AOPA unleaded fuel demo Baron at 200 hours
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- If you’re not already an AOPA pilot, we’d love for you to join us. Learn more about our FREE* trial membership! www.aopa.org/t...
--
The AOPA unleaded fuel demonstration Beechcraft Baron’s year of flying with two different fuels is ending. The 1966 Beech C55 has logged about 200 flight hours using unleaded fuel in the left engine and avgas in the right. Join AOPA Pilot Editor at Large Dave Hirschman on a flight in the Baron to hear what we've learned.
--
Connect with us on social media!
Instagram: / flywithaopa
Facebook: / flywithaopa
Twitter: / flywithaopa
TikTok: / flywithaopa
LinkedIn: / verification
Check out our merch: pilotgear.aopa...
We’re AOPA, we keep flying safe, accessible, and fun for general aviation pilots, enthusiasts, and the general public by protecting, empowering, and supporting your freedom to fly. We are the most-recognized, go-to, one-stop, trusted preeminent resource for all things related to general aviation.
*This offer is only valid for first-time members and is limited to one AOPA Trial Membership. You must reside in the U.S. AOPA Trial Membership is available free for 3-months, a credit card and enrollment in automatic annual renewal is required at sign up and you will be charged for a full year of membership at $89 once your trial expires. 100% no risk trial - cancel at any time before the end of your trial to prevent charges.
Another note that is missed with the switch to unleaded. Manufacturers will be able to use oxygen sensors to trim fuel burn. This will greatly increase engine life.
And I think it will also make synthetic oil for piston engines possible. I remember reading that lead deposits sludging up the oil was the reason they went away. Would be nice to have the benefits of better lubricity and lower pour points in our aviation fleet.
Agreed! Ignoring the last 30 years of ICE innovation in materials, lubrication, and electronic control is pretty silly.
@@flynjay7178 i lean my engine when i set power and it stays exactly where i set it. Hows some electronics going to greatly increase engine life? Its not complicated to use the mixture lever.
@davefoord1259 where do you set the mixture lever on your car?
Edit: I wont be back. Point is cars had the same controls, it's insane to suggest they're better than modern computer controlled engines.
@@davefoord1259 The engine would adjust the mixture continuously during all phases of it running including idle and taxi. It will also always lean when possible and should never allow too lean mixture for given power setting. That would both save money and the engine.
Maybe we need to take a look at Rotax 4 stroke engines. They run 91 octane unleaded gas and normal automotive spark plugs. I have seen the inside of several with 2000 plus hours with no appreciable wear. The only reason we are still running the 1930’s Neanderthal tech engines in our certified airplanes is due to liability and lawyers. It is time to replace this old stuff.
I love seeing the cost of leaded Avgas as compared to the mogas I burn in my 912S Rotax powered aircraft, it makes me fee like I'm saving money! I fly on average 200 hours a year, and haven't burned a single drop of Avgas in over 20 years.
Lawyers and safety nannies are the worst. We could build an engine that is twice as reliable as an old Lycoming and the FAA wouldn't certify it. Yet we can keep building and rebuilding an extremely old design because it has been certified. It is crazy that we can't have better because better isn't good enough now but we can have worse because it was certified in the 40s when standards were lower.
@@kenmarchbanks4301 rasy to say about these engines. Since i was a lad ive seen continuously that the next big engine development or auto engine conversion is just around the corner.
Time has demonstrated this to be false. There have been failure after failure after failure. Sometimes crap engines, more often company goes bust and owners are left in limbo.
Rotax are an exception. They are a huge engine maker with great expertise and financial resources.
There are special requirements in aviation caused by propellor torsional resonances on the crank and gyroscopic loads. Have you seen the front crank bearing in a lycoming?
@@davefoord1259 any automotive conversion, with the exception of the corvair and volkswagen conversions, will require a gearbox to connect to the propellor. The gearbox will contain the big bearing you’re talking about.
@@soconnoriv you ever seen a gearbox with a 5 inch long plain bearing?
I’ve been running with swift UL94 almost exclusively in my Trinidad for about 200 hours now. Absolutely no difference noticed except for the fact that I no longer get fouled plugs. Borescope revealed no valve issues and compressions were all above 78 at my last annual 2 weeks ago. My IO540 has 980hrs total time I’ve probably averaged a 90%UL94 solution over the last 200 hours. I only fill with 100LL twice on long trips away from home. UL94 is my only option on my home field here in the Bay Area.
KRHV FTW!
Yea, everyone knows it runs cleaner, bla bla, the “valve seat wear” after 1500 hrs is the only thing that matters.
Fouled plugs with lead is too cold of a plug.
Sorry, but I have to laugh at 78 psi compression. These engines are almost as antique as a Model T. I recall the first time I checked the compression n my '69 T-Bird (back in '72), it was a nice healthy 215 psi. Consider that most car mileage averages at ~30 mph, due to stop and go. Lower average speed is considered severe duty and car engine mileage of 200k isn't much to brag about these days. 200k @ 30mph avg speed works out to ~6,700 hours. Aircraft engines typically operate within a range of about 400 rpm? (2k - 2.4k rpm - WAG) and can only manage about as many hours TBOH? That's just pathetic, unless you're the one rebuilding the engines...
