The announcement came after the fuel passed a 150-hour engine durability test under the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), a collaborative industry and government testing program established in 2014. The FAA noted that the LyondellBasell/VP Racing UL100E is the first unleaded fuel to pass this phase of PAFI testing. The program’s signatories are working towards a replacement for 100LL avgas for aircraft requiring higher octane than the currently available 94UL unleaded fuels.

• READ MORE: EAGLE Initiative Shows Measured Progress, Fuel Contenders Say at Oshkosh

“This is another important milestone for a safe general aviation transition to unleaded fuel and for our goal to eliminate lead emissions by the end of 2030,” 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 (GAMA) and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), both members of EAGLE, said they are “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.” 

• READ MORE: Time to Get Serious About Unleaded Fuel

Overall, the PAFI test program evaluates fuel on numerous characteristics including engine durability and detonation, aircraft performance, material compatibility and environmental factors.

“The LyondellBasell/VP Racing’s achievement marks an important waypoint on the path to a more environmentally friendly future for aviation fuel and demonstrates the progress we’ve made through our government and aviation community partnership,” said Curt Castagna, president of the National Air Transport Association (NATA) and industry co-chair of the EAGLE initiative. “EAGLE celebrates this milestone and looks forward to more opportunities to recognize industry ingenuity and innovation.”

The next step for the LyondellBasell/VP Racing fuel includes engine and airframe testing with 10 engines and eight aircraft, which is expected to take 12 to 18 months. The UL100E fuel is one of four unleaded fuel candidates in the test program. If a fuel successfully completes testing, and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) publishes a production specification, the FAA would issue a fleet authorization.

The post Unleaded Avgas Candidate Passes Critical Engine Tests, Moves Ahead appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Because of the way the U.S. government operates, particularly under the Clean Air Act of 1970, certain processes within the associated agencies, including the FAA, could not begin without the finding.

Now leadership from within the industry’s manufacturers, distributors, associations, and users (that’s us, the pilot community) can act on the commitment to getting the lead out of our avgas—specifically the high octane fuel required by high-performance piston engines currently served by 100LL.

But what happens now? I spoke with Walter Desrosier, vice president of engineering and maintenance for the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, this week about the finding and what it triggers. “We have significant progress,” said Desrosier. “There is a broad, collective community commitment from the entire GA industry in cooperation with the government and the FAA to move to no lead. So the EPA action that came out is part of that transition process. It actually puts into the Clean Air Act process how they will mandate a transition. So this is not something that we continue to talk about, that we hope to find solutions—this is a commitment  from the industry that continues to work towards the best solutions.”

The timeline has officially begun, but it will take a couple of years for the mandate and the associated guidance to come into play. In the meantime, the industry is already working hard toward fielding the solutions.

Fuels in Process

Those solutions include four candidate fuels in the works from different providers in varying states of development, testing, and acceptance. “Part of our transition will also be what’s the best available fuel,” said Desrosier.

By most measures, the furthest along comes from GAMI Inc., whose G100UL has attained supplemental type certification from the FAA. GAMI works with at least one producer, VTOL, to manufacture the fuel in enough quantity to reach those who need to test it and develop its distribution in the field. The STC means the FAA considers the fuel safe for the applications covered in that approval.

While the STC includes broad fixed-wing piston aircraft acceptance, testing continues for rotorcraft with Robinson deep into its program with the fuel. Cirrus Aircraft is also testing the fuel within its fleet.

But any fuel that makes it to market must also demonstrate commercial viability. It must make it from the manufacturer through the distribution channels—pipeline or trucking—to the airport where it goes into a tank, and then into our fuel tanks on aircraft. That means the fuel must be acceptable in each of those steps by the businesses involved, as well as the end user burning it in flight.

“With the GAMI fuel, the path that they chose to take is to do their proprietary STC approval, which is perfectly fine on the safety side with the FAA, but they also chose not to enter into an ASTM consensus specification process,” said Desrosier. “Typically that’s how all the other stakeholders in the community become familiar with a fuel…the content of the fuel, the understanding of the evaluation and the assessments of the fuel, and the understanding of the components, and the understanding of the business risks related to being a stakeholder who might purchase, who might produce, who might distribute, who might dispense, and who might put it into people’s tanks.

“There’s a lot of business decisions in this, and a lot of risk.”

Swift Fuels has already entered the market with a lower octane unleaded fuel, 94UL, with limited distribution now but a growing foothold, especially in states and at airports where there is more pressure to get away from leaded avgas.

Swift is pursuing both an STC and ASTM path with its high octane fuel, 100UL, and it has chosen a clever way to gain market acceptance—and perhaps reach commercial viability—with the new fuel. For its current 94UL, Swift offers a “Forever STC,” through which an operator purchasing the STC for the lower octane fuel is promised that the STC for the 100UL fuel will be  included in that purchase when it’s available.

