• 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

wab003

wab003

COG President
Supporting Member
Cincinnati, OH
Aircraft Year
1998
Aircraft Type
114TC/115TC
Reg Number
N114AD
Serial Number
20020
Some COGers are aware that COG is a member of the Clean 100 Octane Coalition. As owners/operators of high performance engines requiring the use of high octane fuel, this advocacy group is of great importance to continued use of our aircraft. The EPA's proposed elimination of 100LL Avgas spooked many general aviation piston operators into taking proactive steps to insure any eventual solution to the perceived tetraethyl lead issue fully considers its effect on entire piston fleet.

There are multiple groups seeking solutions and providing input to the FAA and EPA. To help promote Commander Owners interests, COG is actively participating in the Clean 100 meetings and lobbying efforts. This thread will be used to post updates on meetings, news releases and appeals for action by YOU to help the FAA/EPA rules making folks fully recognize our concerns.

Stay actively engaged and make your voice heard BEFORE the rules are on paper. Watch this space for information and opportunities...
 
Last edited:
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

The following information was obtained during a briefing by a Swift Fuels representative. SF is seeking a "drop-in" 100LL substitute fuel. The term "drop-in" means that no modifications to engine or fuel systems or HP derating would be required. This would obviously be a "perfect" solution. Not as easily done as said... One of the major complications comes in the current 100LL fuel spec which was written around fuels that already existed rather than writing a spec and having fuels blended to meet the spec. Swift Fuel is one possible solution that is still being tested and thoroughly investigated. Even if "approved" as a fuel, getting it "certified" for use in any particular type-certificated aircraft is another thorny problem. I urge you to listen to the meeting or read the summary to educate yourself about the issues as the eventual outcome may affect your ability to use your beloved Commander.

To wit:

On 1 March, Jon Zuilkowski of Swift Enterprises provided the Clean 100 a briefing on the status of the company’s 100LL replacement fuel candidate. Below are links to summaries of that teleconference and the audio track. Attending the meeting were:


Jon Kuilkowski, Swift Enterprises
Tom Turner, American Bonanza Society
Bob Thomason, The Twin Cessna Flyer
Lars Gleitsmann, Alaska Air Carriers Association
Bill Bailey, Commander Owners Group
Dave Duntz, Aerostar Owners Association
Richard Page, Cessna Advanced Aircraft Club
Lee Buechler, Clean 100


A written call summary based upon the submitted questions can be viewed and/or downloaded through the following link:

http://app4.websitetonight.com/proj...rprises_Briefing_Summary__3-1-2011__final.pdf

The call audio track can be played or downloaded for listening through the following link:

http://app4.websitetonight.com/proj...ds/Swift_Fuel_Briefing__3-1-2011__Trimmed.mp3

Swift’s briefing slides {generic} can be viewed and/or downloaded through the following link:

http://app4.websitetonight.com/proj...an_100_Briefing_-_3-2011__General_Backgnd.pdf

Tom Turner of American Bonanza Society constructed a call summary which he distributed through the ABS website for all of us to view or download using the following link:

http://bonanza.org/documents/2011.0301.SwiftFuel update.pdf



Best to all, and for those who attended – thank you very much, with a special thanks to Jon Kuilkowski for all his efforts. It was an enlightening session.


Lee B.
 
Last edited:
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

This post has to do w/ the experimental folks promoting a non-alcohol MoGas solution for their aircraft. The problem with this solution is that the users of Avgas are already a niche market. If that small market is further broken into even smaller subgroups w/ some using Mogas w/ no alcohol and another needing higher octane fuel for their high performance engines, it becomes increasing likely that the refiners may offer one blend and not the other simply due to economic volume considerations. Commanders fall into the latter category needing a high octane fuel to allow efficient operation of their engines. As we all are well aware, derating our engines (limiting available HP) to use a lower octane fuel is simply not a viable option.

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

Good morning Bill,

The Av Consumer fuel survey is complete and the results published. The results are quite interesting. Of greatest note {to me} is the positive view of mogas from those whose aircraft currently require 100LL. They are clearly responding to the widening premium for 100LL {over premium auto fuel} that we are experiencing. Lots of folks reducing their flying activities by significant amounts.

My earlier comments that the Clean 100 should be thinking about making some sort of common cause with the mogas crowd comes to mind. A two fuel solution still seems virtually infeasible as I understand the distribution economics, and we are all aware that those requiring 100LL really drive the GA economy so a fully performing fuel must certainly continue to be our focus. But it might not hurt to help these folks get their message across. I’d be interested in hearing your comments on the matter.

