Any updates regarding the avgas replacement effort?

Morgan3820

Morgan3820

En-Route
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
4,792
Location
New Bern, NC
Display Name
El Conquistador
Home Airfield
KEWN
I recently read an article (AOPA?) that says the replacement candidate from Schell is having problems. Apparently, it requires hazmat handling and it dissolves paint?
 
Morgan3820 said:
I recently read an article (AOPA?) that says the replacement candidate from Schell is having problems. Apparently, it requires hazmat handling and it dissolves paint?
Click to expand...
Well the current stuff is HazMat territory too but at least it's not too harsh on paint.
 
If it dissolves paint it's not a "replacement" talk about a solution in search of a problem, 100ll seems to work just fine, and globally isn't even a factor in the pie graph of pollution.
 
James331 said:
If it dissolves paint it's not a "replacement" talk about a solution in search of a problem, 100ll seems to work just fine, and globally isn't even a factor in the pie graph of pollution.
Click to expand...
I believe the feds have been getting sued over this. If you know a legal way to make the problem go away, I'm all for it.

By the way, Swift is already selling 94 octane unleaded avgas at some airports:

https://swiftfuels.com/ul94-map/

Here's information on which aircraft can use it:

https://swiftfuels.com/stc/
 
dans2992 said:
With the upcoming "remake" of the EPA, it may get kicked down the road at least 4 years.
Click to expand...

That and Trump's overall views on the environment will effectively kill any replacement of 100LL. Hopefully the EPA survives the next 4 years.
 
dans2992 said:
With the upcoming "remake" of the EPA, it may get kicked down the road at least 4 years.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the legal foundation of the lawsuit(s), but depending on that, I can conceive of Congressional action being required to put those to rest if efforts to certify an unleaded replacement don't succeed in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
ARFlyer said:
That and Trump's overall views on the environment will effectively kill any replacement of 100LL. Hopefully the EPA survives the next 4 years.
Click to expand...

Thing is, the overreach and over reaction of "environmental" groups, with uneducated pushes to kill stuff like 100LL which doesn't really make a dent one way or another, that's the type of idiocracy which gets people like Trump looking to kill the EPA.
 
James331 said:
Thing is, the overreach and over reaction of "environmental" groups, with uneducated pushes to kill stuff like 100LL which doesn't really make a dent one way or another, that's the type of idiocracy which gets people like Trump looking to kill the EPA.
Click to expand...
A logical look ,, Trump is a business man, EPA controls business men. " you can't build there, a silver backed darter fish once lived there."
He just may say the 100LL is not replaceable "EPA shut up and set down".
 
Tom-D said:
A logical look ,, Trump is a business man, EPA controls business men. " you can't build there, a silver backed darter fish once lived there."
He just may say the 100LL is not replaceable "EPA shut up and set down".
Click to expand...
Maybe he'll be able to control the EPA, but in order to quash the lawsuit, he would have to control the courts.
 
Problem being, we cannot reasonably rely upon tetraethyl lead's continued availability.

GAMI has a drop-in replacement for 100LL which is being developed outside the FAA's process, and it is promising.
 
Tom-D said:
Eliminate the need for the law suit ?
Click to expand...
Well, if the replacement certification efforts are successful, that would have that effect. Any other means would need an act of Congress, as I mentioned earlier. Or do you see another way?
 
SCCutler said:
Problem being, we cannot reasonably rely upon tetraethyl lead's continued availability.

[snip]
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

Economics of lead will kill 100ll even if the EPA/lawsuits don't.

John
 
Jim_R said:
Hmm. I can pay an STC fee of $540 for the privilege of being able to fuel my plane at two airports just barely within a 700nm radius of me. Not exactly ready for prime time, yet.
Click to expand...
Gosh, I sure do love my Experimental.
:)
 
Jim_R said:
Hmm. I can pay an STC fee of $540 for the privilege of being able to fuel my plane at two airports just barely within a 700nm radius of me. Not exactly ready for prime time, yet.
Click to expand...
Four of the five scenarios they list don't involve buying the Swift STC, but those will still represent a relatively small percentage of the fleet.

One of the LSAs I rent qualifies, since it is approved for auto fuel. The ONE airport in California that has it is next door to my home field. I'll have to check out the price.
 
The EPA is not a player in the lawsuit either as a party or for creating the regulations in question. Trump could disband the EPA and rescind every environmental regulation and it wouldn't affect that.
 
James331 said:
Thing is, the overreach and over reaction of "environmental" groups, with uneducated pushes to kill stuff like 100LL which doesn't really make a dent one way or another, that's the type of idiocracy which gets people like Trump looking to kill the EPA.
Click to expand...

Channeling Thomas Midgley again?
 
172andyou said:
Please share with us your citations showing:

1) What the safe level for lead exposure is

2) What the levels around airports are
Click to expand...

You should go to your "safe place" now
 
Some of the oldest, tuff as nails, still flying planes and still able to carry a stack of 2x4s, dudes live on or around aircraft and airports.

I know it's not a New York Times study, and the sea shepherds, green peace, and the EPA didn't stamp their multi colored pretty seals of approval on it, but it's good enough for me.


All for saving the environment, as a someone who lives in one of the best wildernesses out there, someone who actually invests in conservation efforts (hunting licenses, etc), I'm all for it, but 100LL, please, maybe after you fix 99.9% of the other huge issues, I might listen to that babble.
 
James331 said:
You should go to your "safe place" now
Click to expand...

Dude, if it's "common sense" (a right wing code word for "I don't know what the **** I'm talking about") then you should be able to easily demonstrate it.

Here, I'll help.

