to drive down costs or will Gami be the sole supplier? If not the sole supplier, will Gami charge such a high licensing fee that prices will stay high?
There is a FAA sponsored program trying to achieve what GAMI got. if it is successful, there will be other suppliers independent of GAMI's licensing. Then again, it has been going on for a really long time now.
 
Pay attention to:
Ignition timing
mixture distribution
Compression
cooling
piston oil jets
fuel supply architecture
fuel pump placement
That's an excellent checklist to use.

If you want to really do it right, rip out the entire ignition/fuel system and install SDS or EFII in the airplane. I prefer SDS for a variety of reasons, but truth be told either will get you there from the hardware aspect.

I'm actually in the process of writing a book about this - literally - but here's a short version.

Avoid anything that adds heat to the fuel (mechanical fuel pump, traditional injection servo) by being bolted to the great big heater up front. If you want to maintain the standard injection setup without a full SDS/EFII install, then install dual electric pumps (plumbed in parallel for possible pump failure, SDS has a very nice fuel pump module for this) in the traditional boost-pump area of the airplane with an Andair full-duplex fuel valve and tank returns. Remove the mechanical fuel pump entirely, you can leave the pushrod in place in the engine without the pump, it will simply fall down out of engagement with the cam driving it and stay along for the ride. The output of the fuel pumps should have a backpressure regulator such as the Borla regulator which can be referenced to manifold pressure, holding back pressure of 40psig or so to the standard Bendix injector servo with the rest of the flow going back to tanks - the standard Bendix servo will be just fine with this pressure, I tested mine to 52 psi inlet in flight with normal ops at 42. Important note here - don't just reroute the excess fuel flow back to suction of the pumps - it will get hot, the fuel is used to cool the electric motors in the pumps, it needs to return all the way back to the tanks to dump heat. Double-firesleeve ALL your FWF fuel lines for heat insulation, from the firewall pass-thru to the servo and up to the injection divider, and put heat-shields on your exhaust anywhere it's close to the fuel lines or servo. Mount your FT-60 (if you use one, or similar) on the cool side of the firewall - it works just fine downstream of the electric pumps and you don't want it absorbing heat in the FWF environment and heating the fuel flowing through it. Eliminate the gascolator if you have one, they serve no purpose on an RV since the low point in the fuel system is actually in the tanks, not FWF. Replace the standard .024" injection restrictors with .022" (for an IO360) from Airflow Performance, that will help increase the pressure in the line from the servo to the divider to keep it from boiling and provide better idle in hot conditions, and the supply pressure in the low-40's range to the servo will still be able to move full-power fuel flow through the smaller orifice. Do repeated GAMI-spread tests with custom injector restrictors to get it tight, these are available from Don Rivera at Airflow Performance. Restrict your timing to 25 degrees for a parallel valve, 20 degrees for an angle valve engine at low altitudes, I ramp mine from a low of 22 degrees at sea level to 29 degrees above 7000' via the SDS programming. Don't run WOTLOP below 4000'. The Airflow Performance purge valve works quite well for hotstarts if you have trouble with them, be sure and put a spring on the actuator to pull it open in the event of a broken control cable. You will have reduced (but still non-zero) detonation margin - so takeoff and climb should be done very fat/rich to keep CHT's down, leaning only once you level out and pick up airspeed for cooling.

That's the Cliffs Notes version.
 
Last edited:
So thats the hardware side of it - you will need to remove all the natural rubber O-rings/seals/gaskets anywhere in the fuel system. That includes the fuel filters, the filler caps, the tank sump drains, and any hoses. These should be replaced with Teflon/Viton. The Bendix servo and fuel dividers should already have fluorosilicone internals, those have been standard for a couple decades, they are fine. Eliminate as much pressure drop as possible between the tank suction pickup and the fuel pumps - this means as few connections as possible, no elbows unless unavoidable. Flexible lines are preferable here so they have gentle bends.
 
Last edited:
I’m going to figure out how to save this so I can come back to it. I’m just at the point of building my tanks on a -10. Skipped ahead while waiting on the LCP stuff to work itself out. I added ports for return lines to tanks in case I needed them. Thanks for the cliff notes version and when the real version comes out I will get one.
 
I’m going to figure out how to save this so I can come back to it. I’m just at the point of building my tanks on a -10. Skipped ahead while waiting on the LCP stuff to work itself out. I added ports for return lines to tanks in case I needed them. Thanks for the cliff notes version and when the real version comes out I will get one.
I'm building tanks on my -10 right now as well. Put a hard 3/8" aluminum line inside the tank to take the return fuel into the second bay, to avoid foaming/splashing from getting to the suction pickup in the first bay when you are running low on fuel.
 
