qmdv wrote:

dirtstrip wrote: I do support premium mogas for aircraft until a one fuel replacement for 100 octane is not only found but is available at airports.

You sound a bit like AOPA. So what your saying is that as soon as a 100LL replacement is out there, you are fine with clear mogas going away.

Tim

My first priority in the debate would be to make sure that we get one fuel that can serve all those now served by 100ll and that fuel is available at all airports. If its not available at the airport it is of little value to most pilots. Darn few pull off on a dirt road to fill with mogas although even I have taxied up main street to the Cenex to fill my plane before and there are pictures on the wall of other planes doing the same.
While this is important to some individuals, it is of secondary importance to the GA fleet as a whole that mogas can remain usable to those who use it now. In that way I probably do sound a bit like AOPA.

Realistically, I do not see mogas being adopted as a nation wide solution to the 100ll problem but I can see the fight for clear mogas for GA being used as an additional argument by those opposing the use of ethanol in general. That is a much larger issue nation wide and one that the AOPA and EAA are most likely not willing to participate in.

blackrock wrote:... Thirty percent of the piston fleet burns 70% of the 100LL produced. ...

Just blindly repeating this statistic does not mean it's true. Provide a reference for who said this and back it up with traceable statistics. I have done research on this statement and I cannot find any verifiable data to support it although I have heard it repeated in numerous aviation fuel presentations as recently as this summer at AirVenture. I can also find statements made by GAMA, who actually does some research on fuel usage, that it is more likely that 20% of the piston fleet uses maybe 50-60% of the 100LL. The 30/70 statement can be found by google to go back to the early part of the decade, but I can find no accurate reference to who said it first and where they got their data.

The only thing that I know is that 100LL represents less than .15% of the gasoline pool in the US, about 200 million gallons will be made this year and usage is shrinking by about 7.5 million gallons / year, all statistics that can be found on the DOE / EIA web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleu ... oleum.html

I should note that the people who throw out the 30 / 70 stat also continue to repeat that 100LL usage is about 300 million gallons / year and apparently Swift Fuels is using this number as the target for their production.

It will be a perfect storm if TEL disappears in 2012 or the last 100LL refinery bean counter prevails, at the same time all of the auto gasoline in the U.S. goes E10 leaving GA with no viable fuel supplies, a distinct possibility.

N1593Y, Since you're nationally known now, have you tried talking to GAMI to see what is going on? If their fuel isn't total BS, then that could be an option starting tomorrow since it uses the same hydro-carbons being refined today.

Provide a reference for who said this and back it up with traceable statistics. I have done research on this statement and I cannot find any verifiable data to support it...

Hodrod150 & N1593Y,

You are correct that I'm repeating what I read in several sources and it was sometime ago. I don't recall where since I read a lot of material. I applaude your efforts and your research is more indepth than my observations. As time allows, I'll continue researching to see if I can locate my sources and will post them here.

However, no matter the actual percentages, it still remains that engines requiring 100LL represent a large consumption base as some of your research supports:

it is more likely that 20% of the piston fleet uses maybe 50-60% of the 100LL.

My point was simply, why should the AOPA, EAA, etc divide their efforts when a fuel that can be used by the entire fleet is the most pressing need?

I'd love to see clean mogas readily available at airports since I burn it in my O-540 about 50% of the time.

Getting back to the original post, it sounds like ole Patrick Smith picked the most appropriate canned answer and shot it off in response.

Fact is there are a lot of small airports that still sell booze-free unleaded. They are always 50 to 75 cents cheaper than 100LL and always seem to be at thriving small GA airports...somewhere where you can peek into the hangars and see a few biplanes, a bunch of tube-and-fabric antiques, and/or a few experimental aircraft. That tells me that carrying ethanol-free gas is not economically unsound, especially if there is local customer base for it. If it were bad business then these small airports couldn't afford to carry it.

It's good that AOPA is fighting for a 100LL alternative, but disappointing that they are not fighting for a large part of their membership base on this issue. My guess is that they decided to use their resources ($$$) fighting the bigger battle against the EPA, which they have done very well so far. Now let's hope we don't end up with a $8 per gallon 100LL alternative.

180Marty wrote:N1593Y, Since you're nationally known now, have you tried talking to GAMI to see what is going on? If their fuel isn't total BS, then that could be an option starting tomorrow since it uses the same hydro-carbons being refined today.

Unlike ethanol, the market will decide. I am perfectly content with that.

crazyivan wrote:> ...
It's good that AOPA is fighting for a 100LL alternative, but disappointing that they are not fighting for a large part of their membership base on this issue. My guess is that they decided to use their resources ($$$) fighting the bigger battle against the EPA, which they have done very well so far. Now let's hope we don't end up with a $8 per gallon 100LL alternative.

Ironically it is no longer a ($$$) issue. The FAA, EPA and the General Aviation Avgas Coalition, made up of AOPA, EAA, GAMA, NATA, NBAA, API and NPRA are talking now and meeting with each other about the future of 100LL and the transition to an unleaded 100 octane fuel. Since auto gasoline made to ASTM D4814 without ethanol is a recognized and approved avgas and it will disappear by early 2012, why aren't these same government agencies and industry representatives discussing how to keep the other approved avgas available, especially considering that EPA has complete authority to prohibit the blending of ethanol in premium unleaded and they are so concerned about the lead dispersed by using 100LL.

Who's On First? The EPA doesn't know it's them.
This is coverage of Airventure 2010 when the EPA rep was talking of the short future of Avgas. Enlightening, at least in the area of their not being enlightened.

http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVWe ... 002-1.html