Tetra-ethyl lead

I fly other airplanes besides the Chief (which has an auto-gas STC, FWIW) which include an IO-520 and an IO-470 -- both over 200HP powerplants that were designed and run for many years on 80 octane until it was no longer available.

100LL has several times the lead of the fuel it replaced. GA is currently facing mounting pressure to reduce or even eliminate lead emissions. The vast majority of GA airplanes flying (including various twins) were designed and flown with 80/87 octane fuel.

Those aircraft you fly do not make up the majority of the fuel that is consumed. Navajos, twin Cessnas, and large Beechcraft do. They're turbocharged airframes that burn way more fuel than the engines that can run on 80/87, and fly many more hours.

For those of us who live outside the world of commercial GA operations (be it company part 91 or 135), the scale doesn't make sense. Once you start seeing how many hours these planes are flying, though, it does.
 
Those aircraft you fly do not make up the majority of the fuel that is consumed. Navajos, twin Cessnas, and large Beechcraft do. They're turbocharged airframes that burn way more fuel than the engines that can run on 80/87, and fly many more hours.

And we're certain those aircraft cannot run 87 octane?
 
And we're certain those aircraft cannot run 87 octane?

What, you think that minimum fuel rating requirements are arbitrary? :mad2:

I already answered this question.

and that fleet could not use the 80/87 that the low powered aircraft could use without major alterations that would significantly reduce performance while increasing fuel consumption.
 
Simmah down, now... :yesnod:

(I'm not arguing -- I'm asking)

There are many engines with Type certs that require fuels no longer available. So clearly there is some flexibility.
You're not going to take the engines Ted is talking about and run them on 87 octance without major extremely costly engine modifications. Period.
 
Simmah down, now... :yesnod:

(I'm not arguing -- I'm asking)

There are many engines with Type certs that require fuels no longer available. So clearly there is some flexibility.
There may be upward flexibility (engines built for 80/87 running OK on 100LL), but there ain't much downward flexibility (engines built for 100/130 get serious indigestion when fed 91/96). You may have to dig into source documents (like current P-revision of Lycoming SI 1070 -- see post #33) to find out what the real mins are for each engine, but you don't run on less than what that SI (or its TCM equivalent) says.
 
Cars have variable spark timing and will (typically) retard the spark at full load (where you rarely run) to allow the use of higher compression ratios and best spark at lower loads (where they typically run) for better fuel economy. Many even have knock sensors that detect knock and retard the spark as necessary.

Apples, oranges.

In general how octane relates to energy depends on what you do to boost octane. I doubt that you will find that the energy content of high / low octane avgas significantly different - the octane rating is boosted by TEL as opposed to using oxygenates.


What about Carb'ed motorcycles running at those compressions? Many of those don't have any extensive electronics.
 
What about Carb'ed motorcycles running at those compressions? Many of those don't have any extensive electronics.

Someone already mentioned small combustion chambers which are less prone to knock. Also one typically doesn't run motorcycle engines at low speed / high torque. Dunno if the "typical" motorcycle has a centrifigual advance built in to the spark like cars before electronics.

On the other hand, I do have a Honda piston with a hole melted in it sitting on my desk...
 
Simmah down, now... :yesnod:

(I'm not arguing -- I'm asking)

There are many engines with Type certs that require fuels no longer available. So clearly there is some flexibility.

On big boosted engines, you typically just limit the maximum boost.

On naturally aspirated you either limit the throttle, reduce the compression, or retard the spark.

I see a market for spacers to put between the cylinder and the case...
 
True.

Yet my 2001 FZ1000 runs 12.4:1 compression on 89 octane mogas...

:dunno:

What are your BMEPs? What are your combustion chamber temperatures? What mixture is your bike running at that point? What are your resulting SFCs?

BMEP (Brake Mean Effect Pressure) is more or less an average cylinder pressure over a cycle. Aircraft engines have very high BMEPs. There are few street vehicles that, even at peak power, produce similar BMEPs, and none of them are expected to last 2000 hours at that power.