Swift will be able to deliver the fuel through the existing infrastructure to the existing tanks it has put in place for 94UL. According to Desrosier, Swift has already started the consensus standard and is going through the STC process. Critically, the manufacturer will share the results through the consensus process, and when it obtains FAA approval, it will share that data with all the stakeholders.

Two other fuels are pursuing approval through the PAFI (Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative) program. One already has the ASTM test specification, produced by Afton Chemical/Phillips 66, and it is continuing to share information, according to Desrosier. It has to go through the full ASTM testing process, but it has “the roadmap” to do it.

The other candidate fuel (Lyondell/VP Racing) is close behind. The consortium has entered into the specification process and expects to also share its progress.

More than One?

One big question in my mind: Will we end up with more than one fuel, and will they be intermixable? I asked Desroiser, along with the follow-up question: Is this testing pathway defined or is it wait and see?

No, said Desrosier, the fuels are not allowed to intermix and co-mingle. All of the candidate producers are testing to comingle with 100LL—because that is part of the transition process and very likely to occur in the field.

“In terms of ‘could be,’ it depends on the final composition of the fuels,” he said. “We do know some of the key components,” and some fuels will not be able to mix because they are too different.

In the end, having two fuels make it through the process means that the market will decide—and we will have a backup in case of an unforeseen issue with a producer or fuel. “We think it’s going to have to be a market decision,” said Desrosier. “I’m not expecting a significant market penetration, dividing the market in half” with different fuels regionally available.

“Once you have the acceptance by FAA, ultimately the consumer is the very last in the supply chain,” he concluded. 

With the pilot or owner-operator, it often boils down to price—and that won’t likely change with 100UL.

The post Time to Get Serious About Unleaded Fuel appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Representatives from GAMA, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), and the National Air Transportation Association (NATA) participated in the discussion.

The panelists cited progress toward fielding a replacement for 100 Low Lead (100LL) high octane gasoline that would be suitable for fleetwide use. While an estimated 70 percent of the current piston-aircraft fleet can safely use available lower-octane lead-free fuels, the remaining 30 percent that require higher-octane fuel to operate safely fly an estimated 70 percent of the hours flown by the entire GA fleet.

• READ MORE: EPA Releases Proposed Finding on Leaded AvGas

The panelists noted that the expected EPA endangerment finding, in itself, does not constitute a ban on continued use of 100LL fuel. In fact, the group stressed the priority of retaining the right to distribute and use 100LL until and acceptable replacement is in place.

However, the panelists did acknowledge that the EPA endangerment ruling does set a “pathway” to future rulemaking related to lead emissions in aviation fuels.

There was extended discussion on the difference between the supplemental type certificate (STC) route to acceptance of a replacement unleaded fuel, and the so-called ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) route, involving a “collaborative government FAA program to test candidate fuels, generate report and data, and distribute to fuel providers” enabling the FAA to gain “industry consensus” and issue a fleetwide approval.

• READ MORE: G100UL Avgas Replacement Set to Soon Hit Pumps

The panelists were careful to assure that the FAA, as the arbiter of safe aviation operations, is the final authority on approving a replacement for 100LL; not the EPA. That said, the discussion revealed that – for the first time – regulatory standards for lead emissions in aviation fuel will be established as a result of the expected EPA endangerment finding. GAMA assured the participating journalists that there would be further briefings once the EPA endangerment finding is finalized.

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared on AVweb.com.

The post GAMA Hosts Pre-Brief on Life After EPA’s Ruling on Leaded Aviation Fuel appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The deadline for the release of the FAA document—the notice of proposed rulemaking—that sets in motion the much-needed update to aircraft certification processes and guidance was set last year around this time for August 2023. As recently as a few weeks ago, colleagues in the industry agreed that it wasn’t likely that we’d see the NPRM for the Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification (MOSAIC) before Oshkosh. The hangars and flightline at EAA AirVenture would be filled with folks speculating on whether the FAA would make its target or let another one pass.

Who could blame them, in a way? It’s a big task to overhaul the regulatory basis by which we define light sport aircraft and others in the limited category.

But word got out on Wednesday that the FAA had released a preview to the ASTM committee, F37, on LSA, publicly available in the Federal Register ahead of the planned NPRM publication.

All 318 pages of it.

I’ve never been so excited to curl up with an FAA document in my life. When I cracked it open, I went straight to the point where the meat of the proposal began. And, yes, within this document, indeed, the FAA proposes to amend rules “for the manufacture, certification, operation, maintenance, and alteration of light sport category aircraft.”

We’ll get into more of the nuances as we dissect the NPRM as a team, but I needed to get a sense of what gems lay within.

The first thing I had to know? The weight limit.

The Weight Limit?

