Leaded gas and the EPA...here it comes

bflynn said:
I'm still back at the step where they EPA wants to connect leaded fuel from airplanes to the poor kids that are suffering from it. What are those kids doing, grazing on the grass around the airports?
Click to expand...

There’s a lot of hand waving but not much factual data. They’re implication is the air has lead in it from the exhaust of lead fuel, which I’m sure is true but what’s the concentration? They also stated scientists believe there’s no safe level of lead, so if 1 molecule of lead is detected, then that area should be considered unsafe.

For y’all that live in airparks, do you test your blood for lead content?
 
Wow, using that standard, the entire government of Chicago should be sent to jail for abusing children, starting with mayor Daley. There’s no way all the lead is removed from the Meigs site. Same thing in Santa Monica, they want to turn the airport into a park. Both of them should be superfund sites.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
There’s a lot of hand waving but not much factual data. They’re implication is the air has lead in it from the exhaust of lead fuel, which I’m sure is true but what’s the concentration? They also stated scientists believe there’s no safe level of lead, so if 1 molecule of lead is detected, then that area should be considered unsafe.

For y’all that live in airparks, do you test your blood for lead content?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, medical and OSHA standards for BLL have evolved over time. Way back when we used leaded gas in our cars, the normal BLL for adults was around 10 mcg/dL. Now the normal is a bit below 5 mcg/dL.
 
The first 100UL company to implement wide distribution will win the market. When 100UL is licensed to a SINGLE petroleum company, and the feds outlaw 100LL, the feds will be, in effect, granting a monopoly.

Monopolies are NEVER good for the consumer.
 
chemgeek said:
... (The Reid Hillview "study" is a scientific and statistical mess.) ...
Click to expand...

Do you have more information about that study and the issues with it? The anti-airport groups around here have been using that study to advocate shutting down airports (along with other tactics) and it would be nice to have something to refute it.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
The part about there being no safe level of lead (ie only acceptable level is 0) is questionable. But if true there’s lots of land that will be marked as inhabitable. Lead doesn’t disappear, I imagine there’s lots of lead around from decades of use of leaded auto fuel.
Click to expand...

Reference the city of Omaha Nebraska on EPA superfund list, one site due to ~125 years of lead smelting almost centered on downtown.
 
Lead is bad. My dad used to deliver leaded fuel to farmers in the midwest and it has definitely affected his cognitive ability in his later years.

That being said, we don't live in a perfect society. We can have all the restrictions we want here on pollution, but all that does is push manufacturing over the horizon. There are days in China when I go there, you can literally taste the air. In Saigon (where the Chinese pushed a lot of heavy industry, including where I currently make lead acid batteries), the air is so full of toxins that most days are dangerous to breath. Low Sulfur Diesel? Ha! Not a chance. DEF for diesel trucks? Not on your life.

And the Chinese, Vietnamese and the Indonesians don't give a fark about the little bit of lead in the air.
 
Piper18O said:
If you want to create a mass exodus from 100ll, make 100ul cheaper by a few cents. As long as it is a safe and comparable alternative, most people will probably switch.
Click to expand...
As long as the switch involves absolutely no other work or cost on the owner/pilot. Throw in a $500 STC, and watch the posts come out about "I'll just fly 20 nm to the airport that still has LL for $0.xx cheaper and keep flying!"

The way you get a mass exodus from 100LL is when a 100UL solution that fits all of (or the overwhelming majority) of the fleet is approved and 100LL is outlawed/removed from the market, regardless of cost to owners/pilots.
 
I think it will be a phase switch. Introduce 100UL while building up stock and slow the production of 100LL for a year, then cutting of 100LL within two years of 100UL online. I hate price will increase (100LL goes up all the time already) but looking forward to not having always be concerned about lead on the plugs. My only concern will be to the people that do not have hardened valve seat inserts now. Only time will tell what the valve and seat wear will be. We had a heck of a time dealing with that when Auto Racing went away from lead not long ago. We figured it out quickly but had to change parts to cope with the lack of lead.

Reports from research of lead pollution go both way like anything else these days. Only a matter of time that this was going to happen.
 
cowtowner said:
Lead is bad. My dad used to deliver leaded fuel to farmers in the midwest and it has definitely affected his cognitive ability in his later years.

That being said, we don't live in a perfect society. We can have all the restrictions we want here on pollution, but all that does is push manufacturing over the horizon. There are days in China when I go there, you can literally taste the air. In Saigon (where the Chinese pushed a lot of heavy industry, including where I currently make lead acid batteries), the air is so full of toxins that most days are dangerous to breath. Low Sulfur Diesel? Ha! Not a chance. DEF for diesel trucks? Not on your life.

