100LL Debacle

I'm well aware of it, it's been around for at least 3 decades. Not something I'd ever even put in a lawnmower though.

 

They have to refine it again anyway, so I assume the lead will come out in the refining process, just like everything else in raw crude oil?

 

Since G100UL Requires an STC, I wonder if by some miracle that CF called EAGLE comes up with fuels that passes whatever ludicrous certification process they collectively conjure up, will we have to buy more STC stickers to paste on fuel tanks and panels and other junk to enter into logbooks? Will we have to pay a “nominal sum” for every EAGLE blend or formula?

Airplanes might wind up looking like NASCAR racers. Of course I have zero belief EAGLE will result in anything but hot air.

Cheers

 

I’ll join you at 130.

Or POA can do a missing Pilots Formation at Oshkosh.

Cheers

 

The bigger advantage is that we can run synthetic oil now.

 

I read through the federal CFR for oil recycling. There is no mention of lead as used oil contaminant. It does mention Halogens "used oil containing greater than 1,000 ppm total halogens is presumed to be a hazardous waste and thus must be managed as hazardous waste and not as used oil unless the presumption is rebutted.
I take my oil to the town's hazardous waste recycling center and let them know it's aircraft oil and that it contains lead. They pour it in the same tank as the regular automotive oil.

 

Yes, it is; it's what's in dry gas.

Back in the 1980s the airport management asked us to pour our used oil on the [dirt] airport road to keep the dust down.

The airport I'm at today burns it to heat the maintenance hangar.

That's a state rule for mogas. The G100UL spec allows no ethanol at all.

 

We say say that, but a number of the “quick lube” places have this in their drums.

My wife or I have been guilty on occasion in the past of “cheating” and having the oil done when I’ve been too busy to get to it myself.

 

BTW - the easiest enforcement could be at annual inspection and it wouldn’t cost the fuel companies or Braly or the FBOs a dime.

If the A&P-IA sumps your fuel and sees it’s UL, he will need to see the STC. Eventually you won’t be able to buy any other fuel, so he’ll know that’s what you’re burning, and he won’t be able to sign your annual unless you have the STC.

 

This is great! It's a wonderful thing to see progress. A big step forward for GA.

 

lemme see if I understand this though..........this is the go-ahead to go from 'holy sht this fuel is above and beyond nasty' fuel to regular old 'omg aaahhhhhh we can never use fuel again' fuel?

 

Are there ashless dispersant synthetics on the market? Contrary to popular belief, TEL is not the primary reason you need AD additive in our engine(s)' oil. Our lawnmowers (pun very much intended) are meant to burn oil, auto formulations do not.

 

This is an easy one: No. None of the components of alternative 100 octane fuels are as hazardous to health as TEL. I doubt there are any components of refined fuels that we don't already have very good toxicity information about.

 

Mobil marketed a fully synthetic ashless dispersant oil years ago that was not really compatible with lead accumulation from combustion product blowby. It was discontinued. Theoretically, synthetic oils might result in less internal engine friction, and longer oil change intervals in the absence of lead accumulation. However, I would expect there to be a transitional period where it would be necessary to use TEL fuels occasionally, which would preclude the use of such lubricating oils.

FYI, Aeroshell 15W50 is semisynthetic oil.

 

This might depend on insurance liability issues for local airports. Conforming aircraft are going to be placarded at the fuel filler. In order to make a clean transition to G100UL and other conforming UL fuels, it may ultimately be unreasonable to expect everyone to purchase an STC for a drop-in fuel. It might be more equitable to add a small temporary surcharge to the fuel to remunerate the STC developers.

 

Good info indeed. Learn something new every day.

That said, as someone who has run the same lyco at "poor" oil change intervals (for the standards of the pRiDe iN oWneRship crowd) for over a decade now, I'm rather agnostic to the proclaimed imperatives behind oil refinement making or breaking my ownership experience. Ditto for 100LL disappearing. This hobby is replete with unactionable mythology.

 

For the greater good of mankind, shouldn’t all aircraft just be deemed worthy and just give the fleet a blanket STC?

 

That would be the quickest route to universal adoption, but does require someone to recoup the developers for their expensive regulatory work. I'd rather see some sort of licensing fee paid by the refiners that get passed on to users than a one time fee for every fuel that might ever be used.

 

I wonder if the STC is also a CYA in case some random model has an incompatible materials or something. They'd have paperwork to issue ADs to the affected owners. Kind of like the surprise when MTBE in car gas ate the materials used in older cars a few decades ago.

 

Interesting. What are they using it in? And why not 100LL?

I know when the USAF still ran piston engines (other the initial training), they ran 115/145 in everything.

 

I wonder where the STC for 100ll is hiding…

 

Avgas was only made in Hawaii at the BarberPoint refinery. They didn’t have the octane strength to make 100LL, nor facilities to import toluene from Singapore.

Paul

 

100LL meets all the requirements for 100/130, hence no STC required.

Paul

 

What about the lower octane fuels that had less lead than 100ll. All those engines run like crap on 100ll.

I’m just not so sure the FAA was all that practical about the lead free transition. Made it way harder than necessary. Almost like they were were more worried about their own liability for approving something than just doing their job.