@@carlbeaver7112 not 78 psi compression. The test is a cylinder leak test. 2 gauges separated by a calibrated orifice. You ste the first gauge to 80psi and connect the output of the orifice to the cylinder. The leakage flow at TDC causes a pressure drop across the orifice and you read that off the second gauge. A very good cylinder will be about 75 psi on the second gauge so 5 psi drop across the orifice.
The test identifies leaky valves or leaky rings or cracks way before you will see a performance degradation and you can determine where the leak is fairly easily.
Those big engines have a huge bore, 5 inches or so and a 390 cubic inch engine weighs 300 lb with all accessories, so theyre lightly built.
When the engine is old they get overhauled well before theyre worn out. This is because reliability is essential and the aircraft needs to make rated power on its last hour in service to mert the aircraft performance charts.
Also they pull them at 12 years regardless of hours.
One of the main modes of failure for these engines is internal corrosion. This is due to large blowby from the large bore and low utilisation. Not usually a problem if the aircraft is flown fegularly like most cars.
As a non-pilot (but long time aviation enthusiast) looking in from the outside, this is forty years later than it should be, but definitely better late than never. AvGas is a wonderfully high quality fuel. Decades ago I used to buy it for my dune buggies. I always loved the smell of it (probably the lead!), and it NEVER goes bad in storage. It runs GREAT in high performance, high compression engines. But, we never should have been spewing lead into our environment in the first place, and it needs to stop as soon as possible. This progress is truly wonderful news. I hope the new fuels are ultimately even better for aircraft owners than AvGas.
I fly my RV-10 extensively with 91 octane ethanol free Mogas. I always operate at lean of peak during cruise. I don't have any build up of deposits whatsoever on the valves, cylinder heads, sparkplugs or piston tops. My exhaust pipes are clean. I hate putting leaded gas into my plane but do it on X-countries.
You should retard the timing a few degrees when doing this. trust me on this.
Nice, but that's essentially another niche fuel. I haven't seen alcohol-free gas at a station in decades... with maybe one exception recently. The industry needs to face reality and tackle the engineering challenge of making planes run on true automotive gas. That means 91-octane gasohol.
@@jaba430 I did, Mogas burns faster than 100 LL. Instead of 25° I set my mag to 23°.
@@SoundOfYourDestiny I heard that the Brazilian Airforce flies their piston engine airplanes with E85. Not sure what modifications are necessary for that. Every marina has ethanol free gas. Our airport has it as well.
@@andik2329 that is excellent. If you add electronic ignition one day go to 20. If you do SDS is the ONLY good one available.
We're using E0 (Ethanol Free) 93 Unleaded MoGas in our plane. We are having a staining issue with the paint as well. It helps if you clean it up quickly, but inevitably we got yellow stains. EAA published a tip on using Goof Off Adhesive Remover Gel to get rid of exhaust and fuel stains. Will have to try that.
Awesome to see the aircraft in flight! We developed the valve stem measuring tool for that project to measure any valve seat wear. Keep it up!
Look forward to the sharing mentioned in the video. This is a great test platform.
This just confirms all the testing that Gami did. Good to see the real-world results match. When will G100UL be widely available?
It seemss many here have no idea that GAMI has 1000s of hours on thsi fuel. The sadly uniformed.
Given how everyone in the fuel supply chain prefers to stay the course, G100UL will probably only become available once several states ban 100LL, and it becomes too much hassle to maintain two big supply chains at once.
I REALLY appreciate their work on this issue. I know NO ONE wants leaded fuel and the mess it creates inside the engine fouling. Likewise, we need to know what happens with 100UL.
Similar to Jeremy, I have a lot of experience flying in airplanes (usually much larger) with the doors open for rapid egress. I have had doors pop twice. Once when I was a passenger in a Bonanza and the pilot was starting to treat it as an emergency and once as PIC coming out of BJC returning home from a mountain flying flight. In both cases I assured everyone aboard we were fine. At BJC my son was SIC and knows my history and if I was fine, he was fine. We landed, secured the door, and departed back to Chicago.
Thanks for the report - looking at those plugs, I'd say that you need to have a look at how you lean, and perhaps the fuel injection config. Looks like cylinder 2 is the only one running the right mixture. Cylinder 1 looks shamefully rich and oily. Can you show pictures of the 100LL side as well? Sure looks very rich to me. I'd be interested in what George has to say about this.
Thanks for the update!
My grandfather back in the late 70's mid 80's purchased a new Cadillac that was built for unleaded fuel but because lead fuel was still less expensive at the time he figured out a way to fill with leaded fuel. Not sure why he did this other than the cost savings. In the long run it cost a lot. Anyway he purchased a plastic tip conversion to allow leaded fuel to flow into the gas tank. Seems many people thought the same at the time. Keep in mind the nozzle size was a different size to prevent cross filling. Similar to how diesel and gas are different sizes today. Needless to say after about 50k miles the engine didn't perform well and by 70k was completely ruined. Now this is a bit of the opposite and maybe unleaded fuels have more lube in them than back in the 80's to allow the engine to perform with out issue. Time will tell how much wear will happen. What I do know is you don't want to run the opposite way lead into a unleaded engine. Since lead is a lubricant for the valves I would venture to say you will see premature wear in that area with your test. Thank you for testing interested to see the results over the long haul.
