An entire country's Avgas supply killed

I wonder if they could import some from the U.S. to tide them over.
 
I expect the eastern side of the country already does from New England or the mid-west, as it's a long way to ship avgas from Edmonton.
 
The world avgas supply relies on a single supplier of tetraetyl lead.
 
weilke said:
The world avgas supply relies on a single supplier of tetraetyl lead.
Click to expand...
What’s ‘tetraetyl’ lead and why should we care?

(snark, snark, snark)
 
Wants to replace 100LL ... suddenly no 100LL available. Makes the replacement a bigger priority?

Sorry, too many conspiracy theories running around in my mind lately.
 
OkieFlyer said:
What the crap? One source for the whole freakin' country?
Click to expand...

Probably because the total avgas consumption for Canada is so low that one unit of one refinery can provide it. Avgas is leaded, which means that is has to be segregated from other distilled products, so it's a PITA to handle.

Palmpilot said:
I wonder if they could import some from the U.S. to tide them over.
Click to expand...

How do you get it there? You'd need either a whole lot of tanker trucks or a pretty good sized fleet of railroad tank cars. There probably aren't that many of either that aren't currently being used. The other problem is once you get done, you've got to decontaminate them since they have been used to carry leaded fuel.

There are only two uses left for leaded fuel, aviation and some specialized auto racing applications. The racing stuff is shipped in drums and costs somewhere around $15 per gallon. (If you're looking for some 115/145 avgas for your Corsair VP will sell you a drum for $600 plus freight).

I do think it would behoove us to start moving towards some sort of mogas derived solution, lest this happen to us.
 
Which brings up the question, how is the drop in lead free avgas replacement effort going? The last I heard was the Shell candidate required a hazmat suit and dissolved paint. But that has been a while ago.
 
There was an episode or two of Ice Pilots where there was some sort of problem getting Avgas. I can't remember what the problem was - but almost their entire operation was shut down because of it. They couldn't get gas to fly their old piston radial powered aircraft.
 
Clark1961 said:
What’s ‘tetraetyl’ lead and why should we care?

(snark, snark, snark)
Click to expand...

I spent last night at the county level 'spelling bee' competition. If the missing letter 'h' in ethyl makes it difficult for you to recognize the word, you should probably re-do 6th or 7th grade.

But yes, its TEL and you should care that we are down to a single source situation with the sole manufacturer located in the UK.
 
What's the biggest obstacle in making our planes unleaded burnable? All politics and conspiracy aside, how hard would it be for Lyco and Conti to build a 360 equivalent that runs on regular 91 or 93 octane gas?

Or better yet, ditch gas and move to JETA? Looks like Diamond has had relatively good success in the diesel area, and you see Piper selling diesel planes in Europe to be able to burn JET A. What's the biggest obstacle there?

Seems like Continental already has a perfect engine here? Why aren't we using it more?

http://continentaldiesel.com/typo3/index.php?id=84&L=1
Sure its HP is a little less at sea level, BUT, given that it is turbocharged you probably get much better performance out of that engine in a Piper Archer than your traditional O360 cruising along at 10,5K. The TBO of that thing is 2,100 hrs.. diesels make more sense given their lower end torque lines up better with prop efficiencies. And this diesel burns 4.7-5.8 gal/hr. Looks like it is already STC'd for the Cessna 172 and Piper 28 Archer series

I don't get it.. there must be something I'm missing.. why aren't we jumping all over these and delivering every new plane with that engine?
 
weilke said:
I spent last night at the county level 'spelling bee' competition. If the missing letter 'h' in ethyl makes it difficult for you to recognize the word, you should probably re-do 6th or 7th grade.

But yes, its TEL and you should care that we are down to a single source situation with the sole manufacturer located in the UK.
Click to expand...
Lack of a sense of humor is its own reward.
 
Zeldman said:
So, the av fuel is quarantined. What happened to it..??
Click to expand...

From the article:
“ During the quality control process, it was discovered the conductivity level of the fuel did not meet specifications. ”

Of course conductivity can have several meanings and I am not familiar with the spec for avgas.
 