As in, what are they doing with the artificial—and seemingly arbitrary, though it was ostensibly based on the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) ultralight category of 600 kilograms—weight limit of 1,320 pounds for light sport airplanes?

In a fit of common sense—that would be just one of many I’d find last night as I read into the late hours—the proposal gets rid of that intensely limiting parameter:

“Consistent with the FAA’s analysis of the safe operations accomplished under those exemptions, this proposal would eliminate the weight limits for light-sport category aircraft…[and] eliminating weight limits for light-sport category aircraft would provide manufacturers opportunities to:

• Incorporate additional safety-enhancing designs and equipment,

• Design airframes that are more rugged for the flight-training environment,

• Increase fuel load and aircraft range,

• Allow for greater cabin size to enable greater occupant heights and

weights,

• Improve aircraft handling in gusts, turbulence, and crosswinds, and

• Increase the suitability of light-sport category aircraft for other intended

operating purposes, including recreation, personal travel, and certain aerial

work.”

Instead, aircraft will be limited by V_S1 (more on this in a moment), which will produce, according to the NPRM, an upper limit of around 3,000 pounds max gross weight. Whew. That’s a huge change. When Cessna was developing the Skycatcher 162 for the LSA and training market, so many decisions were made that were real compromises because of that 1,320-pound rule. My kingdom to have had that limit taken away…

One other immediate benefit to the change? This will allow for a four-seat aircraft to qualify, according to further verbiage in the doc. A pilot exercising sport privileges will only be able to take one passenger along, just like today, but those operating with higher certificate levels can utilize the aircraft to the max.

Stall Speed Updated?

Next up for revision, the maximum stall speed. To me, stall speed was always the best way to define the category because of all of the natural parameters a given stall speed would impose on the design. Put simply, an airplane that stalls at a lower indicated airspeed also lands at a slower speed and thus is easier for most pilots to manage. 

The NPRM recognizes this in clear argument, and puts forth 54 kcas as the target upper limit for airplanes, expanding this by a modest 9 knots from the previous 45 kcas set in the current LSA definition. 

What the increase does, however, is recognize the large body of heavier airplanes that otherwise fit the mission and prove easily managed by student pilots during flight training, such as the Piper PA-28 series.

What About Max Speed?

Stall speed naturally limits maximum speed in level flight (defined as V_H in the LSA guidance), so the NPRM proposes to remove the max V_H of 120 kcas under standard conditions and instead leave a natural upper parameter of around 250 kcas. Another “wow” moment. You mean we can go twice as fast? This alone will unlock a ton of potential from currently limited SLSA in the U.S. that are certificated under EASA CS 23 with faster cruise speeds.

And the list goes on. Restrictions on controllable-pitch props, retractable landing gear, and power sources for engines would be removed under the NPRM’s language. Expansion into IFR ops becomes a path for manufacturers to pursue. Sport pilot privileges for helicopters becomes reality. So. Many. Things.

What’s Next?

Publication of the document should occur on Monday, just in time for everyone at Oshkosh to get together and talk about it. I recommend you set aside time to study the preview (and the NPRM when published)—or you can follow along as our team dives into the specifics.

James Newberger, Aircraft Certification Service  (AIR-632) in Washington, D.C., holds point on comments. Prepare yours thoughtfully.

I’m already working on mine.

The post What This MOSAIC Preview Means appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Whenever I write about the FAA’s Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certificates (MOSAIC) regulation, especially when I mentioned the date it predicted, a substantial percentage of all readers shrug this off, believing that the FAA will never complete it on time.

What if I told you the agency was ahead of schedule? Is that an unbelievable claim? Perhaps, but the proof is right here, right now! Can’t wait? The notice of proposed rulemaking may be found here.

• READ MORE: Will MOSAIC Allow LSAs To Do More?

Consider the following communication from the ASTM committee working on LSA standards. In case you don’t know what that is, ASTM is an industry standards group that operates privately, creating and getting agreement on standards used by the FAA to accept Light-Sport Aircraft into the aviation fleet. (This is different than conventional FAA “certification.”)

Big MOSAIC News

Honestly, from almost the beginning, the FAA has moved faster than most of us imagined. At EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2022, the FAA announced it would remove the drone portion of MOSAIC, which was delaying the overall regulation as that community works out its issues. FAA officials said removing all that language could take some months. In fact, it was done in a few weeks. That told me something. Once the internal or procedural impediments to progress are removed, the MOSAIC team can move swiftly.

Yes, I wrote that—the FAA moved swiftly.

The FAA official I videoed last year at AirVenture claimed that the regulation would be ready by August 2023. Days later, still at AirVenture, other FAA officials said about him, “Oh, he’s usually rather optimistic.” They were implying it might not happen by that date. Maybe they were trying to allow some wiggle room?

Later, when I reported the official’s “August 2023” statement and gave talks referencing it, I would estimate a third of all those listening or reading doubted the FAA would meet their own deadline. The belief isn’t all wrong; the FAA has missed deadlines before.