@@tfargher1 no, lead is not a "lubricant", this is the oldest of wives' tale. Lubricants aren't added to fuels either. Lead is BAD for engines, with the one exception of unhardened valve seats that can in fact suffer from microwelding and consequently seat recession, which lead seems to prevent. But that has been solved by just having hardened seats in all car engines since forever, and *almost* all plane engines. Any valve manufactured today is hardened, but Continental (I think?) didn't switch until like 10 years ago.
Well perhaps the yellow residue is a benefit in that it shows bladder leaks - I assume then both sides were actually leaking. If you find a way to clean it off please let us know, or does it stain paint permanently...
Had the “blue goo” for AvGas tank that was failing… it was mixing with the glue holding bladder into the wing… Having the fuel actually show the stain directly could have helped me address the problem sooner and not have to wait until it was all over the inside of wing and mixing with all the glue, etc. it was a mess to clean
That’s exactly why they dye 100LL blue🤦♂️
@@MrBe787 OMG - I never knew that - I had always assumed it was just to differentiate avgas from jet-a etc... and wondered why they picked such poor colors - i.e. if you put straw into blue, it would probably still look blue. Now it makes more sense.
@@rkm237 yeah, 100 LL Blue. 100 Regular is Green. 80octane mowgas is red. 115 is purple 👍
The black soot is normal when running mogas too. I think you get it with avgas as well but it's masked by the white dust from the lead. I would like to understand the chemistry behind the various fuels, to me the most sensible approach would be to remove lead from the blend that makes up avgas today, and then make the absolute minimal changes to that to get the octane back up to 100.
I would like to see oil analysis deltas between the two engines.
Did you confirm that both engines behaved identically on 100LL in terms of mixture settings and soot before starting the G100 test?
It kind of sounds like the G100 side is just running a touch too rich overall.
Looking forward to lead free fuels
Getting TBO raised from 2,000hrs to 2,200hrs will be a significant benefit for commercial operators. It will help offset the price of this fuel, and then some.
I have a feeling that when this is the only fuel we can get, GA pistons are going to die out... it will be diesel or Turbine... The idea that there will not be long term consequences for such a drastic change from the fuel our old engines were designed to run on is really short sighted... When you can show me a 300+ HP turbocharged engine that runs the FULL TBO (or even beyond) on this fuel in real world conditions (not a test cell), then and only then will I believe it is viable.
I've always been puzzled by the myth of leaded Avgas, since car engines have been unleaded for decades. I had a Japanese-made truck that I bought with 250,000 miles, and drove it to 500,000 miles, literally 20,000 hours of use, with NO OIL burn! And NO OVERHAUL. How can cheap car engines run on unleaded gas for so long without any problems, and yet the FAA says you MUST overhaul the engine after 1000 hours? Leaded gas appears to foul valve seals and spark plugs, so WHY is this still going on in GA? It's insane.
if you lean an aircraft properly there isn't ever really a problem with fouling. the FAA also doesn't say anything about forced overhauls at 1000 hours. Most tbo times are actually 1700-2000 hours and its not mandatory at all. I've never seen a flight school plane need to be overhauled at 1700 hours unless there was a problem developing. A majority of airplanes will exceed TBO. an aircraft cannot be compared to a little Japanese truck. you can't pull an airplane over when the engine fails. This ul fuel clearly creates a ton of soot so im sure fouling will be just as much of a problem maybe even worse. I want to see long term results. I wouldn't trust a 250k mile Toyota engine in an airplane. Thats another reason they overhaul so frequently. Just top prevent future issues/failures.
@@PatrickDuffy-u3s the FAA doesn't say that, a TBO is nothing more than a polite suggestion in part 91. And a bad suggestion for a well-operated engine that flies frequently.
As for the oil burn, cars are liquid cooled, so they have much tighter tolerances and thus less blow-by. Although some engines, like the Subaru EJ are notorious for burning oil like they run on it.
Aircraft engines run between 50% and 100% power continuously. Auto engines only see those power settings intermittently and are typically at a fraction of their output most of the time (miles).
@@jeffconstantine4341 On the flip side of it, aircraft engines run at lower RPM and produce much less power per cubic inch. For example, an O-200 makes 100 hp, that's 0.5 hp per cubic inch. A Toyota 2.5 has 153 cubic inches and makes 200 hp. 1.3 hp/ci.
@@jeffconstantine4341FIA WEC cars run at full throttle for 24 hours making wayyyy more power and somehow manage it on unleaded. This has been a solved problem, they need to switch away from leaded gas
The next plant AOPA uses need to have Lyomings on it. I really interested to know what effect the fuel will have on their cams and other internals.
Any oil samples taken to compare the unleaded oil against the leaded oil? That must soot from the unleaded is concerning and it can wreak havoc on bearings (think diesels). I’m wondering if the unleadeds soot will require more frequent oil changes to protect the engine.
Good point. I’d like to know the cause of the soot. What is not burning clean? Isn’t this the reason we are switching to this as we’ve tighten up on factories, cars and manufacturings release of soot. If it’s on the pipe and the plugs it’s in the air. Also wonder is there is any abrasives in in the soot. Will this cause bore scoring
Wow. You’re right, and that didn’t even occur to me. Thank you.
Black plugs is normal, check your car plugs. There is no issues with UL fuels in cars.
@@jaba430 This is not auto fuel. This is 100 octane - required to prevent pre-ignition in aircraft. I'm not sure what they use for the octane enhancement but it could cause different behavior from regular gasoline.