Bad news, but anyone in California could see the writing on the wall. I don't want my airplane to be spewing lead either, but this could have been handled better.

Does anyone with Van's "metal plate" capacitive fuel level sensors know if switching over to G100UL requires re-calibrating the senders? I understand switching from 100LL to mogas requires re-calibration due to the density of the fuel or some other chemical reason. I might end up doing that, or finally experimenting with mogas.
 
Bad news, but anyone in California could see the writing on the wall. I don't want my airplane to be spewing lead either, but this could have been handled better.

Does anyone with Van's "metal plate" capacitive fuel level sensors know if switching over to G100UL requires re-calibrating the senders? I understand switching from 100LL to mogas requires re-calibration due to the density of the fuel or some other chemical reason. I might end up doing that, or finally experimenting with mogas.
First person experience here, 100LL and mogas have different capacitive values which will directly affect the indication. To confuse matters even further, summer versus winter blends of mogas respond differently to the capacitive senders as well. I put them in my 9A initially and eventually abandoned them, due to the ever-changing mixture of 100LL (from long trips) with the 93E10 I got from home, combined with the mixture of winter/summer blends of the 93E10 - all of which respond differently on the capacitive senders. You're better off just going with volumetric (float) senders , which is what I ended up with, unless you can guarantee that you'll only have ONE fuel type. The float senders are not perfect, but they do respond 100% to the liquid level in the tanks, regardless of what kind of liquid it is.

If you're going to live on a strictly 100% single-fuel diet, then yes it will work. Note here - mogas DOES vary from summer to winter - so that doesn't count.

EDIT - just got off a phone call with a guy discussing this. For the adventurous sort, you can insert a "standard-determination" cell in the fuel system that has a fixed distance between fixed-area capacitance plates to determine the capacitance value of the fuel in the tanks, regardless of mixture, so that you can determine the dielectric value of the fuel in real-time, and get a constant-value readout of the tank capacity no matter what the mixture. While completely possible and realistic, I think it's beyond of reach of most of us. Calibrating that system is "an exercise left to the reader".


The cure may be worse than the disease, in some cases.
 
Last edited:
Warm engine vapor lock at low power setting during ground operation. Have had the engine quit on the ground more than once. Ran fine during tests in the air at cruise power. I was too scared to try long low power setting in flight where I could not make the runway if the engine quit.
What model & HP engine are you running in your RV6?
I am running a Lycomimg O-320 D3G 160 HP parallel valve engine since 1995.
I have been using 100LL for many years.
I have heard reports that some are using 93 Octane non-ethanol fuel although I haven’t tried it due to concern of vapor lock on hot days.
What’s your take on all this?
Thank You.
 
And Swift Fuels' counterpoint:

"Swift Fuels Raps Environmentalists ‘Ultimatum’ On Unleaded Fuel"


"Swift Fuels CEO Chris D’Acosta says a legal threat against California FBOs to sell a new-to-the-market unleaded 100 octane fuel is based on the premise that G100UL, developed by General Aviation Modifications Inc., will soon be commercially available, something he says is unlikely to happen anytime soon. In public comments and in emails to AVweb, D’Acosta 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. “The FAA does not certify or approve fuel in the marketplace. Industry does,” D’Acosta told AVweb in an email. “It starts with ASTM specifications which is then tied to the fuel supply chain, safety regulators, insurance provisions, etc.” Swift Fuels is already selling a 94 octane unleaded fuel that D’Acosta says has both FAA STC approval and the ASTM fuel standard and significant product liability insurance coverage for aviation. It is developing a 100-octane unleaded fuel and intends to have it similarily certified.
...
In a public comment below the earlier story on the lawyer letter, D’Acosta disagreed saying G100UL “has not completed the necessary prerequisites with [industry/ASTM] to be commercially available in the marketplace.” He also criticized the legal threat. “Accordingly, I believe the lawyers of CEH have no right to impose this unjustified ultimatum on California FBOs.”"
 
That's an excellent checklist to use.

If you want to really do it right, rip out the entire ignition/fuel system and install SDS or EFII in the airplane. I prefer SDS for a variety of reasons, but truth be told either will get you there from the hardware aspect.

I'm actually in the process of writing a book about this - literally - but here's a short version.

