100LL issue - affect on future aircraft depreciation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100LL issue - affect on future aircraft depreciation
Hi Guys,
I've been reading up a little on the impending issues regarding the likely removal of 100LL.
I'm about to buy my first aircraft, a high performance SEP, and am concerned I'm actually buying a "temporarily high performance SEP", soon to become a "modest performance SEP"
What's the general feeling on : a) how soon this is likely to become a real pressing issue, b) what affect it'll have on values, and c) whether there's likely to be an alternative engine / mod to the IO540 fitted to my chosen aircraft, or whether any mods would be airframe specific.
I've been reading up a little on the impending issues regarding the likely removal of 100LL.
I'm about to buy my first aircraft, a high performance SEP, and am concerned I'm actually buying a "temporarily high performance SEP", soon to become a "modest performance SEP"
What's the general feeling on : a) how soon this is likely to become a real pressing issue, b) what affect it'll have on values, and c) whether there's likely to be an alternative engine / mod to the IO540 fitted to my chosen aircraft, or whether any mods would be airframe specific.
Moderator
Though I cannot speak to the 'general feeling", my personal opionon is that the impending demise of 100LL is a problem, and devaluing factor for those aircraft which cannot operate on Mogas.
I own a Mogas powered aircraft, (though even ethanol blending has me a bit worried). I care for a second 100LL powered aircraft for it's foreign owner, and that aircraft concerns me more for the distant future. He does not want it back to his country for lack of 100LL availability. I have a diesel engine conversion underway for another foreign client, as 100LL is not practically available to him, jet fuel being the only locally available aviation fuel.
I certainly would not be buying an aircraft dependant upon 100LL, unless a diesel conversion is being contemplated. It has been about 20 years since the US EPA said that 100LL would be banned "soon", and it's going to happen sometime. Even if there is a replacement fuel for 100LL, who will pay the cost to approve it into all those aircraft, or create another standard for a new fuel? Will the 100LL dependant aircraft fleet be able to bear the cost of the development and distirbution of this fuel, for a rather small market (in the big picture of gasoline as a whole), when jet fuel is so easy to get?
I don't think it is the gasoline engine production which interested the Chinese when they bought Continental, I think they want the diesel technology for their national aviation interests. Why would they want their small aircraft infrastructure to grow dependant upon 100LL, when they already have jet fuel available all over China?
100LL is not a growth industry, and dependance upon it will be a burden sooner or later....
I own a Mogas powered aircraft, (though even ethanol blending has me a bit worried). I care for a second 100LL powered aircraft for it's foreign owner, and that aircraft concerns me more for the distant future. He does not want it back to his country for lack of 100LL availability. I have a diesel engine conversion underway for another foreign client, as 100LL is not practically available to him, jet fuel being the only locally available aviation fuel.
I certainly would not be buying an aircraft dependant upon 100LL, unless a diesel conversion is being contemplated. It has been about 20 years since the US EPA said that 100LL would be banned "soon", and it's going to happen sometime. Even if there is a replacement fuel for 100LL, who will pay the cost to approve it into all those aircraft, or create another standard for a new fuel? Will the 100LL dependant aircraft fleet be able to bear the cost of the development and distirbution of this fuel, for a rather small market (in the big picture of gasoline as a whole), when jet fuel is so easy to get?
I don't think it is the gasoline engine production which interested the Chinese when they bought Continental, I think they want the diesel technology for their national aviation interests. Why would they want their small aircraft infrastructure to grow dependant upon 100LL, when they already have jet fuel available all over China?
100LL is not a growth industry, and dependance upon it will be a burden sooner or later....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two new fuels in the UK. CYMA are going to import EN228 (Mogas) without ethanol for distribution to airfields, and Total has launched an Avgas 91UL fuel. The larger high performance engines will not run on either option. Avgas 100LL is expected to be phased out in the US by the end of the decade. I would be very cautious of buying an aircraft which did not run on either of the “new” fuels.