I’m into high horsepower cars. My plugs have never looked like this. When tuned correctly they will be light brown or even closer to white but never covered in “soot”.
I remember reading that the GAMI fuel is much denser than 100LL, so you need to flow a reduced flowrate to reach stoichiometric fuel air ratio. I know he references this at 3:00 but those plugs just look like there isn't enough leaning on that motor.
4:37 Is the unleaded fuel taking the paint off?
Good news, is there also an alternative on the way for the warbirds? Will for instance a P&W R1830 run on this fuel as well?
It’s amazing how the most reactionary dinosaur industry in the US, Automotive, is 30 years ahead of GA.
Was hoping for more info... valve recession or any abnormal findings on valves? Will that soot on the spark plugs require extra maintenance? Will I start failing magneto tests on runups more often? If it is so staining, can it leave deposits in fuel lines or injectors?
Soot build up is not a real problem, even if you get an unusual result on mag check, just run it at high power for a minute and recheck. It clears up, unlike lead fouling.
Yeah, interested in compression test results and borescope differences
I ran my Cherokee 235 for about 7 years on 87 Mogas. It ran cleaner and had no problems. This was a Lycoming O-540 B4B5 at 235 HP. Why the need for 100 octane? I see notes that compare 100 octane, but what about regular Mogas or 91 octane Mogas?
The automotive industry has been running unleaded for 50 years. What's taking GA so long?
Faa certification the costs associated with it.
Car had to get rid of leaded due to catalytic converter, for obvious reason... some airplane engine doent have hardened valve seat so still need lead and yeah paperwork
@@ItsJust2SXTs- it’s all about the money. GA is such a small contributor compared to automobiles that the FAA, and probably insurance companies, exempted it from EPA rules regarding lead. With lead emitters so far and in-between now, EPA is targeting small sources. Unhardened valve seats? Solved rather quickly, both as new builds and repairs) in the automotive world so it’s not a technical problem. The only troubling issue I see is with forced-induction engines. SOMETHING has to take the place of lead to prevent detonation during high-load situations. I can see not wanting ethanol but there aren’t many other choices found in general use. Xylene would work very well but it’s a ring molecule which presents a soot problem.
@@roberts1677 all car engines are made for 20% cont. pwr. !! Run a car engine with 75% and it will never be the same ( pwr. Loss , oil burn )
Or run it 60% in 10000 feet on lean mixture !
What's the difference in chemical composition responsible for the staining?
How are those valve seats looking considering Continental released a statement that there could be catastrophic damage in as little as 10 hours
I would like to hear more information on engine impact. Assume that's coming out in AOPA Mag? Also, with 100UL, it seems you could switch to synthetic oil which would have other benefits for engine longevity...Look forward to hearing more details...
You gonna go first and change the fuel AND oil that you put in your aircraft and risk an expensive bill if there are some unknowns?
I'm looking forward to finally running it in my plane, too bad it isn't available yet. I wonder how it is going to work on the Janitrol heater with the black soot on the spark plugs and exhaust stack? Right now the heater runs so rich that even with avgas it leaves soot stains.
How is leaded fuel not banned yet?
Uuuh...because it hasn't been proven yet in all areas of GA use? Try and keep up with current events.
@@postulator890 what is meant by proven? Just don’t understand why aircraft small engines still rely on d designs using leaded fuel. It’s toxic for the mechanics and fleet staff maybe even harmful to the environment.
Why would it be banned? Av gas is a miniscule contribution to world wide pollution, and how many people do you know with lead poisoning? I've only known one person with elevated blood levels of Pb- my friend was a gold assayer and spent years around a furnace melting lead. It is someone in search of a non-problem. Synthetic Av gas will be $20/gal once 100LL goes away. Look at the cost of fully synthetic oils...
@@billroberts9182it has proven negative health outcomes. Children that grow up near GA airfields have been proven to have significantly elevated lead levels and also have way higher rates of cognitive problems. Leaded gas is horrible, it should be banned because we have the tech to get rid of it.
I’m running regular with ethanol in my Lycoming 0 320 .🇨🇦
What does the top of the piston look like?
Don’t lie. It’s going to be a disaster for GA 😂
Did both engines have GAMI fuel injectors and were they run LOP with the same GAMI techniques?
I am interested. I run my turbo charged TSIO-520-B's LOP with Game injectors. Can you run a turbo charged engine on this fuel?
This I find is funny.....
Unleaded fuels have bern around for over 30 years now..
Automotive engines are the leaders in engineering
Aero engines are not very efficient.
Engineers that design engines know what needs changing when lean is removed.
Gasoline determines the combustion temperature.
Lead provides protection to the valve face and seats.
Lead fouls spark plugs hence why aviation ran magnetos.
To me as a engineer the swap to unleaded fuel is easy.
Inconell exhaust valves
Harder leaded style valve seats
Platinum or iridium sparkplugs and either the standard or cdi ignition system.
You can still run the Standard fuel system either carb or injection.
As aero piston engine are extremely low compression detonation is normally pilot caused .
These mods are easily carried out in the aircraft's normal overhaul schedules and are not much more expensive over the original parts...
Two things holding it back are Americans who hate change and the faa to get it certified
Amen brother, as a fellow engineer it really bugs me. So easy and so simple but so much foot dragging and political garbage.
