Washington State moves to ban 100LL starting on 01 Jan 2026

I'm having trouble seeing the text in the bill that prohibits sale of leaded AV gas on that date. Unless I'm missing something.
The timeline in the bill seems much more generous than that.
 
Interesting. But your thread title exaggerates a bit.

Here's what the article says:
"If it becomes law ... The restrictions would initially be placed on airports in the areas of greatest population, with additional restrictions culminating in a complete ban for the entire state in 2030."

The photo in that news article, by the way, is Pella Iowa, KPEA. Funny that General Aviation News chose that photo for an article specific to Washington State.
 
I would hope ul 100 was I place by 2030.
 
Baked Potato said:
I'm having trouble seeing the text in the bill that prohibits sale of leaded AV gas on that date. Unless I'm missing something.
The timeline in the bill seems much more generous than that.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Here's text from the bill (which hasn't even been through a committee in one chamber yet, btw)

(2) The prohibitions on leaded aviation gasoline specified in 37subsection (1) of this section take effect:
(a) January 1, 2026, for airports and aviation retail establishments located:
(i) On or adjacent to a site identified for remediation under chapter 70A.305 RCW or under the federal cleanup law, as defined in RCW 70A.305.020;
(ii) In or adjacent to an overburdened community identified by the department under chapter 70A.02 RCW or an overburdened community highly impacted by air pollution identified by the department under RCW 70A.65.020(1); and
(iii) Primarily in a city with a population of at least 700,000 as of January 1, 2023, as determined using the population statistics published by the office of financial management.
(b) January 1, 2028, for airports and aviation retail establishments located within or immediately adjacent to an urban growth area designated under RCW 36.70A.110.
(c) January 1, 2030, for all other airports and aviation retail establishments.
 
i have a 1946 Willys CJ2A with the original engine. it was designed to run on pure gas, not today's unleaded fuel. to compensate I use the STP lead additive. Unless a similar lead additive is approved for GA aircraft use it seems that, should this bill be passed, signed and no modifications or extentions to it are made, most GA aircraft would diappear from WA.
 
rk911 said:
Unless a similar lead additive is approved for GA aircraft use it seems that, should this bill be passed, signed and no modifications or extentions to it are made, most GA aircraft would diappear from WA.
Click to expand...

Something like...G100UL perhaps?
 
Katamarino said:
Something like...G100UL perhaps?
Click to expand...
can the typical Lycoming power plant run properly on that? serious question. and if they can then how well will the G100UL mix with current the current 100LL for aircraft flying into and out of WA? any mods to the engine required? looking online for more info on 100UL.
 
rk911 said:
can the typical Lycoming power plant run properly on that? serious question. and if they can then how well will the G100UL mix with current the current 100LL for aircraft flying into and out of WA? any mods to the engine required? looking online for more info on 100UL.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every flying forum has long threads on G100UL right now. It is a direct replacement for 100LL and can be used by every engine.
 
And it mixes with 100LL without issue
 
rk911 said:
can the typical Lycoming power plant run properly on that? serious question. and if they can then how well will the G100UL mix with current the current 100LL for aircraft flying into and out of WA? any mods to the engine required? looking online for more info on 100UL.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Mixes in any quantity. That was a major hang-up they have resolved.
No.

There's a pile of articles on G100ul. @Martin Pauly has a couple videos from a gami press conference at sun n fun last year.

 
'cause facts can't sway a higher truth. Like gas stoves, kinda -
 
I don't see the issue, 2026 ought to be plenty. But even if it isn't, state jurisdictions make these types of aspirational timelines all the time. They always push them right as they approach the deadline, if the environment doesn't support application at that time. It's pretty zero cost as far as political promises go. You people new?
 
Katamarino said:
Pretty much every flying forum has long threads on G100UL right now. It is a direct replacement for 100LL and can be used by every engine.
Click to expand...


The only real impact (minor) that I'm aware of is that G100UL is slightly heavier than 100LL. I haven't seen info on its specific gravity, but I assume it's still lighter than water (otherwise we'll have trouble sumping water out of our tanks). Anybody know differently?
 
Half Fast said:
The only real impact (minor) that I'm aware of is that G100UL is slightly heavier than 100LL. I haven't seen info on its specific gravity, but I assume it's still lighter than water (otherwise we'll have trouble sumping water out of our tanks). Anybody know differently?
Click to expand...
It's lighter than water, but you also get more energy from a gallon of 100UL compared to a gallon of 100LL. You'll burn a little less 100UL per hour than 100LL.
 
Half Fast said:
The only real impact (minor) that I'm aware of is that G100UL is slightly heavier than 100LL. I haven't seen info on its specific gravity, but I assume it's still lighter than water (otherwise we'll have trouble sumping water out of our tanks). Anybody know differently?
Click to expand...

Just received my G100UL STC docs.. it states 6.25lbs/gal. Small difference in weight and still lighter than water.
 
I apologize for the thread title. The date came from the local news piece headline and I trusted it. Title has been adjusted as has my OP.

Thank you for the proofread. :)
 
rk911 said:
can the typical Lycoming power plant run properly on that? serious question. and if they can then how well will the G100UL mix with current the current 100LL for aircraft flying into and out of WA? any mods to the engine required? looking online for more info on 100UL.
Click to expand...

What rock have you been hiding under???? :D

G100UL is approved for all aircraft engines. ALL, not just mainstream Lycoming or Continental. It is approved for all airplanes, but not approved for all helicopters quite yet.

It is fully mixable with 100LL in any percentage. You can add one gallon G100UL to 100 gallons of 100LL, or the other way around.

The only mod to the engine is affixing a plate to the engine approving the use of G100UL. The only mods to the airplane itself are new fuel placards allowing the use of G100UL at each filler location.
 
db_pooper said:
Just received my G100UL STC docs.. it states 6.25lbs/gal. Small difference in weight and still lighter than water.
Click to expand...

And engines burn fuel by the pound, so you get a slight reduction in load with full tanks (my plane will be 26 pounds) but you will gain a few % in range.
 
Pinecone said:
And engines burn fuel by the pound, so you get a slight reduction in load with full tanks (my plane will be 26 pounds) but you will gain a few % in range.
Click to expand...

Yep. Mine is about that as well.. with a 1 - 3kts improvement.. I'll take that any day.
 
Pinecone said:
It is fully mixable with 100LL in any percentage. You can add one gallon G100UL to 100 gallons of 100LL, or the other way around
Click to expand...
Stupid question. What about non-aviation engines? If we can get another user base (motorsports folks who buy E0?) hooked that'd increase the economy of scale.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Stupid question. What about non-aviation engines? If we can get another user base (motorsports folks who buy E0?) hooked that'd increase the economy of scale.
Click to expand...


Airboats would be likely users. That might get it to my area quicker than airplane users.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Stupid question. What about non-aviation engines? If we can get another user base (motorsports folks who buy E0?) hooked that'd increase the economy of scale.
Click to expand...

Yes. And the neat thing is, the rich rating for G100UL is around 160, making a great UL race/performance fuel.

And the warbird guys are drooling of it, as it will allow full take off manifold pressure
 
Pinecone said:
And the warbird guys are drooling of it, as it will allow full take off manifold pressure
Click to expand...
I know they say it'll work in any piston, but I just can't help but wonder if warbirds have some random material that G100UL won't like. Kind of like the MTBE issue with old cars a few decades ago.
 
The basis of G100UL comes from work done during WWII. So the stuff was compatible with the aircraft back then. :)

It is not some cosmic brew. They just use some more aromatics, but it takes it out of the spec range of the ASTM standard for Aviation Fuel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top