Rod1
Rod1
Moderator
This discussion nudges closely upon the Mogas discussion. There are two camps with the Mogas idscussion, those who think it's great, and those who either cannot, or will not use it for their own reasons.
In respect of certified aircraft, any fuel used must be certified in that aircraft and engine. For gasoline powered aircraft, this it typically Avgas, whose most common North American standard is ASTM D910. When the US EPA bans 100LL, one of two things will have to happen:
Either the replacement gasoline (whatever it is) will have to conform to ASTM D910, in respect of those aircraft which specify it as the only eligible fuel. This could be accoplished with changes to the standard for D910, but that does not happen fast, or without a lot of testing. The new fuel will also have to conform to the Type Certificate Data Sheet specifications for the engine and airplane, or each manufacturer will have to change every TCDS. Or,
Each subject aircraft and engine is individually approved to run on the new fuel by STC. This will be an immense task, with people expecting to be paid for that work, and make a profit sufficient to cover the inevitable liability, for those who have problems flying with the new fuel.
Either way there is cost. A number of Mogas STCs were developed in times past, and worked excellently on some aircraft. Other aircraft and engines were never STC'd, for the most part becasue Mogas just does not work safely in those types for various reasons.
The fundamental differences between Avgas and Mogas result in some aircraft being entirely unable to run on Mogas, or any gasoline with similar properties. The major of these characteristics are "Octane", which to some degree can be worked around, and volitility, which if not compatible, is near impossible to safely change for. The compatability of the aircraft fuel system is another issue not to be overlooked.
We are in for big changes in respect of fuel, in the decades to come. I opine that diesel is the way of the future, so everything flies on jet fuel. Yes, there'll be Avgas for a while, but knowing it is going away at some point, does not make a 100LL dependant aircraft a good long term investment.
In respect of certified aircraft, any fuel used must be certified in that aircraft and engine. For gasoline powered aircraft, this it typically Avgas, whose most common North American standard is ASTM D910. When the US EPA bans 100LL, one of two things will have to happen:
Either the replacement gasoline (whatever it is) will have to conform to ASTM D910, in respect of those aircraft which specify it as the only eligible fuel. This could be accoplished with changes to the standard for D910, but that does not happen fast, or without a lot of testing. The new fuel will also have to conform to the Type Certificate Data Sheet specifications for the engine and airplane, or each manufacturer will have to change every TCDS. Or,
Each subject aircraft and engine is individually approved to run on the new fuel by STC. This will be an immense task, with people expecting to be paid for that work, and make a profit sufficient to cover the inevitable liability, for those who have problems flying with the new fuel.
Either way there is cost. A number of Mogas STCs were developed in times past, and worked excellently on some aircraft. Other aircraft and engines were never STC'd, for the most part becasue Mogas just does not work safely in those types for various reasons.
The fundamental differences between Avgas and Mogas result in some aircraft being entirely unable to run on Mogas, or any gasoline with similar properties. The major of these characteristics are "Octane", which to some degree can be worked around, and volitility, which if not compatible, is near impossible to safely change for. The compatability of the aircraft fuel system is another issue not to be overlooked.
We are in for big changes in respect of fuel, in the decades to come. I opine that diesel is the way of the future, so everything flies on jet fuel. Yes, there'll be Avgas for a while, but knowing it is going away at some point, does not make a 100LL dependant aircraft a good long term investment.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the military are running AVGAS aircraft the production of AVGAS is assured on national security grounds, the RAF have a fleet of about 120 AVGAS burning Grob 115's and the USAF have just ordered a fleet of aircraft from Cirrus.
So I don't see AVGAS supply problems anytime soon, the anti AVGAS people are unlikley to get very far with an AVGAS ban when the amount of lead put into the atmosphere is so small and they have the Pentigon or the MoD to contend with.
So I don't see AVGAS supply problems anytime soon, the anti AVGAS people are unlikley to get very far with an AVGAS ban when the amount of lead put into the atmosphere is so small and they have the Pentigon or the MoD to contend with.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C, just a small point. the UK military don't have 120 Grobs, they contract someone to provide a capability. In an ideal world, the military don't care whether that capability is met by a Grob, a Slingsby Firefly or a slightly rotten turnip.