@jacobd1432
Too many kickbacks from Textron to keep it all old technology
“All that you have learned”? Other than a bit more soot, what exactly is it that you have learned? Roll the stuff out and quit stonewalling.
Right? I thought this video was going to share more about what they learned beyond some soot.
Is UL the IPV6 of aviation? I'm of the IT world and am working towards getting into aviation, so the notion is humorous to me
200 hours is too short a time to reach any definitive conclusions. Keep testing. I’ll be real interested to see how the engine holds up closer to TBO.
What? As an A&P. At 200 hours engine trends have already started. And at this moment, the tests the have been doing are fine.
N@@jimnycricket2322true. Any engine will show signs early on, plus they are operated at full throttle very often. It would be interesting to see how valvetrain components hold up over 1,000 hours....
Tbo would take years to get to, and like mentioned before you can already see the wear trends on the engines and extrapolate form that what it should look like at down the road. If you are worried about any kind of valve damage it should have shown up by now.
@@MrSixstring2kUse a flight school.
All your looking for is valve and seat wear, buildup on these components, and A/F ratios. I agree that 200 hours is a pretty short test, though I can see that in a flying situation. If it all looks good put it back together and run it to 1k and see what you have. They are just glorified VW motors. 😆😆
Is it safe to say that you’re testing a non led based octane booster more than you are testing a non lead based fuel?
Was the paint around the fuel cap already missing before your test program? Was the underside of the G100UL wing already heavily discolored or is that all from your program? What did the 100LL side look like? You were flying in the winter, so you were probably using FSII, fuel system icing inhibitor (Hiflash Prist). If so, did the facility have preblended fuel or a proper into-plane injection set up? The OSHA dictated switch to DiEGME (hiflash Prist) from EGME (old Prist) led to significant problems with fuel bladders because it is not suited for splash blending.
Just because it does not contain TEL does not mean it is OK to breath the fumes or have skin exposure. If it attacks paint like that, it would likely be equally hard on your skin. None of the high-octane unleaded candidates are pure hydrocarbons. They all contain potentially hazardous blending components.
I fly a Cessna T310R. Have you tested this fuel on Turbo'd Engines?
I guess Dave doesn't remember that when cars switched to unleaded the tailpipes changed from light brown to black also.
What is the main difference between 100UL and ethanol free no/rec gas? Other than octane
Well to be honest, it should not be a big of difference. The lead was basically only helping the valves and to overcome that you have to do cushins for the valves and the engine should not be having any problem , the same like the leaded cars. Basically the big doffrence was that the old valve cushins would tend to make that klacking noice and with lead it runs quieter. So i think it schould be no problrm at all tu run most of the engines on unleaded eventually you need an add on from liquy moly or similar wich you ad all so and so hours to help the engine parts
What about the cost difference?
Right now G100 is more expensive, but that would decrease once production is ramped up.
Just need more testing like this. What I heard was, sadly, identified multiple issues with no lead but you WILL have to comply soon. As an aircraft owner, I’m not thrilled.
What issues? The video doesn't mention any, except maybe the yellow staining.
The "issues" called out is the video are cometic, not airworthiness issues.
How much does the new fuel weigh per gallon?
same
According to GAMI's FAQ on their website it actually weighs slightly more, which gives it slightly more energy/volume. Also, since the optimal air/fuel ratio is a mass ratio (mass of fuel compared to mass of air) it would make sense that it needs to be leaned a little more than 100LL to avoid running too rich, all other things being equal...
This isn’t a test of the fuel at this stage of the game, as it’s already been fully tested, it’s a test of us GA pilots patience with AOPA and the industry as a whole. It’s embarrassing that we still burn lead. It’s embarrassing how much public money has been wasted. It’s embarrassing that you think we are all a bunch of stooges and don’t realize that these long delays are simply about profiteering. My patience has run out. Membership has been cancelled. Sh** or get off the pot.
General aviation of the gasoline piston variety is not 1/10 of one percent of fuel burned in this country. This is a discussion that doesn't need to happen. Switching to unleaded will just take six dollar fuel to eight or higher. This side of GA is in point of fact dying. The only thing growing in GA are private jets and light sport. Leave it the F alone. Very few can afford to fly now.
My Rotorway says 100LLwill reduce engine life in half too. Curious to see what happens when you tear these engines down.
What about stability of the fuel and run when the tanks sit for 2 weeks at 25F (like in the Midwest)?
Stability is the #1 concern for every airport manager! Yet no one is talking about this. Most small GA airports can't refresh their fuel supply quickly so they will likely be forced to keep smaller quantities which increases delivery costs. UL fuel is quite unstable just like mogas (nearly the exact formula). It has about a 3 month shelf life depending on storage temperature and humidity before a noticeable depreciation in btu. Most stabilizers will be a no-no for engine manufacturers. Every stabilizer on the market also decreases btu's.
I know this is the future but the FAA has stifled every component of aerospace R&D to the point where we are half a century behind the ball! This could have been solved in 1970!
I love flying. But the leaded fuel was one of the environmental concerns contributing to my decission not to get a pilot licence. Recently I started lessons in a Pipistrel Velis Electro. I hope the aviation industry will adapt more sustainable aviation fuels as well as electric flying soon as possible.
Seriously, you need to fly video games only.
