EPA targets lead in avgas

I honestly don’t recall there being a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth when they banned leaded paints 50 years ago for the same basic reason. And that was only a risk if one chose to eat paint chips.

I know - apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and applesauce…
 
Llewtrah381 said:
I honestly don’t recall there being a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth when they banned leaded paints 50 years ago for the same basic reason. And that was only a risk if one chose to eat paint chips.

I know - apples and oranges. Or maybe apples and applesauce…
Click to expand...

or ... apples and paint chips? :rofl:
 
Pinecone said:
Still not forcing you to use a specific fuel. Just preventing you from using certain fuels.
Click to expand...

If there are two options and then there is one, I have been forced to use the option not banned.
 
eagle-ui50fs-5-gallon-safety-metal-gasoline-can-red-10.jpg
 
2-Bit Speed said:
If there are two options and then there is one, I have been forced to use the option not banned.
Click to expand...

But right now there is one choice. Is EPA making you use 100LL?

And Swift says there are nearly ready with their 100 unleaded.
 
Pinecone said:
But right now there is one choice. Is EPA making you use 100LL?

And Swift says there are nearly ready with their 100 unleaded.
Click to expand...
If tomorrow you woke up and all the 100LL at FBO's had been swapped to the new unleaded fuel, which is already approved for every piston engine out there, how would that hurt you? Honest question.
 
Todd82 said:
If tomorrow you woke up and all the 100LL at FBO's had been swapped to the new unleaded fuel, which is already approved for every piston engine out there, how would that hurt you? Honest question.
Click to expand...
In the wallet. GAMI says the new fuel will cost more. Hopefully competition between Swift and GAMI will drive the price down, but that's far from certain... though Swift's 94UL does cost less than 100LL.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
In the wallet. GAMA says the new fuel will cost more. Hopefully competition between Swift and GAMA will drive the price down, but that's far from certain... though Swift's 94UL does cost less than 100LL.
Click to expand...
And they also said the price delta would decrease with volume.

Furthermore we don't need costly dedicated infrastructure for the lead if we do a wholesale swap. This stuff can be pipelined. That cuts huge transit costs out getting it between the refiner/GAMI and the actual FBO pump price.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
Yes. By refusing / banning / restricting all other options, that option is forced on me and it is no option. It is compulsory.
Click to expand...

Really? What other fuels have to banned/refused/restricted??

Did you read what you replied to????

I said you are limited to 100LL (LEADED) fuel right now, as it is the only one readily available.
 
Todd82 said:
And they also said the price delta would decrease with volume.

Furthermore we don't need costly dedicated infrastructure for the lead if we do a wholesale swap. This stuff can be pipelined. That cuts huge transit costs out getting it between the refiner/GAMI and the actual FBO pump price.
Click to expand...

Volume is too low to pipeline. The transmix losses will be too high
 
Pinecone said:
Volume is too low to pipeline. The transmix losses will be too high
Click to expand...
I could be mistaken but one of these GAMI, Swift, whoever else... Was using a raw unleaded blend stock product and mixing in the goods at the terminal like everything else. Now I'm sure not every terminal will get equipped for this, but you won't need every terminal to still be leaps and bounds ahead of the current status quo. And the truck can haul this stuff in the morning and fill up the 7-11 in the afternoon, also adding economy of scale.

Furthermore, transmix between 2 gasoline products is minimal in a modern pipeline/terminal system. Now if you leave a valve open like someone did at my former employer years ago, all the jet fuel at a certain major east coast int'l hub gets downgraded, squirted with the pink dye, and the entire northeast ran their oil furnaces on jet fuel for the winter unbeknownst to them :eek:
 
I wonder how many aircraft owners will use the new fuels without bothering to get an STC.
 
IK04 said:
Funny how lead only harms children. There doesn't seem to be much concern about all the adults who actually touch and breathe the stuff regularly.
Click to expand...

not quite true.

It does seem like there is always more concern about children, but there are lead precautions and protocols wrt to adults being exposed to lead.
 
IK04 said:
Funny how lead only harms children. There doesn't seem to be much concern about all the adults who actually touch and breathe the stuff regularly.
Click to expand...
Well, ith never iffected me und I elso et paint chips dowing cherldhud.
 
Todd82 said:
I could be mistaken but one of these GAMI, Swift, whoever else... Was using a raw unleaded blend stock product and mixing in the goods at the terminal like everything else. Now I'm sure not every terminal will get equipped for this, but you won't need every terminal to still be leaps and bounds ahead of the current status quo. And the truck can haul this stuff in the morning and fill up the 7-11 in the afternoon, also adding economy of scale.

Furthermore, transmix between 2 gasoline products is minimal in a modern pipeline/terminal system. Now if you leave a valve open like someone did at my former employer years ago, all the jet fuel at a certain major east coast int'l hub gets downgraded, squirted with the pink dye, and the entire northeast ran their oil furnaces on jet fuel for the winter unbeknownst to them :eek:
Click to expand...

I am not an expert, but going by what someone with well over 30 years in the refinery business, and a pilot and aircraft owner, has said.

Remember, SMALL AMOUNT has a different meaning when you are talking millions of gallons. :D

I remember when I found out that a railroad tank car was considered "EMPTY" when it contained less than 4,000 gallons. :D
 
IK04 said:
Funny how lead only harms children. There doesn't seem to be much concern about all the adults who actually touch and breathe the stuff regularly.
Click to expand...

Children are growing and developing. Adults are not.

A lot of things affect children differently than adults.
 
Pinecone said:
I am not an expert, but going by what someone with well over 30 years in the refinery business, and a pilot and aircraft owner, has said.