I'm guessing that your bike is liquid-cooled. You'll have lower combustion chamber temperatures which decrease your propensity to detonation. This is a big deal. More heat gets pulled out of the combustion process. This makes you less prone to detonation. It also lowers your power output (heat = energy = power) and therefore your SFCs go up (Specific Fuel Consumption). It also increases the weight of the engine. One of my friends in Japan points out that they still have a lot of UJMs with air-cooled engines, as they have better fuel economy than even the most modern liquid-cooled engines out there.

You're probably running a pretty rich mixture setting at full power, but it's leaned out some for lower power that you run on the highway. Or it might not be - motorcycles tend to get good enough mileage for most people that they don't make a big deal about fuel tuning for economy. Aircraft engines are alweays running at high power settings where street engines cannot be leaned out using your pump gas. We complain enough about fuel consumption as it is.

Your SFC is significantly worse than an aircraft engine. Almost no street engines can compare to aircraft SFCs, especially when you start comparing turbo engines to turbo engines. This is in part a biproduct of design, but also a biproduct of some of the factors above.

I understand that this is not obvious. It wasn't obvious to me when I started learning more about it. Hopefully this helps make some things clearer.
 
What are your BMEPs? What are your combustion chamber temperatures? What mixture is your bike running at that point? What are your resulting SFCs?

BMEP (Brake Mean Effect Pressure) is more or less an average cylinder pressure over a cycle. Aircraft engines have very high BMEPs. There are few street vehicles that, even at peak power, produce similar BMEPs, and none of them are expected to last 2000 hours at that power.

I'm guessing that your bike is liquid-cooled. You'll have lower combustion chamber temperatures which decrease your propensity to detonation. This is a big deal. More heat gets pulled out of the combustion process. This makes you less prone to detonation. It also lowers your power output (heat = energy = power) and therefore your SFCs go up (Specific Fuel Consumption). It also increases the weight of the engine. One of my friends in Japan points out that they still have a lot of UJMs with air-cooled engines, as they have better fuel economy than even the most modern liquid-cooled engines out there.

You're probably running a pretty rich mixture setting at full power, but it's leaned out some for lower power that you run on the highway. Or it might not be - motorcycles tend to get good enough mileage for most people that they don't make a big deal about fuel tuning for economy. Aircraft engines are alweays running at high power settings where street engines cannot be leaned out using your pump gas. We complain enough about fuel consumption as it is.

Your SFC is significantly worse than an aircraft engine. Almost no street engines can compare to aircraft SFCs, especially when you start comparing turbo engines to turbo engines. This is in part a biproduct of design, but also a biproduct of some of the factors above.

I understand that this is not obvious. It wasn't obvious to me when I started learning more about it. Hopefully this helps make some things clearer.

Enlightening description -- thanks. :yesnod:

So let me see if I got it: The weight penalty of liquid cooling makes it impractical for smaller a/c engines. Thus the aircooled, higher compression engines require the ability to run at higher compression while reducing the possibility of detonation which is provided by the lead in 100ll?
 
So let me see if I got it: The weight penalty of liquid cooling makes it impractical for smaller a/c engines.

I wouldn't say impractical so much as undesirable. 100 lbs of engine is equivalent to not being able to bring Tristan along with you when flying.

Thus the aircooled, higher compression engines require the ability to run at higher compression while reducing the possibility of detonation which is provided by the lead in 100ll?

I think that overcomplicates it. The extremely simplified version is the characteristics of these higher powered engines as-is require the use of fuel with at least the anti-knock properties of 100LL (or better) to be able to make their power ratings as they are currently built at the specified fuel flows without detonating. Fuel with lower anti-knock properties results in reduced performance in at least power or fuel consumption, potentially both.
 
No, smart a$$, the issue has been revived due to concerns about lead emissions.

