100UL and Us

Any DA40 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

100UL and Us

Post by pietromarx »

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... aded-avgas

Given that they have the entire C172 portfolio covered, I would tend to guess we are essentially covered, too.

Our fuel costs are going to go up, but GAMI claims we will get longer life for our engines.

Thoughts? (No anti-eco-whateverism, please ... it is what it is and lead isn't something anyone needs aerosolized.)
User avatar
perossichi
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:05 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N925RH
Airports: KVNY
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by perossichi »

This is a great dev for all GA. The FAA totally screwed up the development of UL. If you recall large companies abandoned the development. The EPA is loosing patience. If it weren’t for GAMI, the EPA will eventually ban 100LL and we would be out of business. Now we have what looks like a superior product and there is a good transition path. Note that you can mix 100ll with GAMI 100UL.

Leaded fuel is absolutely horrible for our engines and keeps us from using synthetic oils that are poor lead scavengers but much better lubricants.

For some one who flies 100 hours or so a year, this looks like $500-$700 more if they are right about price increase for 100ul. Suppose you don’t have to change oil as often and TBO increases even by a modest amount, then you more than make up for this.

I’m a firm believer in competition and I think more suppliers will produce this product as it doesn’t require lead so I’m optimistic that eventually it won’t cost that much more.

Also, the NIMBYs who close down airports love to say that we are terrible polluters from100LL. Anything to give these horrible people less ammunition. The people who are behind the closing of KSMO are very fond of the “lead poisoning” argument.
Sold 2002. Powerflo, Hartzell composite two blade, 530W/430, 345 transponder.
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by CFIDave »

There are at least two major challenges with this approach to eliminating leaded avgas:

1. Just because the engine (e.g., IO-360) runs fine on unleaded, it doesn't mean that the aircraft (e.g., DA40-180) fuel system can accommodate it. Aircraft fuel system hoses, fittings, pumps, tanks, etc. must be tested and certified for use with unleaded. This will require either the airframe manufacturer or a 3rd-party like GAMI to go through the certification expense for EACH airframe.

2. Airports don't have 3 sets of fuel tanks/trucks to accommodate JetA, 100LL, and unleaded avgas. The solution to this will require a "drop-in" unleaded 100LL replacement that will work with ALL planes that currently use 100LL. That's what the FAA has (thus far, unsuccessfully) been trying to achieve for years.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by Rich »

I am "cautiously optimistic" as the saying goes. I assume the fuel itself is fine and I would love to eliminate lead for all the reasons stated, but the rollout has various obstacles.

1. The AML approach is a problem. There are all sorts of obscure make/models still flying that nobody will think to include.
2. Purchasing an STC won't be a problem for most, but there is a substantial population of owners who grumble about every nickel and dime. This also bleeds over to any increased cost of the fuel itself. I know folks who'll fly 30 miles out of their way to save $.20 per gallon. And I have already heard rumblings among those with mogas STCS about them having to buy another one. (As a practical matter they need to be in a position to use avgas also.)
3. As long as 100LL is still produced there will be airports at which 100UL will not be available. I could come up with half a dozen factors that would cause this.
4. A further complication to the ATC/AML approach could be those with things like non-standard ignitions, Surefly, Electroair, etc. Not a real problem, but a regulatory one.

Some interesting factors, from what I've read so far:
1. The fuel is 5% denser at 6.3 lb/gal. For me, that would add 12 lb. for a full tank. Not a problem for me, but some aircraft with really large tanks it might need to be accounted for. Since for awhile we'll be flying with a mixture of the two types, there is this uncertainty.
2. It has about a 3% higher volumetric heat of combustion, which should allow for an equivalent reduction in fuel flow (think .3 gph) but:
3. I haven't yet found whether or not there is a bit of a difference in stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. In any case I expect we'll find some changes in operation. Since airflow is really the limiting factor on max power we might find a small change in available power in one direction or the other.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by Rich »

Dave, I don't think your first point is valid. They seem to have done a lot of testing on various materials individually. And I'll point to the ubiquitous Peterson mogas STC. This is available for dozens of types for which explicit testing most assuredly was not done.