The answer to question one is: There is no safe level for lead exposure.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039896.1975.10666672

Thomas Midgley, since you didn't recognize the reference despite it being very well known to anyone with any knowledge of lead, was the guy who put lead in gas (and poisoned himself in the process) and CFCs in air conditioners. He later, fittingly, managed to kill himself with a robot he designed to roll himself over in bed. Lets just say he had an *abundance* of common sense.
 
172andyou said:
Dude, if it's "common sense" (a right wing code word for "I don't know what the **** I'm talking about") then you should be able to easily demonstrate it.

Here, I'll help.

The answer to question one is: There is no safe level for lead exposure.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00039896.1975.10666672

Thomas Midgley, since you didn't recognize the reference despite it being very well known to anyone with any knowledge of lead, was the guy who put lead in gas (and poisoned himself in the process) and CFCs in air conditioners. He later, fittingly, managed to kill himself with a robot he designed to roll himself over in bed. Lets just say he had an *abundance* of common sense.
Click to expand...

That's cool

Can you post a court case, medical or insurance finding which determined someone was noticeably harmed from the emissions from a small piston plane?

And I stated that my determination/demonstration was my own experience, and as someone who has lived on a airport, who is around aircraft every day, who has aircraft beached at his house, and who's family has always been around aircraft, all which who are in above average/great health. I trust what I see and feel more than something someone I don't know, who probably has little experience in aviation and a large bias, puts in a "paper".
 
James331 said:
I trust what I see and feel more than something someone I don't know, who probably has little experience in aviation and a large bias, puts in a "paper".
Click to expand...

That's probably the most concise a summary of what's wrong with the US that I've ever seen. We've given up on science and education and instead become a nation where every uneducated opinion not only has equal value, but when the facts are presented they are baselessly dismissed as biased and ridiculed with quotation marks if they don't match someones preconceived notion.
 
172andyou said:
That's probably the most concise a summary of what's wrong with the US that I've ever seen. We've given up on science and education and instead become a nation where every uneducated opinion not only has equal value, but when the facts are presented they are baselessly dismissed as biased and ridiculed with quotation marks if they don't match someones preconceived notion.
Click to expand...

Like all those scientific polls that said Hilary might as well have already won the election??

Education is great, for sure, but experience means a lot more to me.

Academia has become a bit of a joke, you get people teaching others to teach who have never been in the field, it's a self licking icecream cone of highly educated incompetence.

Plus politics has sadly become quite ingrained into our education and scientific communities.

Personally, I look around and make up my own mind for myself, YMMV.
 
The election was within the margin of error. The problem was that people chose to ignore statistical basics.

James331 said:
Personally, I look around and make up my own mind for myself, YMMV.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not imply causation.

More to the point... would you drink from a well on airport grounds?
 
UngaWunga said:
The election was within the margin of error. The problem was that people chose to ignore statistical basics.



Correlation does not imply causation.

More to the point... would you drink from a well on airport grounds?
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not.

I keep my plane on my property and drink from my well and swim in my river.
 
I will buy whatever is least expensive that gets the job done.
ARFlyer said:
That and Trump's overall views on the environment will effectively kill any replacement of 100LL. Hopefully the EPA survives the next 4 years.
Click to expand...

Its my understanding the EPA will take less of a focus on global carbon emissions and focus more on visible pollution in the United States. Cleaning up the Okechobee lake toxic algae disaster, the chesapeake bay and other waterways has been mentioned. I can't grow oysters on my dock at the chesapeake because of a municipal sewer discharge into the water nearby. Reading stories about the bay 150 or 200 years ago it is apparent what pollution has done to it. As a fisherman I would welcome a shift in focus of the EPA.
 
So...My take away from all of this is 'nope, haven't heard anything new about the replacement for 100ll'?
 
James331 said:
I keep my plane on my property and drink from my well and swim in my river.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. You've reduced it into a question that is absurd in order to avoid having to give an answer you don't want to. In real life, the question is about a real airport, with, say 50 years of usage by a reasonable population of pilots who sump their planes then throw it on the ground, or overfill their tanks and spill on the ramp, or leak lead contaminated oil out the bottom all of which run downhill into the creeks or water table. Still sound tasty? Before you answer, keep in mind that some airports are now superfund sites because they are so polluted.
 
dell30rb said:
I will buy whatever is least expensive that gets the job done.


Its my understanding the EPA will take less of a focus on global carbon emissions and focus more on visible pollution in the United States. Cleaning up the Okechobee lake toxic algae disaster, the chesapeake bay and other waterways has been mentioned. I can't grow oysters on my dock at the chesapeake because of a municipal sewer discharge into the water nearby. Reading stories about the bay 150 or 200 years ago it is apparent what pollution has done to it. As a fisherman I would welcome a shift in focus of the EPA.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you on all counts, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the EPA. The sugar industry in FL will fight any efforts to clean up Okeechobee runoff to the Indian River, and they are very powerful in the state legislature. The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort has been a tough go on many fronts, primarily due, again, to agribusiness.
The states fight the EPA tooth and nail.
 
Morgan3820 said:
So...My take away from all of this is 'nope, haven't heard anything new about the replacement for 100ll'?
Click to expand...
Timely question. At our last EAA chapter meeting, one of our guys gave a talk on the subject. According to him, there is no official word as yet... but there was some unofficial rumbling that the Shell fuel is falling flat on its face, and Swift is doing fine. But that's total hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt.

The only thing I've seen was Swift 94UL, which burned just fine in my plane -- but then again, so does mogas with or without "Demon Rum".
 
DaleB said:
...there was some unofficial rumbling that the Shell fuel is falling flat on its face, and Swift is doing fine. But that's total hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Well that's sure going to upset the folks who hate all things green, if it turns out to be true.
 
For me, I'm 100% ready for unleaded fuel. Unless of course it costs any significant amount more than regular 100ll, in that case, I'd just wait until prices came close to 100ll.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top