When are we getting rid of 100LL?

When Rotax makes a six?
 
I can run E-Free 93 Octane mogas but alas! it's not found anywhere near me. Barnwell is listed on the Pure-Gas web site as having 93 AKI but that's incorrect unless something has changed since I've been there.

But when going cross-country 100LL is the only option for almost all flights.
 
Daleandee said:
I can run E-Free 93 Octane mogas but alas! it's not found anywhere near me. Barnwell is listed on the Pure-Gas web site as having 93 AKI but that's incorrect unless something has changed since I've been there.

But when going cross-country 100LL is the only option for almost all flights.
Click to expand...

I saw it at one marina, it's not very common. Lots of marinas have 90 octane E0, it's marketed by Marathon as Rec 90. Many outboard engines require 89 octane, and older boats have fuel systems that don't like alcohol.

Lots of newer boats with inboard engines are fine with 87 octane E10.
 
Remember, 100LL is produced in such small quantities that it's not considered a fuel by the petroleum companies, it's a "specialty chemical."

Although removing leaded fuel is an EPA priority, they recognize that >99% of this was accomplished when they did a way with leaded fuel in cars. The reality is we aren't producing enough lead to truly matter. Would it be better if we went unleaded? Sure, no doubt. How much? Probably not enough to justify the effort that's gone into switching. I was working on this problem over 10 years ago, and it doesn't seem to have moved much in that timeframe.
 
Ted said:
Remember, 100LL is produced in such small quantities that it's not considered a fuel by the petroleum companies, it's a "specialty chemical."

Although removing leaded fuel is an EPA priority, they recognize that >99% of this was accomplished when they did a way with leaded fuel in cars. The reality is we aren't producing enough lead to truly matter. Would it be better if we went unleaded? Sure, no doubt. How much? Probably not enough to justify the effort that's gone into switching. I was working on this problem over 10 years ago, and it doesn't seem to have moved much in that timeframe.
Click to expand...

I completely agree ... and plenty of aircraft require it ... and if it was completely outlawed it would be much more harmful because of engine damage and potential lives lost because of engine failures.

The regulators realize that , and accommodate it just fine .... but apparently the biggest issue is that it is a small market (for the big oil companies) and few suppliers want to make it anymore.
 
Ted said:
Remember, 100LL is produced in such small quantities that it's not considered a fuel by the petroleum companies, it's a "specialty chemical."

Although removing leaded fuel is an EPA priority, they recognize that >99% of this was accomplished when they did a way with leaded fuel in cars. The reality is we aren't producing enough lead to truly matter. Would it be better if we went unleaded? Sure, no doubt. How much? Probably not enough to justify the effort that's gone into switching. I was working on this problem over 10 years ago, and it doesn't seem to have moved much in that timeframe.
Click to expand...

Lot's of info on this thread here: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/no-lead-aviation-fuel.129663/page-3

Tim
 
tspear said:
Lot's of info on this thread here: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/no-lead-aviation-fuel.129663/page-3

Tim
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not sure what your point is, at least to me specifically as I saw that thread and didn't find much particularly useful in there. I literally worked this problem as part of my day job for some time and I don't feel I'm being arrogant in saying I understand it better than most people on here. The reality is there's not a good reason to make 100LL go away, but I do think that Jet-A powerplants are more logical going forward for a number of reasons.

However, I would truly hate to see old warbirds be relegated to display only. That would be a shame.
 
Ted said:
The reality is there's not a good reason to make 100LL go away,
Click to expand...

Honestly, I simply don't see any momentum for anything to change as it is. Are the refineries really threatening to take their ball and go home? Not that I've heard.
 
Did we really need another thread in addition to the one started last month on the same topic?
 
Ted said:
Remember, 100LL is produced in such small quantities that it's not considered a fuel by the petroleum companies, it's a "specialty chemical."

Although removing leaded fuel is an EPA priority, they recognize that >99% of this was accomplished when they did a way with leaded fuel in cars. The reality is we aren't producing enough lead to truly matter. Would it be better if we went unleaded? Sure, no doubt. How much? Probably not enough to justify the effort that's gone into switching. I was working on this problem over 10 years ago, and it doesn't seem to have moved much in that timeframe.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned before, 100LL is under threat from two directions, environmental concerns and market forces. Given that
  • 100LL is fussy to produce, ship, and store;
  • the customer base is minuscule (by oil-industry standards); and
  • the supply chain is dangerously thin and fragile
we need to be prepared for Capitalism to sneak up and kill off 100LL before Environmentalism has a chance to.
 
Last edited:
David Megginson said:
As I mentioned before, 100LL is under threat from two directions, environmental concerns and market forces. Given that
  • 100LL fussy to produce, ship, and store;
  • the customer base is minuscule (by oil-industry standards); and
  • the supply chain is dangerously thin and fragile
we need to be prepared for Capitalism to sneak up and kill off 100LL before Environmentalism has a chance to.
Click to expand...

