Anyone else feeling the pinch of Fuel prices?

[MeranaA]

Just wanted to check in and see how fuel prices are holding up at your local airports. Where I'm from, 100LL is sitting around $6/gallon. It's starting to get a bit pricey! Any tips for saving on fuel costs?

 

[Lyrelle**Arienwin]

Oh wow! Last time i checked, that's a steal compared to KAAA. It's currently going for $7/gallon self-serve. If you're in the area, it might be worth a quick detour to fill up!

 

[MidnightMuseeee]

Thanks for the update! I hope a few more people see this and comment on the price where they're at. Safe flying to everyone out there!

 

[Toga Cruiser]

Just wanted to check in and see how fuel prices are holding up at your local airports. Where I'm from, 100LL is sitting around $6/gallon. It's starting to get a bit pricey! Any tips for saving on fuel costs?

I have a 1976 182p . I bought it because it’s the last year Auto Fuel is approved. I have flown it with auto gas over 20 years and love it. The o470 runs much cleaner and no led issues. I horoscope it each annual and valves are looking great. I’ve been paying 2.70/gal. I know not everyone can use it but thinking of this when you buy a plane can save you thousands.

 

[Raymo]

If your engine compression ratio is 8.0:1 or less (like most O-470s and many O-320s, you can safely run MOGAS of the appropriate octane rating. The STC (usually Petersen) will provide those details and also important facts on fuel vaporization and mitigation. My IO-360-A4M is 8.5:1 CR, so I am sticking with 100LL, though it is currently $4.75 at KLHW and not that much more than local MOGAS at 91 octane. Everyone is jumping up and down for a replacement for 100LL, but they won't be so happy with the higher price.

https://www.autofuelstc.com/

 

[greentips]

Petersen Mogas STC on my C182/O470R as well. No Pb fouling, not had any issues at all in over 3000 hours and one overhaul. Around here, you have to buy 91 Octane, it's readily available price range between $3.20 and $4.00 /gal. I do test for ETOH and have never found any in labeled ETOH free fuel. There are many snowmobiles and boats that keep the ETOH volumes flowing here as well as aircraft, although the station nearest my base was recently sold to a well known E85 peddler who immediately discontinued ETOH-free fuel. I tested his E85 and found the alcohol level was consistently 93% which makes for a good cleaning fluid but nothing I'd put in an internal combustion engine.

I will continue using Mogas even if the FBO comes up with a lead free avgas that requires an STC on principle alone. I don't know if GAMI says it can be mixed with mogas. I am able to use SwiftFuel UL94 without an STC, but according to Swift if I want to use their 100R I would need to get their STC. They are offering a "forever STC" for any future fuels they may have, including 100R, for $103.00. I am undecided whether I will buy the STC or not, since I don't need it now, but I do wonder about on the road fuel availability.

As for transferring fuel, I started with 6 gallon cans, then bought a DOT certified gas tank permanently mounted and bonded to the truck bed. It works pretty well. A buddy who has a C182 like mine went a different route and bought a used semi-tractor 100 gallon tank and put it on rails in his truck so he could remove it if he wanted to use the truck as a truck, put in a Tutthill 12V pump, hose and nozzle.

 

[Raymo]

Petersen Mogas STC on my C182/O470R as well. No Pb fouling, not had any issues at all in over 3000 hours and one overhaul. Around here, you have to buy 91 Octane, it's readily available price range between $3.20 and $4.00 /gal. I do test for ETOH and have never found any in labeled ETOH free fuel. There are many snowmobiles and boats that keep the ETOH volumes flowing here as well as aircraft, although the station nearest my base was recently sold to a well known E85 peddler who immediately discontinued ETOH-free fuel. I tested his E85 and found the alcohol level was consistently 93% which makes for a good cleaning fluid but nothing I'd put in an internal combustion engine.

I will continue using Mogas even if the FBO comes up with a lead free avgas that requires an STC on principle alone. I don't know if GAMI says it can be mixed with mogas. I am able to use SwiftFuel UL94 without an STC, but according to Swift if I want to use their 100R I would need to get their STC. They are offering a "forever STC" for any future fuels they may have, including 100R, for $103.00. I am undecided whether I will buy the STC or not, since I don't need it now, but I do wonder about on the road fuel availability.

