Why 100LL Substitute????

[Chip Sylverne]

Because Hjelmco did not pursue it with the FAA. And the economics in the USA do not support it. Go back to my point earlier, the planes that consume most of the fuel in the USA cannot run on Hjelmco fuel without new performance tables and taking a big hit in performance.


Tim

The economics don't work for whom? Certainly they work for Lyc and Conti owners whose engines are approved , if they can get the gas for .50 cheaper than 100ll.
As for Hjelmco not trying to break into the US market, that's just not factual.

 

[Clip4]

As said before, TEL is nasty. Even in the percent or two in 100LL, it's dangerous. Pure, it's a nightmare. I would not want to be in arm's length of the stuff pure. It will poison you if you ingest. It will poison you if you touch it. It will poison you if you breathe it. Being an organic lead compound, it bypasses your body's natural ability to reject the heavy metals and incorporates nearly 100% of the lead it contains into your body. It's not at all like handling a chunk of lead metal, which isn't great, but will mostly just wash off your hands. It's volatile, so it goes up your nose. It blasts right through skin. It goes through latex gloves (but not nitrile). I'd want nothing to do with it.

Secondarily, it'd be a mess to figure out how much you need and how to mix it in effectively. Too much and you end up with fouled plugs and poor running. Too little and you get detonation and engine damage. It wouldn't be a fixed amount anyway, as the mix of hydrocarbons in the gasoline would affect how much you needed at the moment. I'd rather have the experts do it for me.

Organic lead? Isn’t organic good for you? Maybe you mean organolead.

 

[tspear]

The economics don't work for whom? Certainly they work for Lyc and Conti owners whose engines are approved , if they can get the gas for .50 cheaper than 100ll.
As for Hjelmco not trying to break into the US market, that's just not factual.

Hjelmco could sell to the EA-B market, could pursue an STC like Perterson, get it approved under the Peterson STC, or pursue it under PAFI with the FAA. Those are the possible solutions of which I am aware.
So far, none have been done. The EA-B and the mogas STC are by far the lowest hanging fruit. If they really wanted in the market, that is how they enter it, there are dozens of locations which sell mogas on the field. They tend to have a lot of EA-B and old planes which can have the mogas STC.

A pretty descent summary:
http://aviationweek.com/bca/getting-lead-out-future-avgas

You will notice toward the bottom; they discuss the economics of eliminating a significant portion of the fuel sales. It is not a 50 cent decrease in price, it is a huge increase in price.

Tim

 

[davidgfern]

Maybe there is a logical answer as to why not, but:

Remove the lead from Avgas. Those who need it can add it to their fuel. The result is that planes that don't need it are running cleaner and not spuing lead everywhere.

As others have already stated, tetraethyl lead is BAD BAD stuff... you don't want to have that stuff easily available. And it is true that only one company in the entire world still manufactures it (they are a British company), and they will not sell it to just anybody --- you need to have a reason you need to buy it.

I suspect that we'll see over the next 20 years or so the price of diesel aircraft engines continue to decline, and the need for 100LL will diminish as the GA fleet slowly transitions over to Jet A.

 

[tspear]

As others have already stated, tetraethyl lead is BAD BAD stuff... you don't want to have that stuff easily available. And it is true that only one company in the entire world still manufactures it (they are a British company), and they will not sell it to just anybody --- you need to have a reason you need to buy it.

I suspect that we'll see over the next 20 years or so the price of diesel aircraft engines continue to decline, and the need for 100LL will diminish as the GA fleet slowly transitions over to Jet A.

Continental seems close with the CD-300. Spec weight is only just over 25lbs heavier than the IO-550K in a Cirrus SR22. They have passed EASA certification and working on FAA. Most of the FAA process is covered by reciprocity agreements, but I think the FAA has a few items not covered by EASA (in air restarts for some reasons come to mind).
This I think has the potential to be the first descent diesel for new planes which need 300HP. Question will be how much will a retrofit STC cost...