Tantalum said:
What's the biggest obstacle in making our planes unleaded burnable? All politics and conspiracy aside, how hard would it be for Lyco and Conti to build a 360 equivalent that runs on regular 91 or 93 octane gas?

Or better yet, ditch gas and move to JETA? Looks like Diamond has had relatively good success in the diesel area, and you see Piper selling diesel planes in Europe to be able to burn JET A. What's the biggest obstacle there?

Seems like Continental already has a perfect engine here? Why aren't we using it more?

http://continentaldiesel.com/typo3/index.php?id=84&L=1
Sure its HP is a little less at sea level, BUT, given that it is turbocharged you probably get much better performance out of that engine in a Piper Archer than your traditional O360 cruising along at 10,5K. The TBO of that thing is 2,100 hrs.. diesels make more sense given their lower end torque lines up better with prop efficiencies. And this diesel burns 4.7-5.8 gal/hr. Looks like it is already STC'd for the Cessna 172 and Piper 28 Archer series

I don't get it.. there must be something I'm missing.. why aren't we jumping all over these and delivering every new plane with that engine?
Click to expand...

The initial cost is what's stopping that engine. In places where avgas is very expensive or hard to come by, that engine is a winner, but here it's not competitive, price wise.

I do think it's possible to come up with a drop in replacement for most of our current engines that would do just fine on mogas, but as long as there is a steady supply of avgas available at reasonable prices, there's not going to be a market for them.
 
Clark1961 said:
From the article:
“ During the quality control process, it was discovered the conductivity level of the fuel did not meet specifications. ”

Of course conductivity can have several meanings and I am not familiar with the spec for avgas.
Click to expand...
I too wondered what specifically they meant by "conductivity" because where I live they don't use electrical conductivity properties of AvGas to measure the fluid flow.

And same question here: how long until US retailers crate panic and jack up the prices of their current supply?
 
Don't some aircraft use electrical conductivity in their fuel gauge senders, that sit in the gasoline?
 
Clark1961 said:
From the article:
“ During the quality control process, it was discovered the conductivity level of the fuel did not meet specifications. ”

Of course conductivity can have several meanings and I am not familiar with the spec for avgas.
Click to expand...

I do recall reading somewhere that gasoline is considered an insulator and electrical conductivity is one of the QA tests performed. Don't know what the effects of the conductivity being out of spec would be if any, of if it's just a symptom of something else.
 
FormerHangie said:
I do recall reading somewhere that gasoline is considered an insulator and electrical conductivity is one of the QA tests performed. Don't know what the effects of the conductivity being out of spec would be if any, of if it's just a symptom of something else.
Click to expand...
In general hydrocarbons are electrically non-conductive since there are no ions in most hydrocarbon chains. Salts can be suspended in hydrocarbons (crude oil) and are usually removed by washing with water. You certainly wouldn’t want gasoline to be a part of an electric circuit.
 
In that case, it sounds like this avgas is contaminated, and the refiner has to figure out a way to get the unwanted compounds out, or else they'll have to destroy it.
 
FormerHangie said:
In that case, it sounds like this avgas is contaminated, and the refiner has to figure out a way to get the unwanted compounds out, or else they'll have to destroy it.
Click to expand...
Scavange the lead and blend it with feedstock is prolly worst case. I’m not enough of a chemE to know how to get the lead out.
 
Clark1961 said:
From the article:
“ During the quality control process, it was discovered the conductivity level of the fuel did not meet specifications. ”

Of course conductivity can have several meanings and I am not familiar with the spec for avgas.
Click to expand...
Maybe the lead transformed into gold.
 
Tantalum said:
What's the biggest obstacle in making our planes unleaded burnable? All politics and conspiracy aside, how hard would it be for Lyco and Conti to build a 360 equivalent that runs on regular 91 or 93 octane gas?

I don't get it.. there must be something I'm missing.. why aren't we jumping all over these and delivering every new plane with that engine?
Click to expand...

According to a very old reference book, dating from 1943:
Lead is used as an octane booster, lubricant, and, to a small extent for cooling, in the engines.
Without lead the engines will cook off much quicker.
 