The second is definitely true, with various corollary factors.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
TimS
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
First Name: Timothy
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N1446C
Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by TimS »

The gas tanks, and fittings for 99% of aircraft are common to a fairly well known and established subset or materials.
I highly doubt the FAA is going to go down the route of testing every plane. They will instead depend upon the reporting system for issues post approval.
When you look at how the FAA handles AMLs for STC now, it is by common features. The G3X stc is for planes that all share common attributes, e.g. aluminum construction.I would expect the FAA to go the same way here, wet wing aluminum, then bladders, then composites....

The PAFI effort failed for many reasons, one of which was the misguided vision of making a fuel which effectively matches the existing 100UL DSTMC standard. GAMI took another approach, they defined the requirement as a fungible fuel with 100LL, that does not require changes to the existing aircraft fleet. That is difference in requirements is why G100LL is possible.

The stoichiometric ratio does change, but not materially. That is why GAMI says you will have a slightly smaller fuel flow for the same power.

If the GAMI STC eventually gets the AML for 90+% of the fleet, then 100LL days are numbered. Just economics, places that are fighting to keep the airports open will switch to avoid the target on their back caused by TEL. The reduction in demand will end up having a snowball effect, as there will be less batches of 100LL made, less availability/desire to wash/clean equipment when switching fuels on the supply side. This situation is exacerbated by the tanker truck shortage.

Tim
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by Rich »

This will be entertaining to watch play out. I see the predictable whining on social media. Cost, of course, (STC and $/gal) being a big one. As long as 100LL remains available and the price differential (it matters little how much) persists, it'll be a rare FBO that will choose to devote an AVGAS delivery system to the higher-priced option. It'll be avoided like a spinach-only restaurant.

I also see the other stuff: Evil effects of lead are a myth, I've never had an engine problem, and even the gratuitous irrelevance of complaints about ethanol...

Humanity never disappoints my need for laughter :D
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
User avatar
dant
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:45 am
First Name: Dan
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N787DM
Airports: KPAE
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 59 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by dant »

>> As long as 100LL remains available

Seems like there's a lot of anger around the assumption that given the existence of this alternate fuel, the EPA will ban 100LL forcing the issue. Unfortunately it seems that as a general rule, reducing pollution costs money -- and often people either don't have that money or don't want to spend it.

I'm super excited about it personally - it really bothers me that my hobby produces lead pollution, and I hope that it'll stave off airport closures. I know I wouldn't want to live under lead crop dusting.
User avatar
perossichi
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:05 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N925RH
Airports: KVNY
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by perossichi »

The GAMI 100ul is designed to be a drop in replacement for 100ll.

Everyone should see them (GAMI) put an engine on the test cell and switch during the run from 100ll to 100ul and they are running the engine with parameters to encourage detonation. Runs exactly the same on 100ll as 100ul. They can actually measure internal cylinder pressure in real time.

They have tested both Lycoming IO 360 and the sr22 continental 550 n. Both run great.

I personally can’t wait to get the lead out of my engine and switch to synthetic oil. I recognize that further testing is needed, but this is simply the best news in years for GA. We are hanging by the thread burning fuel that few produce and which is doomed by the EPA.

Piston GA has basically little to no political power. The environmentalists see us as a poster child for what is wrong with fossil fuels and the NIMBYs want to close our airports. One less thing for them to complain about and better oil for engines seems to be worth it.

Finally, GAMI has a pretty impressive track record and they have test equipment that others simply don’t have, even the engine manufacturers.
Sold 2002. Powerflo, Hartzell composite two blade, 530W/430, 345 transponder.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: 100UL and Us

Post by Rich »

The one thing availability of this (or any other) new fuel does not accomplish is eliminate the reality that AVGAS is a low-volume, boutique fuel. In the transition period, we'll have 2 even smaller-volume competing fuels. Unless we get very high market acceptance for 100UL this will continue. The $/gal differential, if it continues at this magnitude, is a problem. I can live with the additional $7.50/hr cost, but many "will not comply" as many bumper stickers around here shout about, well, everything.

Another thing needed is for existing manufacturers and suppliers to license and produce this new fuel. Since many point-of-delivery businesses get both AVGAS and Jet-A from the same supplier, there could be incentives to coerce the continued availability of 100LL.

On a somewhat-related note, there are numerous reports here in the Northwest of 100LL availability problems. I'm also seeing reports of fuel contamination and failure of self-serve pump systems. These appear to mostly spotty and short-lived, but one needs to check the situation directly with any intended destinations.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
Post Reply