Tim

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

As others have already stated, tetraethyl lead is BAD BAD stuff... you don't want to have that stuff easily available. And it is true that only one company in the entire world still manufactures it (they are a British company), and they will not sell it to just anybody --- you need to have a reason you need to buy it.

I suspect that we'll see over the next 20 years or so the price of diesel aircraft engines continue to decline, and the need for 100LL will diminish as the GA fleet slowly transitions over to Jet A.

Only when the commercial guys (20% of GA) transition.....they use 70% of all 100LL.

 

[FormerHangie]

Only when the commercial guys (20% of GA) transition.....they use 70% of all 100LL.

This is cribbed from FlightAware's "airborne aircraft by type", as of right now:

• Cirrus SR22: 59
• Cessna Skyhawk: 53
• Cessna 402: 21
  
• Beechcraft Bonanza BE36: 17
• Cessna Skylane: 17
• Piper Cherokee PA28: 16
• Beechcraft Baron 58: 15
• Piper Malibu Mirage: 15
• Piper Saratoga PA28: 14
• Piper Navajo PA31: 12
• Mooney M20: 11
• Beechcraft Bonanza BE33: 10
• Cirrus SR20: 10
• Piper Seneca PA34: 9
• Cirrus SR22 Turbo: 9
• Beechcraft Bonanza BE35: 8
• Piper Aerostar: 7
• Piper Lance PA32: 7
• Piper Semiole PA-44: 7
• Beechcraft Baron BE55: 6
• Cessna 206 : 6
• Cessna 310: 6
• Cessna 340: 6
• Cessna 421: 6
• Mooney M20 Turbo: 6
• Piper Cherokee Arrow: 5
• Plus 46 miscellaneous piston aircraft each of which had four or fewer in the air.

I'm looking at that list, and I'm thinking that the Cessna 402s are mostly Cape Air, and it's a good probability that the Cessna 421s and Piper Navajos are flown either as part of a corporate operation or are otherwise in revenue service. But I look at the rest of the list and am thinking most of these airplane are owner flown, mostly for business. The Skyhawks and the Seminoles may very well be mostly training. I don't think there is much revenue flying done with piston equipment any more.

Another thing that makes me think that this is the case is the seasonality of avgas consumption. Look at the chart here, there's a big increase in the summer months. I really think owner flying drives avgas sales.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

This is cribbed from FlightAware's "airborne aircraft by type", as of right now:

• <SNIP>

I'm looking at that list, and I'm thinking that the Cessna 402s are mostly Cape Air, and it's a good probability that the Cessna 421s and Piper Navajos are flown either as part of a corporate operation or are otherwise in revenue service. But I look at the rest of the list and am thinking most of these airplane are owner flown, mostly for business. The Skyhawks and the Seminoles may very well be mostly training. I don't think there is much revenue flying done with piston equipment any more.

Another thing that makes me think that this is the case is the seasonality of avgas consumption. Look at the chart here, there's a big increase in the summer months. I really think owner flying drives avgas sales.

An alternative hypothesis is that Cape Air, float plane operations, bush plane, sight seeing, skydiving, and similar commercial operations have a very strong seasonal component to their business.

 

[tspear]

Only when the commercial guys (20% of GA) transition.....they use 70% of all 100LL.

Any basis on that number? I have seen in media, and at one point from the FAA that 30% of the fleet uses 70% of the fuel. And that the 30% of the fleet require 100LL due to detonation margins.
Also, define commercial please. What context? Commercial license (as in flying for profit)? Incidental to business (think part 91 flight department)?
What do you mean?

Tim

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

Any basis on that number? I have seen in media, and at one point from the FAA that 30% of the fleet uses 70% of the fuel. And that the 30% of the fleet require 100LL due to detonation margins.
Also, define commercial please. What context? Commercial license (as in flying for profit)? Incidental to business (think part 91 flight department)?
What do you mean?

Tim

Tim....I was going from memory and those articles we've all read. So, my numbers could be slightly off.

