Why 100LL Substitute????

Cruzinchris

Cruzinchris

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 18, 2017
Messages
143
Display Name
Display name:
Cruzinchris
Maybe there is a logical answer as to why not, but:

Remove the lead from Avgas. Those who need it can add it to their fuel. The result is that planes that don't need it are running cleaner and not spuing lead everywhere.
 
good luck with the powers that be
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
TEL is nasty ****. At one point (1920's) the manufacturer of TEL was banned in some states due to the industrial deaths associated with it.
Click to expand...

Yep, straight it’s pretty wicked stuff but add some tonic and a twist and it’s pretty good.
 
Cruzinchris said:
Maybe there is a logical answer as to why not, but:

Remove the lead from Avgas. Those who need it can add it to their fuel. The result is that planes that don't need it are running cleaner and not spuing lead everywhere.
Click to expand...

As said before, TEL is nasty. Even in the percent or two in 100LL, it's dangerous. Pure, it's a nightmare. I would not want to be in arm's length of the stuff pure. It will poison you if you ingest. It will poison you if you touch it. It will poison you if you breathe it. Being an organic lead compound, it bypasses your body's natural ability to reject the heavy metals and incorporates nearly 100% of the lead it contains into your body. It's not at all like handling a chunk of lead metal, which isn't great, but will mostly just wash off your hands. It's volatile, so it goes up your nose. It blasts right through skin. It goes through latex gloves (but not nitrile). I'd want nothing to do with it.

Secondarily, it'd be a mess to figure out how much you need and how to mix it in effectively. Too much and you end up with fouled plugs and poor running. Too little and you get detonation and engine damage. It wouldn't be a fixed amount anyway, as the mix of hydrocarbons in the gasoline would affect how much you needed at the moment. I'd rather have the experts do it for me.
 
arnoha said:
As said before, TEL is nasty. Even in the percent or two in 100LL, it's dangerous. Pure, it's a nightmare. I would not want to be in arm's length of the stuff pure. It will poison you if you ingest. It will poison you if you touch it. It will poison you if you breathe it. Being an organic lead compound, it bypasses your body's natural ability to reject the heavy metals and incorporates nearly 100% of the lead it contains into your body. It's not at all like handling a chunk of lead metal, which isn't great, but will mostly just wash off your hands. It's volatile, so it goes up your nose. It blasts right through skin. It goes through latex gloves (but not nitrile). I'd want nothing to do with it.

Secondarily, it'd be a mess to figure out how much you need and how to mix it in effectively. Too much and you end up with fouled plugs and poor running. Too little and you get detonation and engine damage. It wouldn't be a fixed amount anyway, as the mix of hydrocarbons in the gasoline would affect how much you needed at the moment. I'd rather have the experts do it for me.
Click to expand...
Plus, there is only one manufacturer in the world, a British firm, I believe. In general, it's a chemical whose time has gone.
 
This is tragically brilliant.

There's a chemical that is bad bad bad.

It is in fuel. Which is good good good.

So, some ****ing moron decides to take the bad chemical out of the fuel and require people to bring it in a separate container (made of what eco friendly material I can't guess) and add it to the fuel?

This makes perfect senselessnesss.
 
The guy that developed leaded gasoline was Thomas Midgely. He was also on the team that developed chlorofluorocarbons, specifically Freon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Midgley_Jr.

There's a good rundown on this guy and his disastrous developments in one of Bill Bryson's books. I think it was "A Brief History of Just About Everything."
 
One of my uncles died an early death running a gas station in the days of leaded fuel.
 
What the OP is suggesting is basically what Hjelmco Oil has been doing successfully in Europe for thirty years. Why can't we do it here? Ask the moneyed interests.
 
Cruzinchris said:
Maybe there is a logical answer as to why not, but:

Remove the lead from Avgas. Those who need it can add it to their fuel. The result is that planes that don't need it are running cleaner and not spuing lead everywhere.
Click to expand...

This would be a horror show from the EPA's perspective. It would make TEL much more accessible, which is exactly what they don't want.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What the OP is suggesting is basically what Hjelmco Oil has been doing successfully in Europe for thirty years. Why can't we do it here? Ask the moneyed interests.
Click to expand...
Um no. Hjelmco sells unleaded premium grade fuel. You do not mix TEL in it, and it does not guarentee 100 octane with either method.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Um no. Hjelmco sells unleaded premium grade fuel. You do not mix TEL in it, and it does not guarentee 100 octane with either method.