@rolfhelder7771: I am pretty intelligent and have been around Av Fuel my whole life. I just wonder how many more IQ points I would have had if I had not flown planes? Sarc off. Now for facts. Years ago when autos ran leaded fuel, AV Gas was maybe 1-2% of the overall lead in atmosphere. As unleaded fuel became prevalent in motor vehicles, the amount of lead that Av Gas contributed to stayed the same, but the percentage went up until GASP! It is now THE major pollutant. OMG! The children! Remember we were all children when we were eating lead paint off window sills, but still managed to put people on the moon. No, the real problem certainly with Reid Hillview and Santa Monica is that land developers would love to have that prime real estate to develop and the city gubments would love to have the tax base that will come with homes and businesses. Please make no mistake. this is NOT about lead pollution. It is merely the vehicle that monied interests want to use to pry the land away from us. ALWAYS follow the money.
@@rolfhelder7771 admirable, but sadly misguided. Huge batteries full of lithium are even less sustainable than hydrocarbons. Though in your defence, the auto industry and politicians spend a lot of time and money convincing people otherwise, because it's more profitable than reducing car dependency.
LOL.
Stability is the #1 concern for every airport manager! Yet no one is talking about this. Most small GA airports can't refresh their fuel supply quickly so they will likely be forced to keep smaller quantities which increases delivery costs. UL fuel is quite unstable just like mogas (nearly the exact formula). It has about a 3 month shelf life depending on storage temperature and humidity before a noticeable depreciation in btu (guaranteed pre-detonation). Most stabilizers will be a no-no for engine manufacturers. Every fuel stabilizer on the market also decreases btu's (will significantly increase the risk of pre-detonation if used).
I know this is the future but the FAA has stifled every component of aerospace R&D to the point where we are half a century behind the ball! This could have been solved in 1970! On August 23, 1958 we were forced to remain flying Neanderthals forever!!!
In Avgas supply, some airports in Canada go to 50USG drums try to get rid of quality control issues and control shelf life better. Problem: you open the drum and it is yours to pay in full.
In the USA, the liability is a huge issue. The relatively small amount of fuel sold and the small number of engines - nobody will take a big risk to invent new engines / fuels for relatively small income. I guess that 15% of the cost for a substitute fiel will go not liability insurance.
What I can tell already as a world - wide operating pilot: the avgas situation outside US/Canada is already bad. High prices (typically $12 pr USG) would be acceptable but in many areas there is just NO avgas available!
On the last ferry flight I had to pre-order a 50 USG drum for $2,000 (!) to be trucked to an airport. That was in Africa.
No, the approved GAMI fuel is not nearly the exact same as mogas. If it were, it would have been easy for all the different groups trying to come up with UL fuel. It is a type of hydrocarbon fuel generally in the class of gasolines but no, it’s not mogas.
Last week I came across our old Coleman camping stove that had been left about half-full of unleaded gas. I poured it out into a clean can. It looked ok and smelled normal. I put it into my empty edger to see how it would perform. It started and ran normally for about 30 minutes before I shut it off. The last time we used that stove was sometime prior to 1998. Pretty surprising. I wouldn't use it in a car or plane, but I wonder if the shelf life concerns are a bit overstated.
AOPA is doing the Lord’s work!
What about the valves? Isn’t that the big question with G100UL? I thought Mike Busch was developing a method to accurately measure any valve seat recession on this plane. Any results?
there will not be any valve recession. That is an old wives tale.
Read the Aviation Consumer report on G100UL in the March 2024 issue. BTW -Read what Mike Busch says about leaning for taxi in all airplanes (the Soot is most likely from taxi back after landing with too rich of a mixture).
The soot on the UL side is concerning, but if it's not impacting reliability or performance, is it really an issue?
It is normal. Check any car on ULP, they are black also. Avgas has TEL and that makes a different colour.
Soot is nothing compared to lead fouling, and yet no one on the 100LL side is particularly concerned. Soot burns off if you lean properly.
Read the Aviation Consumer report on G100UL in the March 2024 issue. BTW -Read what Mike Busch says about leaning for taxi in all airplanes (the Soot is most likely from taxi back after landing with too rich of a mixture).
Probably got a lot more corrosion in that unleaded side
Very interesting presentation. The black soot on the plugs is surprising. I would think the low lead would burn cleaner. I wonder if more frequent plug maintenance would be necessary on low lead fuel ?
The soot was from No lead ( unleaded ) not the low lead 100LL Av gas
no, check your car plugs.
Why are the spark plugs covered in soot?
Because they're not covered in lead deposits?
Same as your car, they are not covered, as in fouled. They are just black not grey
@@roberthenry6732 I don't agree. There should be no soot on the plug. Soot is carbon deposit and that to me is just another kind of fouling.
Why didn' you show the staining and plug condition from the 100LL side?
Because there was none lol.
I would have like to have seen compression numbers, borescope pictures, oil analysis reports, etc
Same. I’m thinking that’ll come later, or an in depth written report.
I'm wondering why I watched this video. 7:26 of wny we are doing this with not much in terms of findings. Get back to me when you have something of interest to report. (BTW: using original fuel bladders? Really?)
"flew extensively" -only 200 hours after an entire year
What tests were done on composite planes such as the Long-Ez? Will this fuel attack the epoxy over time?
Only if there is methanol in the fuel
@@flexairznot strictly true, several candidate fuels in the abortive precedessor to EAGLE could strip paint in seconds, so it's not an unreasonable concern. Methanol is not the only thing that can attack composites.