Any avgas fuel will:
  • Be a fussy to produce, ship and store specialty application product;
  • Continue to have a minuscule customer base (that's likely to keep shrinking slowly); and
  • Due to bullets 1 & 2 above have a thin supply chain.
 
GRG55 said:
Any avgas fuel will:
  • Be a fussy to produce, ship and store specialty application product;
  • Continue to have a minuscule customer base (that's likely to keep shrinking slowly); and
  • Due to bullets 1 & 2 above have a thin supply chain.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The use of TEL certainly does add some regulatory complexity for handling and storage, but ultimately it's an aviation fuel that will never be consumed in high quantities. It'll have its issues.

While it's a small market and always will be, it's still a revenue stream that's worthwhile. Disruptions always have and always will exist because it's a small and particular supply chain. I seriously doubt that removal of TEL would really improve the supply chain aspects because of the aviation requirements.
 
Ted said:
I guess I'm not sure what your point is, at least to me specifically as I saw that thread and didn't find much particularly useful in there. I literally worked this problem as part of my day job for some time and I don't feel I'm being arrogant in saying I understand it better than most people on here. The reality is there's not a good reason to make 100LL go away, but I do think that Jet-A powerplants are more logical going forward for a number of reasons.

However, I would truly hate to see old warbirds be relegated to display only. That would be a shame.
Click to expand...
Lots of info in the other thread. Per Paul, and a Google search with questionable results (as in I did not source verification), depending on how you calculate it, avgas represents between 25 and 50% of the lead added to our airborne environment. The reality is there is no safe level of lead exposure. Hence the push to remove it.

The manufacturing limitations are covered in the other thread also....

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Lots of info in the other thread. Per Paul, and a Google search with questionable results (as in I did not source verification), depending on how you calculate it, avgas represents between 25 and 50% of the lead added to our airborne environment. The reality is there is no safe level of lead exposure. Hence the push to remove it.

The manufacturing limitations are covered in the other thread also....
Click to expand...

I'm not too concerned about airborne lead from 100LL, and clearly the EPA's concern is only marginal:

https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/lead-trends

And per the CDC/OSHA, there are levels of "workplace exposure to lead" that are permissible, all of which are far, far higher than what we ever saw for normal airborne lead:

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem... a Permissible Exposure,than 30 days per year.

So, I'll stick with my statement that there's really not a good reason to get rid of it.
 
Ted,

I do not know enough to debate this well. Except to say, I have read multiple studies that show lead in cities near construction and near GA airports are significantly higher.
This matters for kids, not so much for adults. The effect lead has on kids is far greater than on adults, so safety levels for adult workplaces are rather meaningless.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Ted,

I do not know enough to debate this well. Except to say, I have read multiple studies that show lead in cities near construction and near GA airports are significantly higher.
This matters for kids, not so much for adults. The effect lead has on kids is far greater than on adults, so safety levels for adult workplaces are rather meaningless.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

(not challenging, rather seeking information)

hmmm, "significantly higher". What are the absolute numbers? For blood lead levels, 8 mcg/dL is significantly higher than 2 mcg/dL but would that be a problem?

Higher in what, the air? water? blood lead levels of residents?
 
So to play the devils advocate for a minute...how many old school engines have flown on no lead gas, and how many hours before they had a catastrophic failure? Also why were these engines not altered to run on unleaded decades ago like every other engine from lawn mower to sports car. Can spin a motorcycle engine all day at 5 times the rpm of an airplane engine, on unleaded plain jane gas, rat bagging the poor thing mercilessly, and it doesn't matter to it, then do this 200 days a year, year after year. Check the valves occasionally and screw in some new spark plugs once in a while.
 
Last edited:
GRG55 said:
Any avgas fuel will:
  • Be a fussy to produce, ship and store specialty application product;
  • Continue to have a minuscule customer base (that's likely to keep shrinking slowly); and
  • Due to bullets 1 & 2 above have a thin supply chain.
Click to expand...
Not true to the same extent. If the gas does not contain lead, they won't need to keep the entire infrastructure -- pipes, tanks, trucks, etc -- separate (they can wash them out and use them for something else the next round). That means that more refineries might be willing to produce it. In fact, it might even be possible to put in any anti-detonation additives closer to the consumer (TEL is too toxic for, say, a regional distributor to handle before it's diluted in the avgas). And, perhaps most importantly, we won't be relying on the one remaining chemical plant in Manchester UK that makes TEL (and would probably like to stop, for all the public-relations grief it brings them).

If we actually could find a practical and affordable alternative to TEL for anti-detonation in high-compression petroleum engines, it would be a win-win-win for general aviation, the oil industry, and the environmental movement.
 
There was an AOPA story a while ago that said 70% of general aviation aircraft could run on auto gas, but the 30% of aircraft with higher performance engines that needs the higher octane provided by the TEL also consume 70% of the 100LL. It also said the oil industry refines more auto gas in a day than a year's worth of 100LL production.
 
