• Welcome to the new Commander Owners Group Forums. Please bear with us as the kinks are worked out and things are tweaked. If you have any questions or issues with the new platform, please post them here.

Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Well, let's try this again. This "ultra-top secret" (really?) document has been approved for release by ARC. Once more, ARC's definition of "drop-in" goes far beyond simply being capable of being used in our aircraft w/o any engine or fuel system mods being required. Has to be intermixed w/ 100LL in both aircraft and refining/distribution systems, etc. Don't sweat that issue at this point. Biggest issue is the certification process for use in a particular aircraft. Seems a little ridiculous, but the process just wasn't written for an effort like this. Has become a thorny problem. How about just amending the reg guys? Gheesh!

================

With Robert Ragar’s persistence we now have a document which the ARC communications group has approved for distribution. It took a while, and the changes are quite modest, but we’ve managed to comply with the ARC’s needs and that was worth the wait. I am sorry about the premature release – as always, it was misunderstood communications. Such is life……….



You may distribute to your members any way you choose. Here’s the link:



http://app4.websitetonight.com/proj...2011_Briefing_Summary_UAT-ARC_Last_-_Whew.pdf



You may see a warning to be sure this is a trusted source – it’s ok. And if you are using Win 7, you may have to install a plug-in to view/save the file. If you are presented with these screens and you don’t wish to deal with it, just let me know and I’ll separately send an email with the summary attached.



Thanks for your support……………….



Lee B.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Exxon-Mobil does not manufacture 100LL. Pulling out for them means not having an Exxon sign over the pump. Meaningless.

That article went on to say that aviation engines must be broken in with 100LL but can then be switched to autogas. If broken in on autogas exhaust valve damage will occur. Wrong on all counts.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Todd,
Breaking in an engine on leaded gas and then switch to unleaded was the story used in the 70s for cars. It did not work in all cases for cars but it did not make a difference. Lead went away. Big difference with cars was, the cars were not expected to live more than 4 or 5 years then. The problem went away.
Big government will take us down their path; the most we can hope for is a delay in the time line.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Betty said:
Todd,
Breaking in an engine on leaded gas and then switch to unleaded was the story used in the 70s for cars. It did not work in all cases for cars but it did not make a difference. Lead went away. Big difference with cars was, the cars were not expected to live more than 4 or 5 years then. The problem went away.
Big government will take us down their path; the most we can hope for is a delay in the time line.
Click to expand...

Pat, all of us of that era recall the hue and cry by auto and oil companies that going unleaded in cars would be a total disaster. The sky was falling. What do we have now? Engines that go past 100K with no problem at all, tune-ups a rare event, oil changes extended from 3K to 10k-15K miles, far more horsepower, lighter, dramatically better mileage, far less pollutants. All this was said by the experts of the era to be impossible. Hard to argue that getting lead out of the atmosphere was a good thing and pushed positive change that we are all benefiting from.

Yeah, planes are different. The much smaller market makes the kind of R&D and technology investment much harder to come by. By I have 100% confidence that we will solve these problems with technology.
 
Final committee report released. Since it runs 200-some pages, few academically inclined members, other than perhaps Frank, will want to dig through the entire report. The link below provides a, still somewhat dry, synopsis of the report. No great news but not terrible news.

The biggest hurdle remains w/ the FAA staffing and funding the work to define a path for certification. It will be a collaborative effort between the FAA and ASTM. The funding timeline is appx ten years and the clowns in DC can't even fund our government for 12 months much less several years. That issue appears to be the looming problem. The bill isn't unusually large given typical government programs. (60 million or so) Expect little action until the election question is settled. Perhaps some infighting w/in the FAA for whatever funds are allocated to them. Time will tell.

http://app5.websitetonight.com/proj...omments_on_UAT-ARC_report_20120403__Final.pdf

Happy reading!
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Bill,
There are several forums at Oshkosh on alt fuels. Do you think there will be any new information at the meetings or just the same old thing over again?
Thank you
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Bill- I 2nd Sid's kudo to you. AND PLEASE CONTINUE TO KEEP US in the info loop. I admit Iam late to the tech details of this 'issue', having been focusing on rebuilding my engine so i had a 'serviceable/flyable COMMANDER. I have read and reread the 3 docs you linked- WONDERFUL INFO. Living on both sides of DC Metro, I feel remiss in contributing as a 'invested HP owner' and having frquently poarticipated in several Gov't panels with agencies and Congress during my Educational Admin/ Aviation Ed. career However, I am even more perplexed after reading the 3rd .doc from Johnathan Sisk. He says High Perf piston engines comprise 2/3 of the GA fuel market requirements, yet feels a parallel STC path 'is required'. So how could the 'committee' come up with and approve a fuel to replace 100LL that would not meet the engine requirements of 2/3 of the fuel market, the market that probably accounts for the disproportionate quantity of (100LL) sales?
And since Sid and I are 'proximate \' to DC- if we can help- let us know!
Sherman
 
