Any updates regarding the avgas replacement effort?

Me too, as long as it cost the same or less and won't damage my plane.
 
Buddy is running Swift in his C-152 Lycoming and loves it. Only a couple of tanks full so far, but he's impressed. He's a rocket scientist of sorts, so I kinda respect his opinion!
 
Most of our bugsmashers could be running on mogas and I for one would be thrilled to switch over to just for the cost difference.

The reason I don't get the STC and switch is pretty straightforward.... it's not available at most fields and I can hardly make up the cost to get the STC in what I'd save lugging gas cans into my home field. I'd wager a guess that reasoning applies for most of us at this point.

It would be nice if the EPA and FAA could get together and find a way to get more mogas availability and encourage owners to get the STCs done. Maybe throw some sweet tax incentives to carriers to get off the leaded fuel. It would be nice... and they won't do it because that's not how our government works. Our government comes in, bans things we need, strangles us in red tape, and generally craps all over our dreams, lives, and livelihoods.

You know, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say we need an EPA or something like it. The environment matters and there really does need to be some kind of group watching over things. The problem is, much like the other alphabet agencies, they rarely seem to work with or for the people... instead they always seem to be working against us.
 
I wish I could run mogas in my IO520.

Ran it in my S108, good stuff
 
Cowman, thanks for posting. My pal is close to where Swift is available so he's really starting to warm up to it. I'd certainly like to get the lead out if I could. Not because I'm a flaming lefty, I'm not. But because it seems like the right thing to do.
 
Does anyone have anything that's a potential "drop in" replacement for every 100LL powered aircraft?

Including fire-breathing, turbo/supercharged monsters?

Maybe we'd be better off focusing on converting everything to diesel/Jet A.
 
dans2992 said:
Does anyone have anything that's a potential "drop in" replacement for every 100LL powered aircraft?

Including fire-breathing, turbo/supercharged monsters?

Maybe we'd be better off focusing on converting everything to diesel/Jet A.
Click to expand...

GAMI assert that they have a formulation which performs well in high-compression aircraft engines (and they have the best engine test cells in the country), can be easily produced in existing refineries using existing and readily-available feedstocks, and the product is fungible with 100LL. They assert it will be cost-competitive with 100LL.

I believe them.
 
SCCutler said:
GAMI has a drop-in replacement for 100LL which is being developed outside the FAA's process, and it is promising.
Click to expand...

Why are they doing it outside the FAA process? Did they give up on their project?
 
I would love to be able to run Mogas in my Warrior -161. I have plenty of the alcohol free stuff around. Even have the right tankage in my truck, but the stc from Peterson is $3000. Too long a payback. I called the EAA about working on a new, cheaper stc and they were indifferent at best.
 
James331 said:
And I stated that my determination/demonstration was my own experience, and as someone who has lived on a airport, who is around aircraft every day, who has aircraft beached at his house, and who's family has always been around aircraft, all which who are in above average/great health. I trust what I see and feel more than something someone I don't know, who probably has little experience in aviation and a large bias, puts in a "paper".
Click to expand...


The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
 
JoseCuervo said:
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Click to expand...

Yet if I self published what I wrote, added some numbers and a pie chart, had some rag like the NY times quote it, you'd call it "data"
:goofy:
 
Chip Sylverne said:
While I agree with you on all counts, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the EPA. The sugar industry in FL will fight any efforts to clean up Okeechobee runoff to the Indian River, and they are very powerful in the state legislature. The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort has been a tough go on many fronts, primarily due, again, to agribusiness.
The states fight the EPA tooth and nail.
Click to expand...
iflyvfr said:
Buddy is running Swift in his C-152 Lycoming and loves it. Only a couple of tanks full so far, but he's impressed. He's a rocket scientist of sorts, so I kinda respect his opinion!
Click to expand...

I used to run non-ethanol 91 octane pump gas in a 152 and it did very well.
 
James331 said:
Yet if I self published what I wrote, added some numbers and a pie chart, had some rag like the NY times quote it, you'd call it "data"
:goofy:
Click to expand...

Whatever you call it, the key to whether it's science or not is whether the methodology is described sufficiently to allow others to attempt to reproduce the results.
 
NoHeat said:
Why are they doing it outside the FAA process? Did they give up on their project?
Click to expand...

Good question; I admit that, if I ever knew, I have forgotten, but I am pretty certain that they decided the FAA process, which started well after their development of G100UL was under way, had some inherent bias built in.

In any event, the GAMI guy's have earned credibility...
 
dell30rb said:
I used to run non-ethanol 91 octane pump gas in a 152 and it did very well.
Click to expand...
Mogas seems to run well in 150s. It's easier to run lower octane gas in smaller horsepower engines, so that would make sense. My instructor's second plane, a piper 140, is rated for 100ll or regular mogas. I think the bigger consideration factor is the role lead plays in the combustion process.
 