Avoid anything that adds heat to the fuel (mechanical fuel pump, traditional injection servo) by being bolted to the great big heater up front. If you want to maintain the standard injection setup without a full SDS/EFII install, then install dual electric pumps (plumbed in parallel for possible pump failure, SDS has a very nice fuel pump module for this) in the traditional boost-pump area of the airplane with an Andair full-duplex fuel valve and tank returns. Remove the mechanical fuel pump entirely, you can leave the pushrod in place in the engine without the pump, it will simply fall down out of engagement with the cam driving it and stay along for the ride. The output of the fuel pumps should have a backpressure regulator such as the Borla regulator which can be referenced to manifold pressure, holding back pressure of 40psig or so to the standard Bendix injector servo with the rest of the flow going back to tanks - the standard Bendix servo will be just fine with this pressure, I tested mine to 52 psi inlet in flight with normal ops at 42. Important note here - don't just reroute the excess fuel flow back to suction of the pumps - it will get hot, the fuel is used to cool the electric motors in the pumps, it needs to return all the way back to the tanks to dump heat. Double-firesleeve ALL your FWF fuel lines for heat insulation, from the firewall pass-thru to the servo and up to the injection divider, and put heat-shields on your exhaust anywhere it's close to the fuel lines or servo. Mount your FT-60 (if you use one, or similar) on the cool side of the firewall - it works just fine downstream of the electric pumps and you don't want it absorbing heat in the FWF environment and heating the fuel flowing through it. Eliminate the gascolator if you have one, they serve no purpose on an RV since the low point in the fuel system is actually in the tanks, not FWF. Replace the standard .024" injection restrictors with .022" (for an IO360) from Airflow Performance, that will help increase the pressure in the line from the servo to the divider to keep it from boiling and provide better idle in hot conditions, and the supply pressure in the low-40's range to the servo will still be able to move full-power fuel flow through the smaller orifice. Do repeated GAMI-spread tests with custom injector restrictors to get it tight, these are available from Don Rivera at Airflow Performance. Restrict your timing to 25 degrees for a parallel valve, 20 degrees for an angle valve engine at low altitudes, I ramp mine from a low of 22 degrees at sea level to 29 degrees above 7000' via the SDS programming. Don't run WOTLOP below 4000'. The Airflow Performance purge valve works quite well for hotstarts if you have trouble with them, be sure and put a spring on the actuator to pull it open in the event of a broken control cable. You will have reduced (but still non-zero) detonation margin - so takeoff and climb should be done very fat/rich to keep CHT's down, leaning only once you level out and pick up airspeed for cooling.

That's the Cliffs Notes version.
This is excellent information. I took the liberty of re-formatting it to make it easier for my small brain to digest:


Fuel System Modifications:
- Avoid adding components that generate heat to the fuel system, such as mechanical fuel pumps or traditional injection servos, by mounting them directly to the engine.
- If you wish to keep the standard injection setup without installing a full SDS/EFII system, then:
- Install dual electric fuel pumps in parallel (to account for possible pump failure) in the airplane's traditional boost-pump area. Consider using SDS's fuel pump module for this purpose.
- Use an Andair full-duplex fuel valve and include tank returns.
- Remove the mechanical fuel pump completely. The pushrod can remain in the engine; it will disengage and not interfere with operation.

Fuel Pump and Pressure Management:
- Ensure the output from the fuel pumps goes through a backpressure regulator (e.g., Borla regulator) that can adjust based on manifold pressure.
- Aim for a backpressure of around 40 psi to the standard Bendix injector servo, allowing excess flow to return to the tanks. This pressure level is safe for the Bendix servo, as tested up to 52 psi.
- Do not route excess fuel back to the suction side of the pumps to avoid heating the fuel. Instead, return it all the way back to the tanks to dissipate heat.

Heat Insulation and Protection:
- Double-fire sleeve all fuel lines within the firewall forward (FWF) area for heat insulation.
- Install heat shields on the exhaust wherever it's close to fuel lines or the servo to prevent heat transfer.
- Position any fuel flow meters (like the FT-60, if used) on the cooler side of the firewall to avoid heat absorption.

Fuel System Configuration and Maintenance:
- Eliminate the gascolator if present, as it's unnecessary in RV aircraft where the fuel system's low point is within the tanks, not FWF.
- Replace standard .024" injection restrictors with .022" restrictors (for an IO360 engine) to improve pressure from the servo to the divider, aiding in preventing fuel boil and enhancing idle in hot conditions.
- Conduct repeated GAMI-spread tests with custom injector restrictors for optimal performance, available from Airflow Performance.

Engine Timing and Operation:
- Adjust ignition timing based on engine type and altitude: 25 degrees for a parallel valve and 20 degrees for an angle valve engine at low altitudes, with adjustments up to 29 degrees above 7000' via SDS programming.
- Avoid wide-open throttle/lean-of-peak (WOTLOP) operations below 4000'.
- Consider using the Airflow Performance purge valve for improved hot start performance, adding a spring to the actuator for reliability in case of control cable failure.