As for transferring fuel, I started with 6 gallon cans, then bought a DOT certified gas tank permanently mounted and bonded to the truck bed. It works pretty well. A buddy who has a C182 like mine went a different route and bought a used semi-tractor 100 gallon tank and put it on rails in his truck so he could remove it if he wanted to use the truck as a truck, put in a Tutthill 12V pump, hose and nozzle.

The SwiftFuels 94UL fuel also requires a STC, per their website. Less expensive than the Petersen STC.

https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/faq
https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/stc

 

[greentips]

The SwiftFuels 94UL fuel also requires a STC, per their website. Less expensive than the Petersen STC.

https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/faq
https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/stc

I don't think so. If you look at Swift's Airframe/engine selector for the eligible airframe/engine pairs, it states the following:

Congratulations! This aircraft is FAA-APPROVED TO FLY on UL94 Unleaded Avgas!

This aircraft can use UL94 Unleaded Avgas based upon any of the following criteria:

• UL94 Unleaded Avgas meets or exceeds the FAA's type-certificated fuel requirements of both this engine and airframe. The TCDS fuel requirement for both engine and airframe states one of the following: Grade UL91, Grade 80, Grade 80/87, or a minimum octane requirement of 80 or lower.
• UL94 Unleaded Avgas complies with the requirements for Grade 80 unleaded avgas (as originally specified in ASTM D910). Grade 80 was last approved as an unleaded grade of avgas in 1995, per D910-95A.
• UL94 Unleaded Avgas also complies with the requirements for Grade UL91 unleaded avgas as specified in ASTM D7547.

Clause 2 UL94 specifically states that the fuel is compliant with 80 (ASTM D910). These engines specify AvGas80.
Clause 1 UL94 meets/exceeds FAA TC fuel requirements for both engine and airframe based on the TCDS requirement.

The FBO at one of my stops who has it also assured me it does meet the requirements for this engine without the STC.

If you look at the disclaimer on the selector page on the second link you posted, it says you do need the STC if your engine/airframe require 100 minimum octane fuel. So, I think the O470R and the low compression Continentals on the C172 & C150s will also meet the criteria.

There is no reason for me with my airframe/engine combination to get Swift's STC based on what's available now. The only reason for me to get it is insurance as according to Swift is the 100R will require it to use it in my engine. I can't quantify the risk just yet, so I don't know if it's worth it or not. But if Swift UL94 is available at my gas stops I will burn it preferentially over 100LL.

What bothers me more is some unscrupulous sales folks for the major avgas suppliers are telling naive airport managers that it is illegal to sell mogas with their product on the field.

 

[Raymo]

That statement means the fuel was tested and approved/compatible to use UL94. It still requires the STC to legally (FAA rules) use the fuel. If you aren't using their fuel, there is no need for the STC, obviously. The Petersen STC is the same - it was tested and approved for certain aircraft/engine combinations but still requires the STC for both airframe and engine. I doubt the Petersen STC covers UL94.

Your airport can and should provide MOGAS as an alternative, though there would have to be a cost benefit. I've tried getting it to our airport but the county that manages everything has no interest.

 

[greentips]

That statement means the fuel was tested and approved/compatible to use UL94. It still requires the STC to legally (FAA rules) use the fuel. If you aren't using their fuel, there is no need for the STC, obviously. The Petersen STC is the same - it was tested and approved for certain aircraft/engine combinations but still requires the STC for both airframe and engine. I doubt the Petersen STC covers UL94.

Your airport can and should provide MOGAS as an alternative, though there would have to be a cost benefit. I've tried getting it to our airport but the county that manages everything has no interest.

I beg to differ, but just to be sure I did a little check on the Swift Fuel website.

My engine airframe combination is TC 3A13 Engine O-470-R @ 230 HP. If you select the site you cited above, and select Cessna/C182M it pops up a page that says

Congratulations! This aircraft is FAA-APPROVED TO FLY on UL94 Unleaded Avgas!