Remember, SMALL AMOUNT has a different meaning when you are talking millions of gallons. :D

I remember when I found out that a railroad tank car was considered "EMPTY" when it contained less than 4,000 gallons. :D
Click to expand...
I'm not going to declare myself an expert either, but I did work in the pipeline / terminal business, for one of the biggest players in the game, so in this regard I'm smarter than the average hangar talk.
 
Half Fast said:
Right up until the annual when the IA looks for it.
Click to expand...
The guys purposefully not getting STC's for stuff are the same guys using "Sign off Sam*" for their annual who basically just makes sure the wings aren't falling off and then signs it off, he's not going to care to catch it.

*Nothing against IA's named Sam, purely for alliteration.
 
Pinecone said:
So the EPA is making you use that one fuel?????
Click to expand...
Not me. I sometimes run 100LL, most of the time gas from the corner gas station. Could run Swift 94 or G100UL if it were in the neighborhood.

Not the FAAs/ EPAs/ my fault you guys bought the wrong airplanes. :)
 
Dana said:
GAMA says the new fuel will cost more.
Click to expand...
GAMA is the General Aviation Manufacturers' Association, a trade group of aircraft, engine, and accessory manufacturers. They haven't made any pronouncements on fuel cost.

I think you're thinking of GAMI, General Aviation Modifications Inc, the guys with an STC for unleaded avgas.

Only the marketplace gets to decide what things cost... and there's reasons to think unleaded avgas will *increase* competition, offsetting the higher cost of components. Time will tell!

Paul
 
Todd82 said:
GAMI, Swift, whoever else... Was using a raw unleaded blend stock product and mixing in the goods at the terminal like everything else.
Click to expand...
No one is proposing to do that now... three of the current formulations are based on high-octane ad hoc iso-octane, only one says they can aviation alkylate like we do in 100LL today. But neither iso-octane nor aviation alkylate move by pipeline today, so there's no synergy as you might be assuming.

Todd82 said:
the truck can haul this stuff in the morning and fill up the 7-11 in the afternoon, also adding economy of scale.
Click to expand...
The avgas product integrity best practices still won't allow that, though the lead contamination premium goes away.

Todd82 said:
transmix between 2 gasoline products is minimal in a modern pipeline/terminal system.
Click to expand...
But, still larger typically than the typical avgas cargo. :-(

Paul
 
Todd82 said:
The guys purposefully not getting STC's for stuff are the same guys using "Sign off Sam*" for their annual
Click to expand...
Hi Todd,

I think that's unfair... did you fill out the 337 and file the STC paperwork the first time you used Phillips 20-50 multi-weight oil? That's how it was initially introduced. The compliance percentage was uninspiring.

I spent some time at the 94UL pump at Watsonville a couple months back, playing newbie plane owner... asking folks filling with 94UL, "Do I need an STC to put this stuff in my airplane?" All kinds of interesting answers. Even so, I suspect the majority had valid annual inspections. They just didn't see the value add in paperwork to put 94UL in to an airplane placarded for 80/87 or 91/96... or already holding a mogas STC, even if they didn't understand the difference between mogas and avgas octane numbers.

Paul
 
PaulMillner said:
I think you're thinking of GAMI, General Aviation Modifications Inc, the guys with an STC for unleaded avgas.
Click to expand...

Yes, I mistyped.

PaulMillner said:
asking folks filling with 94UL, "Do I need an STC to put this stuff in my airplane?" All kinds of interesting answers.
Click to expand...

It may depend on the aircraft. My Taylorcraft's TC simply said "73 min. grade aviation gasoline", so as long as 94UL is "aviation gasoline" it would appear no STC is required.

But for that matter, just for giggles I looked up the TCDS for a couple of newer aircraft as well as for O-320 and they all read the same way (except they say 80/87), so where is the actual legal requirement for a STC?
 
PaulMillner said:
The avgas product integrity best practices still won't allow that, though the lead contamination premium goes away.
Click to expand...
100LL in your cat equipped street car is an obvious no-no. Is G100UL OK?
 
asicer said:
100LL in your cat equipped street car is an obvious no-no. Is G100UL OK?
Click to expand...
Define OK.
Run OK and not damage the catalyst? Yup
Let you run a higher boost or higher compression ratio? Yup
Still meet the intent of the emission laws? Prolly not. But it would depend on what state you are in.
Include the taxes that you are supposed to pay for fuel used on the road? Nope.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Define OK.
Run OK and not damage the catalyst? Yup
Let you run a higher boost or higher compression ratio? Yup
Still meet the intent of the emission laws? Prolly not. But it would depend on what state you are in.
Include the taxes that you are supposed to pay for fuel used on the road? Nope.
Click to expand...


Cost more than autogas? Yup
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Define OK.
Run OK and not damage the catalyst? Yup
Let you run a higher boost or higher compression ratio? Yup
Still meet the intent of the emission laws? Prolly not. But it would depend on what state you are in.
Include the taxes that you are supposed to pay for fuel used on the road? Nope.
Click to expand...
I'm excited for emergency preparedness to have a long term, shelf stable unleaded gasoline option.
 
Dana said:
It may depend on the aircraft. My Taylorcraft's TC simply said "73 min. grade aviation gasoline", so as long as 94UL is "aviation gasoline" it would appear no STC is required.

But for that matter, just for giggles I looked up the TCDS for a couple of newer aircraft as well as for O-320 and they all read the same way (except they say 80/87), so where is the actual legal requirement for a STC?
Click to expand...

G100UL is not "aviation gasoline" in that it does not meet the ASTM standard.

That same way that MOGAS needs an STC as it does not meet the ASTM standard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top