The End Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) group expects the lone survivor of the congressionally mandated Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI) to be approved by late 2025 but it may not be completely suitable for all engines. In a press briefing on Tuesday, Tim Owen, of the FAA, told dozens of stakeholders and media representatives that the Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing fuel is now in full testing by the FAA and, if all goes well, will be through all those tests by the third quarter of 2025.
In addition to engine tests in static cells and in aircraft, the fuel has to be tested for its interaction with other parts of the aircraft from the all-important O-rings to paint. Owen said for the vast majority of aircraft engines, including those made by Continental, Lycoming and Rotax, the transition will be seamless. But he said for some of the 143 other makes of engines making up 9% on the FAA registry there “may have to be modifications” to the engines or operating procedures.
There are two other fuel developers involved. General Aviation Modifications Inc.’s G100UL has been granted an STC that allows its use in every engine on the registry. At Sun ‘n Fun it announced that Vitol Aviation, which is licensed to manufacture the fuel, has made 1.2 million gallons of conforming fuel that is now available for sale. Swift Fuels’ 100R has now been submitted to the FAA for STC testing and it also plans to submit it to ASTM International. Swift Fuels CEO Chris D’Acosta told the meeting that once 100R is fully approved, it will replace the 94UL it is now selling to 30 retailers in the U.S. GAMI does not plan to submit its fuel to the ASTM process.
EAGLE representatives stressed that getting the fuel formulation right is only one piece of a “very complicated process” in getting lead out of piston aviation. It was noted that the fuel has to be suitable for transportation and dispensing equipment, and any misfueling risk also has to be addressed as does product liability through the whole supply chain.
In the meantime, the EAGLE reps said it’s important that 100LL remain constantly available until the transition to new fuels is complete and they warned against local and state governments prematurely trying to eliminate leaded avgas. The EAGLE leaders, however, declined to comment on a threat by California’s Center for Environmental Health to enforce a consent agreement that arose from a 2016 lawsuit that would require FBOs covered by the agreement to offer for sale the first “commercially available” replacement for 100LL.
EAGLE has already scheduled a public forum for a progress report for Monday morning of AirVenture 2024 at Theater in the Woods.
An earlier version of this story identified Tim Owen as a representative of Continental Aerospace. He’s with the FAA certification branch.
Very confusing to say the least.
I agree with Tom.
So do I. Very complex and the most difficult stories to write.
So after all that work, EAGLE/PAFI will be approving an inferior UL100 fuel compared to G100UL, and possibly 100R. Seems like a massive waste of time and money to me.
WOW… It’s ‘Inferior’ do tell how you’ve come to this bizzare conclusion when you don’t even know how any existing fuel will be across the fleet long term…. I must add hahahahahaha!!
DEI… it’s all about DEI… C’mon man… get with the program before you get eaten by a cannibal.
Yeah … get with the ‘Program,’ Skygypsy. If you’d do some research, you’d know that the EAGLE fuels SO far are NOT approved for all piston engines; G100UL is. Tom … call up the cannibals … we’re gonna send ’em dinner …
So I suspect that you’re being a comedian…. and if you actually aren’t, then I guess you’ve only got one tooth huh! You’d have to be in that case ‘wet behind the ears’ in the topic. 😉
FYI – When someone has lost an arguement it’s common they resort to personal attacks.
Mr dbier, perhaps go read a bit of Mark Twain…… Then get yourself 20 to 30 years experience in this space, and then perhaps you’ll be close to ready to have a sensible discussion where you might have a chance of understanding the content that I’d discuss with you.
It says so right in the article: “it may not be completely suitable for all engines”. Also in the article, “G100UL has been granted an STC that allows its use in every engine on the registry”. Therefore, the PAFI fuel is inferior.
That’s too simple, Gary
Well … some Admin folks at FAA in Washington are ‘helping,’ Gary …
I’ve followed George Braly’s G100UL story intimately … the guy has done yeoman duty on the subject. Last week, I listened to Tim ?? (President of GAMI) at an EAA chapter meeting. GAMI did it privately SO … the Government HAS to diddle with it don’t ya know! (sic) 🙁
If it were not exactly how you are saying it is, you’d think we would have heard a good argument why it’s not that way, but I certainly have not.