One thing no one thought: the FAA would complete the thing ahead of schedule.

Now, hear this…

“[ASTM] received this communication this morning—Wednesday, July 19, 2023 — from Jim Newberger, who is the FAA lead for the MOSAIC rule development (officially his position is: Production & Airworthiness Section; AIR-632; Aircraft Certification Service).

This is exciting news and will definitely impact, positively, our discussions,” stated leaders of the ASTM committee for LSA, Rian Johnson and Adam Morrison.

• READ MORE: AI Aims to Enhance Aviation Safety, Reduce Delays

Leaders encouraged F37 committee members (more than 200 persons around the world), “Once the NPRM is posted (see below!), if you have available time, please try to review as much as you can and capture your questions/comments for group discussion next week [at AirVenture 2023 meetings]. These are generally pretty lengthy documents. We’ll all be freshly digesting the NPRM, so everyone’s perspectives and interpretations will be important to help bring clarity as quickly as possible.”

From FAA’s official lead…

“I wanted to let you know that the Office of the Federal Register is scheduled to:

• Post the related “MOSAIC” Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for “display” today at approximately 1115 ET.
• Publish this NPRM in the Federal Register on Monday (July 24, 2023).

“After the above milestones, you may use the following info to search/locate the NPRM on Regulations.gov:

• Document 2023-14425, Category PROPOSED RULES
• Docket Id is Docket No.: FAA-2023-1377; Notice No. 23-10
• Rulemaking Identification Number (RIN) is 2120-AL50
• The subject of this document is Modernization of Special Airworthiness Certification
• The submitting Agency is (FAA) Federal Aviation Administration

Feel free to share this information with the F37 committee* and take advantage of opportunities explained in Monday’s publication for providing comments.”

Message for Readers!

I know this material will not digest easily, but it affects your future of flying. I hope many of you will read the NPRM, discuss it among your pilot friends, and think about how you will offer responses to this rule. You should have at least 90 days to comment.

Thanks to longtime F37 committee member Anna Mracek Dietrich, checking this out got much easier. Here you go…

Happy Reading! It runs 318 pages.

The post FAA Releases MOSAIC Preview for Light Sport Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

To focus a lens on the issue—and compel critical questioning to the process—the General Aviation Manufacturers Association on Monday hosted a roundtable of stakeholders to the EAGLE (Eliminate Aviation Gasoline Lead Emissions) initiative to give an update on how things stand. The initiative seeks a complete replacement of leaded fuel by no later than 2030, with a sunsetting of the fuel while maintaining a high level of safety in GA operations, which it primarily affects.

The panel was led by the co-chairs of the initiative, Mark Baker, president and CEO of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and Lirio Liu, executive director, aircraft certification service for the FAA, and supported by leaders from the National Business Aviation Association, National Air Transportation Association, Experimental Aircraft Association, Helicopter Association International, and the National Association of State Aviation Officials.

Leaders from four key manufacturers with a front-row seat to the sunsetting of leaded fuel joined them with their input on the state of affairs:

• John Calcagno, president and CEO, Piper Aircraft
• Ron Draper, president and CEO, Textron Aviation
• Patrick Horgan, president and CEO, CubCrafters
• Shannon Massey, senior vice president, Lycoming Engines

The urgency is real: The Environmental Protection Agency released its proposed finding on leaded aviation fuel in October 2022, setting the stage for a final ruling that industry leaders expect to occur by the end of 2023.

Getting to Approval

At the moment, four candidate fuels are in the process of development and testing. However, they are taking two different pathways to achieve that goal. 

The first is based on the FAA’s long-running Piston Aviation Fuel Initiative (PAFI) program and utilizes consensus standards developed in concert with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). This was the process completed by Swift Fuels with its UL94 unleaded avgas that came into the market in earnest starting in 2015 and reaching widespread use as of 2021. Two entities have 100-octane fuel in the evaluation process under PAFI: Afton Chemical/Phillips 66 and Lyondell/VP Racing. 

“Currently, the PAFI fuels are completing full-scale engine durability and endurance testing, which is expected to complete by the end of July,” according to Peter Bunce, president and CEO of GAMA. When a fuel passes the next gate of testing, it will proceed onto the next level with airframe OEMs. Completion of the ASTM process will allow entry into the market with a high degree of confidence in its suitability.

The alternate path is through the supplemental type certificate (STC) process, which is proprietary to the fuel manufacturer working directly with the FAA. Two STC fuels are currently using that process for approval—Swift Fuels’ 100R and GAMI’s G100UL. Swift Fuels also plans to go through the ASTM acceptance for its high-octane fuel and, according to GAMA, ASTM already has a task committee set up to evaluate the fuel.

