Get the Lead out -- time to stop dragging our feet

RyanShort1 said:
There aren't any possible parallels between events in recent memory… but

“It’s perfectly safe” is something plenty of people are skeptical of in the last, say, uh, five years or so, especially when your kids are riding in the back. It’s the devil(s) you know as the saying goes. As well as the old bold pilots rule. I am all for innovation, but I don’t want to be on the cutting edge of the fuel switch. My crew flies 500+ hours a year and we’re more likely to test that longevity than those who only fly 40 hours a year.
Click to expand...

The issue is why it is all of a sudden an issue, when many of us grew up when there was lead based house paint, lead based paint on toys, leaded mogas, leaded avgas (and a lot of piston airliners still flying using 115/145 with LOTS of lead).

Lead levels are the lowest they have been in MANY years, but NOW it seems to cause issues in children.
 
Pinecone said:
And unless the price is subsidized, it is more expensive than 100LL.
Click to expand...


Yeah. So?

Ethanol-free autogas is more expensive than the ethanol juice, yet I buy it for some of my vehicles that benefit from it. Similarly, I will buy UL avgas when it’s available because I believe it will be better for my engine, even if it costs a bit more.
 
Last edited:
Pinecone said:
The issue is why it is all of a sudden an issue, when many of us grew up when there was lead based house paint, lead based paint on toys, leaded mogas, leaded avgas (and a lot of piston airliners still flying using 115/145 with LOTS of lead).

Lead levels are the lowest they have been in MANY years, but NOW it seems to cause issues in children.
Click to expand...


That much is BS, agreed, when it comes to the tiny amount planes are responsible for. I want UL, not for nearly-imaginary environmental concerns, but because it will reduce problems in my engine and prolong its life.
 
midwestpa24 said:
We simply can't order 1,200 gallons of fuel, not without major shipping penalty. It would never be economically viable at that point.

What we need is a drop in replacement with blanket fleet approval, and is available in enough quantity that we can flip the switch one airport at a time.
Click to expand...
And if an airport could, 1200 gallons would last a week or 2 at a lot of airports.
 
Pinecone said:
The issue is why it is all of a sudden an issue, when many of us grew up when there was lead based house paint, lead based paint on toys, leaded mogas, leaded avgas (and a lot of piston airliners still flying using 115/145 with LOTS of lead).

Lead levels are the lowest they have been in MANY years, but NOW it seems to cause issues in children.
Click to expand...
 
Half Fast said:
Some airports are already selling 94UL. How are they managing it? This problem is solvable.
Click to expand...
And the airports around me that offer ul94 usually have it around .60-1.00 more per gallon. I know one airport had it, but I'm not seeing the price listed on airnav anymore so they may have done away with it?

My brainstorm for bi-passing the cost of the stc... Rather than the feds buying the formula. Just subsidize the stc cost to aircraft owners. As soon as an airport within 100miles of you has it you're eligible to apply for the subsidy which then gets you the stc. Government subsidizes cars why not this.

Would leave owners options before they need the stc.
 
Half Fast said:
Some airports are already selling 94UL. How are they managing it? This problem is solvable.
Click to expand...

Money solves all problems. It just requires investing in another fuel farm to provide the third option. The question on most airports mind is why? Why invest tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in redundant infrastructure to compete with your existing 100LL sales. Adding 94UL isn't going to attract new customers. Perhaps the airports that have it already had the additional infrastructure in place. Maybe they used to sell Mogas and switched it to 94UL? Or someone just wanted to be innovative? I don't see the net benefit.
 
Pinecone said:
And unless the price is subsidized, it is more expensive than 100LL.
Click to expand...
Not sure how expensive it will be per gallon until they are able to make it in similar quantities to 100LL. Right now it's a boutique fuel type which results in a higher price per gallon. I'm sure the price would be pretty comparable to 100LL once they have taken over the market.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Money solves all problems. It just requires investing in another fuel farm to provide the third option. The question on most airports mind is why? Why invest tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in redundant infrastructure to compete with your existing 100LL sales. Adding 94UL isn't going to attract new customers. Perhaps the airports that have it already had the additional infrastructure in place. Maybe they used to sell Mogas and switched it to 94UL? Or someone just wanted to be innovative? I don't see the net benefit.
Click to expand...