I’m suspicious this is just one of those things where lots of us think the dress in the picture is one color, and others another, but only a tiny few can see it from both perspectives. Instead of colors though, we see a picture of an institution that’s lost the plot. And, the majority not only think our perspective is wrong, they for some reason don’t even think it’s worth addressing. They think we are the problem.
I was AT George Braly’s forum at Airventure 2023. He was late because he was meeting with the FAA who were — finally — giving his G100UL FULL approval for use in ALL piston engines. HIS fuel is the only one that has such approval thus far. The difference between his fuel and any EAGLE approved fuel is that his fuel requires an STC. IF and when any EAGLE fuel gets approved, it may or may not require an STC. It’ all gonna be in the way it’s made, transported, dispensed and accepted. IF it were available at an airport today and if an airplane had the STc, it’d be an approved fuel.
The difference is that George Braly paid for all the research and certification so he wants to be compensated. The Government along with others is working on the EAGLE project and we all know what that means.
I just wish they would make the current fuel without lead available. I understand it is 94UL also.
There is certainly little we can do but pop some popcorn and watch with interest.
However, I will make a prediction. Whatever is approved by EAGLE/PAFI will eventually dominate because it doesn’t require anyone to pay for the STC. I have watched this happen many times. Even if a product is inferior, if it is free, it will dominate. As much as I like and want GAMI to be successful, after all, they did what no one else seemed to be able to do and then clearly did it right, i.e. producing a superior product, I predict they will fall by the wayside. Better does not necessarily mean more successful. Not having to pay for it does.
Good luck George! I hope that in the interim you succeed in covering your non-recurring engineering costs and some profit on top of that so as to have been somewhat worth the trouble.
Well, they could, at any point, make the STC so cheap that everyone will get it just in case. In aviation economics, that could still bring them some decent cash.
What a joke. After all this time PAFI has come up with an alternative fuel that ALMOST works for everyone, when there is a fuel (G100UL) that works for everyone already.
The FAA has long been accused of having a bad case of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome, and PAFI is a classic case of that. PAFI was their way of developing a new fuel, but George Braley and GAMI declined to go along with them and developed a successful fuel on their own. A decade later and PAFI is still struggling to produce a suitable product while GAMI has over a million gallons of product ready for public sale. This, in spite of the fact that the FAA threw one roadblock after another in GAMI’s way for over ten years. Then, after they finally granted the STC for G100UL, they announced the EAGLE initiative as one last roadblock to salvage the PAFI project which is still in limbo. EAGLE “hopes” to have an ALMOST universal fuel ready in 2025, but as we also saw with the MOSAIC rule this week, their timelines rarely stay on schedule. The FAA: Making easy things hard since before Elvis was popular.
100% right on John … as I also stated above.
All I get out of this is that VP racing is going to sell Av-gas and I will Not be able to afford it. I will just have to plane cross country flights that have a city close enough to go get Auto fuel for MY plane.
Have we heard anything from Braly yet regarding the Swift Fuel’s UL94 and the ND North Dakota University saga ?
—-
By Paul Bertorelli -Published: November 8, 2023 and Updated: November 9, 2023
After an extensive trial, the University of North Dakota’s flight school has dropped Swift UL94 fuel and resumed use of 100LL. The school said ongoing maintenance monitoring of aircraft using UL94—almost exclusively Lycoming-powered Piper Archers and Seminoles—resulted in measurable exhaust valve recession. The school made the switch back to 100LL on Oct. 27.
San Antonio, TX – VP Racing Fuels, Inc., regarded worldwide as the leader in performance fuel products, and LyondellBasell, a global producer and supplier of chemicals, polymers, and fuel components, have achieved a groundbreaking accomplishment by reaching a significant milestone in the collaborative development of unleaded aviation fuel.
VP Racing and LyondellBasell joined forces in 2018 to develop an unleaded aviation gasoline (avgas) in response to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) invitation for new fuel offerors to enter the Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) program. The latest version of the fuel recently passed a critical 150-hour durability test in a turbocharged Continental piston engine. This is the first unleaded fuel to pass this test and qualify for full-scale testing in the FAA’s rigorous PAFI program.
“VP Racing is excited to announce this revolutionary achievement,” said Alan Cerwick, President & CEO of VP Racing. “Working with chemical industry leader LyondellBasell, our Research & Development Team has accomplished a once-elusive deliverable for the FAA. We look forward to working tenaciously toward the next milestone phases in this development.”