And the Chinese, Vietnamese and the Indonesians don't give a fark about the little bit of lead in the air.
Click to expand...
China has changed a lot in that respect. Just before the pandemic, I spent a couple of weeks in the Shanghai/Suzhou/Nanjing area and I was amazed with the change compared to a few years earlier. My previous visit was as you described- it was like being downwind from Mauna Loa in Hawaii when it is active. I was only in Saigon for a couple of days, again, just before the pandemic, and it wasn't bad. It was my first visit, it was a short time (unlike my trips to China), so I can't say my visit there was representative of the weather/pollution at that time of year.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
…They also stated scientists believe there’s no safe level of lead…
Click to expand...

Just like doctors and lawyers, I can find groups of scientists who will opine with some type of apparent written or statistical support whatever I pay them to state.
 
I was last there in December of 2019, and it was no different. You do have days of sunshine and clear air, generally after a thunderstorm or typhoon. Over the past decade I've spent more than 18 months in Asia combined time. I was forced to wear a mask because I would get severe sinus infections when there due to the smog. And the further north you go in China, especially in the winter with the inversion layers, the worse it gets. You will get 0/0 visibility in the morning due to the smog.

The Chinese say they are fighting the smog, forcing polluting companies off shore (which they are), meanwhile they are building a bunch of new coal fired power plants.

This is the view close to Nanjing in September 2019 crossing the Yangtse River. Noon time with the sun shining high in the sky.
nanjing.jpg



Cap'n Jack said:
China has changed a lot in that respect. Just before the pandemic, I spent a couple of weeks in the Shanghai/Suzhou/Nanjing area and I was amazed with the change compared to a few years earlier. My previous visit was as you described- it was like being downwind from Mauna Loa in Hawaii when it is active. I was only in Saigon for a couple of days, again, just before the pandemic, and it wasn't bad. It was my first visit, it was a short time (unlike my trips to China), so I can't say my visit there was representative of the weather/pollution at that time of year.
Click to expand...
 
I still find it a bit hard to believe that the 100UL would be more expensive than 100LL. I'd think that not having to deal with lead contamination and transport issues would probably make up for any increase in fuel component costs of 100UL, especially since the current version is reportedly made from stuff they typically have anyway, just mixed in a proprietary flavor to meet the aviation fleet reqs.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I still find it a bit hard to believe that the 100UL would be more expensive than 100LL. I'd think that not having to deal with lead contamination and transport issues would probably make up for any increase in fuel component costs of 100UL, especially since the current version is reportedly made from stuff they typically have anyway, just mixed in a proprietary flavor to meet the aviation fleet reqs.
Click to expand...


Don't confuse "cost" and "price." One is set by raw materials, production methods, transport, etc. The other is set by what the market will bear.
 
Local airport sells mogas at a higher price than 100LL. Trying to cash in on all the people who buy it for their lawnmowers, chainsaws, boats, etc. If they're about the same price, I use mogas because its always better to not use lead when you don't need to.
 
Half Fast said:
Don't confuse "cost" and "price." One is set by raw materials, production methods, transport, etc. The other is set by what the market will bear.
Click to expand...

I'm not, but generally-speaking they'll have a margin target for it. I'm sure it's a rare opportunity to gain profit margin on a product line since it's rare that a new variant comes around, but I'd think they could probably gain margin by leaving the price alone and just take the profit from decreased cost of sales. Of course, free market and all, charge what the market will bear.
 
BPM said:
I'd be interesting in learning the complete technical and regulatory story.
Click to expand...

The complete one would take volumes. Summary:

- Aircraft engines will run on ethanol fuel, just like a car engine will
- The seals in aircraft engine fuel systems (and aircraft fuel systems) may not hold up to ethanol. Those would require addressing. This requires recertification.
- MoGas does not have the same vapor pressure of 100LL, with or without ethanol. For some engines and some airframes in some conditions, this can result in vapor lock. Addressing this would require a significant if not complete redesign of fuel systems, both aircraft and engine side, along with recertification of both.
- Unlike 100LL, MoGas deteriorates fairly quickly as far as its anti-knock properties are concerned. Put gas in, wait 6 months, you suddenly may not have detonation margin. 100LL can sit virtually indefinitely and is extremely stable, no changes in properties. I've run piston airplanes on 10+ year old 100LL
- 93 AKI (or 94 if you can find it in some places) will not handle the anti-knock requirements of piston aircraft engines with higher detonation propensity. This could potentially be worked around with some redesigns and complete recertification
- All of this needs to be certified. And unless you can recertify the entire fleet (engine and aircraft), it's not practical. Remember 80/87 went away because there wasn't enough of a demand for it to keep producing. Most FBOs don't carry MoGas because similarly, not enough demand

These discussions and arguments haven't changed over the past several decades (or at least over the 15 years since I entered the piston aviation industry). And funny enough, the talking points, uneducated proposals, physical/chemical/engineering realities, and certification limitations have not changed, either.
 