Cooling and Detonation Management:
- To manage detonation risk and engine temperature, perform takeoff and climb operations with a richer fuel mixture. Only lean the mixture once leveled out and airspeed increases for cooling.

This structured approach should help in understanding and implementing the modifications and operational practices suggested for improved fuel system efficiency and heat management in aviation.
 
As long as you don't ever go anywhere else at a lower altitude, sure. First time you fly to Oshkosh or Sun and Fun or anywhere else out of the mountains though, and it's a different story.

Yes, I have 8.5:1 compression, I bought the engine like that with 105 hours TTSN and kept that compression specifically because I was planning on running junk fuel and didn't want to fight detonation, or limit manifold pressure on takeoff.

I'm operating under the assumption that 100 octane in some formulation (leaded or unleaded) will be available for the foreseeable future, and can be used as needed if spending time at low elevation. Any small efficiency bump from increased compression is a worthy reason, IMO.

That raises another interesting question: with EFI, is there a combination of spark retard and fuel enrichment that would safely allow for use of low-octane auto fuels and very high compression (say, 10:1 or higher), which would allow a plane to "limp" through the densest air at low altitudes detonation-free, while still enjoying increased efficiency at high altitudes? I suspect that if GA fuel efficiency were "gamed" to the extent that, say, Honda tunes its engines, we would see strategies like that play out. I'm not sure I want to be a test pilot for it, but imagine it could work. Fuel management strategy could also allow for sourcing fuel from a high-octane tank for takeoff and landing, with low octane gas for high altitude cruising, but the complexity doesn't seem worth it.
 
"California FBOs Ordered To Stop Selling 100LL, Switch To G100UL"

"Most if not all FBOs in California will be required to replace 100LL with General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s (GAMI’s) G100UL starting in the first half of 2024 thanks to a nine-year-old court ruling. That consent judgment, issued in favor of the Center for Environmental Health in December of 2014 by the California Superior Court in Alameda, says that as soon as there’s an approved commercially available replacement for 100LL, FBOs have to stop selling 100LL. CEH’s lawyers have sent notice to all California FBOs to switch to G100UL as soon as it becomes commercially available to them. If they don’t, they could be found in contempt and face heavy fines.
GAMI head of engineering George Braly said Vitol Aviation, the producerr/refiner now licensed to produce G100UL, is scheduled to produce large batches of the fuel later in the spring. Braly said it will “take a few months” to ramp up production and to supply all of the dozens of fuel sellers covered by the order after which it will be able to maintain a steady supply to them.
...
Braly said the raw cost of the components in the fuel vary with the price of crude oil but over the past year have averaged 85 cents to $1.15 per gallon more to make than 100LL. It’s not clear how that will translate to the price at the pump after going through wholesale, distribution and retailing steps in the supply chain.
..."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
EDIT: See post #32 for Swift Fuels' counterpoint, "Swift Fuels Raps Environmentalists ‘Ultimatum’ On Unleaded Fuel"
Interesting 🧐. My wife owns an FBO ( Pacific Exec Aviation @KRNM) sells Titan fuels and we haven’t heard anything of that for 2024? There’s always been rumblings of this but nothing has surfaced forcing this change that we heard of “Yet”.I do agree IF and WHEN this change over is forced on us it’ll definitely be California who does it first.
 
If you order an engine today that cannot run in premium mogas, assume you will be paying through the nose for 100UL.

Those 8.5 to 1 parallel valve Lycoming engines are looking better. The DeltaHawk Jet A engine is looking even better.
Rotax is looking better and better. Performs better on 91 octane mogas than 100LL.

Lockwood is testing it in the -9; perhaps it could become an option in most other Van's with the exception of the -10.
 
What model & HP engine are you running in your RV6?
I am running a Lycomimg O-320 D3G 160 HP parallel valve engine since 1995.
I have been using 100LL for many years.
I have heard reports that some are using 93 Octane non-ethanol fuel although I haven’t tried it due to concern of vapor lock on hot days.
What’s your take on all this?
Thank You.
160 HP O-320 B2B converted to constant speed prop operation.

I have only tried 93 Octane non-ethanol from a local station. I have a friend that used it all the time in a fuel injected 180 HP RV and another friend that uses it in in RV-6A with 160 HP FP engine without issue. I had issues on the ground and for me, it is not worth saving a little money for the issue I had. I would love to be using an unleaded fuel but not if there is a safety issue.
 
Rotax is looking better and better. Performs better on 91 octane mogas than 100LL.