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Um, yes. The end consumer doesn't, but Hjelmco does. They also sell 100LL and 115+ leaded in small batch custom blends for warbirds and such. Same basic stock, with tel added.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
Um, yes. The end consumer doesn't, but Hjelmco does. They also sell 100LL and 115+ leaded in small batch custom blends for warbirds and such. Same basic stock, with tel added.
Click to expand...
The OPs concept was the customer does the blend. Other shave explained why this does not work.
In the USA, the FAA and many others have done surveys and monitores sales. The last stats I have seen show 30% of the fleet requires 100LL, however they consume over 80% of the fuel.
There just is not enough volume to support two avgas fuels in the in a broad measure USA.

Tim
 
Pilawt said:
And to think that as recently as the 1960s and early 1970s we had four ...

View attachment 68870

(1966 San Diego Local chart)
Click to expand...
Kinda neat what pack rats keep.
However the economic model for the NAS has changed just a little, and so has the environment. I mean we have not had a river catch on fire since the 70s....

Tim

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
tspear said:
Kinda neat what pack rats keep.
However the economic model for the NAS has changed just a little,
Click to expand...

In about a 10 year period, we went from the Navy flying T-28's, Neptunes, Grumman S-2's, R5-D4's (C-54's), and the USAF flying Caribou, C-124's, T-28's, KC-97's, etc. to all of those aircraft being retired. Cargo haulers largely retired their recips during the same timeframe. It was game changing for leaded avgas.
 
Cruzinchris said:
Maybe there is a logical answer as to why not, but:

Remove the lead from Avgas. Those who need it can add it to their fuel. The result is that planes that don't need it are running cleaner and not spuing lead everywhere.
Click to expand...

In Europa we are started to use UL91 more and more, it is somewhere between MOGAS and AVGAS. There are 172's and 182's flying on it... but I heard that it is not the best solution for high performance engines.
Funny thing that here in the Netherlands the price difference between AVgas and UL91 is only +-$0.50 for a gallon. (1 Gallon = $11.50)

https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp-air/en/Files/Fuel/Uleaded UL91 3rd A4 leaflet (Final).pdf
 
Chip Sylverne said:
What the OP is suggesting is basically what Hjelmco Oil has been doing successfully in Europe for thirty years. Why can't we do it here? Ask the moneyed interests.
Click to expand...

Because there's so much money in selling avgas and no liability associated with TEL. No doubt it's a conspiracy. The bastards are making money on our backs.
 
Sundancer said:
I imagine what GA "spews" is probably insignificant.
Click to expand...

I could cause a problem in busy terminal areas, especially those in urban areas. I'm thinking of KPDK or similar.

Remember, there is no safe lead level of exposure for children.
 
FormerHangie said:
I could cause a problem in busy terminal areas, especially those in urban areas. I'm thinking of KPDK or similar.

Remember, there is no safe lead level of exposure for children.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that, but I have to question if it has been proven children are affected by the miniscule amount of lead (5 micrograms per deciliter) described as an "action level" by the CDC.
 
FormerHangie said:
I could cause a problem in busy terminal areas, especially those in urban areas. I'm thinking of KPDK or similar.

Remember, there is no safe lead level of exposure for children.
Click to expand...
From what I have read not proven. In fact the lead levels in the only report by some environmental groups in CA should levels that would require GA activity to increase by a factor of few thousand. So most of the comments I have read show this corralation is not likely to due with 100LL. (E.g. a class bravo airport had the same high lead levels but 1% of the 100ll traffic at the bad ga airpprt)

Sent from my SM-J737T using Tapatalk
 
:mad2: :popcorn:
 
3393RP said:
Because there's so much money in selling avgas and no liability associated with TEL. No doubt it's a conspiracy. The bastards are making money on our backs.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point of the comment. The point of the comment was why won't the FAA allow Hjelmco to sell its product here, after succesful market acceptance for 3 decades in Europe. They have requested and been denied, even offered to finance wholesale and retail distribution.
And your point was?
 
That your "moneyed interests" comment was laughable.
 