GAMI has received FAA STC approval for use of its fuel in a wide range of powerplants, and owners can purchase the STC for their aircraft now. However, the fuel is not yet available in the market. According to GAMI, the fuel will be available “as fast as production can be ramped up and fuel can be delivered to airports. It has been estimated that 2023 will be a year of logistics with G100UL avgas appearing more widely in 2024. The first customers for the fuel are likely to be flight schools.” 

Cirrus is currently testing the GAMI G100UL in its fleet, and other OEMs stand ready to do so, but the process is more incremental—and less transparent as a result of its proprietary nature.

Octane Is Only One Metric

Lycoming’s Shannon Massey delivered her comments, representing the more than 100,000 powerplants that the aviation engine OEM has shipped in its 95-year history—with more than 650 type certificates for the various models in the field. These are in addition to the engines powering experimental aircraft.

More than half require high octane fuel, according to Massey. “(They are) the workhorses of the fleet. They are ferrying supplies to remote locations. They’re patrolling borders. They’re supporting military operations….The loss of the ability of these airframes to serve society would definitely be impactful, which is why we, as an OEM [and] engine provider, are looking to make sure that we know—under unleaded fuels and the development that’s taking place in those—what are those key characteristics?”

Massey called for greater involvement in the process, regardless of which fuel was making its way through the gates—and which pathway to approval was pursued. “We need to ensure that whether it’s through industry/government—the PAFI authorization process—or be it the supplemental type certificate (STC) process, that we have a good understanding and knowledge of the specific tests, and which models of engines are evaluated. So that way we can stand behind that portion of it.”

However, getting a fuel to a required octane level is only one of the metrics needed in bringing it to the market successfully—and safely. Massey outlined seven elements that Lycoming seeks answers on, which were echoed by other stakeholders on the panel.

Toxicity

In the quest for a higher-performance fuel, aromatics—chemical compounds (hydrocarbons) that increase octane—replace the tetraethyl lead (TEL) present in 100LL. However, many are known to also be carcinogenic, such as benzene and toluene, and their use is limited in gasoline in many countries. “So we don’t want to replace one fuel for another one that’s going to be harmful, whether it be to the environment or the public,” said Massey.

“We need the transparency of the chemical composition of each fuel to be evaluated by some government entity to give the industry a thumbs-up or -down that what is put into the atmosphere when the fuel is burned is not likely to be a significant concern now or in the future to be harmful,” said Bunce in a follow-up with FLYING. “This is why we encouraged the FAA to have either EPA or some other government entity assess the components of all new fuels to give the industry their expert judgment and green light to move forward. If the EPA won’t do it, then I think the FAA’s choice of the National Academy of Sciences to pull together an expert panel is a good alternative.” There is concern that one or more of those compounds may be in a candidate fuel—but this cannot be confirmed without transparency to the makeup of that fuel.

Materials Compatibility

An engine doesn’t stand alone—and it too is made up of a myriad of parts and components. Of particular concern to Lycoming, as well as airframe OEMs, are the effects that a new fuel will have on other materials used within the powerplant—such as O-rings and seals—as well as the fuel system and other accessories within the airframe tying the tanks to the engine and sending the byproducts out through the exhaust. 

Original testing of early unleaded fuels bears out this concern. Ron Draper of Textron Aviation said in the briefing, “We have tested fuels in the past that have a similar but different recipe, and we had some results that were…I guess, less than desired. In the past, some of those fuels did have wear and tear on soft materials in the airplane—O-rings, gaskets, hoses, bladders, sealants—and we’re unsure of these new fuels, what (they’re) going to do to the engine, what it’s going to do to the airplane.”

Stability

In order to survive production, storage, transportation, tankering, and extended time within FBO and aircraft tanks, a fuel must be stable. It cannot degrade quickly or harm the containers in which it is kept, to a certain extent. Corrosive properties may impact the metal or other materials in the engine or airframe as fuel sits within them over time. The octane may also degrade over long periods.

Vaporization

The distillation curve is another concern. “Fuel’s ability to vaporize at any given temperature—that’s key if we’re looking for ‘startability,’ ‘runability,’ and [addressing] vapor lock concerns,” said Massey. These are not engines or aircraft that can work 99 percent of the time, as was pointed out by John Calcagno of Piper Aircraft.

Density

Another aspect of a new fuel most may not have considered is a difference in density affects a number of things, including the fuel’s overall weight. Aromatics used in unleaded fuel tend to be denser, potentially increasing the fuel weight. Remember the rule of thumb to use 6 pounds per gallon of 100LL in weight and balance calculations? That may change with the new fuels. It may also affect center of gravity, seeing as how most fuel tanks are positioned near the aircraft’s CG—but not all are.

Fuel Controls

A sixth aspect to take into account is any change in the fuel’s volume and how that might affect the metering. “Fuels with increased density will exhibit higher mass flow rates,” said Massey, “and thus higher fuel-to-air ratios.” So, fuel controls would have to be adjusted to accommodate a denser fuel—and keep operations predictable and safe.

