Poll: Are You OK Paying 60 To 90 Cents More For An Unleaded Avgas?


Now that GAMI has finally been awarded an STC for its 100-octane aviation fuel, today’s poll asks if you’re willing to spend 60 to 90 cents more a gallon to burn it in you airplane.

Other AVwebflash Articles


  1. It would be nice to be told WHY unleaded avgas is 60 to 90 cents more expensive.

    For those of us with experimental aircraft running engines that work better with unleaded fuels (Jabiru, Rotax, etc.) it would certainly be advantageous to be able to get unleaded fuel on cross-countries. However, presuming the primary advantages of 100UL are similar to 100LL–stability and assured octane–100UL will be competing with regular auto gas for our around-the-patch flying if those two advantages can be achieved with a good auto-fuel supplier and a can of Stabil. However, if all the local auto-fuel is contaminated with ethanol, perhaps 60 to 90 cents is worth it.

    • It costs more because the stuff that goes into it costs more than lead. It’s the same problem that most green-energy providers face: it all costs more than petroleum taken from the ground.

      There’s a reason that anything we call “alternative” isn’t the main thing. And that reason is usually cost. An economy (or an ecosystem) will typically gravitate towards the least expensive solution for things.

      In aviation that meant getting everybody on a single fuel (100LL). We shall see if G100UL can break that mold.

      • David, in many parts of the country, for certain applications, green energy can match or beat petroleum taken from the ground. Economics are gradually turning petroleum into a niche product.

        • Petroleum is a niche product??? Maybe eventually, but not even close now. We are talking about prime mover fuels, not sidewalk lights.

  2. The amount of lead GA puts into the environment is minuscule. However I’d prefer to use 100UL to avoid fouling my engine. This would require that 100LL be universally available, so I wouldn’t have to contaminate my engine when flying cross country. Only at that point, would I make the switch and support 100LL be banned.

  3. NOT NEWS! Where is the editor? Swift fuel 94UL has been around for literally a decade and the majority of piston aircraft engines can use it NOW without an STC. Swift’s 100UL is in development as is GAMI’s which is not yet available. Better than 100LL and MUCH better than mogas due to purity AND priced not 60-90 cents more but only 23 cents more at nearby MGC.

    I used Swift fuel for about 5 years when it was priced under 100LL. Then the price jumped. Why, I don’t know. That’s when I went back to mogas for my 150hp O320 and my C-85. Mogas turns my oil black faster than Swift fuel 94UL but costs 68 cents less, so, yeah, I guess I won’t pay that.

    My local FBO won’t carry anything except 100LL despite my pleas. They refuse to add a second storage tank. Too much cost and trouble for the local township run FBO management.

    Once again, the aviation press jumped on a non story. Let me know when this stuff is available to me to buy, not as a marketing spin for aviation writers to fill their word quotas.