• 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.

Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

N4843W

New member
SE MI
Aircraft Year
1977
Aircraft Type
114
Reg Number
N4843W
Serial Number
14173
This just announced:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...21070-1.html?ET=avweb:e2688:223151a:&st=email

Big deal that it is from Shell, who has the infrastructure in place. I love entrepreneurs and I would had to see the GAMI or SWIFT guys go down because a big gorilla entered the fray, but having Shell there sure legitimizes the search. Technology (almost) always comes through, and those pundits who have continually demised the end of AvGas may just find themselves eating some 100-no-lead soaked crow. There will be conspiracy theorists claiming Shell entered just to kill GAMI and Swift and I grant you that is indeed a possibility. Time will tell. Overall though, for now it seems a positive development.

p.s. only a decade ago the experts said there would never be a 200+ hp car with 30 MPG and next-to-nothing emissions, and now they are everywhere, even as much as 350 hp. Amazing how fast things can change.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

The key will be offering it for less than $7/gal. Kind of like alternative energy for 3x/KW hour... Not ready for prime time. Good first step though.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Interesting to note Shell wouldn't disclose the price per gallon but betting it will be a lot higher say 30% more than 100LL I am guessing, but a couple of other companies are working on a replacement for Avgas and might help with the pricing.

But I am not getting my hopes up as no matter what if Shell or others get approved the price will go up especially if any of these alternative fuels are approved, and 100LL is phased out we are all going to paying more at the pumps no matter what I think.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Shell said it would cost "about the same"
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

TEL is very expensive and so is the segregated storage and distribution required due to the lead. Also consider that unleaded fuel will allow for full synthetic oil, longer oil change intervals and no more corrosive lead salts in the oil and the real cost will be the same or less.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Ok they said "it predicts that its new product will be comparable in price to 100LL" but its December and don't believe in Santa Claus and betting against it as I said with a 30% higher cost than 100LL.

So my prediction is as follows if Shell gets there alternate fuel approved will be priced slightly higher than Avgas, once the FAA starts and implements a ban on 100LL and they will when an approved replacement is available from like Shell or others, the price will skyrocket is my prediction, and time will tell of course.

A better solution is Austroengine with there diesel technologies for the future of aviation, and much better solution if they expand there diesel engines models in the future I think.


http://austroengine.at
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Ok they said "it predicts that its new product will be comparable in price to 100LL" but its December and don't believe in Santa Claus and betting against it as I said with a 30% higher cost than 100LL.

So my prediction is as follows if Shell gets there alternate fuel approved will be priced slightly higher than Avgas, once the FAA starts and implements a ban on 100LL and they will when an approved replacement is available from like Shell or others, the price will skyrocket is my prediction, and time will tell of course.

A better solution is Austroengine with there diesel technologies for the future of aviation, and much better solution if they expand there diesel engines models in the future I think.


http://austroengine.at

I'm not saying I believe them, but that is what they're saying as of now.

I'm reminded of HL Mencken- "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I don't think there is a silver bullet here- electric, diesel, or drop-in 100LL replacement. I think it's combinations of the three.

We need a drop-in replacement, even as just a transitional option.

Diesel has a ton of promise, but I think the best option is going to come from one of the aviation-specific direct drive engines, not austro. The gear box is (and has been) a major issue.

Eventually I think we'll be looking at electric, but not until battery tech is revolutionized. Incremental improvements aren't even close to getting to the right weight/power ratio.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

The key will be offering it for less than $7/gal. Kind of like alternative energy for 3x/KW hour... Not ready for prime time. Good first step though.

I hope it is a lot less than that. An airport close to me is $5.55 and has been that price for many months. TX and some of the southern states have better prices than what I pay.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

The UL96 product already on sale in Europe is selling just about the same price or just a little less than 100LL, no use for the 112 fleet but is approved for the 114's engine.

This is probably the best aviation news I've had all year. I was on the point of despair as to where the future lay for high compression drivers with no viable alternative should the 100LL supply start to dry up over here.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

For those of you that don't know, the COG is a member of the Clean 100 Coalition - an advocacy group made up of aviation type clubs and their supporters whose members would be negatively affected by the elimination of 100LL. Our work, which involved quite a bit of lobbying & testimony in Washington, focused on advocating on a 100 octane replacement fuel suitable for all aircraft and all current delivery systems, and also for developing a fast-track for certifying a drop-in 100 octane replacement.

Most of the group's work was done 2-3 years ago but I think we were pretty effective and the COG did it's part with this important issue.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Glenn, Shell has been working on this for 10 years. Knowing the big oil way, I'll bet they already have done all of the certification testing and just dumped all of the test data on the FAA, with a request for approval. If so, it won't be that long.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Glenn, Shell has been working on this for 10 years. Knowing the big oil way, I'll bet they already have done all of the certification testing and just dumped all of the test data on the FAA, with a request for approval. If so, it won't be that long.

I'd say that's a pretty likely scenario- they waited until they were done to avoid tipping their hand that they were going for a fuel with full compliance of ASTM-D 910 and get the FAA to approve their formulation as an immediate drop-in replacement across the fleet.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Could be although I suppose they have the resources to do just about whatever they want on any timetable they'd like. I'm just grateful that talk about mogas and stupid ideas like de-rating the output on engines seems to be fading away.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Shell Oil announced on Tuesday that it has developed an unleaded 100-octane piston-engine fuel to replace 100LL and hopes to achieve certification of the product within two to three years. Although the company has no hard numbers on pump price, it predicts that its new product will be comparable in price to 100LL.