It doesn't particularly matter what GA pilots think of unleaded fuels. Leaded aviation fuels have resulted in alarming levels of lead in children living around airports, and this must stop.
It actually hasn't.
It cannot be overstated how important it is to get lead out of the air around the country. I almost do not care what it takes to get planes modified to support it. We've already seen too many experiments demonstrating unleaded can be used in the air just fine and now we just have to deal with the ageing aircraft.
5:15 patched and treated gas bladders from the 70’s 😂 yeah step one throw them out
It takes a lot of time to explain this episode. Get to the point.
No one is talking about COST … making a suitable fuel is not that difficult if you have no consideration for costs. Burning the fuel is the easy part; making it practical and economical is the bigger challenge. I see so many articles about fuel quality and almost nothing about its practical distribution and related pricing.
It is slightly more expensive, but you use less.
There is no realistic cost to discuss as long as everyone who can do so continues to do their damnest to prevent G100UL from gaining any sort of distribution network. It's almost as if there's a financial incentive for the existing players here.
@@jaba430 Thank you responding. Do you have a good source for cost information? I haven’t seen any reliable reports or analysis of costs.
@@barblargh There is clearly a financial incentive for GA pilots, as the new fuel is sure to be more expensive. My concern is that it might be VERY expensive.
@@jaba430 it's a wash as to how much it burns per hour vs100ll from what I have read. so, it's more expensive it stains and damages paint and creates a ton of soot. I was hoping to see a reduction is soot and fouling but there doesn't seem tom be much of a benefit right now. waiting to see the long term results.
Why would you go through all the trouble of testing and not start with new bladders? Makes me question what else was overlooked while "testing".
So basically we’re doing nothing to fight this? I’m a little confused… I didn’t learn anything here. I would like to see what this do through the life of an engine. What happens to those of us flying engines that are not STC’d for UL fuels?
@@PropFlier why on Earth would you want to fight this? Are you actually the villain from Captain Planet?
@@barblargh maybe I’m ignorant, but what happens to all the GA airplanes that are not approved for unleaded fuel?
@@PropFlier G1000UL is approved for all certified engines. Yes, an STC is required, but that's frankly a ridiculously low barrier for entry, considering GA had 30 years to adapt and didn't. It's no different than an AD in my view.
@@barblargh so it’s approved but still requires an STC, correct? While I know STC’s aren’t hard to obtain, I think the main concern for me is how this will do long term in engine performance/longevity. Doesn’t the lead help with engine lubrication? I’m not a mechanic, so I just know what little I know.
…and btw, I’m not the villain.
@@PropFlier correct, approved but STC required. And no, lead is not a lubricant, it's a really old myth. The "lubrication" is about valve seat recession, which lead does prevent in unhardened seats, but that's why all valves made have hardened seats nowadays. *Everything* else about lead is BAD for the engine, including causing other problems with valves. Not to mention that it's, y'know, lead and is terrible for everything and everyone. There's no reason pilots should ever want to keep using leaded fuel if any practical alternative exists. It's precisely the "I don't know anything about it, so I should fight to keep using lead" reaction that makes it look like you enjoy pollution for its own sake.
Is anyone real-world testing the new fuel in “sitting in tank a few weeks or more” ?
lol they are by flying it 200 hr per year 😂
100LL is not safe at any level. It should have been banned decades ago. Glad to see AOPA leading through testing and sharing the results.
What data shows that 100LL is not safe? Show us data. Opinions don’t count for much.
Yeah dude lead is not good for you it’s pretty common knowledge.
100LL is about two grams per gallon while unleaded gas at the pump during the seventies was about 2.8 g per gallon. 100LL still has a fair bit of lead in it and is not all that safe.
@@jsmith4993please cite your source, automotive leaded fuels have never hada higher concentration that 100 "low lead". The LL in "low lead" is actually just a "lesser lead (than what it replaced)" the lead in automotive fuels also shrunk to miniscule levels before it was removed entirely
I need you to cite your source. Just google lead concentration of auto gas over time and lead concentration 100LL. There’s info everywhere you can use.
Yes, lead is not safe, at any concentrations, in any form. It’s not safe to breathe (when it is burned) or touch (even dissolved in a liquid).
So how fast does that soot build up on the plugs/exhaust? Is there extra maintenance because of that? If the spilled fuel on the paint is wiped off immediately is it okay or does it damage the paint regardless?
No....the plugs are black like auto plugs go.
Well I have to say I didn't learn anything from watching this video.
Really surprising you say nothing about cost? Assuming you're not paying for your flying...like the rest of us? Maybe just no cost data as yet?
Good video but the music was annoying.
Am I hearing properly this BIG change has not really been tried and proven besides what your showing here?
Has GAMI figured out what they're going to do with experimental aircraft? It's kind of hard to get an STC for an aircraft that doesn't have a type certificate to supplement.
If it's experimental, why'd you need an STC? That's the whole point of experimental category.
@@barblargh The owners of GAMI have stated that as G100UL rolls out, the FBOs that have it will be under contract to only sell the fuel to airplanes that have the STC, even if they are experimental or Light Sport. They have been told repeatedly that getting an STC for those types of aircraft are impossible, but they keep doubling down on their answer. It seems as though they never considered this in their business model or they only care to sell the fuel to people who own piston light twins. None of the FBOs that have expressed interest in selling G100UL have said they will purchase a third tank to house the fuel, meaning it will be a replacement for 100LL at those FBOs, meaning an experimental or Light Sport won't be able to get fuel there.
