Hawkesbury Promo

 

 

To advertise on this site, contact NPereira via the website messaging sytem or by phone 819-665-4844


Web Links

To Add more links here, send a private message to nprereira

Student References
Avinca Ground School Ltd
TC Aeronautical Inf. Manual (TC AIM)
Can. Aviation Regul. (CARs)
Study and Reference Guide - TP12880E
Restricted Operator Cert Study Guide
TC Flight Test Guides
Robyns PSTAR Guide
PSTAR exam site
Learn to fly a pilot's vlog


Ultralight References
Ultralight reference site
UPAC Ultralight Pilots Assoc.
UPAC Classifieds


General
OurAirports airport refence site
Franktown Weather Radar
Controller (Aircraft for Sale)
NavCan Wx
OttawaPilots.ca Poster PDF Print and post
SkyVector North American Charts


Navigation Aid
CAC Airport Charts

Rockcliffe Related
RFC HomePage
RFC Club Policies


OFC Related

OFC Main Site
OFC Booking Page


Send a Private message to npereira if you would like to see specific links to OFC.

UserBox

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

Author Topic: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?  (Read 21586 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ckiff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #45 on: July 18, 2010, 09:49:17 PM »
If Lycoming doesn't do the STC (which would be silly on their part to not if 94UL is the future fuel of choice), a third party could do the STC. It would likely just involve some running tests and performance tests on their engines to prove it would work just fine.
Chris Kiff
ATPL / Class 1 Instructor / Ex-RFC Instructor / Current Airline Pilot

Offline jfdoyon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #46 on: July 19, 2010, 09:23:11 AM »
Would an STC necessarily be the way to go?

AFAIK the switch to 100LL from 80/87 was done without STC, no?

But there are requirements for STC's for MOGAS.  Not sure how it works legally ... or what the difference is there.

Might be ASTM compliance? If 80/87 and 100LL are both compliant to the same standard, then all is well.  They are both referred to as avgas, but MOGAs isn't.

If 94UL is avgas (i.e. ASTM compliant) then it is still better than the 80/87 originally used for certification, so you may not need to do anything to use it legally, other than maybe have an official service letter from the engine manufacturer or something like that allowing it.

pcarscallen

  • Guest
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #47 on: July 19, 2010, 04:56:59 PM »
Quote
If 94UL is avgas (i.e. ASTM compliant) then it is still better than the 80/87 originally used for certification, so you may not need to do anything to use it legally, other than maybe have an official service letter from the engine manufacturer or something like that allowing it.

If you need a letter from the manufacturer they are going to have to certify the engines to be compliant with 94UL.  I would think this would then cost the owners some money as STC's are not generally given away for free  ;D.  Most of the literature I have read does contain the words "certification" so to me this means some sort of formal trials.

Offline jfdoyon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #48 on: July 19, 2010, 05:08:51 PM »
OK, so the question remains, how did 100LL become "certified" without STC's?

I'm pretty sure it's the ASTM certification ... Not FAA/TC certification.  The FAA simply relies on the ASTM process ... that's why GAMI is submitting its fuel (G100UL) to the ASTM process as we speak.

Apparently the ASTM spec lists 80/87, 100 and 100LL as compliant fuels, which would explain how 100LL came to be ...

pcarscallen

  • Guest
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #49 on: July 19, 2010, 05:38:51 PM »
An STC is for after market modifications so when the engines where first developed they were made with 100LL and 80/87 in mind.  Nowadays STC's are for anything from increasing your useful load to the use of mogas. 
In fact if you wanted to you could develop a modification and then apply for the original STC and then anyone who wants to use your mod has to buy it from you.


Offline jfdoyon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #50 on: July 19, 2010, 08:24:18 PM »
When my O-320 was designed, 100LL didn't exist!

The type certificate for my airplane says 80/87 actually.

I've yet to find any reference to an STC to support 100LL vs. 80/87 however.

Offline ckiff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 208
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #51 on: July 19, 2010, 11:02:50 PM »
It may have come out as a bulletin at some point that there is an umbrella certification for O-320s to accept 100LL. I can't recall every AFM I've read for planes I've flown, but just about every one has the fuel types accepted in the limitations section of the AFM, meaning it must be adhered to. Maybe you're missing an update?
Chris Kiff
ATPL / Class 1 Instructor / Ex-RFC Instructor / Current Airline Pilot

Offline Nicolas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 659
  • Gender: Male
    • BVQ's website
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #52 on: July 19, 2010, 11:43:43 PM »
I have a copy of the "TYPE CERTIFICATE DATA SHEET NO. A11EA" for my plane.  So far as I can tell it is revision 10, dated May 12, 2000.