As for the rest, I often wonder what the management boards at Lycoming and Continental spend their time discussing.
As for the rest, I often wonder what the management boards at Lycoming and Continental spend their time discussing.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Strathaven Airfield
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C,
That'll be planning based on a government which chops up all its new Nimrods and then decides to go "to war" in Libya, and so revives the old scrapper Nimrods!
Or scraps Harriers but agrees to build the aircraft carriers designed for them?
Or.....
That'll be planning based on a government which chops up all its new Nimrods and then decides to go "to war" in Libya, and so revives the old scrapper Nimrods!
Or scraps Harriers but agrees to build the aircraft carriers designed for them?
Or.....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 120 Grobs will run fine on Avgas 91UL and Lyk have already tested its engines and approved many for its use. Keep clear of the ones which are not and you should be fine. List is on the Lyk web site.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several alternative avgas options, but the two I mentioned are either available in the UK or will be very soon. Lead is an octane booster so if you take it out the octane rating drops. Some organisations have got it back up to 94 in test conditions but 91 is what you get if you just do not add the lead. From the oil co’s point of view it is very beneficial as the lead contamination issue is removed and it can be treated as a fuel instead of a specialist chemical like 100LL. Total France has the fuel approved and in production.
Rod1
Rod1
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many "prevailing wisdoms" on the future of avgas, depending on which axe one wants to grind, and the one I go for is that America will lead the world with "100UL".
The fuel already exists but for some reason it is happening slowly. I think the main reason is that avgas shows no sign of disappearing in the USA, and shows no sign of disappearing in Europe any quicker than is happening anyway due to attrition of facilities caused by suppression of GA activity via airport price increases and in some cases by aeroclubs arranging their own supply which is not available to visitors but which results in the closure of the based facility.
Another reason for slow progress is, I strongly suspect, that the developers of the fuel have filed patents and are doing what any correctly cynical businessman would do which is wait till they have the punters over a barrel before concluding negotiations on licensing it. In turn, nobody involved in the production process is going to enter such negotiations until the market is absolutely ripe.
It is by no means assured that the banal tree-huggers' challenge in the USA (which is not based on the slightest evidence of population risk, because the lead involved is so tiny) is ultimately going to shut down U.S. GA. The USA has a long history of "deadly legislative crises" which run for years and then get swept away at the last minute. I know the saying goes that the USA always does the right thing after exploring all the alternatives first, but anybody betting on the USA screwing itself in a major way is going to lose a lot of money.
Worrying about avgas is a bit like worrying about the IR. Basically, if you need a certain capability now, you need to get off your backside now and get on with it. What this means is that if you are happy to do £100 burger runs, and you are happy with what the actual hardware will be, buy yourself something that can run on ~96UL or better. If you want something with a FL200+ ceiling, long range, all the proper IFR stuff, then get yourself something with an IO540 (or similar) up front
All kinds of thing can cause unexpected depreciation. Lycoming's SB569A depreciated every decent IFR tourer by some £20k. I very much doubt that any retrofit electronic ignition (or even a full FADEC) system, providing a ~96UL capability for today's 100LL-only fleet (which is big in the USA) is going to cost that much.
Actually GA has very few options. If you want to avoid avgas, the cheapest proven reliable way is a Jetprop which is about $1M used, $1.5M new. If you are poor but you feel lucky then you can buy a DA42, which has a spare engine
The fuel already exists but for some reason it is happening slowly. I think the main reason is that avgas shows no sign of disappearing in the USA, and shows no sign of disappearing in Europe any quicker than is happening anyway due to attrition of facilities caused by suppression of GA activity via airport price increases and in some cases by aeroclubs arranging their own supply which is not available to visitors but which results in the closure of the based facility.