@@peteranderson037 I haven't heard of that, do you have a link?
Hopefully it’s better than UL94. Many operators experienced valve issues.
And how many decades has the FAA been looking at this???
This video is GARBAGE, they never tell you what the results are.... its just AOPA clickbait.
Fuel bladders from the 1970's.... you know what they also started making in the 1970s? Unleaded fuel. I have no sympathy for the companies that have refused to change anything for 50+ years. FAA should remove the ability for engine manufacturers to certify overhauled 100LL engines after x date 3-5 years in the future. That way engines that are still in time limits still can be used, not forcing anyone to get a rebuild early. But when overhaul is going to happen anyway, they switch to whatever unleaded solution lycoming and continental suddenly figured out how to make it work, will be install during the overhaul.
GAMI did an incredible job bringing this fuel to the market. Unfortunately, due to FAA inertia, opposition from petroleum companies with deep pockets for lobbyists, and the practical realities of getting local airports and FBOs to order and stock unleaded fuel, it is almost certain that G100UL will go nowhere until 100LL is banned outright.
Unfortunately G100UL is not a suitable aviation fuel.
What is the point of the irritating background music? Ditch the noise. Isn't it time you switched to proper fuel management and dragged these antiques out of the 30s. It's a quarter of a century since cheap cars switched to fuel injection and got rid of mixture controls.
I’m envisioning more and more unexplained engine failures/loses of power.
@@marlow769 based on what exactly?
The root problem is that aircraft engine technology is so far behind automotive engine technology.
I don't see any exhaust valve lash measurements in this 'demo'. THE MOST IMPORTANT impact and concern of running unleaded fuel in an air-cooled piston engine is accelerated exhaust valve/seat erosion due to the absence of the dissimilar metal buffer provided by the lead deposits in 100LL on the exhaust valve seat and face. This demo would have been the ideal opportunity to have measured exhaust valve lash on both engines at the beginning and at the conclusion of the evaluation and compared any differences. A borescope evaluation of exhaust valves and seats cannot produce any useful results. A borescope will only be useful to observe a burned or damaged exhaust valve. 200 hours is barely enough time to find any conclusive results. Please keep flying the demo. I predict that somewhere between 400 to 600 hours the left engine will have at least one burned exhaust valve.
There is a decided 'head in the sand' attitude in the GA press towards running unleaded fuels in air-cooled piston aircraft engines.
Good content, but "music" track while Dave is speaking is unhelpful.
Pb in av gas is a non problem compared to the problem of Government censorship and censorship partnership with legacy media and big tech. Our freedoms are melting away-and I can almost guarantee the new synthetic pb free fuel will cost $20/gallon. Due to Government regulations in Europe there is almost no general aviation there. Only Government, big business, and rich people. Ask yourself, how many people do you know with Pb poisoning?
Children near GA airfields have elevated lead levels, perhaps you could ask them? Dude this is such a simple problem to fix. Leaded gas is bad, let’s just get rid of it the tech has existed for 50 years now
@@jacobd1432
"The study, by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, found levels (lead) to be within the range the federal government considers normal, and didn’t prove that living near an airport caused the increase in blood lead levels, though levels declined consistently as the distance from an airport increased, reaching the state average at about two miles out.
The researchers also didn’t have enough blood samples to show whether lead levels were particularly high near any of the airports, though the data didn’t suggest any difference, said Dr. Ned Calonge, the department’s chief medical officer."
While I don't know how expensive synthetic fuel will be, I'm confident it will be more than conventional av gas. Go price synthetic oils vs. single grade aviation oil. (like $24/gallon). Then there is the issue of engine damage at altitude or with varying temperatures (like Alaska). I think lead poisoning is worrisome to many people because we now have analytical instruments that typically report in parts per BILLION. Mercury is in the same category. No one wants to have mercury or lead poisoning, but for our modern civilization (with lead free paint now being used) it is really a non-problem. EPA types rub their hands in search of a perfect world. The lead added to av gas is not superfluous component but a necessary component as I'm sure you know. I do respect your opinion. And by the way- it is not a simple problem to fix! There are consequences to synthesizing chemicals- probably many of which we currently don't recognize.
If you would not raise your children in a house with lead paint or pipes, why would you put leaded fuel in your airplane and go flying around your house?
Put your money where your mouth is AOPA, get some fuel for sale in your own backyard at FDK
Black spark plugs? Yea, it's carbonizing really bad. That WILL damage the engine in the long run. Now I understand why some schools are complaining about engine failure because UL 100.
The only school I am familiar with doing the testing and stopping was running UL94 not GAMI UL100!
The biggest gripes are soot in the tailpipe, and staining. Like 100LL doesn't leave blue stains on the floor of hangers or on the paint of wing if you don't wipe it off? Come on now...
13 GPH with 100LL (or 12.5 GPH with G100UL) is still too rich! I’d lean it even further.
That will very likely make the tail pipe cleaner too.
Uhhh... doesn't that depend on rpm and MP too?
@@charleybrown1592not really, if you're running lean, then by definition fuel is the deficient ingredient in the combustion process. Adding more air by opening the throttle wider won't really change much.