AOPA Pilot Magazine - February 2014 - 16

WAYPOINTS

Toward an unleaded fuel

BY THOMAS B. HAINES
Editor in Chief

For Shell, avgas is no game

EDITOR
IN CHIEF

Tom Haines
interviewed
Shell spokesman
Michael Sargeant
on AOPA Live This
Week (www.aopa.
org/aopalive).

16 | AOPA PILOT February 2014

SHELL AVIATION'S DECEMBER ANNOUNCEMENT that it is
entering an unleaded avgas for FAA testing was perhaps
the biggest general aviation news of 2013 (see "Briefing:
Shell Offers Hope," page 34). Shell joins Swift and GAMI
in working to move a candidate fuel through a maze
of tests to assure that whatever unleaded fuel or fuels
we end up using do not harm our existing engines and
aircraft-or the environment-and that there is a full
understanding of any changes that must be made in the
fleet to accommodate any shortcomings in a new fuel.
The FAA has said that it wants to introduce a new
unleaded fuel by the end of 2018. In June 2013 it established a process to accept candidate fuels for testing.
AOPA and other aviation associations were a part of
the aviation rulemaking committee that developed the
guidelines that outline how a fuel is considered.
The number one goal of the fuel is to eliminate lead.
The 100-octane low-lead (100LL) avgas we use today is
one of the last remaining fuels on the planet that uses
lead. As a result, while the amount of lead emitted into the
atmosphere from avgas is small, it is an ever increasing
percentage of the lead entering the air-making general aviation an ever bigger target for the Environmental
Protection Agency and environmental groups.
But the biggest reason to remove lead from our fuel
is not environmental. It is economic. Only one company
in the world continues to produce the lead component
necessary for avgas. Others have dropped out because
of the small market for the product and because of the
potential environmental liability. Removing lead from
avgas will allow it to be manufactured and shipped more
conveniently without fear of contaminating other fuels.
GAMI and Swift have been talking about their
unleaded fuel development projects for several
years. They needed the publicity to build credibility
and awareness, and in some cases to generate investment and garner technical expertise. Shell has been
working on its own solution for nearly a decade, but
without any public comment. As a giant global producer of 100LL, gasoline, and exotic racing fuels for
decades, it needed no such investment nor outside
expertise to experiment with various components
until it found a formula that at least appears to meet
most of the requirements for an aviation fuel, including the important 100 octane number.
Aircraft powered by engines with high-compression cylinders demand 100 octane-those are the same

airplanes that burn the majority of the 100LL today;
estimated to make up 20 percent of the fleet, they burn
80 percent of the fuel because they tend to be working and transportation airplanes. The lead additive in
100LL is there mostly to boost the base fuel's octane
rating to 100. The trick in developing a new fuel is to
find a new octane booster that doesn't contain lead and
doesn't change other fuel properties to the point that
they aren't compatible with the needs of aviation.
While Shell's announcement was a surprise to many,
it was clearly not a snap decision by the company. Some
of the commenters on our initial online story about the
announcement wondered whether it was merely a PR
stunt by Shell. They also wondered whether Shell had
really considered all of the parameters one must consider for an aviation fuel-its ability to make 100 octane;
ability to prevent vapor lock at high altitudes; ability to
provide the power needed when cold at extreme altitudes; compatibility with components in existing fuel
systems; power-to-weight ratio; and ability to be produced at a reasonable cost, among many others.
As a longtime leader in the avgas market, Shell has
taken all of that into consideration. Michael Sargeant,
Shell's avgas commercial aviation manager, said he
expects the fuel will weigh about the same as 100LL
and will cost about the same. It can be seamlessly mixed
with 100LL during a transition. The company plans
to proceed with FAA testing and to also seek a fleetwide approval from the FAA-meaning that it could be
approved for use in any airframe and engine combination where 100LL is used. The alternative is a lengthy
and costly process of testing every possible engine and
airframe combination.
Asked why the company waited until now to make
its announcement, Sargeant said, "We wanted to be
comfortable because we know the challenge of getting
fleetwide accreditation is significant. We wanted to be
comfortable that we had a formula that could go the distance. And we do now."
Let's hope his confidence is well placed and that
regardless of who makes it, we end up with a fuel that
is as close to a drop-in replacement as the one that Shell
seems to believe it has developed.
AOPA
EMAIL thomas.haines@aopa.org

SOCIAL

Follow on twitter.com/tomhaines29

http://www.aopa.org/aopalive http://www.twitter.com/tomhaines29 http://www.aopa.org/aopalive

AOPA Pilot Magazine - February 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - February 2014