Use the link below to read/download a copy of the survey results………..

http://app4.websitetonight.com/proj...loads/AVweb_Aviation_Consumer_Fuel_Survey.pdf

The GAMI teleconference summary and other material should be complete and distributed in the next few days……..

Thanks………….. Lee B.
 
Last edited:
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

This segment has to do w/ GAMI's efforts to blend a drop-in 100LL avgas replacement fuel. They face the same issues in obtaining FAA and engine manufacturer approvals for use of a replacement fuel in our engines.

George Braly of GAMI was the guest presenter and offers a wealth of aviation and powerplant experience. There is some very intresting information offered for consideration. Take note of all the varied formulations of the liquid we call avgas. Truly a witches brew of hydrocarbons... who knows what you burn each flight? Even fuel from a given provider (Shell, BP, Exxon, etc.) can vary significantly based upon which constituent components are available at attractive prices when they are ready to blend a batch. More than you previously knew? Read on...

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


On 8 March, George Braly of General Aviation Modifications, Inc provided the Clean 100 a briefing on the status of the company’s 100LL replacement fuel candidate. Below are links to summaries of that teleconference and the audio track. These materials are in order of increasing detail. You are welcome to further distribute this material to your type club members in any manner you wish.

1. To view or download a call summary click the following link:

http://app4.websitetonight.com/proj.../GAMI_Teleconference_Summary_3-8-11_final.pdf

2. To view or download answers to the submitted questions click the following link:

http://app4.websitetonight.com/proj..._Teleconference_Q_and_A_response__3-17-11.pdf

3. To listen or download the call audio track click the following link. The audio track has areas of lower quality {pops, etc.} toward the end, and is roughly 1 ½ hours long.

http://app4.websitetonight.com/proj...with_Slide_Intros__8_Mar_from_MP3_on_3-13.mp3


Best to all, and for those who attended – thank you very much, with a special thanks to George Braly for his efforts.


Lee B.
 
Last edited:
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

You will be hearing more from the Unleaded Avgas Transition ARC which has representatives from EPA, FAA and other interested groups including a rep from our Clean 100 Coalition (Jon Sisk). Attached is their first release. Despite the palliative message from EPA, it would be unwise to let down our guard or discontinue proactive efforts until the eventual proposed rules clearly reflect our need for a high octane replacement.

A cover note follows:


Jon Sisk, our representative at the Unleaded Avgas Transition ARC, asked that the following two slides from the EPA presentation at the first meeting be distributed. The message -- calm down, EPA isn't going to take action that will strand high performance piston engines.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

To the dedicated few who are representing not only COG, but also the uninformed majority of complex and high performace aircraft owners and operators:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS!

They are not going unnoticed and deeply appreciated.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Absolutely! And thanks for posting those details, Bill.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Participated in another Clean100 conference session and attaching an update on ARC activities from Jon Sisk. The unleaded avgas replacement rule making committee is steadily making progress as are the two independent fuel developers (Swift and GAMI). There will be a link forthcoming to the audio of the conference.

Clean100 is a group of high performance engine operators deeply concerned about the potential loss of 100LL avgas and COG is an active member of the Clean100 coalition. We have designated Jon Sisk (one of our Clean100 member/reps) to represent us during ARC meetings/sessions. (the federally chartered committee working the issue for ALL the stakeholders) Since organizations like AOPA and EAA have varied constituencies (experimental, LSA, turbine, etc.), they are not going to best represent our circumstance as high performance engine owners. Clean100 is the ticket to represent our specific concerns.

While you're waiting for the audio link, here are a few update docs for your review.

One item of interest,... the instigator of this issue (Friends of the Earth) who has been legally poking the EPA to shut down 100LL production/use, was invited to be a member of the ARC and refused to participate. Seems like they just threw a hand grenade into the room and then left the building to watch the mayhem from a safe distance. You would think if they were truly interested in working to develop a collaborative solution, they would want to participate in the process. Guess they are not willing to commit the time and money required to be involved in committee meetings... easier to stand on the sidelines and squawk.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Bill, good stuff, happy to have COG involved, thanks for all your efforts.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Good work. Glad you are involved on our behalf.
 
tx lee

i am also interested in what opinions are being formed about high perfor,amce engines able to run unleaded avgas as well as mogas..

personally i am very interested in the teo-540-ie2 or hopefully a future teo-580-ie2.