Repeatability

The final key noted by the panel is the ability to repeat the fuel recipe by way of a mature production specification. Massey concluded: “These are all considerations that without us having the knowledge base and being able to characterize and/or standardize the testing methods, what does that mean and how does that impact our current (engines) that are out there?”

What’s Next?

FBOs stand ready to accept the fuel—whatever reaches the market first—once accepted and approved. But the market seems to think high-octane fuel should already be out there. Curt Castagna of NATA reported, “Historically, aviation fuels sold as a commodity [are produced] and delivered to the airports and FBOs through the fuel distribution network, where those entities are relying on today the four major fuel suppliers that are delivering that fuel, to bring them a fuel that has, for the last many decades, met an ASTM standard.”

A mature production specification is needed, then, to get unleaded avgas into the market in real quantities—but the perception is running ahead of reality. Castagna said, “There [are] expectations by the users that are buying fuel today—FBOs and airports are hearing from both their user constituents and then their ‘outside-the-fence’ community interests” that are looking to see lead removed.

“All of us here today in the industry are unified in removing that lead—it’s how do we get there?” Castagna concluded. 

While the next stage of EPA’s endangerment finding looms on the horizon, the passing of that milestone won’t stop 100LL sales immediately. But the pressure will be real from those who would use that as an incentive to push forward on that tack.

As Bunce concludes, “The EPA cannot regulate aviation; that is the FAA’s preview. The formal endangerment finding ruling expected by the end of this year will not allow entities to close airports immediately and will not ban leaded avgas immediately. What it will do is kick off the FAA rulemaking process, which is a multiyear journey—which hopefully aligns with our EAGLE timeline of no later than the end of 2030, but sooner if a commercially viable unleaded fuel emerges. 

“The danger to the industry would be for communities to ban 100LL prematurely using the EPA ruling, which is just the start of the regulatory process, before we have the commercially viable replacement. This emphasizes the importance of EAGLE and having a methodical and transparent transition plan.”

The post Update Triggers Questions on Unleaded Avgas Progress appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Junkers Aircraft—now the parent company to the WACO marque as well—hosted the event at its WACO Kitchen at the Sheltair FBO at the Lakeland Linder International Airport on the afternoon prior to the official opening of the show on March 28. 

A Throwback and Leap Forward

Taking the 1929 design from Hugo junkers and updating it to the modern era, Junkers Aircraft has begun manufacturing the two-seat, low-wing, aluminum-skinned sport airplane at its U.S. facility in Michigan. The original 80 hp Armstrong-Siddeley Genet radial engine has been swapped out for the 100 hp Rotax 912iS with a two-blade, ground adjustable MT propeller. In the rear cockpit—from which the airplane is flown when solo—the Garmin G3X with a 10.6-inch display provides aircraft control and navigational power, with a companion 7-inch G3X display up front.

Other safety improvements over the traditional design include a Beringer braking system and a Galaxy ballistic recovery parachute. The airplane already came in under SLSA parameters with a max takeoff weight of 1,320 pounds and suitability to the training environment.

The first 29 aircraft are offered at 179,000 euros or about $193,500 at today’s exchange rate. Look for an upcoming We Fly pilot report in the pages of FLYING.

Junkers A50 Junior Specs

Price: 179,000 euros (roughly $193,500)

Engine: Rotax 912iS, 100 hp, fuel-injected

Propeller: two-blade MT, ground adjustable

Recovery System: Galaxy GRS 600 airframe parachute

Seats: 1 + 1 (solo from the rear)

Day VFR Only

Wingspan: 32 feet, 4 inches

Length: 24 feet, 4 inches

Height: 9 feet, 6 inches

Max Takeoff Weight: 1,320 pounds

Empty Weight: 840 pounds

Useful Load: 480 pounds / 310 pounds with full fuel

Fuel Capacity: 27 gallons

Fuel Consumption: 4 gph at best economy

Range: 680 nm

Cruise Speed: 75 knots

Stall Speed: 46 knots

Max Crosswind Component: 15 knots

Takeoff Distance, Over 50-ft. Obstacle: 984 feet

Landing Distance, Over 50-ft. Obstacle: 1,355 feet

The post Junkers A50 Junior Unveiled to Kick Off Sun ’n Fun 2023 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Approved in July as amendments to Brazilian Civil Aviation Regulations (RBAC) No. 1 and No. 21, the changes allow airplanes with up to four seats and a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of up to 1,361 kg (3,000 pounds) to be classified as LSAs. Electric motors are also allowed for propulsion under the new LSA regulations, as well as variable-pitch propellers.

• READ MORE: An Inside Look at Modern LSA Ownership

ANAC said the changes will be applied under the LSA category standards developed by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International).