But given that Avgas 80 has lead, albeit a lot less than 100LL, removes it as a solution to the aviation fuel lead "problem". Heck, I'll bet that there are viable fuel mixes that have the same lead content as Avgas 80 which could meet the octane requirements of the whole fleet. No doubt it would cost more than the current fuel but that alone wouldn't prevent it being considered a solution by the environmentalists and the FAA. Having any measurable amount of lead in it would eliminate it.
 
But given that Avgas 80 has lead, albeit a lot less than 100LL, removes it as a solution to the aviation fuel lead "problem". Heck, I'll bet that there are viable fuel mixes that have the same lead content as Avgas 80 which could meet the octane requirements of the whole fleet. No doubt it would cost more than the current fuel but that alone wouldn't prevent it being considered a solution by the environmentalists and the FAA. Having any measurable amount of lead in it would eliminate it.

..and that becomes political football rather than a realistic compromise.
 
I think that overcomplicates it. The extremely simplified version is the characteristics of these higher powered engines as-is require the use of fuel with at least the anti-knock properties of 100LL (or better) to be able to make their power ratings as they are currently built at the specified fuel flows without detonating. Fuel with lower anti-knock properties results in reduced performance in at least power or fuel consumption, potentially both.

Do you think the engines were designed to require some minimum amount of lead (as contained in 100LL)? Or just to achieve a power rating and only 100LL provides the compressibility without detonation?

Or is there no difference?

:dunno:
 
Going back through this thread, a couple of issues need clarification.

- Lots of current engine installations cannot get autogas STC's because the installation is prone to vapor lock. This isn't an octane or lead issue, it is a vapor pressure and fuel system design issue. Any replacement for 100LL could address this issue by using a low vapor pressure formula.

- A second issue that has been mentioned is the ability of high compression engines motorcycles and high performance autos to use 91 octane. That is possible because of a couple of things that have not been discussed. First, combustion chamber size and second RPM. Compared to a motorcycle, our engines spin at 1/4 the RPM and have cylinder volumes that are several times (on the order of 5x) the size of the ones in motorcycles. Which means the fuel charge needs to burn significantly slower in an airplane than in a bike motor to avoid detonation or preignition. Octane is what slows combustion. The cheapest way to add octane is tetra-ethyl lead.


Addressing the economic side of the situation, I spoke with the local FBO manager, who is very (light) GA friendly and asked what it would take to get a mogas pump at the field. He said he'd love to do it but the economics didn't work. First, it wouldn't drive additional gallons for him. It would just cannibalize his 100LL volume. Second, he'd have to carry twice the inventory. He has a 10K gallon 100LL tank, which on average is 1/2 full. That wouldnt' change because of tanker capacity (your storage tank needs to be a tanker of fuel (~6K gallons) plus some, so you don't run dry between deliveries. Next, he'd have to buy and install the infrastructure for mogas - a tank, pump, pay device, spill containment, etc. After that, he'd have to pay additional upkeep and insurance, plus carry the additional mogas inventory.

He said that he'd have to charge within $0.25 of 100LL for Mogas to make it profitable for him. Given that nobody would buy it at that price, it's a no win situation for him. Those economics are why 80 octane went away.

The same economics apply to 94UL or whatever. As long as some of the fleet requires 100LL, it'll be the standard unless we allow the environmentalists to kill it. And if they kill 100LL, the rework costs on the high power piston aircraft will probably result in many of them being parked and left to rot. Which will accelerate the down-the-drain spiral of GA.
 
Enlightening description -- thanks. :yesnod:

So let me see if I got it: The weight penalty of liquid cooling makes it impractical for smaller a/c engines. Thus the aircooled, higher compression engines require the ability to run at higher compression while reducing the possibility of detonation which is provided by the lead in 100ll?

Hey... Go easy on water cooled aircraft engines.:lol::lol::lol:

As a side topic can any of you 'oldtimers' refresh my memory and correct me if I am wrong

100/115 LL is blue
100/115 is green
115 135 was purple
80/87 ????

and for a long shot I seem to remember the military had 120/145 for those high octane requirements.... What color was that ??


Thanks in advance.

ben.
 
