I'm unconvinced of G100UL's materials compatibility.

Will not use it.

The fuel development process is long over. There are three fuel options whose formulas are set, and no others in development. Two of the three options are really bad, especially for Beechcraft, so there is no benefit from them competing. That leaves just one option that works for us, and two options that work for their wallets.

Both Swift and VP are on the test stand. 100LL is readily available.

There is zero reason to rush this, and to give up our leverage as a customer base and constituent group. There could be conversions required. If those are government mandated eventually, then there are more conversations to be had.

Rushing to corner ourselves with the first viable option, years before 100LL is out of reach, seems unnecessary.

Both Swift and VP formulas are set, and those formulas have essentially failed testing. We know they are not more than an 80% solutions which really means 20%. We also know THERE ARE NO OTHER SOLUTIONS COMING.

100 LL is going to go away in a few years, not a few decades. It could go away sooner. People have been underestimating the risks of the TEL supply, but it is going to go away and it could happen suddenly. We need to be prepared with a solution, not prepared to look for one the day the bad news hits.

The idea that we can or should wait and keep kicking the can down the road is highly uninformed at best.

You seem to know more than the reps from VP and Swift that have posted here.

Where is your information coming from?

80,000 airline pilots retire in the US alone over the next two decades. Avgas is currently required for nearly all training fleets. Avgas may not be “important” to the oil industry by volume, but keeping airliners flying is.

Panic is not a plan. Besides, G100UL exists and is already approved.

Read what they posted carefully. They are telling you modifications are needed and performance will be impacted. As a pilot do you not understand the significance and COSTS of that?

You do realize the training fleet can run on lower octane fuels including mogas or Swift-94 as well as Swift and VP "100" fuels? The airlines and the FAA would just assume adopt Swift or VP and kill the high compression/high performance GA fleet that only gets in their way. It is disturbing how many gullible and uninformed members of the GA community want to help them with that.

I am CURRENTLY spending thousands to OH both Bendix fuel servos on my TC Baron with materials that are compatible with G100UL. Some of those materials have yet to be sourced.

Thats just one component. There will be a lot more to do to make the airframe compatible.

G100UL is approved. Your desired solution exists today.

Larry

I agree with you about the bad decision 50 years ago, or I should say the no decision.. Unfortunately, we can’t undo it. And while I can buy 100LL, or G100UL, I don’t have another 50 years nor I can install a jet fuel engine in my Bonanza, nor a Rotax engine.

I also see G100UL is not perfect but , knock on wood, I can handle the material compat. aspect.

We are getting too close to 2030.

Jesse

I think, you probably want to read, in this same thread, the other options are not viable for 100% of the fleet. The OP admitted it when I asked about engines like TSIO520UB or 550 with TAT.

To be fair with them, they said, their fuel may work with substantial modifications. They don’t know yet.

Substantial is my word here.

I read the thread. They are testing, and we will learn more.

If G100UL is the answer, great…my planes will be ready. I’m not going to short circuit development of other options and I AM NOT GOING TO HELP ACCELERATE THE LOSS OF 100LL by panicking.

Right now, we have two fuels that are legal and available, and two more in testing.