Betty said:
Bill,
There are several forums at Oshkosh on alt fuels. Do you think there will be any new information at the meetings or just the same old thing over again?
Thank you
Click to expand...

I expect they will be reviewing the released final report and providing the two leading substitute fuel folks... (Swift and GAMI) an opportunity to discuss their progress to date. If you intake info more orally than visually ( i.e. - read the linked reports here), then forums may be very useful. Expect they will be rehashing much of what we have discussed here. Our COG members had a bit of an inside source (and seat on the committee) due to our participation in the Clean 100 Coalition.
 
Shell Announces Unleaded 100-Octane Fuel

Shell Announces Unleaded 100-Octane Fuel

Shell Oil announced on Tuesday that is has developed an unleaded 100-octane piston engine fuel to replace 100LL and, presumably, the fuel will enter the FAA’s recently established fuel testing and certification process. In a press release, Shell said the fuel is a culmination of 10 years in R&D and initial testing has been done with two OEMs, Lycoming and Piper. None of the companies offered any information on what the new fuel might cost.

Shell’s VP for aviation, Xinsheng Zhang, said that with industry support, the approval process for the new fuel can be completed “within a short time frame.” Shell appears to be responding to last summer’s announcement by the FAA to begin accepting proposed 100LL replacements from the industry for testing by the FAA’s newly established AIR20/21 fuels group. Shell’s announcement represents the first major oil company to propose a 100LL replacement, although two smaller companies, Swift and General Aviation Modifications, have been developing their own candidate fuels during the past five years.

Shell says it conducted an intensive internal research program that included altitude and engine testing in conjunction with Lycoming Engines and Piper Aircraft, which uses Lycomings in many of its models. Lycoming’s General Manager, Michael Kraft, said the fuel was tested on its most octane-demanding engines and that initial tests indicate performance very similar to 100LL. Kraft called the announcement “a major step in the right direction for general aviation.”

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...21070-1.html?ET=avweb:e2688:221639a:&st=email
 
Interesting that there has been no additional comments made since 2013. Since than there have been new developments made. Here is some information that I sent to some of my pilot friends just a couple of days ago.

"I knew that there would be a fallout due to the Reid-Hillview incident concerning 100LL fuels. As I am not opposed to the change, we are still a long way from a complete transition.

Lycoming, for instance, has put out a Service Instruction and a Service Letter covering the unleaded fuels – see attachments. However this only covers fuels up to 94 octane. The new fuel of G100UL being processed by GAMI is not addressed. Additionally, there are airframes out there that will require an STC. Although Lycoming and Continental have come up with SI’s and SL’s to cover the usage of some unleaded fuels – thus illuminating the STC for the engine, the airframe becomes the issue and will require an STC. Without the Airframe STC’s, this becomes a mood point.

Now I fully expect that airframer manufacturers like Cessna, Beechcraft, Mooney and Piper will hop on this band wagon. However, there are airplanes out there that no longer have airframe support – example: Rockwell Commander, Stinson, North American, Bellanca, just to name a few. And, you may own something older like a Piper Cub or a Champ. It may not be worth the effort to support these aircraft because there are so few flying. How does that get addressed.

Ultimately – an STC may fall on the owner of the aircraft itself. Requiring the owner to perform all the test requirements by the FAA to acquire an STC for the individual aircraft or series if applicable. In any case this appears to be a ‘shoot from the hip’ scenario – just like the Covid vaccines."

When the Sun Sets on 100LL, Will You Be Ready?

Although 100 octane is the preferred fuel, let hope that it hits the market before too long. Reid-Hillview could be just the start and it could snowball quickly. And until there is a change addressed by Lycoming and Continental we could still be stuck using what has been approved - 94UL. Only the engine manufacturers can certify all their engines. GAMI cannot because it would be too costly. And again - we still have the airframe issue.
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top