But given that Avgas 80 has lead, albeit a lot less than 100LL,


That's not quite true. 80/87 has a MAXIMUM of 0.5 ml/gallon of TEL. In later years TEL was not used in 80/87 because the cost of the lead was more than just plain old refinery methods to produce "pure" gasoline of this octane.

The same is true of 100LL, a MAXIMUM of 2.0 ml/gallon of TEL, but you can't get 100 octane easily without using the lead. 92? Easy. 100? Not easy.

The estimate is that 95% of the single engine fleet will be able to use 92UL with no modifications to the engine other than operational limitations on power and a slight timing tweak.

Twins? Not sure of the numbers.

Jim
 
Hey... Go easy on water cooled aircraft engines.:lol::lol::lol:

As a side topic can any of you 'oldtimers' refresh my memory and correct me if I am wrong

100/115 LL is blue
100/115 is green
115 135 was purple
80/87 ????

and for a long shot I seem to remember the military had 120/145 for those high octane requirements.... What color was that ??


Thanks in advance.

ben.

80/87 was red.

Dan
 
Going back through this thread, a couple of issues need clarification.

- Lots of current engine installations cannot get autogas STC's because the installation is prone to vapor lock. This isn't an octane or lead issue, it is a vapor pressure and fuel system design issue. Any replacement for 100LL could address this issue by using a low vapor pressure formula.

- A second issue that has been mentioned is the ability of high compression engines motorcycles and high performance autos to use 91 octane. That is possible because of a couple of things that have not been discussed. First, combustion chamber size and second RPM. Compared to a motorcycle, our engines spin at 1/4 the RPM and have cylinder volumes that are several times (on the order of 5x) the size of the ones in motorcycles. Which means the fuel charge needs to burn significantly slower in an airplane than in a bike motor to avoid detonation or preignition. Octane is what slows combustion. The cheapest way to add octane is tetra-ethyl lead.

It doesn't burn slower, it just resists detonation. Normal combustion flame spread is at around 100 feet per second, while detonation can reach 5000 fps. Detonation takes time to happen, so it happens in big, slow-moving cylinders because there's more time, and it happens at leaner mixtures because lean mixtures burn more slowly. As the pressure wave moves across the cylinder it raises the temperature of the unburnt fuel molecules ahead of it, which then break into simpler structures that autoignite all at once instead of maintaining the chain reaction movement of flame spread.

Dan
 
100/115 LL is blue
No such thing as 100/115LL, but the 100LL we are using today is blue.
100/115 is green
No such thing as 100/115, but the old 100/130 which 100LL replaced was green.
115 135 was purple
No such thing as 115/135, but the 115/145 the military used was purple.
80/87 ????
Red.
And the old 91/96 which disappeared before 100LL appeared was the same blue that 100LL is now -- they just recycled the color.
and for a long shot I seem to remember the military had 120/145 for those high octane requirements.... What color was that ??
As noted above, the military's 115/145 was purple.
 
No such thing as 100/115LL, but the 100LL we are using today is blue.
No such thing as 100/115, but the old 100/130 which 100LL replaced was green.
No such thing as 115/135, but the 115/145 the military used was purple.
Red.
And the old 91/96 which disappeared before 100LL appeared was the same blue that 100LL is now -- they just recycled the color.
As noted above, the military's 115/145 was purple.

Thanks for the refresher.. I missed the 100-130 idea. for some reason I thought is was 115..

Boy did that purple stuff smell good too,,, burned or unburnt. :eek:

Tailwinds.
Ben.
 
It doesn't burn slower, it just resists detonation. Normal combustion flame spread is at around 100 feet per second, while detonation can reach 5000 fps. Detonation takes time to happen, so it happens in big, slow-moving cylinders because there's more time, and it happens at leaner mixtures because lean mixtures burn more slowly. As the pressure wave moves across the cylinder it raises the temperature of the unburnt fuel molecules ahead of it, which then break into simpler structures that autoignite all at once instead of maintaining the chain reaction movement of flame spread.