The new regs also will reduce the cost for approval of new designs for LSAs compared to the type certification process, ANAC said, while maintaining acceptable safety standards. 

• READ MORE: Should You Buy an LSA?

Currently in the U.S., the FAA only allows LSAs with a top speed in level flight of 120 knots, two seats maximum, and MTOWs under 1,320 pounds—1,430 pounds for seaplanes.

Brazilian LSA Regs: Before and Now

The new regulations came after regulators conducted a survey last year to assess views from the public on advantages and disadvantages of LSAs compared to other categories—such as certified and amateur-built experimental aircraft.

The post Brazil Expands LSA Regs for Larger, Faster Aircraft appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Migration 2022 was held Tuesday and Wednesday this week at the Aerospace Center for Excellence’s Ramos Skylab at the Lakeland Linder International Airport (KLAL) in Florida.

The future was definitively in attendance. The U.S. representatives for Pipistrel—and its EASA-certificated Velis Electro two-seat all-electric trainer—from Right Rudder Aviation participated. And leaders from VTOL startup Joby Aviation’s newly launched flight training organization, Stockton Ballantyne and Cody Cleverly, joined the conversation. 

Pete Bunce, president and CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and Walter Desrosier, GAMA’s director of engineering and maintenance, laid out the problem statement and the current position the general aviation industry is in during a keynote session Wednesday. 

Redbird’s vice president of sales and marketing, Josh Harnagel, related that, as they approached the event, the Redbird team considered making GAMA’s presentation a breakout session, but the inflection point that the GA industry has come to demanded that all 200 flight training leaders at the conference have a chance to hear the message.

Electric Is the Future, But Unleaded Fuel Is Now

“The most efficient way right now of getting into the air is blowing up dinosaurs,” Bunce said. But the fact is that development toward electric aircraft is not just in the urban air mobility (UAM) space, but also driving up to regional and commercial aviation. He noted how Eviation’s all-electric Alice—which is expected to make its first flight soon—is patterned after a business jet, but with unconventional powerplants. 

Traditional aviation OEMs such as Bell are getting into the game too. And Embraer’s Eve consortium will go public in the next few weeks, with an end-to-end UAM solution proposed, all the way through to a new ATC infrastructure plan to sell into the developing world.

Is Hydrogen the Answer?

Additionally, there are several projects—including ZeroAvia’s—using gaseous hydrogen to power aircraft—and from a potential energy standpoint these hold promise. But as Bunce pointed out, we need the hydrogen infrastructure specific to aviation in order to make those test aircraft operational and economical in the real world.

“[In aviation] we have the tougher challenge,” as far as needing the high potential energy stored in petroleum-based fuels, “and we should be the last ones able to use it—but that’s not the way the world is going,” Bunce said.

SAF Is Jet-A

The industry already has developed several pathways to producing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) from various sources, with the ASTM involved in this process using as many as 7 authorized roadmaps.

Right now, we can blend only 50 percent sustainable fuel stock into a jet-A formulation, because of the need to add back in aromatics to augment the base feedstock—in aircraft powerplants, it comes down to critical factors such as protecting seals and other components within the engine and system.

There isn’t enough feedstock in aggregate to serve the industry right now either, as Bunce noted.

“We’re trying to break out that piece of the Build Back Better bill to keep Biden’s challenge alive,” he said.  He noted the commitment made by signatories to the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) last fall to drive to zero emissions by 2050. “The only way to get there is with SAF—new aircraft design won’t get there,” he said.

But he’s excited about the current state of affairs in GA and for aviation overall. “I look at this time in the industry—this has got to be what the dawn of the jet age was like.”

AvGas Is the Key

GAMA’s Walter Desrosier put it bluntly as he continued the presentation: the continuity of the avgas supply is key to the stability of the GA industry. The fuel used by most of the piston fleet, 100LL, contains a specific compound—tetraethyl lead or TEL—to deliver lead’s protective properties to the fuel.

One facility in the world manufactures TEL, and that’s Innospec, Inc., in the U.K. He noted that Brexit helped continue the production of TEL for a while longer because Innospec’s production facility is no longer operating under EU oversight, but the pressure remains intact.

Much of the training fleet—using relatively low-compression engines—can use the UL91 and UL94 unleaded fuels currently entering the market in the U.S. Overall, 67 percent of the GA fleet can use these fuels, and they are essentially drop-in—there’s paperwork and placarding involved, but little else.

But the remaining 33 percent of high-performance aircraft in the fleet require 100LL—and those aircraft will keep flying as long as they’re able. With the average age of the GA fleet at 47 years, pilots hang onto their airplanes, so it’s not like the automotive industry where lead-burning cars could be phased out and converted over a roughly 10-year period. “That transition option is not available to us,” said Desrosier.