“Passing Stage Gate III of the FAA’s PAFI test plan moves the fuel into full-scale testing in a number of engines and aircraft that represent a broad spectrum of general aviation (GA) technologies and materials. Our teams will also work with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM), pilots, distributors, and regulatory bodies to seek authorization for the unleaded fuel for GA use as a replacement for 100 Low-lead (100LL).” Cerwick added.
“LyondellBasell appreciates our close collaboration with VP Racing Fuels, the FAA, and general aviation stakeholders during the fuel development and testing process,” said Kim Foley, Executive Vice President, Intermediates & Derivatives, Refining, and Supply Chain for LyondellBasell. “We look forward to our continued collaboration to complete the testing program required for fleetwide approval by the FAA.”
Over the next couple of years, VP Racing Fuels and LyondellBasell expects to secure FAA fleetwide authorization for the use of this new unleaded fuel in general aviation piston aircraft, followed by a gradual rollout and eventual replacement of 100LL in the following years.
For more information on the FAA’s initiative for the unleaded GA future, visit the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) website, https://flyeagle.org. For more information about VP Racing and its products for racers, enthusiasts, and general consumers, visit http://www.VPRacingFuels.com.
San Antonio, TX – VP Racing Fuels, Inc., regarded worldwide as the leader in performance fuel products, and LyondellBasell, a global producer and supplier of chemicals, polymers, and fuel components, have achieved a groundbreaking accomplishment by reaching a significant milestone in the collaborative development of unleaded aviation fuel.
VP Racing and LyondellBasell joined forces in 2018 to develop an unleaded aviation gasoline (avgas) in response to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) invitation for new fuel offerors to enter the Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI) program. The latest version of the fuel recently passed a critical 150-hour durability test in a turbocharged Continental piston engine. This is the first unleaded fuel to pass this test and qualify for full-scale testing in the FAA’s rigorous PAFI program.
“VP Racing is excited to announce this revolutionary achievement,” said Alan Cerwick, President & CEO of VP Racing. “Working with chemical industry leader LyondellBasell, our Research & Development Team has accomplished a once-elusive deliverable for the FAA. We look forward to working tenaciously toward the next milestone phases in this development.”
“Passing Stage Gate III of the FAA’s PAFI test plan moves the fuel into full-scale testing in a number of engines and aircraft that represent a broad spectrum of general aviation (GA) technologies and materials. Our teams will also work with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM), pilots, distributors, and regulatory bodies to seek authorization for the unleaded fuel for GA use as a replacement for 100 Low-lead (100LL).” Cerwick added.
“LyondellBasell appreciates our close collaboration with VP Racing Fuels, the FAA, and general aviation stakeholders during the fuel development and testing process,” said Kim Foley, Executive Vice President, Intermediates & Derivatives, Refining, and Supply Chain for LyondellBasell. “We look forward to our continued collaboration to complete the testing program required for fleetwide approval by the FAA.”
Over the next couple of years, VP Racing Fuels and LyondellBasell expects to secure FAA fleetwide authorization for the use of this new unleaded fuel in general aviation piston aircraft, followed by a gradual rollout and eventual replacement of 100LL in the following years.
Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing fuel: ” some of the 143 other makes of engines making up 9% on the FAA registry “may have to [undergo] modifications” to the engines or operating procedures.”-said Tim Owen of Continental Aerospace Engines.
——-
Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI) to be approved by late 2025 by the FAA of the Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing fuel for FAA fleetwide authorization for the use of this new unleaded fuel in general aviation piston aircraft.
LyondellBasell Industries/VP Racing unleaded UL100E avgas developed for piston airplanes and helicopters moves ahead into full-scale engine and flight testing.
What triggered the approval? Turns out the fuel has passed a 150-hour engine durability test under the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), an industry and government testing program first launched in 2014. The LyondellBasell/VP Racing UL100E now becomes the first unleaded fuel to move into this phase of testing under the PAFI terms. Every entity in the PAFI program is working diligently towards a replacement for 100LL avgas—specifically for those airplanes with the higher compression engines that require higher octane than the 94UL unleaded avgas currently on the market.
“This is another important milestone for a safe general aviation transition to unleaded fuel and for our goal to eliminate lead emissions” said Lirio Liu, FAA executive director of aircraft certification service and government co-chair of the Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions (EAGLE) government-industry partnership. “The joint industry/government effort continues to make strong progress.”