Under fuel specifications it lists the following:
Quote
80/87 minimum grade aviation gasoline

Maybe pigpen can give us some input, Im sure he fondly remembers the days of red gas.  I've only ever heard about it.

[edit]My airplane runs an O-235-C2C low compression, the AA1C variants run the O-235-L2C high compression engine designed for 100LL (same engine as the C152) and therefore the type certificate for it states
Quote
100/130 minimum grade aviation gasoline
Nicolas Roome
C-FBVQ 1970 American Aviation Yankee

Offline Tony Hunt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
  • Gender: Male
    • Husky Pilot
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #53 on: July 20, 2010, 02:16:39 AM »
The POH and the Type Certificate usually states the "minimum grade aviation fuel" permitted.  Lycoming also publishes an Engine Operators Handbook for each engine type and variant.  The Lycoming handbook for the O-360 states "Aviation Grade Fuel" with a minimum grade of 80/87, 91/96 or 100/100LL depending on the engine variant.  My O-360-A1P can run on 91/96 or higher, so I use 100LL.  Higher compression engines require higher grades, so the IO-360 requires a minimum grade of 100/100LL.  If you want to use a higher grade of fuel than the minimum grade in the Type Certificate, you don't need an STC, you are covered by the wording of the TC. 

An STC is typically used when a technical modification is made to the engine or airframe and the STC holder must demonstrate that the modification does not degrade the certified performance of the aircraft.  An STC was issued for MOGAS because the fuel does not meet the "minimum grade aviation fuel" requirement and the effect on fuel system components was uncertain.  The MOGAS STC identifies what parts of the fuel system require modification, if any, for the aircraft covered by the STC.

I'm hoping the GAMI G100UL fuel gets the nod from the ASTM, that will solve lots of potential problems with reduced performance in the higher compression engines.  Since it's 100+ octane, nobody should need an STC.  And perhaps the Ontario government might take the ethanol out of the MOGAS too.
Tony Hunt
Ex Cardinal CF-TDN
Ex Baron C-GXOY
Ex Husky C-GTHY (my favourite)
Ex Trinidad C-GTLX
Next Aeroplane? - I'm looking!
Instructor - PPL, CPL, Multi-IFR and Tailwheel

Offline jfdoyon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #54 on: July 20, 2010, 09:16:00 AM »
tony, that's how I understand it as well.

Basically any ASTM certified fuel that meets your minimum octane requirements you will be able to use without further paperwork.

"aviation gasoline" = "ASTM D910 certfiied" essentially.  After that, you just need to meet the octane requirement for your engine.

So if G100UL gets ASTM certified, voila, we can all start using it.

Personally I'm rooting for Swift ... much more flexible in terms of how it's produced and so on ... it's not exclusively petro-chemical.

Of course GAMI and others seem a little worried that the ASTM specs are a little stringent in a couple of areas, and that might cause problems ... But with the FAA (and presumably TC) deferring to the ASTM ... we'll have to see if that ends up being a problem.

All this to say, no, an STC probably won't be needed to use a drop-in replacement fuel.  That's the statement I had an issue with.  you need STC's for MOGAS because MOGAS is not "aviation fuel".

pcarscallen

  • Guest
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #55 on: July 20, 2010, 01:35:57 PM »
well you learn something new everyday  ;D

Offline jfdoyon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 906
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is AvGAS 100LL on the brink of dissapearing?
« Reply #56 on: January 05, 2011, 01:42:27 PM »
More on Swift Fuel:

http://www.aero-tv.net/index.cfm?videoid=1da846be-2dbf-447c-b258-6223cdfe1b04

These guys seem to have a really good product on their hands!

 

Members Online

19 Guests, 0 Users

Live ATC

Ottawa CYOW
Toronto CYYZ
Montreal CYUL
you require Flash in order to listen to theses streams. Send PM to npereira to have any Aerodrome added.

OttawaPilot Staff

Administrator:
npereira,

Moderators: uberchuckie,

Recent Members

jn8402
Zack
doogs
tony24kobe
tylerblack1201
FlyingOtters
Kibble
RCAF36
Floater
MountainCityAvation
Powered by EzPortal