- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,765
- Display Name
- Ernie
- Home Airfield
- C81
Prove it
Swift 100R gets ASTM Approval
- Thread starter asicer
- Start date
This happened when you were filling hour plane with 100LL, or flying hour plane burning 100LL, or is this irrelevant?
No this happened when i was opening a barrel of toxaphene to spray on some bugs in a farmers field. I cried out to my boss, and that was his solution to get the chemical off, then a shower to get the 100 ll off.
How many GA pilots who are filling their tanks and flying do you think are “opening a barrel of toxaphene“?? Like on average?
The Swift website says their 100R fuel is approved for ALL piston engines. That includes high compression power plants. Don't confuse their 100R with their UL94 that should only be used on lower compression engines. I could use either 100R, or UL94 in my O-360 powered Maule, but neither is available anywhere in Washington, or Oregon where most of my flying takes place.
Anything that runs with sparkplugs, is not safe to use with 100LL.
Mogas only affects certain engines, 100LL negative affects every engine. 100LL is dangerous.
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,765
- Display Name
- Ernie
- Home Airfield
- C81
Last I looked they were testing it on the only io550 engine that could run on UL94.
Testing is still in progress. They claim it's designed to replace 100ll.
It does not have fleet wide approval. In fact it's only approved for 172 r and s models.
This makes zero sense
How is 100LL “not safe” on piston engines??
Or better yet tell me what “not safe” means to you.
Piston engines have been running on 100LL for a LONG time
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
100LL is still going away and you can do or say nothing to stop it. You should learn some science before you claim "truth". Simply restating "everyone else is wrong" won't spread the word.
Last edited:
KE5BM
Pre-takeoff checklist
I just want to mention here the sticker shock I recently experienced when filling my 5 gallon storage can for the winter. At my local airfield that offers 94UL (one of only 2 fields in all of New England to have it) the price went up to over $12 a gallon whereas the 100LL pump right next to it was just over $7. That's not just a "little more expensive." I'm all for going to unleaded avgas, but it has to make both sense and cents.
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,765
- Display Name
- Ernie
- Home Airfield
- C81
There's a reason I mentioned Gami gas. They had said it would be .50-.70 cents more per gallon compared to 100LL, It's .45 cents more in Tupelo.
IF they can get the formula dialed in (big if), that's not completely unreasonable. Unlike 94ul which is often priced so high nobody buys it. One place near me had it but got rid of it because nobody bought it. Another place has it at 1.60 more per gallon. And I'm not far from Swifts facility.
Last edited:
I linked to the debunked studies which end up proving 100LL is no factor to real world health
I quoted the lead level from a post someone else made trying to challenge me about the levels of lead that one MIGHT see from 100LL and the insanely higher levels to even see a tiny change in health, even cited the levels. Their own post proved 100LL is not a “problem”
I posted the other makers of TEL
I never said “because I said so” I posted facts
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
There's a reason they are debunked- they were found to be wrong. Lead is a health issue.
This statement combined with your rants supports long exposure to lead causes cognitive deterioration.
Hang 4
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 3,425
- Display Name
- Hang 4
You posted some websites of companies that claim to make TEL. In what quantities and what quality? I notice you have stopped claiming that TEL is a great business for Innospec after I posted the actual financials. (FACTS).
TEL has been banned globally from the automotive market. Even the third world has banned it, with Algeria in 2021 being the last to ban it.
It's going to go away, you may not like it, but it's going away.
Googling a couple companies and cherry picking some studies may be facts, but they are pretty superficial and irrelevant onesI never said “because I said so” I posted facts
The studies that were debunked…but not the way you think they were debunked lol
“ The contractor, Pinyon Environmental Inc., was unable to detect lead in any of the air or surface sampling locations chosen by the towns, other than one surface contamination sample obtained at a historic local structure believed to be painted (still) with lead-containing paint, facts summarized in a February 8 media release from the Colorado Aviation Business Association and the Colorado Pilots Association.
"Colorado’s aviation community is pleased with the finding of studies commissioned by our neighbors that confirmed that our communities are not being contaminated with lead," the organizations said in the joint release. "While we are puzzled as to why these three municipalities have not publicized these results, the findings themselves are unsurprising and confirm what several others around the country have found."