ColoPilot said:
There was an AOPA story a while ago that said 70% of general aviation aircraft could run on auto gas, but the 30% of aircraft with higher performance engines that needs the higher octane provided by the TEL also consume 70% of the 100LL. It also said the oil industry refines more auto gas in a day than a year's worth of 100LL production.
Click to expand...

Why not just sell bottles of it that can be added by the operator?
 
bnt83 said:
Why not just sell bottles of it that can be added by the operator?
Click to expand...
Because TEL is highly toxic in concentration (vs when it's diluted in avgas). When they first started adding it to fuel in the 1920s, workers at the Standard Oil refinery in NJ were suffering severe cognitive impairment and sometimes dying — they nicknamed it "looney gas". It has to be handled in a highly-controlled environment.
 
So the regulators are not in a hurry to ban it, the refineries are not intimating they're put out by producing it, and the OEMs have no fire under their rear to come up with alternatives to retrofit into diesel or lower CR alternatives that still attract customers. I'm sorry, but I have to retort..... *NSFW warning*
 
ColoPilot said:
There was an AOPA story a while ago that said 70% of general aviation aircraft could run on auto gas, but the 30% of aircraft with higher performance engines that needs the higher octane provided by the TEL also consume 70% of the 100LL. It also said the oil industry refines more auto gas in a day than a year's worth of 100LL production.
Click to expand...
I find that curious, especially with the recent boom in flight training. The 172s, 150s, DA-20s, etc used for training are at the pumps several times a day each, while most of the privately-owned, higher-performance planes seem to spend most of their time tied down (maybe venturing over once or twice a month for fuel).

Then again, maybe AOPA collected that data 8–10 years ago, when training was in a major slump, before there were year-long waiting lists for flying lessons.
 
David Megginson said:
I find that curious, especially with the recent boom in flight training. The 172s, 150s, DA-20s, etc used for training are at the pumps several times a day each, while most of the privately-owned, higher-performance planes seem to spend most of their time tied down (maybe venturing over once or twice a month for fuel).

Then again, maybe AOPA collected that data 8–10 years ago, when training was in a major slump, before there were year-long waiting lists for flying lessons.
Click to expand...

You're probably right -- the story was 8 years ago I think, so the breakdown may not be valid anymore. But I still thought it was interesting fact.
 
Dana said:
Used to be you could buy it in bottles at your local auto parts store.
Click to expand...

You sure about that? I remember "octane booster", but it wasn't TEL or a TEL blend. I think it was a manganese formulation suspended in Naptha or alcohol, which is mostly what you can buy today.
 
kyleb said:
You sure about that? I remember "octane booster", but it wasn't TEL or a TEL blend. I think it was a manganese formulation suspended in Naptha or alcohol, which is mostly what you can buy today.
Click to expand...

I think there was one called "Real Lead" that was supposedly TEL. Wasn't easy to find, it may have been discontinued by the time I was needing such a thing (1969 Bonneville on late 1980s gas).
 
I used to buy analine and mix my motorcycle gas up to 108 octane.
 
8.5:1 is an average compression ratio for the majority of aviation engines, which is a low compression ratio.
 
tspear said:
@Bob Noel

Note: I found these via a web search. Beyond the rather obvious one sided agenda, I have not looked into any aspect of the information.

Here are two rather one sided sites that attempt to answer your question:
https://close1d2.org/lead-poisoning/

https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/Airport/News_and_Litigation/Friends of the Earth Report Regarding Lead Fuel.pdf


Tim
Click to expand...

Thanks - I did spend some time looking beyond their "lead is bad!" ... but didn't find anything useful (nevermind anything even in the same hemisphere as this-much-lead-in-the-blood-from-avgas). Admittedly, it is not easy to show where people pickup lead...especially given that there are so many possible sources other than av-gas (lead in plumbing fixtures, lead from old old old plumbing, lead paint dust/chips, dust from construction/demolition, lead from shootsports-related activities)
 
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...a~MXWJFPF3GZEKRHPD5DEQ6KQN4I~1~1~8~11~art yes

. . .
the little propeller planes buzzing over Orlando’s downtown neighborhoods, a fleet of gas-powered aircraft numbering in the tens of thousands is the nation’s biggest source of lead pollution, eclipsing metal processors, waste incinerators, battery makers and other industries.


“When emitted from aircraft exhaust, lead can be inhaled by people living near and working at airports,” said the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in its January release of a report to Congress: “Options for Reducing Lead Emissions from Piston-Engine Aircraft.”
Click to expand...
 
EdFred said:
Available to subscribers only
Click to expand...
Sorry. It is a rather long article. I don't want to paste the whole thing. Suffice to say, it was a front page article on the Orlando Sentinel with a big picture above the fold and fairly large type headline. And we are going to be hearing about this more and more in the coming months and years.
 
Here is a screen shot of the picture and headline.
upload_2021-2-1_8-0-19.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top