The General Aviation Manufacturers Association and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, both part of EAGLE, also chimed in, saying that they will be “applauding the news of the first unleaded fuel candidate to successfully pass the most rigorous Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative initial detonation and 150-hour engine durability test phase, and continued progress toward an unleaded future.”
“first unleaded fuel candidate to successfully pass the most rigorous Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative initial detonation and 150-hour engine durability test phase,”
Hasn’t G100UL far exceeded that benchmark?
It will be interesting to find out the weight and energy content of this UL100E fuel, and how it compares to G100UL, and eventually 100R.
Obscuring this whole scenario are concerns about an STC vs non-STC fuel and mixing of such. Some discussion has pointed out possibility of some fuels not allowing mixing with other fuels based on their contents. Not to mention that a fuel STC is a major modification and installation of such could come with possible limitations prohibiting use of two fuels. What would one do when they arrive at a field and there is only one (STC’d) fuel onsite that you cannot use. It really would be nice if no aircraft modifications (STC) were necessary.
“It really would be nice if no aircraft modifications (STC) were necessary.”
It seems like if the FAA wanted to, they could just give their blessing to G100UL or 100R. But it seems like they’d rather bless a fuel that went through their process and may require actual aircraft modifications to work in some aircraft, rather than one that went outside their process and only requires a paperwork modification.
But I hear what you’re saying. I blame the FAA for the way they’ve handled the whole unleaded fuel situation, though. Its a mess of their own making, except that we as pilots will be the one to have to actually slog through the mess.
Yes, it would be nice if the FAA would bless the fuel. However, it sounds like ASTM standards are what are accepted through the process (and likely for good reason). GAMI chose not to go through the PAPI process.
I was at an EAA chapter meeting last week where Tim Roehl — President of GAMI — gave a talk about G100UL. That fuel IS ‘frangible’ — can be mixed interchangeably with 100LL. TBD with other alternative fuels.
As to the 94UL / valve recession problem, GAMI believes the problem is that 94UL in combination with improper leaning was causing minor detonation ergo slamming the valve into the seat (recession). GAMI bought a quantity of 94UL to measure combustion pressures … that’s how they arrived at that tentative conclusion. I was surprised to learn that keeping the mixture rich of peak causes higher combustion chamber pressures. Translated, 94UL was approved yet it did not do the job. UND flew something like 46,000 hours on the stuff so their real world testing showed 94UL as inferior.
‘Frangible’ means fragile or (often deliberately) breakable. I think you’re looking for ‘fungible’.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the fact that G100UL is fully fungible with 100LL. The other contenders are a big question mark to that regard. If I was an FBO operator and to changeover from selling 100LL to another product but product X would require me to flush my entire fuel distribution system while product Y does not I think that is a game changer.
G100UL has been said to be fully fungible with 100LL, but another unleaded fuel manufacturer is claiming that their fuel likely may not be permitted to be mixed with G100UL based on its contents. I’m not sure why, but distribution of G100UL has been in the talks for nearly two years. Maybe there is some logical reason as such.
1. WHY will up to 9% of aircraft need “modifications to the engines or operating procedures”? Because the octane won’t actually be high enough? Because of valve problems during LOP operations? Because the new additives will dissolve (some) composite fuel tanks? Enquiring minds would really like to know!
2. I am (so very) puzzled by Braly’s business model, because requiring that STC creates a hurdle for the owner and a hurdle for the FBO. The obvious (to me) model is to automatically issue an STC to any aircraft using fuel that a) meets the G100UL spec and b) is licensed by Braly. The owner would just download the document. Then, Braly would get a licensing fee from the fuel producer; without the licensing fee, the STC is invalid. By requiring payment for the STC from the aircraft owner, Braly’s actual business model requires every fuel pump to be able to look up a list of STC holders by N number before dispensing fuel, to ensure that Braly has been paid (a speed bump for the owner), which requires fuel pumps with that capability (a speed bump for the FBO); and a decision has to be made about how to handle Experimental aircraft, which are not issued STCs (so the pump has to be able to look up an “approved” list rather than an STC list).
I was amazed to learn of all the purpose built test equipment GAMI built and the number of engines / airframes they tested their final product on. Braly decided that fighting the FAA was enough “fun” and he would not try to meet any ASTM testing. He HAS a fuel that will work, it IS approved for all piston engines and … “at owner’s discretion” … get the STC, or not. PAFI cum EAGLE has a long way to go before it is equal to G100UL which could be used today.