Palmpilot said:
Whatever you call it, the key to whether it's science or not is whether the methodology is described sufficiently to allow others to attempt to reproduce the results.
Click to expand...

And there is zero to prevent you from replicating anything I have stated here. You can go to any airport and see the same old dude climbing into his RV, or swing by my place and taste/test my water.
 
James331 said:
And there is zero to prevent you from replicating anything I have stated here. You can go to any airport and see the same old dude climbing into his RV, or swing by my place and taste/test my water.
Click to expand...
I don't think testing the water at a single airport would prove much. It would be a lot more meaningful to test the water at a statistically significant number of airports.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't think testing the water at a single airport would prove much. It would be a lot more meaningful to test the water at a statistically significant number of airports.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But testing that water is still repeatable.
 
dans2992 said:
Does anyone have anything that's a potential "drop in" replacement for every 100LL powered aircraft?

Including fire-breathing, turbo/supercharged monsters?

Maybe we'd be better off focusing on converting everything to diesel/Jet A.
Click to expand...

That'll just trade one set of emissions problems for another for piston powered airplanes. Look what automotive manufacturers are having to do with piston Diesel engines to meet the full range of current emissions standards - Multiple catalytic converters & urea fluid injection are two items that I have trouble envisioning on light GA aircraft as they add weight and complexity, two things contrary to the goal of reliable lift.
 
Matthew K said:
For me, I'm 100% ready for unleaded fuel. Unless of course it costs any significant amount more than regular 100ll, in that case, I'd just wait until prices came close to 100ll.:D
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, what will probably happen is that prices for 100ll will rise to near the cost of any alternative.
 
Diamond seems to have the Jet fueled piston engines figured out.
 
Not exactly damning evidence here.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230438/


" Based on the geospatial and statistical analysis presented above, lead from avgas may have a small (2.1?4.4%) but significant impact on blood lead levels in children who live in proximity to airports where avgas is used. The magnitude of the estimated effect of living near airports was largest for those children living within 500 m and decreased in a monotonic fashion out to 1,500 m. Because our model takes into account only whether a child is living anywhere in a fixed distance (500 m, 1,000 m, or 1,500 m) radius of an airport, children who live very close to or downwind from a runway could be affected more significantly than the average value that we estimate for all children living within the buffer.

Our finding that living beyond 1,000 m of an airport using avgas does not have a significant relationship with blood lead levels is reasonably consistent with previous research suggesting that lead drops to background levels beyond 1,000 m from an airport (Piazza 1999)."

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/december-podcast-2/

"Absolutely. So if you ask me to name the top three sources of childhood lead exposure that I worry about, the first one would be deteriorating lead-based paint in older housing. The second one would be lead exposure through the water system because of changes in the water-treatment systems that may, on occasion, lead to liberation of lead from the piping systems. And the third one is lead exposure through toys, foods, and other substances manufactured in countries that don’t have the same safety regulations in the manufacturing process.

So those are my top three. Lead exposure from aviation gasoline near airports doesn’t make it into my top three, but as I said before, lead is a known neurotoxicant, and while the increases in childhood blood lead levels that are associated with living near an airport where leaded aviation gasoline is used are relatively small, they’re important in the sense that you’re increasing the body burden of a neurotoxicant in a child."

https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles...Lead_Modeling_Study_Presentation_02.22.10.pdf
 
RalphInCA said:
No, of course not. My point was that not everyone can live in their own little bubble.
Click to expand...

Which is why thinking eliminating 100LL is going to make a noticeable environmental difference is laughable.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Will it make ANY difference?


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

Any... Sure

Also making special booths for people to fart it would also make some micro difference

Installing a catalytic converter onto cow butt holes would probably make a larger difference than 100LL and human fart containers.


But this just spinning your wheels to try to make "feel good" laws and "changes"


How bouts we get real, you want to make actual difference, figure out a way to ether make all the third world countries like Mexico and China stop making the mess they make, or maybe install a huge bubble so they can just stew in their own brew, without us dealing with it.
 
James331 said:
Making special booths for people to fart it would also make a difference

Installing a catalytic converter onto cow butt holes would probably make a larger difference



How bouts we get real or get quiet, you want to stop real pollution, figure out a way to ether make all the third world countries like Mexico and China stop making the mess they make, or maybe install a huge bubble so they can just stew in their own brew, without us dealing with it.
Click to expand...


Why can't you answer the question on 100LL?

Deflecting does not address the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I did lol

Of course it would make some microscopical difference, probably a smaller difference than making those fart booths though.

