100LL Phase out???

[1964-M20E]

I would like to get some opinions on the planed phase out of 100LL.

Several thoughts:

1. The small amount of lead put in the air by GA is so small compared autos in the 50's and 60's and early 70's it is not enough to worry about and the EPA should just leave us alone

2. Any replacement for 100LL should drop in without modifying our beloved airplanes and should be the same cost or less than 100ll today

3. If the possible replacement cost per gallon is as rumored upwards to $10 that would definitely kill GA.

4. At $10/gal rate for short local flights I think I would time the mags at 18 degrees BTDC and run premium UL buying the expensive stuff only when absolutely necessary.

5. Finally we need to be vocal to our legislators on this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[philipneeper]

i agree.. even in the case that they phase out 100LL... what would happen to jet A? i think the whole industry would be in chaos. im young and learning, but its my thought 

[1964-M20E]

Jet-A does not contain lead so it is not affected but that does not help us piston boys.

[Piloto]

GA will eventually transition to MOGAS. No issues wit EPA, cheaper than AVGAS and worldwide available. It would be cheaper to modify your current engine than to put a new one that runs on Jet-A.

José

 

[GeorgePerry]

Personally I'm waiting for a viable diesel alternative.  If I can keep my IO-360 running well for 7-10 more years then I'll spring for a diesel STC engine.

As far as 100LL goes, I wouldn't worry about it going away any more than I'd worry about gasoline engines being phased out by all electric vehicles in the "near" future.  IMO There's at least a 10 year horizon on any significant changes to 100LL.  If and when the 50 lb heads come up with a viable lead-free substitute fuel, it'll most likely work seamlessly with our exsisting engines.

Bottom line is press the "I believe" button and the process will most likely sort itself out without alot of fanfare.

[FlyDave]

If the amount of lead in 100 LL had such an impact on the environment, it would have been addressed before now. These days people are flying less because of the economy (I know it's true at my airport) so there's even less impact than there was 2 years ago. Everybody has to have a cause and some bone-head at EPA is trying to justify their existence with this one.

Like George, I think we have a 5 - 10 year window on 100 LL. In 4 - 5 years we'll have an alternative and 10 years it will be phased out.

If EPA/Congress tried to kill 100 LL they would cut GA off at the knees. They know that, we know that and no one is going to make rash decisions that would whack and entire industry - especially in this economic climate.

This 5 - 10 year window should allow me to fly 150 hours a year and get my engine to TBO by the time the alternative is available and tested (to my liking :<) ).

[jax88]

I'm not going to worry.  Although politics is likely the driving and determining factor in the replacement of 100LL, I have a relatively good authority on the topic that tells me a replacement was developed in the mid 1990s and has been patented by one of the largest refiners in the world.  This being the case, I would guess that whenever the politicians cave in to the special interest groups and finally get around to setting a date, the approval process for the replacement will be expedited.  Regardless of how it may shake out in the future, I'm going to fly and not lose any sleep over it.

[GeorgePerry]

start saving now...

[Piloto]

Quote: GeorgePerry

Personally I'm waiting for a viable diesel alternative.  If I can keep my IO-360 running well for 7-10 more years then I'll spring for a diesel STC engine.

[skyking]

The lead content emissions is not the only problem.

There are only a few refineries left that are willing to make AvGas and the list is getting shorter all the time.

Once a refinery runs a load of AvGas the cleaning process that the refinery needs to go through so they can run un-leaded again is extensive.

The maunufacturers want to see it gone as much as the politicians. We are on our own in this fight and i am afraid we are going to loose sooner or later.

I have been starting to look into Diesel set ups.

JAX88: You are partially correct. There is a very good alternative that has been tested and patented since 1993 but the FAA and Transport Canada Etc are nowhere close to giving approval.

I think we have 5 to 8 years before we start seeing AvGas being harder to obtain.

[67M20F]

I don't think it will happen up here, we HAVE to have 100LL!

But on  the same note if they could provide somthing better I  think they would have allready done it.