The group was referring to studies including one that came to light in 2022, when The Mercury News of San Jose, California, uncovered lead contamination studies conducted by Santa Clara County that found lead levels in the soil around Reid-Hillview of Santa Clara County Airport were below local, state, and federal safety limits, with similar findings documented in another study at San Martin Airport. Despite this lack of evidence, the communities made the unprecedented decision to unilaterally ban avgas sales in 2022, putting safety at risk in the view of AOPA and other aviation groups. “
- Joined
- May 15, 2020
- Messages
- 7,765
- Display Name
- Ernie
- Home Airfield
- C81
You proved that lead causes no health effects? Despite the numerous studies that state otherwise?
100ll from single engine piston airplanes is in the minutiae of what leaded emissions used to be. Does it give us the respiratory and other issues the NIMBY's claim? No. But that doesn't mean we should embrace the stuff in perpetuity. As @Cap'n Jack has already stated, the real problem is when you spill a little sumping your tanks or filling up and it's absorbed into your skin. Im going to start carrying gloves in the front baggage to prevent absorption and to not stink up the plane. Plus my hands turn black from rolling the hose up.
I welcome an unleaded future. I don't believe unleaded fuels are going to be so cost prohibitive to be the sole reason people stop flying. Everything else that goes with the hobby are already doing that. But I'm also glad the great state of California has raised their hand to beta test for the rest of us.
Last edited:
Yes
What studies?
BTW we are talking about running 100LL in planes, not swimming in lead, getting sprayed by odd chemicals, not having kids eat lead paint, but using 100LL is airplanes.
Someone tried to post a NIH deal, but it just proved 100LL isn’t a “problem”
That one any damage from 100LL in GA would be so small it wouldn’t be notable or appreciable
UngaWunga
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,265
- Display Name
- UngaWunga
- Home Airfield
- 7B3
"There is no known safe level of lead exposure, especially for children, as even low levels can cause harmful health effects"
www.epa.gov
Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water | US EPA
Questions and answers about lead in drinking water -- health effects, EPA regulations etc.
MackMooney
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2023
- Messages
- 417
- Display Name
- McMooney
I wouldn't put stock in any pricing at the moment, have to wait until something goes into production. i'd expect gami to be cheap right now as someone has to dump the million gallons produced or end up at a transmix for pennies.
i'd expect any price premiums to eventually fade due to easier production, common transport and maybe even more volume due to uses outside of piston planes
Last edited:
"There is no known safe level of lead exposure, especially for children, as even low levels can cause harmful health effects"
Basic Information about Lead in Drinking Water | US EPA
Questions and answers about lead in drinking water -- health effects, EPA regulations etc.
That’s ridiculous
Sorry but a raise of 1 on my BP, presuming I could even see it on a BP cuff
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.“ -CS Lewis
MackMooney
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2023
- Messages
- 417
- Display Name
- McMooney
this is interesting
en.wikipedia.org
Thomas Midgley Jr. - Wikipedia
this is interesting
Thomas Midgley Jr. - Wikipedia
So an inventor died when he built a crazy machine to hang himself?
So what exactly does this have to do with burning 100LL in GA planes?
Come on guys, this is getting silly
Why are people so invested in banning 100LL despite the facts saying it’s not causing any damage to people that’s even notable?
For the simple reasons of the decades long global movement to ban TEL in all products regardless of effects at the user end, and the AVGAS market has finally reduced to the point of significance. I dont believe 100LL AVGAS is even traded as a separate comodity any more. Or another option is to move to Australia where they've publically stated they have the resources to maintain 100LL AVGAS well after the US stops the use.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
What expertise do you have to assess toxicity? Or even measure blood pressure? What is your area of expertise?That’s ridiculous
Sorry but a raise of 1 on my BP, presuming I could even see it on a BP cuff
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.“ -CS Lewis
This shows how little you know- few of us fly seaplanes and there are no marinas in most of Nebraska. There aren't many in Arizona either. Not a very workable suggestion. The marinas are rarely near the airport, making a quick fuel stop impractical.
You clearly don't know what "debunked" means.
Ok, so I'm a little late to this conversation.
Cannot tell whether this is simply looking to poke at emotions, or an actual reality.
Rather than just drop a vague claim and try to support with health slanted studies (which by the way, never have a financial agenda driving to the conclusion, or politicians pretending that they are scientists, right?), how about helping us understand the big picture and the supporting pylons. What are the qualities about leaded fuel which makes it the best when compared to the potential of unleaded alternatives? While at it, please do a run-down of benefits from using leaded fuel (aside from the commonly accepted use for boosting octane) and the potential benefits of using unleaded fuel.