Another reason for slow progress is, I strongly suspect, that the developers of the fuel have filed patents and are doing what any correctly cynical businessman would do which is wait till they have the punters over a barrel before concluding negotiations on licensing it. In turn, nobody involved in the production process is going to enter such negotiations until the market is absolutely ripe.
It is by no means assured that the banal tree-huggers' challenge in the USA (which is not based on the slightest evidence of population risk, because the lead involved is so tiny) is ultimately going to shut down U.S. GA. The USA has a long history of "deadly legislative crises" which run for years and then get swept away at the last minute. I know the saying goes that the USA always does the right thing after exploring all the alternatives first, but anybody betting on the USA screwing itself in a major way is going to lose a lot of money.
Worrying about avgas is a bit like worrying about the IR. Basically, if you need a certain capability now, you need to get off your backside now and get on with it. What this means is that if you are happy to do £100 burger runs, and you are happy with what the actual hardware will be, buy yourself something that can run on ~96UL or better. If you want something with a FL200+ ceiling, long range, all the proper IFR stuff, then get yourself something with an IO540 (or similar) up front
All kinds of thing can cause unexpected depreciation. Lycoming's SB569A depreciated every decent IFR tourer by some £20k. I very much doubt that any retrofit electronic ignition (or even a full FADEC) system, providing a ~96UL capability for today's 100LL-only fleet (which is big in the USA) is going to cost that much.
Actually GA has very few options. If you want to avoid avgas, the cheapest proven reliable way is a Jetprop which is about $1M used, $1.5M new. If you are poor but you feel lucky then you can buy a DA42, which has a spare engine
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xrayalpha
The aircraft carriers are being built to take the JSF, the harrier was just a stopgap for this role.
The Nimrod scrapping was the only way to send a message to the management of BAe that UK PLC was going to have no more of the antics that have seen contracts double or treble in cost.
The ownership of the Grobs in not part of the issue, the fact that the fuel has to be in place to run them is! (I se no non AVGAS burning kit on the market that can do this task at the price)
The Nimrod scrapping was the only way to send a message to the management of BAe that UK PLC was going to have no more of the antics that have seen contracts double or treble in cost.
The ownership of the Grobs in not part of the issue, the fact that the fuel has to be in place to run them is! (I se no non AVGAS burning kit on the market that can do this task at the price)
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel that Avgas is simply going to priced out of the market.
Its 1.89 at my local airfield which is alot cheaper than say somewhere like Teeside where its 2.27
However the real problem is the majority of aircraft at my home field will run quite happily on forecort unleaded which is a good 50 pence a liter cheaper.
Due to this huge price difference the amount of avgas being shifted has absolutely collapsed. With the only real customer being the based flying schools who must account for 95% of its sales as the majority of the sole/group owner boys use forecourt mogas
If the CAA see that light of day and allow flight training with mogas (and lets face it a C150 runs better on magas than avgas) or if someone ever manages to produce a suitable rotax powered spamcam replacement. The the sales of avgas would be so small that it would simply not be worth stocking.
If I was looking to the future I would wan't an aircraft that runs on either jet a1 or forecourt unleaded and by that I mean with 10% ethanol
Its 1.89 at my local airfield which is alot cheaper than say somewhere like Teeside where its 2.27
However the real problem is the majority of aircraft at my home field will run quite happily on forecort unleaded which is a good 50 pence a liter cheaper.
Due to this huge price difference the amount of avgas being shifted has absolutely collapsed. With the only real customer being the based flying schools who must account for 95% of its sales as the majority of the sole/group owner boys use forecourt mogas
If the CAA see that light of day and allow flight training with mogas (and lets face it a C150 runs better on magas than avgas) or if someone ever manages to produce a suitable rotax powered spamcam replacement. The the sales of avgas would be so small that it would simply not be worth stocking.
If I was looking to the future I would wan't an aircraft that runs on either jet a1 or forecourt unleaded and by that I mean with 10% ethanol
Last edited by Mickey Kaye; 24th Jul 2011 at 13:43.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that 1OOLL won't be just legally phased out overnight, but at some point there's going to be a (for example) 3 year notice period.