Ya know we are all going green...............LOL

[skyking]

I feel the same way...We need it too.

But the reality is..sooner or later... i see some form of Mogas or Diesel in our lifes.

[RJBrown]

Lead as an "as needed" additive eliminates the problems with refineries. Solves the "dual" fuel need with one fuel stock. Creates a problem with having to supply a separate and toxic additive.

There are those in the enviormental world that want lead out on principle only. Even though there is a negligible need.

That said Lead really is a bad thing in many ways.

 They have taken it out of Paint, Solder and car gas to name a few. There are those that will not stop until it is out of everything. When technology allows it we will no longer use it in batteries.

 Some day our SCUBA weights will be illegal.

[jax88]

I suppose that eventually the environmentalists will pursue legal action against Earth in order to have lead eliminated from occurring naturally.

[1964-M20E]

Call your congressman and senator tell them to fund and mandate the FAA to develop an equally or lower cost alternative to 100LL.

Bottom line is 100LL is a small portion of refineries output and they are bothered by us requesting it.  Kind of like a 1000 people going to Ford and asking them to make pintos.

I am an engineer but I’m not a chemical engineer.  I do not know why something cannot be done with little changes to the existing processes.

Any chemical engineers that work in the refinery business out there that can shed some light on this?

 

 

[Parker_Woodruff]

Quote: 1964-M20E

Call your congressman and senator tell them to fund and mandate the FAA to develop an equally or lower cost alternative to 100LL.

[1964-M20E]

 You have a valid point regarding the Feds.  I am all for the free market but my thoughts were if the FAA pushes in a single direction then we will not go through a Blue ray / HDDVD type fiasco.  Once a single reliable replacement was developed the technology would be open for all manufactures to produce since the Feds sponsored the research.  The idea is to have a equally valued replacement that is easy to manufacture.

Most GA airports can only support one type of piston fuel whatever it is.  The replacement fuel needs to work in all engines with no modification to the engines or fuel systems and needs to be comparably priced to 100LL or lower.  

 

 

 

 

[RJBrown]

We can't have a "monopoly" supplier with no pressure to maintain prices.

 For Gami, or any other supplier, to get a fuel approved and then be the only source for sale we would end up with a expensive product.

If the formula becomes a patented or proprietary in nature and has no competition it would become prohibitive in cost to us the consumer.

[OR75]

Another reason to let the fed be involved is the need to have a universal fuel we can find anywhere including Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world for those with longer legs.

[Barry]

I am also concerned about single suppliers of Av Fuel. Presently, there are two companies working on diverse methods to develop this fuel. The winner will try to get their research and approval costs returned ASAP so they can begin to show a profit, leading to high prices for us to buy the winning fuel. Once the alternate fuel comes "online" the refineries will drop Av Gas like a hot potato and we will be left with the high priced alternative.

Our only salvation is that there are TWO companies investigating alternate fuel and both seem to be at the same point in the development. They may get into a price war to aquire dominance of the market and keep the price low.

One can only hope ...

[Parker_Woodruff]

just because there is a single developer doesn't mean they'll be the ones producing it...I'm not too worried.

[DaV8or]

I really, really hope the Swift folks can gain some traction. If their solution is as good as they say it is, I would love to buy AVgas that isn't dependent on oil and the oil companies. The GAMI solution and the crappy 94UL solution, still requires one of the traditional refiners to take over and boil us up our fuel from foreign oil. I know it won't happen. Path of least resistance is for the oil companies to keep feeding us and the Arabs to keep feeding them, so that's what we'll get. AVgas will go up and up in price, when it could go down and down.

[DaV8or]

Just thought of something. If GAMI starts making and selling AVGAS, maybe APS will start recommending ROP operations instead!

[RJBrown]

Quote: Parker_Woodruff

just because there is a single developer doesn't mean they'll be the ones producing it...I'm not too worried.

[M204ever]

Need to go for a modern Diesel (Jet A1) engine, jet fuel is availabel everywhere.

Incredible, these 50 years old firewall forwards...