Commercial?.....part 135 and other $$$ flights. Those flight incidental to business are probably not included. Us weekenders don't use the volume of fuel as the "pro's" who do it day-in and day-out. We make up the numbers as a majority....just not the fuel flowage.

 

[tspear]

Tim....I was going from memory and those articles we've all read. So, my numbers could be slightly off.

Commercial?.....part 135 and other $$$ flights. Those flight incidental to business are probably not included. Us weekenders don't use the volume of fuel as the "pro's" who do it day-in and day-out. We make up the numbers as a majority....just not the fuel flowage.

That is not what I recall. The vast majority of fuel is under Part 91, there just is not a lot of piston left in commercial flights. Check hauling and freight dogs were the backbone of commercial avgas usage through the 80s till 9/11/01. After that, with Check 21, the check hauling business was ended. The freight dogs have largely been supplanted by FedEx, DHL, UPS all flying Caravans burning Jet-A. The largest "commercial" avgas consumption would likely be training. And training in a 172 just does not use as much fuel as a Cirrus SR22, or 182, or Bonanza, or Baron....

Tim

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

So....maybe the powers at be should do another fuel flowage study?

 

[arnoha]

Organic lead? Isn’t organic good for you? Maybe you mean organolead.

I left off the word compound. "Organic lead compound" Most times I've heard it referred to, the compound is left off. It's a synonym for organolead, which I honestly find a really awkward word and don't tend to use. Organic (carbon containing) compound tend to be much better absorbed by the body, hence the far, far higher bioavailability of the lead in TEL. Lead metal and inorganic lead compounds tend to be more reticent to give up the lead into the body, leading to most of the lead being eliminated before absorption. Vapor pressures also tend to be far lower, leading to little aspiration as long as it's not airborne dust (clearly doesn't apply to exhaust, though, where it's extremely fine particles). Skin penetration tends to also be nil, allowing the material to be washed off. Not wonderful, but something I can reasonably protect myself against.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Hjelmco could sell to the EA-B market, could pursue an STC like Perterson, get it approved under the Peterson STC, or pursue it under PAFI with the FAA. Those are the possible solutions of which I am aware.
So far, none have been done. The EA-B and the mogas STC are by far the lowest hanging fruit. If they really wanted in the market, that is how they enter it, there are dozens of locations which sell mogas on the field. They tend to have a lot of EA-B and old planes which can have the mogas STC.

A pretty descent summary:
http://aviationweek.com/bca/getting-lead-out-future-avgas

You will notice toward the bottom; they discuss the economics of eliminating a significant portion of the fuel sales. It is not a 50 cent decrease in price, it is a huge increase in price.

Tim

EASA has approved all airframes that use 91-96UL approved Lycoming and Conti engines, and Hjelmco, Total and others serve that market profitably at a price .50 lower per gallon than 100ll. And I don't believe there have been many reports of Cessna's Pipers and Beech's raining down on Europe from fuel problems. Why should Hjelmco consent to nibble around the edges here with stc's and with EAB when they do perfectly well on much larger volumes in Europe? The low hanging fruit of US market is simply not worth the effort.
So again, whose interests are being protected by keeping them out? Aviation from top to bottom is the largest example of regulatory capture on Earth.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Hjelmco could sell to the EA-B market, could pursue an STC like Perterson, get it approved under the Peterson STC, or pursue it under PAFI with the FAA. Those are the possible solutions of which I am aware.
So far, none have been done. The EA-B and the mogas STC are by far the lowest hanging fruit. If they really wanted in the market, that is how they enter it, there are dozens of locations which sell mogas on the field. They tend to have a lot of EA-B and old planes which can have the mogas STC.

A pretty descent summary:
http://aviationweek.com/bca/getting-lead-out-future-avgas

You will notice toward the bottom; they discuss the economics of eliminating a significant portion of the fuel sales. It is not a 50 cent decrease in price, it is a huge increase in price.

Tim

It is unfortunate the the writer of that article doesn't know the difference between detonation and pre-ignition.