Others pointed out health benefits to removal of the lead and looks like there is agreement to disagree on this aspect. I have economic benefits for unleaded fuel in mind which we are barely scratching, but am going to hold-back to see what we are missing about keeping lead along with that run-down on benefits from unleaded.
So far, the only evidence I have seen about not using unleaded is with one specific blend, namely G100UL, as this specific chemistry is starting to look like it is not playing well with the fuel containment elements in a large portion of the fleet. But, that is not a compelling reason to avoid removing lead from the fuel as it is just an issue with one chemistry blend.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 7, 2016
- Messages
- 21,190
- Location
- Central Florida
- Display Name
- Half Fast
- Home Airfield
- KGIF
It is often reported that he had been accidentally killed by his own invention, but his death was declared by the coroner to be a suicide.
While the harmful effects of CFCs were not appreciated until decades after Midgley's death, tetraethyl lead was known to be acutely toxic by those involved in the development of leaded gasoline. This included Midgley, who publicly insisted that there was nonetheless no health hazard posed by the use of leaded gasoline in internal combustion engines.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.#cite_note-Secret-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a>
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
Not TEL, lead in all forms. The only place lead is commonly used anymore is lead-acid batteries because it is well contained and the batteries have a recycle rate of greater than 99%.
Cap'n Jack
Final Approach
Probably neurological effects from lead exposure caused him to commit suicide.
Dana
Final Approach
Oh Jeez, you guys are just talking past each other.
Yes, lead is bad for your health. This is well documented.
No, the amount of lead in 100LL probably won't cause measurable harm to anybody's health.
But because of the known adverse health effects, mathematically challenged people or those who don't like GA will continue to use it against us until it goes away, and no amount of logic will change that.
And the concentration of lead in 100LL does cause problems (fouled spark plugs, stuck valves, etc.) in engines that were designed for 80/87 (which had 1/4 the amount of lead in 100LL). For that reason alone, I will welcome the arrival of UL at my local airport.
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
What people are you talking about?
Most pilots are not invested in banning 100ll. I think most pilots are resigned to the fact that the rest of the world will ban TEL whether we like it or not. Denying that is futile so what's the point.
Oh this “you’re not a expert” thing
Well I can do math and read, and the facts speak for themselves on 100LL not being a real “problem”
He got that level of damage by flying GA planes burning 100LL?
If not it has nothing to do with this subject
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2019
- Messages
- 2,886
- Display Name
- Domenick
People, people, people, ....
The science and facts about lead exposure are irrelevant. In politics, the truth (whatever it is) is often irrelevant as it is here.
Barring some highly unlikely political action, 100LL is going away.
Period.
Arguing over the science is a fool's errand.
The science and facts about lead exposure are irrelevant. In politics, the truth (whatever it is) is often irrelevant as it is here.
Barring some highly unlikely political action, 100LL is going away.
Period.
Arguing over the science is a fool's errand.
I agree, but this is just about easily observed and also scientifically and mathed out FACTS
100LL is not a “problem” we have been running it for longer than anyone here has been alive, it would have been VERY obvious if it was a problem. It’s not a “problem”
I really wish people would stand up and speak up when the train to going full speed off the stupidity cliff. Paying more for a inferior fuel for no good reason other than the word “lead” scares people who don’t know better or are easily hysterical
The “nothing we can do” statement I keep hearing reminds me of this
OneCharlieTango
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 1,274
- Display Name
- OneCharlieTango
It's likely that leaded fuel will become illegal at some point. It's also likely that, despite nearly three decades of engineering, there is no adequate 100-octane replacement. Something or someone has to give.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2016
- Messages
- 5,585
- Display Name
- Ari
Your mirror is fine, but your eyesight may not be.
For sure
1 It costs less than the new anti 100LL fuels
2 It requires no modifications to engines or airframes of the entire fleet
3 it doesn’t damage paint
4 if doesn’t damage the fuel systems, tanks, seals, etc
5 it doesn’t put money into the pockets of salesmen who were only pushing for the government to ban 100LL to peddle their fuels which can not compete in a real free market (reminds me of ethanol)
6 it has VERY long track record of working and the chance of a “surprise” in airframes is nil
TLDR, it just WORKS and COSTS LESS
Last edited:
JOhnH
Touchdown! Greaser!
Do you actually hold out any hope that the anti-lead movement (tsunami) will eventually just give up?
I don't. But even if they did, I would be upset that we missed the chance of extended engine life, extended spark plug life, fewer oil changes and viable FADEC in our old piston planes.