Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet

wayneda40

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
566
Display Name

Display name:
waynemcc
Paul Bertorelli, as always, insightful and without mincing words.

I for one want 100UL in my aircraft now, not in 2030. Time to stop clogging my engine with crappy old lead.

I suggest that AOPA needs to stop hedging its bet by supporting 2030 Eagle... and get 100% behind G100UL, pushing to get it available in all North American airports ASAP (meaning 2023 or latest 2024).

Wayne
 
Paul Bertorelli, as always, insightful and without mincing words.

I for one want 100UL in my aircraft now, not in 2030. Time to stop clogging my engine with crappy old lead.

I suggest that AOPA needs to stop hedging its bet by supporting 2030 Eagle... and get 100% behind G100UL, pushing to get it available in all North American airports ASAP (meaning 2023 or latest 2024).

Wayne
In case you haven’t figured it out yet, AOPA has always been a supporter of technological change. Then they do everything they can to slow it.
 
From what I've read online, I can't make heads or tails out of this. I would hope the intent is to keep the states from setting arbitrary deadlines for the elimination of 100LL at federal grant supported airports before unleaded AVGAS is widely available.

It doesn't matter how much you want unleaded AVGAS, the facts are its going to be another 7 to 10 years before the infrastructure will be in place for the refining and distribution of unleaded AVGAS to be widely available.

Just installing new tanks and plumbing for unleaded will be a huge expense for many small airports. Then, local distributors will also have to have new tanks and truck, and so on and so on... This is a huge undertaking and it just ain't gonna happen overnight.

It took from 1975 until 1996 for leaded auto fuel to be fully phased out. Current proposals are to do the same with AVGAS in half the time. So what's the big deal here?
 
Just installing new tanks and plumbing for unleaded will be a huge expense for many small airports. Then, local distributors will also have to have new tanks and truck, and so on and so on... This is a huge undertaking and it just ain't gonna happen overnight.
From what I understand, G100UL can be put in (and even mixed with, as it's fungible) existing 100LL tanks and plumbing. So if available from distributors (seems that's doable in 6-to-18 months) and my FBO makes the switch tomorrow to purchase G100UL rather than 100LL, then there is no transition time or expense required "at the pump".
 
From what I understand, G100UL can be put in (and even mixed with, as it's fungible) existing 100LL tanks and plumbing. So if available from distributors (seems that's doable in 6-to-18 months) and my FBO makes the switch tomorrow to purchase G100UL rather than 100LL, then there is no transition time or expense required "at the pump".
If the EPA could tax 100LL a $2 a gallon you have UL in 24 months.
 
From what I understand, G100UL can be put in (and even mixed with, as it's fungible) existing 100LL tanks and plumbing. So if available from distributors (seems that's doable in 6-to-18 months) and my FBO makes the switch tomorrow to purchase G100UL rather than 100LL, then there is no transition time or expense required "at the pump".

While that may all be true, G100UL is an STCd fuel. In other words, not everyone can legally use it right now even if it was available nationwide.

What I suspect this requirement in the reauthorization bill being is a combination of things. First, they are eliminating a loophole that airports/states could use to eliminate some unwanted traffic by not offering fuel that can legally be used by all the gas powered piston aircraft. Second (the bigger part), I see this as perhaps a move against GAMI and their fuel to limit the success of it because it didn’t come out of the .gov sanctioned research project.

With the obsession this country and the western world has with environmental concerns and their manipulation of things to get what they want, I have no doubt that an unleaded aviation fuel will be approved and 100LL will be immediately banned once the fuel/supplier of their choice generates it.
 
From what I understand, G100UL can be put in (and even mixed with, as it's fungible) existing 100LL tanks and plumbing. So if available from distributors (seems that's doable in 6-to-18 months) and my FBO makes the switch tomorrow to purchase G100UL rather than 100LL, then there is no transition time or expense required "at the pump".


True, but I don’t think it would necessarily be so tough for an airport to sell both, at least temporarily. Put one fuel in the fuel farm tanks and the other in the fuel truck. Inconvenient, perhaps, but maybe not prohibitive.

Were I GAMI, I might invest in a fleet of fuel trucks (maybe leased) to get started in one or two local areas.
 
Paul Bertorelli, as always, insightful and without mincing words.