Consumption of avgas skews the breakdown even more: 70 percent of avgas consumed needs to be 100LL. “We haven’t found a silver bullet,” that would take us to a drop-in solution, said Desrosier. A “non-drop-in” solution would require at the very least an operational impact, changes to fuel production and distribution, and require FAA certification and approval for each airframe and powerplant combination.

What Can Flight Schools Do?

In California, the answer has already been forced upon a handful of flight training organizations, including Trade Winds Aviation at Reid-Hillview (KRHV) and San Martin (E16) airports in Santa Clara County. 

But Bunce also mentioned a movement underway at the Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) in the Los Angeles Basin to go the same route as Santa Clara toward a total ban on the sale of 100LL on the field.

There are future fleet solutions in electric aircraft—but they admittedly have limited utility. Pipistrel’s Velis Electro has the endurance for traffic pattern work, but not much else at the moment. FLYING will cover the electric aircraft question in more detail in a follow-on piece to come.

The recommendation for now? Research and proactively source unleaded avgas for those aircraft in the training fleet that can use it now—before the requirement for using it is forced upon the flight school operator.

The post What Will Fuel Our Flight Training Fleets? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Darling hopes this move will finally help it to pursue the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) market as chairman and chief executive officer, Randall C. Stuewe pointed out in a statement.

“Valley Proteins will supplement Darling’s global supply of waste fats and greases,” he said. “The new supply will now provide Darling with additional low-carbon feedstock to produce renewable diesel and potentially sustainable aviation fuel.”

With the purchase, Darling will gain access to 18 rendering and used cooking oil facilities throughout the southern, southeast, and mid-Atlantic regions of the U.S. as well as Valley’s 1,900 employees and its fleet of 550 vehicles.

While renewable diesel has a different chemical composition and specification than SAF as certified by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), Darling and its partners are hoping to make the adjustments needed in its operation to pursue this new market segment. The sustainable aviation fuel market is projected to grow from $66 million to $15 billion by 2030.

Ingredients in Place to Target Aviation Market

Darling may be able to jump in the SAF market because of its partnership with Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO), an independent refining and ethanol production company. The two firms operate a 50-50 joint venture under the name Diamond Green Diesel (DGD) that converts lipids, including waste products, to hydrocarbons in the form of renewable diesel. Darling’s vertically integrated supply chain provides DGD with low-cost feedstocks, which when combined with the refining support of Valero, makes DGD one of the lowest cost producers of renewable fuels in North America. 

On their third-quarter earnings call earlier this year, Stuewe said DGD “could sell over 700 million gallons of renewable diesel in 2022 as the engineering team continues to fine tune the performance of this expansion.”

One early indication that Darling would pursue this came on their 2019 fourth quarter earnings call where Stuewe hinted at the roadmap for the company amidst otherwise strong demand at their plants, which are labelled DGD I to IV.

“We’re very confident of the global demand for the product,” he said. “As we’ve talked about, DGD I and II are very well committed into 2022 now, and we continue to see a global market developing from really just transportation fuels today,” Stuewe said. 

“We’re also part of the engineering in DGD III and then the consideration of a sister plant, DGD IV, we’ll look at aviation and then cold weather fuels as we see a continuing growing market around the world for these.”

On that call, Stuewe also pointed out his company’s procurement and refinery advantage, saying “unless you’ve got the supply chain locked up and know how to originate, it’s a very, very complicated business to get in. The cracking of the molecule is one thing, the origination of the fad is another thing. 

“The advantage we have is very, very significant and we feel very good about it for the next three-plus years going forward,” he continued. “I feel pretty confident that Valero and ourselves will come to the final decision on DGD III in a positive way driven by global demand, and once we get our engineering estimate firmed up, we’ll come with DGD IV.”

Making Use of Favorable Tax Credits

The early adoption of SAF was sped up in 2019 when California introduced its Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program as a credit-generating fuel. Oregon followed shortly after, and more states might follow. Analysts argue that these LCFS credits are hugely beneficial to companies that can secure them because of the projected revenue it will generate.

Darling has acknowledged this on various earning calls as well.

“The success in California and the fact that the market has responded with low-carbon alternatives, not only renewable diesel but others, is extremely positive for expansion in these programs,” said John Bullock, an executive vice president for specialty ingredients and chief strategy officer at Darling said during the 2021 third quarter earnings call.

Furthermore, when Goldman Sachs Analyst Adam Samuelson queried about the benefits of the Build Back Better Act that was being deliberated at the time, Stuewe was quick to point out that “the Build Back Better social spending plan…is probably the single most bullish thing that we’ve seen in many years that gives certainty of our participation in the climate change discussion.”  He was also keen to point out the focus on producers and production of SAF in the credit that offered his company “extreme favorability.”

The post Darling Ingredients Acquires Valley Protein in Move to Target SAF market appeared first on FLYING Magazine.