This sounds like plenty of time, but it really isn't. There's apparently only one producer of 100LL left in the entire world. As soon as they hear there's a 3 year warning, they're hardly going to invest in new machinery / costly repairs / updates to distribution channels, etc. Worse, if they are dependant on investors at the time, they could have the lights turned out overnight, effectively ending the supply of avgas immediately.
These are extreme circumstances, but not beyond the realms of possibility.
Let's say none of that happens, and there's somehow still a rich supply of avgas for 3 years. Nobody is going to want to buy an avgas dependant high performance single, surely? So depreciation will go through the roof.
The result of all of all this for the Commander I'm considering is that :
a) the engine will either have to be derated to a lower horsepower and use 91 octane or similar - making it less performant / less capable (and consequently less desirable / valuable)
b) an alternative suitable 100 octane fuel will become available - this is probably the best we can all hope for.
c) a suitable diesel engine will be developed which can be swapped in to replace the IO540 within similar horsepower
d) a mod is developed for the IO540 which allows it to deliver the same performance on reduced octane fuel
-
The only catestrophic outcome is option a, and being non-risk-averse, I'm happy to take my chances on that one.
My question though is, if option b or d happen, will the mere fact my commander is powered by an IO540, mean it can run any IO540 mods, or do all mods need to be approved for the actual airframe?
The reason for this concern, is that, in the event of an airframe needing some kind of radical mod approval, I'd rather be in something like a saratoga, of which there are shed loads, than a commander, which is a niche within an already small niche.
This sounds like plenty of time, but it really isn't. There's apparently only one producer of 100LL left in the entire world. As soon as they hear there's a 3 year warning, they're hardly going to invest in new machinery / costly repairs / updates to distribution channels, etc. Worse, if they are dependant on investors at the time, they could have the lights turned out overnight, effectively ending the supply of avgas immediately.
These are extreme circumstances, but not beyond the realms of possibility.
Let's say none of that happens, and there's somehow still a rich supply of avgas for 3 years. Nobody is going to want to buy an avgas dependant high performance single, surely? So depreciation will go through the roof.
The result of all of all this for the Commander I'm considering is that :
a) the engine will either have to be derated to a lower horsepower and use 91 octane or similar - making it less performant / less capable (and consequently less desirable / valuable)
b) an alternative suitable 100 octane fuel will become available - this is probably the best we can all hope for.
c) a suitable diesel engine will be developed which can be swapped in to replace the IO540 within similar horsepower
d) a mod is developed for the IO540 which allows it to deliver the same performance on reduced octane fuel
-
The only catestrophic outcome is option a, and being non-risk-averse, I'm happy to take my chances on that one.
My question though is, if option b or d happen, will the mere fact my commander is powered by an IO540, mean it can run any IO540 mods, or do all mods need to be approved for the actual airframe?
The reason for this concern, is that, in the event of an airframe needing some kind of radical mod approval, I'd rather be in something like a saratoga, of which there are shed loads, than a commander, which is a niche within an already small niche.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question though is, if option b or d happen, will the mere fact my commander is powered by an IO540, mean it can run any IO540 mods, or do all mods need to be approved for the actual airframe?
My Commander has the oft maligned geared engines. No STC exists for it to be swapped for anything else, as it would make little sense to develop such a thing for a base of maybe 10 airworthy examples. Same with the props - Hartzell has in a stupefying greed-induced 20 years effort tried to force owners of old props to upgrade to newer ones, at $30K a pop. How? By simply saying that the old props are not airworthy anymore. Sleazy bastards, but you'll see a lot more of this in the future (Cessna is doing it to the old airframes now as well). Now, MT or McCauley obviously won't pick up that slack, because what's the point in certifying a cheaper prop when the best you can look to sell is about 20 sets? Can't blame them, but once again the certification process ends up being detrimental to all of us.
Anyway, back to fuel. The real blame obviously lies with the dinosaur engine manufacturers. With the risk of stepping up onto a soap box once again, this has been entirely avoidable. In fact, my old GO-435's from 1953 are certified for as low as 81 octane fuel. What happened?