I for one want 100UL in my aircraft now, not in 2030. Time to stop clogging my engine with crappy old lead.

I suggest that AOPA needs to stop hedging its bet by supporting 2030 Eagle... and get 100% behind G100UL, pushing to get it available in all North American airports ASAP (meaning 2023 or latest 2024).

Wayne

Glad it works for you.

I’d prefer something that doesn’t shorten my overhaul time….
 
I’m not finding an easy way to see if the Continental IO-470 can use this fuel. Anyone know? I’d be grounded if I couldn’t use a replacement, and I would lose a significant portion of my financial investment. Selfishly, that’s all I care about.
 
I’m not finding an easy way to see if the Continental IO-470 can use this fuel. Anyone know? I’d be grounded if I couldn’t use a replacement, and I would lose a significant portion of my financial investment. Selfishly, that’s all I care about.


Go to the GAMI website and look up the STC. I’d be surprised to learn it wasn’t approved.
 
I for one want 100UL in my aircraft now, not in 2030. Time to stop clogging my engine with crappy old lead.
My plane’s been running fine since 1939. I’m in no rush to change, and rather suspect that the change is much more political rather than actually a moral necessity.
 
I’m not finding an easy way to see if the Continental IO-470 can use this fuel. Anyone know? I’d be grounded if I couldn’t use a replacement, and I would lose a significant portion of my financial investment. Selfishly, that’s all I care about.
Page 2 item 26 on the AML
 

Attachments

  • SE01966WI_AML-Amd1 (1).pdf
    254.2 KB · Views: 22
Item 26 Continental Aerospace Technologies, Inc. IO-470-A, -C
O-470-B, B-CI, -G, -G-CI, -H, -J, -M, -M-CI, -N, -P
Item 10 shows IO-470-G, IO-470-R
Which IO-470 do you have? Which Type Certificate Data Sheet E-273 or 3E1
 
IO-470-F
TCDS 3E1 I believe

Yeah, I don’t see it in there. So I’m opposed to any migration away from tetra-ethyl lead, at least with G100UL, until a suitable alternative would be found.
 
True, but I don’t think it would necessarily be so tough for an airport to sell both, at least temporarily. Put one fuel in the fuel farm tanks and the other in the fuel truck. Inconvenient, perhaps, but maybe not prohibitive.

Were I GAMI, I might invest in a fleet of fuel trucks (maybe leased) to get started in one or two local areas.
Um yeah...that's not how airport fueling works. The truck usually only holds 1-2,000 gallons at most, which is about a quarter of a delivery truck. The fuel truck is refilled from the fuel farm, which normally is 6,000-12,000 gallons, enough to take one semi delivery and enough to keep the fuel truck full for a week or month at a time. Fuel delivery trucks seldom if ever deliver straight into the fueling truck.
 
Just checked the latest STC on the FAA site and they have not approved the IO-470-F yet. The GAMI folks are testing everything and adding them to the AML. They said in an interview that all the engines will be added. The 8.6:1 compression engines are still pending further testing I guess.
 
Um yeah...that's not how airport fueling works. The truck usually only holds 1-2,000 gallons at most, which is about a quarter of a delivery truck. The fuel truck is refilled from the fuel farm, which normally is 6,000-12,000 gallons, enough to take one semi delivery and enough to keep the fuel truck full for a week or month at a time. Fuel delivery trucks seldom if ever deliver straight into the fueling truck.


Yes, and that makes sense when you’re only selling one fuel. But that’s now how it HAS to work. Think outside the tank.
 
IO-470-F
TCDS 3E1 I believe

Yeah, I don’t see it in there. So I’m opposed to any migration away from tetra-ethyl lead, at least with G100UL, until a suitable alternative would be found.
Item 39. This is the list direct from the gami site. Previous was linked from another source.

 

Attachments

  • SE01966WI_Eng AML (1).pdf
    450.2 KB · Views: 8
Just checked the latest STC on the FAA site and they have not approved the IO-470-F yet. The GAMI folks are testing everything and adding them to the AML. They said in an interview that all the engines will be added. The 8.6:1 compression engines are still pending further testing I guess.
Page 2 item 26 on the AML

Thank you both for your help.