My suggestion would be to stop pushing PAFI and other experiments down our throats until they are ready.
The questionable “Global Warming Emergency” does not
justify the expense and risks.
I just watched a recent Mike Busch Savvy Maintenance video in which he commented on G100UL and Swift Fuel UL94 regarding the ASTM process verses the STC process that George Braly chose to gain FAA approval for his G100UL fuel.
Clearly, as we know, this entire unleaded fuel project was and continues to be a heavily politicized endeavor and approval process.
The only way -ever- that George Braly was ever going to obtain FAA approval was by way of the STC process for all aircraft owners.
That was the “will of the FAA Gods.”
Swift Fuels, with their Structure, Leverage, Corporate Abilities – went the ASTM route.
Braly is not looking to recoup his G100UL research and development costs through sales of STC’s.
He will derive profit from the retail sales of his fuel- G100UL – as it enters our aircraft tanks.
The FAA ‘crafted’ the process – EAGLE – along with the GAMI crowd – for ATSM process which purposely caters to larger fuel manufacturers, deliberately to develop and get ‘their’ unleaded fuels approved-
Mike Busch / Savvy Aviation has and continues to be “close” to these folks and their developments.
Gary– you are spot on with this debacle –crafted by the FAA Bureacraps.
And as other folks have stated –
* Can all of these potential fuels be mixed together?
* FBO requirements to stock ?
* Fungible?
* “What would one do when they arrive at a field and there is only one (STC’d) fuel on site that you cannot use. ”
========================================
Gary Baluha April 24, 2024, At 4:33 pm
“It really would be nice if no aircraft modifications (STC) were necessary.”
It seems like if the FAA wanted to, they could just give their blessing to G100UL or 100R. But it seems like they’d rather bless a fuel that went through their process and may require actual aircraft modifications to work in some aircraft, rather than one that went outside their process and only requires a paperwork modification.
But I hear what you’re saying. I blame the FAA for the way they’ve handled the whole unleaded fuel situation, though. It’s a mess of their own making, except that we as pilots will be the one to have to actually slog through the mess.
———–
The FAA created this mishmash. Because Bureaucracy dictates things are done their way or off you go down the highway-
My fear is that the FAA will approve the VP racing fuel because it was part of the “program” (EAGLE) and not because it is the best candidate. It seems the FAA is kind of pissed that a commercial company solved a problem without the need of the FAA funding. (kudos to GAMI).
Please be rational and give us the best Unleaded fuel, regardless of who came up with it. I am also afraid the VP fuel will have a problem that will be over looked just because it is part of PAPI
Tim said that G100UL would likely cost ~$1 more per gallon.
He says that money might be made up by a decrease in maintenance costs.
Encourage people to read the recent letter from NATA on this subject. There is a lot of good information there on the numerous topics being discussed here.
https://www.nata.aero/assets/Site_18/files/EAGLE/FactorsAffectingtheCommercialSaleofEmergingUnleadedAviationFuels.pdf
FAA, told dozens of stakeholders and media representatives that the Lyondell/Basell/VP Racing fuel is now in full testing by the FAA and, if all goes well, will be through all those tests by the third quarter of 2025.
This announcement has a distinct Oder to it. How does this VERY LATE player in this long ongoing drama get this FAA endorsement in such a short time? Like a lot of government boondoggles it’s about who maybe getting financial rewards with the power to make it happen?
Follow the MONEY.
I don’t think it’s them just jumping into the game late by any means. The PAFI program is a process with numerous gates. GAMI took an STC route, which has some different gates. If you fail one stage of the PAFI program, you go back to the beginning. Sounds like they started in 2018. https://vpracingfuels.com/unleaded-aviation-gasoline-developed-by-vp-racing-fuels-and-lyondellbasell-enters-full-scale-testing-2/
According to Braley, one of the reasons he did not got through the FAAs process was that he was well along with his development and he asked if there were problems, could he modify the fuel and the FAA said, “No, you have to start over”. Check out the enlightening interview on Social Flight Live.
What a crock of sh*t. We have a fuel that’s already approved for every spark-ignition engine, and EAGLE is trumpeting some fuel that’s not fully tested, won’t be ready for 18 months, and won’t work in all engines.