Ted said:
The complete one would take volumes. Summary:

- Aircraft engines will run on ethanol fuel, just like a car engine will
- The seals in aircraft engine fuel systems (and aircraft fuel systems) may not hold up to ethanol. Those would require addressing. This requires recertification.
- MoGas does not have the same vapor pressure of 100LL, with or without ethanol. For some engines and some airframes in some conditions, this can result in vapor lock. Addressing this would require a significant if not complete redesign of fuel systems, both aircraft and engine side, along with recertification of both.
- Unlike 100LL, MoGas deteriorates fairly quickly as far as its anti-knock properties are concerned. Put gas in, wait 6 months, you suddenly may not have detonation margin. 100LL can sit virtually indefinitely and is extremely stable, no changes in properties. I've run piston airplanes on 10+ year old 100LL
- 93 AKI (or 94 if you can find it in some places) will not handle the anti-knock requirements of piston aircraft engines with higher detonation propensity. This could potentially be worked around with some redesigns and complete recertification
- All of this needs to be certified. And unless you can recertify the entire fleet (engine and aircraft), it's not practical. Remember 80/87 went away because there wasn't enough of a demand for it to keep producing. Most FBOs don't carry MoGas because similarly, not enough demand

These discussions and arguments haven't changed over the past several decades (or at least over the 15 years since I entered the piston aviation industry). And funny enough, the talking points, uneducated proposals, physical/chemical/engineering realities, and certification limitations have not changed, either.
Click to expand...


One other point is that not all MoGas is the same. Gas companies sell different blends in different part of the country and at different times of the year. So what blend do you certify with? And how do you manage to always buy that blend? 100LL is the same stuff everywhere.
 
Half Fast said:
One other point is that not all MoGas is the same. Gas companies sell different blends in different part of the country and at different times of the year. So what blend do you certify with? And how do you manage to always buy that blend? 100LL is the same stuff everywhere.
Click to expand...

Correct, that's another issue that adds to the confusion.

"But I just put it in my car and it works fine!" "It's really not that simple..."
 
There’s two issues here:

1. The airport neighbors want the airport gone. The lead issue is just the latest technique to accomplish this goal.

2. Overall future of leaded fuel. IMHO, once an across the board drop in replacement is found, 100LL will be banned. It’s only a question of time. I hope GAMI is successful and comes in with minimal cost increases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: txy
cowtowner said:
I was last there in December of 2019, and it was no different. You do have days of sunshine and clear air, generally after a thunderstorm or typhoon. Over the past decade I've spent more than 18 months in Asia combined time. I was forced to wear a mask because I would get severe sinus infections when there due to the smog. And the further north you go in China, especially in the winter with the inversion layers, the worse it gets. You will get 0/0 visibility in the morning due to the smog.

The Chinese say they are fighting the smog, forcing polluting companies off shore (which they are), meanwhile they are building a bunch of new coal fired power plants.

This is the view close to Nanjing in September 2019 crossing the Yangtse River. Noon time with the sun shining high in the sky.
View attachment 99624
Click to expand...
Looks like a hazy day like we get here sometimes.
Here's Nanjing a month later (November) than your shot:
JAK_5601 by Jack Silver, on Flickr

Just a little earlier:
JAK_5616 by Jack Silver, on Flickr

Shanghai a few days earlier, in the morning:
JAK_5504 by Jack Silver, on Flickr

No typhoons, no thunderstorms the whole time there.
My experience there is just as relevant.
 
Last edited:
jonnyjetprop said:
There’s two issues here:

1. The airport neighbors want the airport gone. The lead issue is just the latest technique to accomplish this goal.

2. Overall future of leaded fuel. IMHO, once an across the board drop in replacement is found, 100LL will be banned. It’s only a question of time. I hope GAMI is successful and comes in with minimal cost increases.
Click to expand...
Correction: SOME of the airport neighbors want the airport gone. There are likely to be others who want it kept, some who don't care one way or the other, and some who are susceptible to manipulation by local politicians. I don't know whether there have been any recent opinion surveys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: txy
Ted said:
You clearly do not understand either the technical or regulatory issues surrounding that idea, and it has very little to nothing to do with the base ability of the engines to run on ethanol Mogas.
Click to expand...

Ted, you clearly jump to erroneous conclusions about what I do or don't understand. I'm perfectly aware of the technical/regulatory hurdles of using automotive fuel in aircraft applications: ethanol effect on seals, vapor pressure (especially at altitude), anti detonate properties, stabilizers, distribution networks, certification for used on certified aircraft, etc. Despite these hurdles, it is possible to make an aircraft engine run on automotive fuel. Ever heard of the Rotax 915iS? It is installed on numerous aircraft. On the Sling TSi, they have flown up to 23,000 feet on automotive fuel from the corner gas station (which includes ethanol). The fact that Continental or Lycoming fail to do the same as Rotax is a shame.
 