I just wrote both my Senators to support the House version (prevents airports from removing 100LL under penalty of losing FAA grants).

Didn’t take more than 10 minutes, I suggest anyone else without a no-lead option do the same just to increase the odds that this provision remains in the Senate version. Save your investment and option/freedom to fly…
 
Item 39. This is the list direct from the gami site. Previous was linked from another source.

Oops, well dang, I was too quick on the reaction, was looking at an older version.
 
Yes, and that makes sense when you’re only selling one fuel. But that’s now how it HAS to work. Think outside the tank.
We simply can't order 1,200 gallons of fuel, not without major shipping penalty. It would never be economically viable at that point.

What we need is a drop in replacement with blanket fleet approval, and is available in enough quantity that we can flip the switch one airport at a time.
 
Thank you both for your help.

I just wrote both my Senators to support the House version (prevents airports from removing 100LL under penalty of losing FAA grants).

Didn’t take more than 10 minutes, I suggest anyone else without a no-lead option do the same just to increase the odds that this provision remains in the Senate version. Save your investment and option/freedom to fly…
I did that once before with Senator Duckworth and the response was a couple paragraph copy & paste political IDGAF what you wrote response. Absolutely nothing to do with my email
 
Oops, well dang, I was too quick on the reaction, was looking at an older version.
My bad. Too reliant on google. The aopa link with the AML from october 2021 was first result. Second result was Gami and it was updated October 2022. Amended list is nearly twice as long.
 
I did that once before with Senator Duckworth and the response was a couple paragraph copy & paste political IDGAF what you wrote response. Absolutely nothing to do with my email
She is no supporter of aviation, but is in the unions pocket.
 
We simply can't order 1,200 gallons of fuel, not without major shipping penalty. It would never be economically viable at that point.

What we need is a drop in replacement with blanket fleet approval, and is available in enough quantity that we can flip the switch one airport at a time.
The FAA could put all the money they've spent with PAFI and EAGLE, combine that with the money the EPA has spent and just write Gami a check.

Gami floated this idea to the feds allowing no-cost STC's... It was shot down.
 
Over on BT someone posted the actual bill.

It does not say you cannot replace 100LL with UL. It says that airports have to have "aviation fuel" to support the same aircraft that they had fuel for in 2018.

It defines "aviation fuel" as a fuel that is taxed under a certain code, which includes both 100LL and G100UL.
 
Oops, well dang, I was too quick on the reaction, was looking at an older version.
Given that your aircraft is covered by the GAMI STC (and effectively all spark-ignition piston engines) and in the spirit of accuracy... I assume you'll send a retraction letter to both of your senators?
 
Given that your aircraft is covered by the GAMI STC (and effectively all spark-ignition piston engines) and in the spirit of accuracy... I assume you'll send a retraction letter to both of your senators?

I didn’t send a retraction, but I did already send another communication correcting the erroneous statement on my own plane, but stated that I still support the bill provision for other aircraft owners who might not yet have an unleaded fuel option (to preserve their investment and freedom to fly).

I believe both of my senators are already aligned on these types of issues.
 
EAGLE is foot-dragging. We have a drop-in replacement for 100LL right now, and it can be ready to enter the supply chain whenever it can be scaled up. I'm not thrilled with the STC arrangement, but whatever. Having a lead-free alternative available means we can safeguard the supply of 100-octane aviation fuel beyond the time the last large-scale manufacturer of TEL decides to pull the plug. I'm all for moving forward and scaling up so that G100UL can be competitively priced. The Feds could help facilitate the transition if they want to be serious.

However, I strongly oppose any effort to prohibit sales of 100LL at public airports until there is a readily available alternative of equal capability and competitive price.
 
Lead scares people. And provides a convenient excuse to close airports and hurt the GA community
 
We simply can't order 1,200 gallons of fuel, not without major shipping penalty. It would never be economically viable at that point.

What we need is a drop in replacement with blanket fleet approval, and is available in enough quantity that we can flip the switch one airport at a time.


Some airports are already selling 94UL. How are they managing it? This problem is solvable.
 
For me and I think most pilots it’s mostly about fuel price and a little about wanting to see how this stuff does in the real world before jumping in.