Lockwood is testing it in the -9; perhaps it could become an option in most other Van's with the exception of the -10.

ULPower already got engines serving that segment. E.g if you need a 180hp as most 2 seaters work really well with you can fly:

“ 520i engines with a serial number above 223501, can run on 91 RON / 83 MON fuel (labelled as 87 AKI fuel in USA / Canada)”

If those engines would have been available a couple of years earlier I would certainly have put one on .

Oliver
 
….with EFI, is there a combination of spark retard and fuel enrichment…
You have left a lot of variables wide open in your question, but I can tell you with some certainty that a big spark retard at high MAP buys you a lot of detonation margin. I run auto gas in some insanely hot temperatures in my 8.5 CR Rocket with no detonation, and my neighbor has “cured” his detonation issues in his 10:1 CR Rocket by running my ignition schedule.

So to answer your question directly, a programmed retard at high MAP is probably all you need (assuming your “rich” setting is in spec). Unless someone else is willing to step up and claim their direct experience with a 10:1 engine on MOGAS, you will indeed need to be a “test pilot” or pay for some dyno time.
 
ULPower already got engines serving that segment. E.g if you need a 180hp as most 2 seaters work really well with you can fly:
I'm a real fan of the UL Power offerings. When debating between building the Zenith 750 Heavy Duty or the RV12iS (the -12 fits my mission better) the six cylinder UL Power was going to be my choice. However, after flying Rotax for two and a half years and over 300 hours, I would opt for the 915iS or the 916iS and enjoy the lower fuel burn than the 520i. While the 520i "engines have an updated ECU map which will allow the engine to run on MoGas 91 RON fuel" the Rotax engines actually prefer mogas rather than being "allowed" to run on it. Both great engines though and you wouldn't go wrong with either!
 
There are theoretical cost savings down the road for switching to UL fuel. Currently, transportation of leaded fuel (an environmental contaminate) means one-way utility. All that infrastructure carrying 100LL are dedicated and cannot carry another fuel, so they make their return trip empty. That would not be the case with UL fuel. Same thing with refineries and blenders. With the absence of lead, more facilities will be open to producing UL avgas. That will reduce the distance from refinery to FBOs, further reducing transportation costs. Hopefully, a reduction in transportation costs will somewhat offset increases in material costs. There are also some operational/maintenance costs savings with eliminating lead. I don't think all of these will eliminate an increase, but it may help mitigate it.
 
Don't forget that there are two fuels still in the run to get a fleet wide STC (Swift UL100R) and authorization via the PAFI program (VP Racing/Lyondell UL100E). G100UL will not be the only game in town in a year or two. The best fuel (not necessarily the first), delivered the most cost-effectively, will prevail in the end.
 
All that infrastructure carrying 100LL are dedicated and cannot carry another fuel,
Add pipelines to that as well, if they can establish that G100UL mixed with 91 Mogas is marketable as 91 Mogas, that makes it really easy to transport by pipeline.

The G100UL customer won't get all of their input on the other end, but pipeline transport is much cheaper.
Of course, they will still need a tank on the far end ready for it.
 
Interesting 🧐. My wife owns an FBO ( Pacific Exec Aviation @KRNM) sells Titan fuels and we haven’t heard anything of that for 2024? There’s always been rumblings of this but nothing has surfaced forcing this change that we heard of “Yet”.I do agree IF and WHEN this change over is forced on us it’ll definitely be California who does it first.
Pretty unlikely to happen in "first half of 2024" when it's already late Feb.
My bet is not this year in majority of California airports.
 
There are theoretical cost savings down the road for switching to UL fuel. Currently, transportation of leaded fuel (an environmental contaminate) means one-way utility. All that infrastructure carrying 100LL are dedicated and cannot carry another fuel, so they make their return trip empty. That would not be the case with UL fuel. Same thing with refineries and blenders. With the absence of lead, more facilities will be open to producing UL avgas. That will reduce the distance from refinery to FBOs, further reducing transportation costs. Hopefully, a reduction in transportation costs will somewhat offset increases in material costs. There are also some operational/maintenance costs savings with eliminating lead. I don't think all of these will eliminate an increase, but it may help mitigate it.
Two other cost savings... elimination of lead buildup on plugs and valve stems/guides, ability to run different oils. [Picked that up from a Mike Busch webinar]
 
Or a pretty big hammer. Just because it's only available in limited quantities doesn't mean it's not available. Supply/demand will drive price up.
It depends on the specific wording in the actual law, and then on the interpretation of those words

I have successfully settled a contract using the term "commercially" to include the interpretation of "not cost prohibitive".
 
Back
Top