So don't do it that way.

As I suggested above, investing in (or better yet, leasing) a few fuel trucks would create a temporary rolling fuel "farm" and allow a transition. At first, when very few people have the STC, only a single truck full of UL might do the job. As more and more planes switch, another truck or two could be added. Eventually, when UL and LL sales are about equal, transition to putting UL in the farm and LL in the trucks (remember that GAMI-gas and 100LL are fungible). As LL sales drop further, scale back the number of trucks until the transition is complete.

Then repeat at another airport. And so on.

If I were GAMI, I might buy a few trucks to use this way and help some airports transition, just to get things moving. We presently seem to have a stalemate.

EAGLE could also kick in some seed money to start the ball rolling, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
 
midwestpa24 said:
… Adding 94UL isn't going to attract new customers….
Click to expand...


Not disagreeing with your entire post, but certainly disagree with the quoted portion. If any airport around here would sell any unleaded av fuel, they would be overwhelmed. Several people at my local airport ferry their own gas to their plane in cans.
 
Half Fast said:
So don't do it that way.

As I suggested above, investing in (or better yet, leasing) a few fuel trucks would create a temporary rolling fuel "farm" and allow a transition. At first, when very few people have the STC, only a single truck full of UL might do the job. As more and more planes switch, another truck or two could be added. Eventually, when UL and LL sales are about equal, transition to putting UL in the farm and LL in the trucks (remember that GAMI-gas and 100LL are fungible). As LL sales drop further, scale back the number of trucks until the transition is complete.

Then repeat at another airport. And so on.

If I were GAMI, I might buy a few trucks to use this way and help some airports transition, just to get things moving. We presently seem to have a stalemate.

EAGLE could also kick in some seed money to start the ball rolling, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
Click to expand...

Who will fund the acquisition, even a lease, of additional trucks? How much more are you willing to pay per gallon? Remember you are adding overhead to serve an existing customer base. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying there is no business case to do it.
 
aterry1067 said:
Not disagreeing with your entire post, but certainly disagree with the quoted portion. If any airport around here would sell any unleaded av fuel, they would be overwhelmed. Several people at my local airport ferry their own gas to their plane in cans.
Click to expand...

The folks toting gas to their plane in cans are not doing it out of some mission to save the world from leaded fuel, they are doing it to save a $1 or more a gallon using car gas instead of Avgas. If that car gas was equal or higher in cost, they wouldn't be doing it.
 
If I’m an FBO, big or small, public or private, what is my motivation to switch fuel or to provide an option? It has to have financial justification whether you’re a profit making entity or a government entity. It doesn’t have any financial benefit at this moment, and actually, it’s a net negative. It’s really that simple.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Who will fund the acquisition, even a lease, of additional trucks? How much more are you willing to pay per gallon? Remember you are adding overhead to serve an existing customer base. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying there is no business case to do it.
Click to expand...


Who will fund the inherent costs of ANY transition? The customers or the taxpayers, ultimately. Whether it's passed onto customers as part of the fuel cost or fuel tax, or passed on as part of hangar rent or airport access or the cost of coffee in the airport cafe doesn't really matter very much. It will have to be paid eventually.

Business case? GAMI should have an excellent one, if anyone does. Right now they're sitting on millions of sunk cost with no way to get it back if they can't start selling STCs and fuel. If they needed to lease a half dozen trucks for a year or two to get things started at two or three airports, it might be worth their while.

Airports that stand to have LL banned by local gov'ts might also have a business case if they won't be able to sell anything else.

Somebody is going to have to prime the pump. The present hand-wringing is getting us nowhere. And the fuel companies, together with EAGLE, are going to take us into yet another failure at the rate they're going.
 
Half Fast said:
They might be doing it anyway if they thought it was increasing their engine life.
Click to expand...

