#### Vigilant1

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
So...all of the current FBO's have lead contaminated fuel storage and delivery systems.

How is this going to be rectified?

#### rv7charlie

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Re "nobody has said they're interchangeable". GAMI has said that they are 'fully fungible,' both in the aircraft and in infrastructure. You can mix G100L and 100LL at will.
There's what works, and there's what's legal. A parallel valve Lyc runs just fine on premium mogas, with or without ethanol, and a lot of exp owners do it all the time. And they often mix the mogas with avgas, especially when traveling. But that E-mogas is most certainly not 'interchangeable' with avgas in a certified a/c, because there's no STC that allows it. G100UL isn't interchangeable with avgas in certified planes, until the a/c owner purchases the STC. As mentioned earlier, this is likely the biggest sticking point for widespread adoption; airports are going to be resistant to spending their own money for an additional tank, and resistant to switching outright because such a small percentage of the planes that actually buy most of the gas (cabin class twins used for business) will (at least at first) not have the STC.

BTW, an STC isn't a tax. It's a vehicle through which an innovator is allowed the opportunity to get some financial return on his research & development efforts. More akin to a patent (but unfortunately, with out the end point of a patent. Maybe 'copyright' would be a better analogy.

#### tspear

##### Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Somehow I doubt the EPA or anyone will require a massive change over in the equipment. The cost/benefit is negligible to negative; combined with the ability for cities/politicians and others to state that they have banned sales of 100LL going forward basically takes the wind out of the argument.
There just is not enough juice at that point to continue to squeeze it.

Note: I am not saying we do not guard against the possibility such a change gets "mandated"; but I think the probability is rather low that it will happen.

Tim

#### TXFlyGuy

##### Well-Known Member
So...we know someone who flew a C-172 for hundreds and hundreds of trouble free hours on 87UL. Did not have an STC. I bet this is more common than what we think.

#### skydawg

##### Well-Known Member
Interesting that the MOGAS STC and the new UL STC is a sticker, no mods to aircraft……. I see why buying the MOGAS STC is reasonable, these guys had to jump through FAA hoops to get STC and they realize no additional revenue as you buy UL MOGAS anywhere. The new UL STC cost is relatively cheap, but its only good when buying their gas……seems that would want to hand these STC stickers out like candy on Halloween.

#### SpruceForest

##### Well-Known Member
Somehow I doubt the EPA or anyone will require a massive change over in the equipment. The cost/benefit is negligible to negative; combined with the ability for cities/politicians and others to state that they have banned sales of 100LL going forward basically takes the wind out of the argument.
There just is not enough juice at that point to continue to squeeze it.

Note: I am not saying we do not guard against the possibility such a change gets "mandated"; but I think the probability is rather low that it will happen.

Tim
I hope the old type of common sense prevails here, but never underestimate a large swath of our policy makers' addiction to virtue-signaling versus actually exhibiting virtuous behavior, as well as their belief that the money to make 'expensive-for thee/feel-good for me/zero actual beneficial impact for us' policy is outside the bounds of cost/benefit.