I’ve got no particular love for lead but I don’t believe it’s that much of a problem at the levels being put out in airplane exhaust. I really don’t want to pay a big premium over what 100LL currently costs.

Now, if we start to see benefits in say engine longevity or extended oil change intervals and it’s only a little more expensive I might change my mind but that has yet to really be explored as far as I know.
 
For me and I think most pilots it’s mostly about fuel price and a little about wanting to see how this stuff does in the real world before jumping in.

I’ve got no particular love for lead but I don’t believe it’s that much of a problem at the levels being put out in airplane exhaust. I really don’t want to pay a big premium over what 100LL currently costs.

Now, if we start to see benefits in say engine longevity or extended oil change intervals and it’s only a little more expensive I might change my mind but that has yet to really be explored as far as I know.
It's really not about the quantities of environmental lead caused by GA operations, although some disingenuous actors are using this as a convenient excuse to advance their own agendas. It's about planning for a future where TEL is no longer manufactured in quantity, at which point GA will be up the creek. Pure TEL is extremely hazardous to handle, and one could envision the last worldwide manufacturer arriving at a decision to no longer deal with the employer liability and risk of making it.
 
I’ll just add that there are many more intermediate chemicals produced, stored, and transported that have MUCH greater health, safety, and environmental risks than TEL. However, the commercial volumes and/or margin are so much greater for those other chemicals that supply risk would not be as much of an issue as it would be with TEL, as @chemgeek states.

I have a bit of occupational history with TEL over the last 30+ years, as well as future research interests on the environmental side of things…
 
There aren't any possible parallels between events in recent memory… but
For me and I think most pilots it’s mostly about fuel price and a little about wanting to see how this stuff does in the real world before jumping in.

I’ve got no particular love for lead but I don’t believe it’s that much of a problem at the levels being put out in airplane exhaust. I really don’t want to pay a big premium over what 100LL currently costs.

Now, if we start to see benefits in say engine longevity or extended oil change intervals and it’s only a little more expensive I might change my mind but that has yet to really be explored as far as I know.
“It’s perfectly safe” is something plenty of people are skeptical of in the last, say, uh, five years or so, especially when your kids are riding in the back. It’s the devil(s) you know as the saying goes. As well as the old bold pilots rule. I am all for innovation, but I don’t want to be on the cutting edge of the fuel switch. My crew flies 500+ hours a year and we’re more likely to test that longevity than those who only fly 40 hours a year.
 
For me and I think most pilots it’s mostly about fuel price and a little about wanting to see how this stuff does in the real world before jumping in.

I’ve got no particular love for lead but I don’t believe it’s that much of a problem at the levels being put out in airplane exhaust. I really don’t want to pay a big premium over what 100LL currently costs.

Now, if we start to see benefits in say engine longevity or extended oil change intervals and it’s only a little more expensive I might change my mind but that has yet to really be explored as far as I know.

One reason why we change oil so often is lead. Without it you can use synthetic and should have longer change interval.

Lead fouling can cause ignition issue. Without it you have one less potential safety hazard.

And while the amount being used is small. We are handling it, and being close to the exhaust more. I am all for no lead in that regard. The overtime exposure can potentially build up.

And finally you take one more thing away from people arguing for closing airports.
 
And finally you take one more thing away from people arguing for closing airports.
Don't give in. Keep fighting for the lead. Lead tastes good. You will get my lead when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers.

The problem with GAMI UL100 is that it is approved for every single dingle piston engine out there. All you need is the STC.
OHHHH, WAIT! BAD GAMI, BAD. They want an STC. BAD.

Of course the FAA re-authorization bill could simply direct the FAA to approve the fuel they have already approved. That would be hard. Real hard. Some lobbyist would object. Probably a lobbyist that gives money to elections. No way Jose. Much better to jerk the system around to make sure the money goes to the right places. Think of all the jobs created by EAGLE - those are supposed to last until 2030. Can't stop that!!! Think of the children!!!!!

If GAMI supplied unleaded fuel bad things will happen. But if EAGLE is tasked with providing unleaded, then, well, eventually, perhaps, they will come up with EXACTLY the same solution as GAMI but there won't be problems with anything. Because, you know, GOVERMENT. Yea, we need GOVERNMENT to come up with a solution, not some money grubbing private company like GAMI.
 
Back
Top