But as the song goes, "if it makes you happy" :frown2:
 
James331 said:
I did lol

Of course it would make some microscopical difference, probably a smaller difference than making those fart booths though.

But as the song goes, "if it makes you happy" :frown2:
Click to expand...

Ignoring data... never mind...

 
James331 said:
I did lol

Of course it would make some microscopical difference, probably a smaller difference than making those fart booths though.

But as the song goes, "if it makes you happy" :frown2:
Click to expand...


No. you didn't.

You went back and revised your answer.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JoseCuervo said:
No. you didn't.

You went back and revised your answer.
Click to expand...

Negative.

The question was would it make any difference, I said it would,

I added to that the difference would be so negligible that having fart booths for people would probably make a larger difference,

i.e. there are TONS of other places where the time money and effort to eliminate 100LL, a fuel that is very scarcely used, would be MUCH better spent else where, like on the million other areas which would make a difference so small one would need a electron microscope to see it.






UngaWunga said:
Ignoring data... never mind...
Click to expand...

Huh?

Well I guess your response is better than just calling me a "racist" and finding a "safe place", barely though ;)
 
Last edited:
James331 said:
I did lol

Of course it would make some microscopical difference, probably a smaller difference than making those fart booths though.

But as the song goes, "if it makes you happy" :frown2:
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the data? Or a location of the barstool with the other scientists you had peer review your study?
 
Give me 200k and a month off from work and I could find some science folks, fire up MS Office and make one, but really do you need a "study" as a crutch for common sense?

Travel the world and look up, ain't that many GA piston planes flying, lots of butt holes venting though

I also think slamming your penis in a door is a bad idea and would hurt, now I don't have a scientific study on it though, so guess I have no data and non of us really know right o_O


Now would I make that argument with land based auto fuel and diesel emissions, heck no, but 100ll, everyday of the week and twice on Sunday's.
 
Our local airfield, which has been active for almost 100 years actively, where pilots during their preflight checks have been sumping tanks and gascolators and dumping the contents on the ground for who knows how many years.... Sure, each instance is a small amount, but it adds up. The amount of lead in an aircraft exhaust fumes is small, but it adds up. The data proves this out.

This probably doesn't matter for your personal airstrip at home, but that's not where the problems lay.

Are there other more significant areas of pollution that affect us more? Yes, but that doesn't mean that 100LL is a good thing.
 
172andyou said:
Please share with us your citations showing:

1) What the safe level for lead exposure is
Click to expand...

I once saw a guy doing a preflight check of a Cirrus and he drank the 100LL to make sure it was good. That guy is completely normal and shows no signs of lead poisoning which proves lead is harmless.
 
UngaWunga said:
Our local airfield, which has been active for almost 100 years actively, where pilots during their preflight checks have been sumping tanks and gascolators and dumping the contents on the ground for who knows how many years.... Sure, each instance is a small amount, but it adds up. The amount of lead in an aircraft exhaust fumes is small, but it adds up. The data proves this out.

This probably doesn't matter for your personal airstrip at home, but that's not where the problems lay.

Are there other more significant areas of pollution that affect us more? Yes, but that doesn't mean that 100LL is a good thing.
Click to expand...


Hey, zero argument that dumping it, or any fuel or most any fuel on the ground is bad.

But.. it's also not the intended use, not really good airmanship and obviously not something I do at home, I dump mine back into my tanks, or mower, and am all for leaving sump dump containers on flight lines and believe pilots should shame others who toss fuel or oil or antifreeze or... on the ground, but that's also a common sense not environmentally friendly thing to do, or respectful to the land owner, go dump oil from your car on someone's driveway, or antifreeze and kill someone's dog, I'd wager you'll get a reaction, or a broken jaw.

My argument is with the stuff coming out of GA piston tailpipes even being a blip on the global pollution radar. Sure, if you can get the tiny amount of lead out and make it for the same price and not hurt engines, more power to ya' But 100LL is really not going to make a real difference in our earth, the amount of aircraft piston planes flying around is just too small.








Somedudeintn said:
I once saw a guy doing a preflight check of a Cirrus and he drank the 100LL to make sure it was good. That guy is completely normal and shows no signs of lead poisoning which proves lead is harmless.
Click to expand...

strawman.jpg


But I'm sure you already knew that ;)
 
James331 said:
Give me 200k and a month off from work and I could find some science folks, fire up MS Office and make one, but really do you need a "study" as a crutch for common sense?

Travel the world and look up, ain't that many GA piston planes flying, lots of butt holes venting though
Click to expand...

I am not sure what buttholes you are studying that have lead being vented from them.

AGain, the point is, your anecdotes are not data, you deny science and facts.

You may be correct, or, you may just be the smartest guy at your local bar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top