I know many pilots that fly on car gas. Most try to justify their cheapness with various claims of engine benefits. I've yet to see empirical proof of any such claim. I would bet my gas money that if LL was cheaper than car gas, they would take the cheaper route. That is going to be one of the biggest roadblocks to any transition, aside from approvals and STCs. If UL is $1 more per gallon than LL, few are going to buy it as long as LL is still available. Again, it all comes down to money.
 
Half Fast said:
Yeah. So?

Ethanol-free autogas is more expensive than the ethanol juice, yet I buy it for some of my vehicles that benefit from it. Similarly, I will buy UL avgas when it’s available because I believe it will be better for my engine, even if it costs a bit more.
Click to expand...
Not everyone is willing to pay the extra, even if there are other benefits.
 
Half Fast said:
They might be doing it anyway if they thought it was increasing their engine life.
Click to expand...

I assure you, it is because they're being cheap. Not because they're trying to extend their engine life. These are the same people who will run every engine and airframe component to failure, find the worst used part they can (because it is cheap) then either install it behind closed hangar doors on their own or complain about how some mechanic they're trying to con into putting the part on rejected a perfectly good part.

I see all these things, regularly.
 
mondtster said:
I assure you, it is because they're being cheap. Not because they're trying to extend their engine life. These are the same people who will run every engine and airframe component to failure, find the worst used part they can (because it is cheap) then either install it behind closed hangar doors on their own or complain about how some mechanic they're trying to con into putting the part on rejected a perfectly good part.

I see all these things, regularly.
Click to expand...

It's a self-solving problem. Just give Darwin a chance.
 
WDD said:
When there is more money to be made by solving the problem than having the problem solved, the problem will not be allowed to be solved.
Click to expand...

Or when the proper people/company haven’t solved the problem yet, the problem will continue until they do.
 

Alternative Fuels – General Aviation: $12.4 million (R,E&D) is requested to
support continuing research, analyses and tests leading to the replacement of
leaded aviation gasoline with a high-octane, safe unleaded alternative that reduces
the impact of general aviation operations on climate change and air quality.
Aviation gasoline (avgas) is the only remaining transportation fuel in the United
States that contains lead. More than 170,000 piston-engine aircraft used in general
aviation rely on this fuel for safe operation.
 
wilkersk said:
It doesn't matter how much you want unleaded AVGAS, the facts are its going to be another 7 to 10 years before the infrastructure will be in place for the refining and distribution of unleaded AVGAS to be widely available.

Just installing new tanks and plumbing for unleaded will be a huge expense for many small airports. Then, local distributors will also have to have new tanks and truck, and so on and so on... This is a huge undertaking and it just ain't gonna happen overnight.
Click to expand...
You don't need special trucks for the unleaded avgas. You DO need special trucks, infrastructure, etc. for leaded gas. The unleaded avgas can come in the same truck that just delivered to your corner gas station the prior trip.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The government doesn't like competition.
Click to expand...

They’re fine with third parties/private businesses having the profit when the work/money goes to the people they want it to. It seems fairly clear to me that the .gov sponsored fuel programs haven’t shaken enough money out of the money tree yet and they don’t particularly like GAMI, even though they have provided a solution that has been approved. So the search for an unleaded replacement fuel will continue until the well of money runs dry. I wouldn’t be surprised if this activity continues in some fashion until no more TEL is available or fuel costs become so high that the majority of the piston aircraft fleet is parked. Either of those two options would make some politicians happy.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The folks toting gas to their plane in cans are not doing it out of some mission to save the world from leaded fuel, they are doing it to save a $1 or more a gallon using car gas instead of Avgas. If that car gas was equal or higher in cost, they wouldn't be doing it.
Click to expand...



They already are doing it, and some are paying more for it at the marinas than av gas. They are doing it because it’s better for their engine, not to save the planet.
 
aterry1067 said:
They already are doing it, and some are paying more for it at the marinas than av gas. They are doing it because it’s better for their engine, not to save the planet.
Click to expand...
Who is "they"? No one around here is toting in E-0/5/10/15 gas except maybe for the guys running Rotax.
 
EdFred said:
Who is "they"? No one around here is toting in E-0/5/10/15 gas except maybe for the guys running Rotax.
Click to expand...