Next, if you select a Cessna/C182T (Lycoming 100 octane engine) TC 3A13 Engine Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 @ 230 HP
or a C182S
The website instead returns the following:

Cessna 182T with 1 Lycoming IO-540-AB1A5 Engine
Horsepower: 230
TCDS #: 3A13
$100.00 | Buy Now & Get a FOREVER Avgas STC for FREE

Likewise, selecting Cessna/C152 with the Lycoming O-235 engine which requires 100LL you do need the STC to run UL94 but
the C150 with the Continental O-200 which was certified to run on 80 does not need the STC and gives you the Congratulations message, not the STC message.

This appears to confirm that I do not need a SwiftFuel STC to run UL94 in my C182M/O-470-R engine pair.
And, as per Swift Fuel's web site you do need the STC to run it in the C182T/IO540-AB1A5.

The difference being, that UL94 is meets the spec for AvGas 80 AND my aircraft is certified to run on AvGas 80.
The C182T on the other hand is certified to run on 100LL, hence the need for the STC to use UL94.

A clearer example of the differences are to select Piper/PA-28-181 (Archer II which has two engine variants. O-360 and IO-360 Lycomings.
In the first variant, you are passed through to the FAA-APPROVED screen, in the second (injected) variant, you are passed through to the Order the current STC screen.

My conclusion is that for airframe/engine combinations originally certified to use 80 octane Avgas, you may put UL94 in your airplane. All others must buy the current Swiftfuel STC and Swift does not recommend mixing their fuel with G100L.

In either case, Swift is asking (but not requiring for 80 octane engines) us to purchase the "Forever STC" which is far cheaper than the other fuel STCs out there for either mogas or specialty fuels. Most of us have been running mogas for a long time and already have STCs for mogas.

I have a call into Swift Fuel to confirm this and will update once I hear from them.

 

[greentips]

That statement means the fuel was tested and approved/compatible to use UL94. It still requires the STC to legally (FAA rules) use the fuel. If you aren't using their fuel, there is no need for the STC, obviously. The Petersen STC is the same - it was tested and approved for certain aircraft/engine combinations but still requires the STC for both airframe and engine. I doubt the Petersen STC covers UL94.

Your airport can and should provide MOGAS as an alternative, though there would have to be a cost benefit. I've tried getting it to our airport but the county that manages everything has no interest.

You are correct on the Petersen STC. It and the EAA STC covers mogas that meets the ASTM spec for Mogas and if you are using mogas both the airframe and engine combinations must be certified. Petersen issues two STCs, one for the airframe and one for the engine for Mogas, irrespective of brand, which must be ETOH free.

Petersen and the EAA STCs do not cover UL-94 as it didn't exist when the STC was issued back in the last century. The key is: was the airplane TC'd to run on 80. It is my understanding from talking to the SwiftFuel folks at OSH when it first came out, that the 94UL is the base stock for 100LL without any tetraethyl lead added, which, except for the octane rating, the same fuel.

 

[N2229D]

I have a 1976 182p . I bought it because it’s the last year Auto Fuel is approved. I have flown it with auto gas over 20 years and love it. The o470 runs much cleaner and no led issues. I horoscope it each annual and valves are looking great. I’ve been paying 2.70/gal. I know not everyone can use it but thinking of this when you buy a plane can save you thousands.

First off I love the 182, my dad was a Cessna dealer back in the early 60's. Our first new airplane was a 59 172, then a 66 150. But my favorite was our new 68 Skylane. I would take dates out for late night flights when in high school. Sad day when still as a very new airplane I watched a tornado rip it from the ground and destroy it. To your point our fuel here is southern Ohio is $5.91 before my local discount. It's one of the big reasons I sold my beloved Twin Comanche two months ago. I will fly out my days in my C-170 that I have owned for almost 35 years and used mogas in most of that time.

 

[DNeuf]

We'll see if fuel prices are going to improve in a couple of weeks along with a lot of other insanity of the last 4 years.