Tim Shea, Shell’s VP for aviation fuels development, told AVweb on Tuesday that the fuel is the culmination of a 10-year internal research project to find an unleaded 100-octane fuel, a problem that has dogged the industry for more than three decades. Although Shell currently doesn’t directly refine piston avgas in North America, Shea said it intends to make the new fuel widely available, but he declined to describe any specific licensing terms. “Our plan is to make this fuel, once approved, widely available on a global basis. Whether that’s through Shell refineries or licensing, the plan is to make it available,” Shea said.

Traditional avgas is composed of what refiners call aviation alkylate, a blend of branched-chain hydrocarbons such as isopentane and isooctane which, of themselves, have high octane and good anti-knock characteristics. Refiners add a small dose of tetraethyl lead to boost octane to a bit over 100 to meet the requirements of ASTM fuel spec D-910. Tetraethyl was banned from automotive fuels during the 1980s and there’s pressure to remove it from aviation fuels to achieve new, more stringent air quality standards. Shea explained that Shell is using an aviation alkylate base with a blend of aromatic compounds to deliver a fuel with performance characteristics almost identical to 100LL.

“In our formulation direction, we started with what aviation gasoline looks like and then removed the lead. From there, the question was how do we maintain D-910’s physical properties while achieving the MON requirement for high-octane fuel? It’s fair to say it’s alkylate-based in its approach,” Shea said. If this approach sounds familiar, it should; General Aviation Modifications, Inc., one of two other companies proposing a 100LL replacement, is using similar formulation.

“A lot of the chemistry has been around, but what we’ve figured out is how to make the chemistry work in an aviation fuel. A lot of the existing molecules that people are well aware of struggle in aviation applications because when you use them, you really struggle with the low temperature properties of the fuel,” Shea explained.

To prove those properties, Shell will embark upon an intensive program that will include submission to ASTM International for a new piston-engine fuel spec. Shea said the new spec will be almost identical to D-910 in performance, but will vary slightly.

“In a physical property sense, we are extremely close. We meet every performance criteria and the two that we’re off, we’re off very slightly,” Shea said.

Following ASTM approval, Shell will submit its fuel to the FAA’s Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative program that emerged for the FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee for unleaded fuel last year. Last summer, the FAA asked for fuel candidate submissions from the industry and Shell’s new product represents the first major oil company to announce a candidate fuel. GAMI and Swift Fuels are already well along in testing, but haven’t formally submitted to the FAA yet.

We were surprised to learn that Shell has been working the problem for a decade, but it now thinks the timing is right to move the fuel quickly through the certification process. “The FAA timelines are a little bit longer than ours. We think we can commercialize this fuel quicker than what the FAA has currently laid out,” Shea said. Shell will concentrate its testing on materials compatibility, which is always a concern with high-aromatic fuels because of potential seal and o-ring swelling caused by high concentrations of compounds such as toluene and xylene.

For its initial proving, Shell enlisted two OEMs, Lycoming Engines and Piper, both of whom have done basic testing on the new fuel. “From a performance perspective, it appears to be the equivalent of D-910 100LL fuel. From a materials compatibility perspective, we haven’t seen anything on the engine. But it’s beyond Lycoming’s expertise to judge that,“ said Michael Kraft, general manager of Lycoming. Kraft said Lycoming is contracted with Shell to examine and test the fuel. The company has tested the fuel in its most octane-demanding engine, the TIO-540-J2BD. Piper has flown the fuel in a Piper Saratoga.

Kraft said for Lycoming to certify fuel usage on its engines, it will need an ASTM spec for a basis. “We’re watching to see what Shell’s next step is with regard to ASTM. That will give us something to work with,” Kraft said. With an ASTM spec in hand, engine approvals are relatively straightforward for Lycoming, but the issue isn’t as simple as that. Hundreds of airframe models will also have to be approved and everyone in the industry is hoping for some kind of blanket approval.

Shea said configuring refineries to make the new fuel is essentially an overnight process. “Then the question becomes does FAA grant blanket, fleet-wide certification that would allow everyone to essentially switch overnight?,” he adds. To get as close to that as possible, Shea said Shell wants to make its replacement fuel look at much like a D-910 avgas as possible.

And what of price? “It’s a bit early stage, but our early estimates are that it will be comparable to the current leaded product,” Shea told us. “Historically, if you look where unleaded fuels have come to displace leaded fuel, the cost generally goes up a bit, but it should be within a very reasonable figure,” Shea added.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

If they are able to come up with an unleaded alternative, will the cost of fuel be lower or higher generally?
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Expected to be generally higher. Drop in replacements also will need to fall within reasonable economic limits. For the newer members of the group, COG was represented on the national committee/group that previously worked on viable replacements for 100LL. You will find some archived posts on committee meetings and information.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Hey Jason do you also believe in Santa Claus? ;<)
How can it be lower all we can do is hope it's not too much higher.
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

Hey Jason do you also believe in Santa Claus? ;<)
How can it be lower all we can do is hope it's not too much higher.

Absolutely! :)

To defend my question (just a little), when I opened this thread, the first and only post displayed was David's. Not sure if the thread was then merged with a previous thread on the topic that was a couple years old. The next time I opened it, I was able to see the history of this topic that would have answered my seemingly "dumb question."

We can all only hope that the cost of any eventual substitute will be lower.

JD
 
Re: Potentially a Big Deal (Shell 100 No Lead)

I just revived this thread with an update, older posts would have been available, just depends where you click!
 
Back
Top