Quite a few Rotax engines and auto conversions around here, and the number is growing. There are several 2-4 seat GA planes with auto-fuel STCs. The demand for UL fuel is growing.
 
My hangar neighbor would drive to the next airport over to tote cheaper 100LL for his Bo, lol!
 
aterry1067 said:
Quite a few Rotax engines and auto conversions around here, and the number is growing. There are several 2-4 seat GA planes with auto-fuel STCs. The demand for UL fuel is growing.
Click to expand...

Other than the Rotax minority, the vast majority of folks using auto-fuel are doing it for the money. Anyone that says they are doing it for the planet or their engine is just lying.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Other than the Rotax minority, the vast majority of folks using auto-fuel are doing it for the money. Anyone that says they are doing it for the planet or their engine is just lying.
Click to expand...
Oh, I dunno. I was flying 65hp engines down at Cannon Field 15 years ago and the old guys there were convinced that the 65s and 85s were better off with less lead and they'd regularly fly with ethanol free auto gas or a 50/50 mix. The only stuck valve I've ever had in a 65 was in a Cub that was run almost exclusively on 100LL, so for some engines I do believe it's advantageous, but I'd also rather not run the 200hp Cardinal RG on car gas...
 
midwestpa24 said:
Other than the Rotax minority, the vast majority of folks using auto-fuel are doing it for the money. Anyone that says they are doing it for the planet or their engine is just lying.
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you want to virtually eliminate lead-fouling of spark plugs and contamination in the oil resulting in more frequent oil changes? Seems like you can do it for the money AND for the health of the engine. I don't doubt that there are a few who also dislike lead fuel for its impact on the planet, although that segment of the flying population is probably extremely small. I doubt it's a black/white as you're making it out to be. Sometimes the answer is "all of the above".
 
SoonerAviator said:
Why wouldn't you want to virtually eliminate lead-fouling of spark plugs and contamination in the oil resulting in more frequent oil changes? Seems like you can do it for the money AND for the health of the engine. I don't doubt that there are a few who also dislike lead fuel for its impact on the planet, although that segment of the flying population is probably extremely small. I doubt it's a black/white as you're making it out to be. Sometimes the answer is "all of the above".
Click to expand...

Because I like my engine to actually, you know, run. Vapor lock issues prevent me from running E0 - which is about a buck cheaper than 100LL. But then I gotta haul 50+ gallons of fuel out to the airport.
 
midwestpa24 said:
The folks toting gas to their plane in cans are not doing it out of some mission to save the world from leaded fuel, they are doing it to save a $1 or more a gallon using car gas instead of Avgas. If that car gas was equal or higher in cost, they wouldn't be doing it.
Click to expand...
As someone who totes gas to my plane and occasionally buys UL94 for convenience, I am not doing it to save any money, in fact 94UL was more expensive for a time than 100LL. I believe the unleaded fuel is better for our engines and results in less lead deposits and stuck exhaust valves. And I love not having to wipe white lead residue from my blue colored landing gear legs and belly.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Why wouldn't you want to virtually eliminate lead-fouling of spark plugs and contamination in the oil resulting in more frequent oil changes? Seems like you can do it for the money AND for the health of the engine. I don't doubt that there are a few who also dislike lead fuel for its impact on the planet, although that segment of the flying population is probably extremely small. I doubt it's a black/white as you're making it out to be. Sometimes the answer is "all of the above".
Click to expand...

In my experience, apathy and price drive people’s decisions far more than whether something is better or worse for their aircraft/engine.

I’m in roughly the same neighborhood as midwestPA24 and I can tell you that he is spot on with the clientele that use car gas in this area. They do it because it is cheap, not because it has any advantages.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
If I’m an FBO, big or small, public or private, what is my motivation to switch fuel or to provide an option? It has to have financial justification whether you’re a profit making entity or a government entity. It doesn’t have any financial benefit at this moment, and actually, it’s a net negative. It’s really that simple.
Click to expand...
I think more subsidies are in order to make the fuel enticing to an FBO.

To recap- so far we have subsidies for plane owners to pay for the STC's. And we have subsidies to make UL the same price as 100ll.

Wheres the Oprah gif?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top