 

the hot air will be produced only after they waste years of time and a spectacular amount of money.

 

Soon we’ll be flying with no fuel at all, using this brilliant new technology that produces more energy than it consumes:

https://panhwarjet.com/

 

Almost as good as the jet fuel hoax conspiracy.

 

Does the name of this thread need to change to 100ll-dedonecle?

 

I dunno; this guy could BS a little better. The website is awfully thin. A little bizarre math, hiding a division by zero somewhere, would make it look more credible. Also a faked video of his claimed test might help.

Overall it’s a pretty weak scam.

 

Oh, yeah - I forgot the news blurb:

https://www.avfoil.com/airplanes/de...stem-that-proficiently-powers-electric-plane/

This isn’t even 3rd rate sci-fi.

 

Now that this was approved rapidly after a change in command- I would be very curious as to what forces were at play preventing the prior FAA staff from approving.

 

Exxon, I think, Used to market an aviation synthetic blend.

 

It can be; you need a re-refiner that is set up to handle it. Typically, the bottoms product from a re-refiner’s distillation column is sold to a refinery as coker feed; that little bit of lead doesn’t adversely affect petroleum coke properties, and there are hazardous materials exemptions for re-processing schemes.

Exactly so… just like the nickel and vanadium that arrive in the crude oil in comparable concentrations to the lead in used aviation oil.

Yes. The maintenance hangar at Grants Pass, Oregon’s airport burned used motor oil. An environmental cleanup resulted.

No, avgas will still be handled in dedicated systems to avoid cross contamination and product downgrade. Even though unleaded avgas is a clean burning fuel, it has properties that would earn it demerits if comingled with reformulated mogas.

And the energy content per unit weight is even more comparable, and airplanes do care about weight.

Battery technology has been improving about 10%/year. Some forecasters believe that another 10 years of such improvement will result in very usable energy densities for light aircraft. 50 years of such progress will be notable, half an order of magnitude better if that trend continues!

Read GAMI’s patents, they’re online. There’s no ethanol.

But, methanol attacks aluminum and other bright metals. That why it is no longer used in mogas after some spectacular failures in the early 80’s. We’ve got even more aluminum wetted by fuel in airplanes. Methanol would be a bad thing. Even for your car, it’s best to avoid dry gas products with methanol. Instead, look for those with isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol). That’s MUCH more benign to the metals in your fuel system.

Well, we will be able to once synthetics formulated for aircraft engines are released. The PCMO (passenger car motor oil) synthetics available now have additives that are very bad for aviation engines. Please don’t be tempted to use them in your airplane!

Yes, Exxon Elite… a nice oil package. It was only 25% synthetic. Shell’s semi-synthetic 20-50 aviation oil is 50% synthetic. That’s about the limit if you want to be able to carry the lead salts away and not have them damage the engine. Exxon thought 50% was pushing the edge a bit too much…

The FAA hopes to do something like that for the EAGLE/PAFI2 fuels from Phillips/Afton and Lyondell/VP-Racing. But in the first three EAGLE meetings, FAA management bemoaned that they don’t know how to do that legally… and that it may require both Congressional action and a couple years of FAA rulemaking activity. Blanket STCs aren’t a thing today, and apparently not easy to accomplish legally for the FAA.

Paul

 

Super informative post, @PaulMillner, thanks.

 

In 50 years we will be fighting why our landfills are full of electric batteries and cobalt waste.

 

The problem is there are international repercussions with providing blanket approvals at the STC and similar "local" levels. It needs to happen at the standards level (ASTM, SAE, ICAO, etc.). Word is there is movement on this covering the SAFs and other fuel options like UL AVGAS, hydrogen fuel cells, etc. Once the standard changes/upgrades then the associated national regulatory change becomes an admin change vs a statute change. Interesting times ahead. Great post by the way.

 

I'd like to see a requirement that we bring back 3 things for each new banned thing. So I'd propose bringing back Clordane, 1-1-1-Trichloroethane, and Halon first. I miss those. Then, we can work on wider use of mercury, asbestos, and radium.

I'm mostly joking, but we do need to sort out some place for people to be that just want to live in hemp houses...or stop letting them have a voice. And the humor there is that they wouldn't have a voice if it weren't for all of the toxic modern things that let them talk with each other. Like the Beatles wife putting together an anti-animal product photo collection, all shot on film made from - you can see it coming - animal gelatin.

 

There are observers as well as movers and shakers of the passing scene who think that once we have two, three, or four (!) unleaded avgas formulations approved, there will be an industry effort to converge on a single, new ASTM unleaded avgas spec.

That might well happen… the individual companies intellectual property would still be protected by patents and licensing, just as they are with mogas today.

Man, I’m going to have to increase my consulting fee if folks want me to sit in those discussions! OMG. Not a collaborative group!

Paul

 

Just want to add my voice to those that are saying "thank you" for the great information you have provided on this forum!

 

I'm heavily biased to Shell Rotella T for the diesels and Pennzoil for the gasoline fleet and I want to see the empty jugs/bottles when they are done.