Dan

It's my understanding that flame propagation occurs at a faster rate as the mixture ls leaned from a fairly rich ratio, up until the mixture for best power (or a bit leaner) occurs. From that point as the mixture is leaned further the flame front(s) slow back down.
 
That's not quite true. 80/87 has a MAXIMUM of 0.5 ml/gallon of TEL. In later years TEL was not used in 80/87 because the cost of the lead was more than just plain old refinery methods to produce "pure" gasoline of this octane.
Jim

Where did you learn this? Every bit of 80/87 I every saw had lead in it.
 
No such thing as 100/115LL, but the 100LL we are using today is blue.
No such thing as 100/115, but the old 100/130 which 100LL replaced was green.
No such thing as 115/135, but the 115/145 the military used was purple.
Red.
And the old 91/96 which disappeared before 100LL appeared was the same blue that 100LL is now -- they just recycled the color.
As noted above, the military's 115/145 was purple.

Right on the money as usual.
 
It doesn't burn slower, it just resists detonation. Normal combustion flame spread is at around 100 feet per second, while detonation can reach 5000 fps. Detonation takes time to happen, so it happens in big, slow-moving cylinders because there's more time, and it happens at leaner mixtures because lean mixtures burn more slowly. As the pressure wave moves across the cylinder it raises the temperature of the unburnt fuel molecules ahead of it, which then break into simpler structures that autoignite all at once instead of maintaining the chain reaction movement of flame spread.

Dan

Your talking in circles, the sole purpose of TEL in fuel stocks is to retard the burn rate and stop detonation.

ANY internal combustion engine will detonate on ANY fuel if the piston speed is slowed to a point the internal cylinder pressure reaches a point the fuel simply explodes.
 
Your talking in circles, the sole purpose of TEL in fuel stocks is to retard the burn rate and stop detonation.

ANY internal combustion engine will detonate on ANY fuel if the piston speed is slowed to a point the internal cylinder pressure reaches a point the fuel simply explodes.

Some quotes from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/

Begin quotes:

Simply put, the octane rating of the fuel reflects the ability of the
unburnt end gases to resist spontaneous autoignition under the engine test
conditions used. If autoignition occurs, it results in an extremely rapid
pressure rise, as both the desired spark-initiated flame front, and the
undesired autoignited end gas flames are expanding. The combined pressure
peak arrives slightly ahead of the normal operating pressure peak, leading
to a loss of power and eventual overheating. The end gas pressure waves are
superimposed on the main pressure wave, leading to a sawtooth pattern of
pressure oscillations that create the "knocking" sound.


The alkyl lead antiknocks work in a different stage of the pre-combustion
reaction to oxygenates. In contrast to oxygenates, the alkyl lead interferes
with hydrocarbon chain branching in the intermediate temperature range
where HO2 is the most important radical species. Lead oxide, either as
solid particles, or in the gas phase, reacts with HO2 and removes it from
the available radical pool, thereby deactivating the major chain branching
reaction sequence that results in undesirable, easily-autoignitable
hydrocarbons.

The fuel property the octane ratings measure is the ability of the unburnt
end gases to spontaneously ignite under the specified test conditions.
Within the chemical structure of the fuel is the ability to withstand
pre-flame conditions without decomposing into species that will autoignite
before the flame-front arrives. Different reaction mechanisms, occurring at
various stages of the pre-flame compression stroke, are responsible for the
undesirable, easily-autoignitable, end gases.

The antiknock ability is related to the "autoignition temperature" of the
hydrocarbons. Antiknock ability is _not_ substantially related to:-
1. The energy content of fuel, this should be obvious, as oxygenates have
lower energy contents, but high octanes.
2. The flame speed of the conventionally ignited mixture, this should be
evident from the similarities of the two reference hydrocarbons.
Although flame speed does play a minor part, there are many other factors
that are far more important. ( such as compression ratio, stoichiometry,
combustion chamber shape, chemical structure of the fuel, presence of
antiknock additives, number and position of spark plugs, turbulence etc.)
Flame speed does not correlate with octane.