SoCalPilot88 said:
That's why it's disappointing Lycoming/Continental don't offer designs that support automotive fuel
Click to expand...
Trust me, I hate Lyco/Conti but it's a catch-22. With the tiny volumes they see and no 'real' reason why go through the trouble of building and certifying an entirely new engine? It would sure be nice though to streamline and just burn the same stuff in a plane as a car..

SoCalPilot88 said:
normal automotive fuel from the corner gas station which includes ethanol
Click to expand...
that would be nice! I keep hoping diesel eventually takes off. Diamond seems to be doing okay, the sky hasn't fallen for them. I know Cessna's experiments with it have failed on the 182, but should 100LL go away without a replacement it may force the hand for diesel/Jet A. For all intents and purposes a diesel is a "better" choice for an ICE

write-stuff said:
I have an STC for mogas in my C-182
Click to expand...
Question, where do you buy this stuff? Maybe I've never looked hard enough but I've been to virtually every airport in Massachusetts and California (plus a dozen or so in between) and have never seen mogas offered (granted I've never really looked that hard either)

write-stuff said:
This move away from leaded gas is a long time coming
Click to expand...
Yes! It's just a question of when.

Palmpilot said:
How about us renters?
Click to expand...
I'm in that boat too (renting).. but it's hard to argue to someone (especially from the media) that you aren't somewhere on the 'rich' spectrum if you can afford a hobby that costs well over $100/hr.. regardless of how much you save or how frugal you are elsewhere in life to be able to afford said hobby
 
I wouldn't mind getting rid of lead if the replacement doesn't have any operational downsides and the extra expense was relatively small.

I really don't want to pay a lot more for the replacement fuel but if I'm honest and most of us are being honest another $.50-$1.00/gal probably won't break us. You think it will but there's an airport next door to mine where gas is currently $.65/gal cheaper yet I never go fill up there because it's just inconvenient to do so.... and I also do want to support my home FBO.

Be honest, we eat the ridiculous price of certified parts, avionics, etc all the time. We'll buy the more expensive gas too. It will just be a new topic to grumble about over the campfire.
 
bflynn said:
Wow, using that standard, the entire government of Chicago should be sent to jail for abusing children, starting with mayor Daley. There’s no way all the lead is removed from the Meigs site. Same thing in Santa Monica, they want to turn the airport into a park. Both of them should be superfund sites.
Click to expand...

Lead will be used as a weapon to close your local airport is real. Santa Clara county used an airport lead study to close KRHV. Lead at the airport was fractionally higher than anywhere else in town. The study included an area that was a legendary local race track for many decades call San Jose Speedway which was open during the lead fuel years.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/goodbye-krhv-reid-hillview.133974/
 
Last edited:
Ted said:
Nope, I’d say I was pretty spot on.
Click to expand...
I've read what you have to say on the topic and you're clearly no expert, and cannot make a reasonable defense of your position.
 
Tantalum said:
Question, where do you buy this stuff? Maybe I've never looked hard enough but I've been to virtually every airport in Massachusetts and California (plus a dozen or so in between) and have never seen mogas offered (granted I've never really looked that hard either)
Click to expand...

Local gas stations have it here. Both our airplanes have big tanks and both have mogas STC so we rarely need to buy 100LL.
 
SoCalPilot88 said:
I've read what you have to say on the topic and you're clearly no expert, and cannot make a reasonable defense of your position.
Click to expand...
Then you don't know Ted.

Without going back through all the posts and extracting quotes, I'd say the main difference between the two of you is that you say engines can be made to run on fuel with ethanol. That is true. But the fact is that a lot of existing engines cannot run (long) with ethanol without major, expensive alterations.

Now, I am going to have another cup of coffee and listen to why I am wrong.
 
bnt83 said:
Local gas stations have it here. Both our airplanes have big tanks and both have mogas STC so we rarely need to buy 100LL.
Click to expand...
I didn't know KLNK, KCEK, KSWT, KMLE or KOMA had it on-field.
 
JOhnH said:
Well, he did say "local gas stations", not "local airports".
Click to expand...
True, but @Tantalum mentioned airports. I'm reasonably sure he can get mogas in local gas stations in Massachusetts and California. It's a bit of a pain schlepping more than about 5 gallons of gasoline to an airport, especially away from your home-field.
 
Yeah its a pain, but at the price delta its basically paying myself $30+ an hour to haul gas.

I can always call fuel truck as a backup.
 
Wait, so a guy who used to work for Lycoming AS AN ENGINEER and worked ON A 100LL REPLACEMENT knows nothing about Lycoming engines and lead free fuel?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Next up, Steven Hawking knew nothing about astrophysics.

And people wonder why we laugh at Californians.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top