in holland avgas is now at 15 usd a gallon. so there is lt of interest for dieselengines and for the lsa aircraft running mogas. i expect mogas to become readilly available and any form of ul avgas to become available at an even higher price.

engines with modern electronics which can run anything is the way forward.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

A lot of interesting alternatives out there. I like the 2 cycle delta hawk diesel engine, currently putting out 200 HP. they have plans for 300 hp and 400 hp diesels as well. they are testing the 200 hp version on an SR20 right now. Currently Jet A is cheaper than 100LL just about everywhere and they say it'll run on diesel or bio diesel or jet A. As they point out most everywhere but the US, 100LL is very hard to find. I thinks this would be a wonderful replacement for the TO-360 in our 112TC's. In the meanwhile we all wait hopefully for a no lead replacement for our current engines. Nothing but benefits for the durability of our engines when we get the lead out.
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
 
Last edited:
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

In the UK the government taxes Diesel to make it more expensive than gasoline because of particulate pollution. 100LL is around £2.00 per litre here. Car petrol is £1.40 per litre. Car Diesel is £1.44. Jet A is about £1.00 per litre but if used for non commercial operations, the aircraft operator has to cut a check to the tax man for an additional £0.59 per litre in duty within 30 days. Jet A is still less expensive than AVGAS but who is going to pay or the development and certification costs for the modification of the whole range of Commanders, especially for the European certification for the small number on this side of the Atlantic?

100UL is the only cost effective way forward for us. It satisfies the environmental "Red Herring" and provides the power we need.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

the deltahawk looks promising as long as a 200hp reeally performs as a 200hp engine,

the sma diesel engines in the cessnas seem to perform a lot less..
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Bill excellent work thanks for acting well on behalf of us all.
 
I'm so depressed

I'm so depressed

Just reading through some news items in the UK and it appears that Total are introducing the UL91 product in the UK. The usual suspects on our local forums have been baying for the discontinuation of 100 octane fuels on the grounds that the UL91 is a bit less expensive. Unfortunately some airfield operators seem to agree as their club/school and rental fleets are able to run on it.

This could leave us isolated as the number of 100 octane airfields reduces. I think we may have missed the boat for 100UL over here as once UL91 becomes established it is possible that 100UL will be seen as a niche product which becomes very expensive and in limited availability.

The British pilot's attitude seems to be one of "I'm all right Jack". The majority do not own their aircraft and for those that do, the already astronomical cost of having an aircraft over here is driving their attitudes. We have a larger proportion of pilots here who do not fly long distances, treat it as a hobby, don't fly on business and don't need a "Capable" aircraft. Prices, in the last month for used aircraft, have dropped to unprecedented levels and the market is unbelievably slow.

I think the UK could end up a land of JetA/Mogas/91UL powered leisure aircraft, with pilots bimbling around looking for their next £100 hamburger.

I'm in a quandary here. I use the Commander for business travel, touring Europe and burger runs. I simply can't afford to walk away from it and start again. Outside of the smaller/slower spam cans which use UL91, everything else in the light category, the diesel burners, mogas burners are either impractical or astronomically expensive to purchase. The Commander is exactly right for me and my usage.

Someone on the Commander forum must be able to give me some hope????
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Hi Lawrence,
We formed a fuel club. We have a 15000 litre avgas tank in a secure container set up as an experiment by a company that is already operating in the fuelling business. This is no bowser. The bottom line is that it complies with all the legislation and it cuts out the middle man. Can supply you with details if the idea appeals to you. Our facility serves about ten aircraft with 100LL and we now make a very worthwhile saving.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

rob egph said:
Hi Lawrence,
We formed a fuel club. We have a 15000 litre avgas tank in a secure container set up as an experiment by a company that is already operating in the fuelling business. This is no bowser. The bottom line is that it complies with all the legislation and it cuts out the middle man. Can supply you with details if the idea appeals to you. Our facility serves about ten aircraft with 100LL and we now make a very worthwhile saving.
Click to expand...
sounds like a great idea, unfortunately we are based at fuel monopoly airfield. I'd still like to talk to you about it.
 
Re: Clean 100 Octane Coalition Updates

Sorry about the false alarm. We had the meeting and all but after releasing the transcript to the committee members, ARC pulled the plug on "public release" subject to some content vetting. Hopefully soon and the link will be re-published. For those that did catch it and Lawrence in particular, do not be unduly concerned about the "drop in" comments. The ARC has a very different definition of "drop in". As a result of this, your observations are misguided at this point and that is the reason for deleting all posts associated w/ the transcript. looking for a release in the next week or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top