End of quotes. Note especially the last line. It's found in part three of the website.

Dan
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't know why everybody is getting so angry.

My plane won't eat anything but 100LL. I'm gettin' just a little nervous that this imperative to remove lead from avgas, which represents maybe 0.1% of lead emissions in the country if I recall my statistics correctly, will ground my plane. GAMI's vaunted 100LL replacement is about as successful as their PRISM engine management system. Lots of promises, not a lot of production. I'll believe it when I see it.

I would hate to see a solution that frucks over the high-compression engines in search of a solution to a minuscule problem.

Time for me to go Jet-A!!
 
I'm not suggesting the national aviation fuel supply be changed to meet the needs of the few antique airplane fliers -- but it seems there are many problems introduced by 100ll (airplane and environmental) that superficially appear unjustified.

In other words, given that the vast majority of GA airplanes flown regularly were designed for 87 Octane, what problem is 100ll solving?

I cant tell you where I saw it... but I saw a statistic stating that 70% of the existing piston fleet could run on lead free gas....

but the 30% that couldnt... was responsible for 70% of the avgas sales by volume... big horsepower, single and multiengine commercial birds that fly every day.
 
Nascar has addressed this issue a few years back. Now that there is a ton of data to support the viability of a no lead high performance gasoline you would figure the FAA sit up and listen to success... But , NO...........:no:

http://trademarkoil.com/PDF/THE OFFICIAL FUEL OF NASCAR.pdf

Given that the MON (which is generally close to the "Lean Mixture Octane" rating used to specify avgas) of that fuel is only 94, (sounds a lot like 94UL) what's your point?
 
My point is.......... there are options out there in case 100LL goes away, which you can bet is going to happen one day. You might need to sharpen up on your fuel comparison numbers too.
 
My point is.......... there are options out there in case 100LL goes away, which you can bet is going to happen one day. You might need to sharpen up on your fuel comparison numbers too.

My understanding of the supply issue is this. There is a plant making TEL, in the UK, where we buy the TEL to add to 100LL, and one in Russia that also makes TEL. which we do not buy from

The UK's TEL plant is under scrutiny from the UK's version of the EPA and they want the plant closed but the Aviation industry has raised the issue of jobs and the issue is still being evaluated with the out come still in doubt.

If they should stop making TEL in the UK, we can always buy our TEL from Russia.

Russia has a very large number of aircraft that still need TEL and I don't see them stopping the production any time soon.

The cost of dealing with a sole supplier is different issue, we allowed the Russians to become the sole supplier of Iridium, now the cost of fine wire plugs is reaching $100 each.

stand by for the cost of fuel to do the same thing.
 
I cant tell you where I saw it... but I saw a statistic stating that 70% of the existing piston fleet could run on lead free gas....

but the 30% that couldn't... was responsible for 70% of the avgas sales by volume... big horsepower, single and multi-engine commercial birds that fly every day.

Not many of those left,

The only engine that I know of the was rated for 100/130 is the TSIO-360-KB. in the PA28R-201T. that engine was de-rated to 201 to run 100LL. and will not be able to run 92OUL at that rating.

The only engines that are large radials still running in Com. service are the P&W 1340, in a few Otters, and the 985, in the Beaver, both are able to run 92UL

the Martine Mars runs 4, 4360's and that engine requires 115/145 and Canada still gets that fuel as does the confederate airforce.

much hype over nothing.
 
the Martine Mars runs 4, 4360's and that engine requires 115/145 and Canada still gets that fuel as does the confederate airforce.

much hype over nothing.

At what price?
 
Where did you learn this? Every bit of 80/87 I every saw had lead in it.

I learned it at a flight instructor refresher course back in the 1970s. The instructor was a Lycoming fuels engineer and I took him at his word, since that was his profession. I never ran a chemical test on the fuel and I don't know if you did. I'm not sure I've ever seen a qualitative test procedure for TEL.

Jim
 
Back
Top