Well, basically, no bloody evolution has happened to piston engines in 50 years, that's what's happened. Higher power has come from simple tricks like boosting and increasing compression, which inevitably needs higher octane or else detonation will occur. They're getting fat on selling you a product they have neglected to adapt and develop.
That said, there are forces starting to move towards ethanol free mogas for aircraft. Company called Clear Gas is gearing up to import ethanol free mogas into California as we speak. They will sell it at least $1 cheaper per gallon, which is a considerable saving if you fly a lot. I'm sure some similar product could be made available here in the UK. Sweden has had Hjelmco Oil's 91/96 for decades and it works marvellously.
What's annoying is that I could fill my Aero Commander up with Premium 91 Octane tomorrow if it wasn't for the bloody ethanol. I've even toyed with doing the DIY version of removing ethanol from Mogas by introducing water and let it settle, but laziness has prevented me from it. You need bowsers, tanks and some investments. However, I could save up to $7500 based on flying 100hrs per year, which is a considerable amount.
Last edited by AdamFrisch; 24th Jul 2011 at 13:22.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Both GAMI and Swift have 100 UL unleaded fuel formulas available and tested, only need to be approved; GAMI proposed to run a fleet of Cirrus SR22TN on the new unleaded fuel under the experimental category to gather real-life data but it was not allowed by the FAA.
So it is only red tape holding it up.
So it is only red tape holding it up.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we sure it's only red tape holdingit up? It sounds like such a quick win for congress and FAA that mere red tape alone seems unlikely to be holding it up.
Do we know whether this 100UL fuel causes other issues?
Either way, the fact there are two different potential suppliers of an alternative UL fuels is extremely encouraging, so I'd be very interested in any supporting info / background.
Do we know whether this 100UL fuel causes other issues?
Either way, the fact there are two different potential suppliers of an alternative UL fuels is extremely encouraging, so I'd be very interested in any supporting info / background.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LYCOMING’s official view is;
The fact we face is that because automobiles no longer burn
leaded fuel, aviation fuel has become the largest source of
airborne lead emissions. By EPA reports, 45% of airborne
lead emissions is attributed to TEL enhanced avgas. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has been petitioned by
environmental concerns and will need to act in accordance
with the U.S. Clean Air Act. It has begun a process that
will most likely lead to the elimination of leaded aviation
gasoline within this decade.
-------------------
EASA are busy approving 91UL on anything none US;
The European Air Safety Agency has cleared AVGAS 91UL an unleaded Aviation Gasoline for heavy radial aircraft piston engines produced by the Polish engine manufacturer Kalisz.
--------------------
The future is much closer than some think. The alternative fuels are being launched NOW. If your aircraft runes on 100LL and Avgas 91UL is 50ppl cheaper what will that do to the value?
Rod1
The fact we face is that because automobiles no longer burn
leaded fuel, aviation fuel has become the largest source of
airborne lead emissions. By EPA reports, 45% of airborne
lead emissions is attributed to TEL enhanced avgas. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has been petitioned by
environmental concerns and will need to act in accordance
with the U.S. Clean Air Act. It has begun a process that
will most likely lead to the elimination of leaded aviation
gasoline within this decade.
-------------------
EASA are busy approving 91UL on anything none US;
The European Air Safety Agency has cleared AVGAS 91UL an unleaded Aviation Gasoline for heavy radial aircraft piston engines produced by the Polish engine manufacturer Kalisz.
--------------------
The future is much closer than some think. The alternative fuels are being launched NOW. If your aircraft runes on 100LL and Avgas 91UL is 50ppl cheaper what will that do to the value?
Rod1
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is an interesting video about unleaded 100 octane fuel.‪AVweb's G100UL Flight Test‬‏ - YouTube
More on the GAMI website under G100L; I have known George for over 30 years and he is serious.
More on the GAMI website under G100L; I have known George for over 30 years and he is serious.