FormerHangie said:
I do recall reading somewhere that gasoline is considered an insulator and electrical conductivity is one of the QA tests performed. Don't know what the effects of the conductivity being out of spec would be if any, of if it's just a symptom of something else.
Click to expand...

I believe the consequence of offspec fuel conductivity is safety related, allowing static to build up and not dissipate, with increased risk of a spark.
 
100LL is already overkill for our NA de-rated applications. Most of our cylinders were not designed for that kind of lead in the first place, and problems arise when not aggressively leaning. We're basically beholden to the 20% of the community that burns 80% of the piston fuel. Nothing cosmic about running unleaded in our engines as is. Turbo applications may have to watch the vapor pressure differences in mogas vs 100LL when at high altitude, since the tanks and lines aren't pressurized.

Today, we are effectively doing the equivalent of paying for 93 octane gas and putting it in our 87 octane designed cars because the gas station won't offer 87, but since the commercial operator burns more gas than you, you get to burn what we tell you you get to burn.

As to jet-a proliferation in piston GA? I don't see it happening in earnest in the US. The same operators that steer us little people into burning gas our engines are not in a position to fully expend in the first place, are the same operators that cannot afford the kerosene powerplant retrofit. So it's a non-starter for them, which makes it a non-issue for us. I'm personally not worried about being forced to switch to jet-a and expensive diesel mando-retrofit.
 
Tantalum said:
What's the biggest obstacle in making our planes unleaded burnable? All politics and conspiracy aside, how hard would it be for Lyco and Conti to build a 360 equivalent that runs on regular 91 or 93 octane gas?

Or better yet, ditch gas and move to JETA? Looks like Diamond has had relatively good success in the diesel area, and you see Piper selling diesel planes in Europe to be able to burn JET A. What's the biggest obstacle there?

Seems like Continental already has a perfect engine here? Why aren't we using it more?

http://continentaldiesel.com/typo3/index.php?id=84&L=1
Sure its HP is a little less at sea level, BUT, given that it is turbocharged you probably get much better performance out of that engine in a Piper Archer than your traditional O360 cruising along at 10,5K. The TBO of that thing is 2,100 hrs.. diesels make more sense given their lower end torque lines up better with prop efficiencies. And this diesel burns 4.7-5.8 gal/hr. Looks like it is already STC'd for the Cessna 172 and Piper 28 Archer series

I don't get it.. there must be something I'm missing.. why aren't we jumping all over these and delivering every new plane with that engine?
Click to expand...

Because they are friggin expensive to maintain to the manufacturers requirements compared to a Lycoming or Continental gas.

There are some other engineering issues as well, including the expensive MT props needed to keep the engine/prop combo weight down, and to absorb the power pulses from the diesel. All can be overcome with the usual aviation solution...throw money at it.

A small taste of that latter issue. Here's a picture of one of the engine mounts on a DA-42. Note the safety cable. All eight mounts on the airplane are secured this way. And no, this is NOT Diamond's attempt to compete with the Cirrus chute by making passengers feel safer. ;)

IMG_0265.JPG

The maintenance operation in the hangar attached to my office is a certified Diamond maintenance center. They have customers with both the Thielert and the Austro engines in their Diamonds. Just one chat with their mechanics was an eye opener for me. Personally a good used Piper Meridian starts to look really good.
 
GRG55 said:
The maintenance operation in the hangar attached to my office is a certified Diamond maintenance center. They have customers with both the Thielert and the Austro engines in their Diamonds. Just one chat with their mechanics was an eye opener for me. Personally a good used Piper Meridian starts to look really good.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which is why it's a non-starter to revenue piston, which the demographic forcing 100LL down our recreational throats in the first place mind you. I'm not worried.
 
I tried to read the article, but I could not understand it. Seems I can't read Canadian.....
 
Tantalum said:
I don't get it.. there must be something I'm missing.. why aren't we jumping all over these and delivering every new plane with that engine?
Click to expand...

The FAA's cumbersome certification procedures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top