Let's not conflate atmospheric lead pollution from avgas exhaust with handling straight TEL. Coming out the tailpipe is lead oxide and lead metal. The TEL is basically 100% burned. While hardly a paragon of health and well-being, the lead in the exhaust is orders of magnitude less dangerous than the TEL that sprouted it. I'm not going to deliberately take strong whiffs of it, but I won't go running the other way like I will with TEL.

The exact effects of piston plane exhaust on the areas close to busy airports is debatable. The effects of TEL...not so much.
 
3393RP said:
That your "moneyed interests" comment was laughable.
Click to expand...

Well, then I'm all ears waiting for your take as to why a proven alternative is barred from competing on these shores, even after millions have been spent developing a domestic "drop-in" alternative have proved illusory.

Oh, and this proven alternative for 90% of the fleet has sold for roughly .50 a gallon less than 100ll since 1981.
 
Last edited:
Chip Sylverne said:
That wasn't the point of the comment. The point of the comment was why won't the FAA allow Hjelmco to sell its product here, after succesful market acceptance for 3 decades in Europe. They have requested and been denied, even offered to finance wholesale and retail distribution.
And your point was?
Click to expand...

Chip Sylverne said:
Well, then I'm all ears waiting for your take as to why a proven alternative is barred from competing on these shores, even after millions have been spent developing a domestic "drop-in" alternative have proved illusory.

Oh, and this proven alternative for 90% of the fleet has sold for roughly .50 a gallon less than 100ll since 1981.
Click to expand...

Because Hjelmco did not pursue it with the FAA. And the economics in the USA do not support it. Go back to my point earlier, the planes that consume most of the fuel in the USA cannot run on Hjelmco fuel without new performance tables and taking a big hit in performance.


Tim
 
Two practical reasons to get TEL out of avgas: There is one supplier outside of China that makes the stuff, if they decide it's not worth bothering with any longer, we'd have a mad scramble trying to replace it. More significantly, it's a PITA to transport. You either have to keep a dedicated tanker fleet, of decontaminate any tankers that have been used for leaded fuel before using them for nonleaded fuel.

Personally, I'm embarrassed we're still using lead.
 
FormerHangie said:
Two practical reasons to get TEL out of avgas: There is one supplier outside of China that makes the stuff, if they decide it's not worth bothering with any longer, we'd have a mad scramble trying to replace it. More significantly, it's a PITA to transport. You either have to keep a dedicated tanker fleet, of decontaminate any tankers that have been used for leaded fuel before using them for nonleaded fuel.

Personally, I'm embarrassed we're still using lead.
Click to expand...

I bet there are more than a few places which would be glad to house a TEL factory if the one in the UK closed. Heck, buy it from China. The one factory thing is a red herring - there's only one factory in the West because that's all it takes to support the demand.

No doubt it is a PITA to transport, but Shell, BP, and others seem to be willing to deal with the hassle and have us pay for it.

Does it bother me to use it? No. I think there are a thousand higher priority things to worry about than TEL in avgas.
 
kyleb said:
I bet there are more than a few places which would be glad to house a TEL factory if the one in the UK closed. Heck, buy it from China. The one factory thing is a red herring - there's only one factory in the West because that's all it takes to support the demand.

No doubt it is a PITA to transport, but Shell, BP, and others seem to be willing to deal with the hassle and have us pay for it.

Does it bother me to use it? No. I think there are a thousand higher priority things to worry about than TEL in avgas.
Click to expand...

Mostly agree, but the thousand higher priority quip suggests there's some sort of linear global priority list that humans abide by. If that were true, almost none of us would be flying, because not doing the thing at the top of the list would be a travesty. We all love recreational flying, but I doubt any of us would rate it anywhere on a master global priority list.

We have an excess of talent in the world. A bit of it can be dedicated to getting a safer fuel for the piston fleet without worrying that some other more important thing is forever forgotten. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm embarrassed by the situation, but it is a bit regrettable that we can't get our act together on what is really a very solvable problem.
 
if we hadn't entertained the pork barrel of ethanol in MOGAS, creating distribution lines of it on airport ramps for the benefit of the so called " 80% that only consumes 20%" wouldnt be such blasphemy. The reality is that we're held hostage by the revenue piston operators unwillingness to retrofit to jet A. They may be the majority consumer of 100LL but they don't do it in all the locations 100LL is served in the aggregate, so what gives? Pass it down to the customer and let us flight training market surrogates be free to roam on 91/96 octane. Alas, that corn bribe is a bigger national priority. It is what it is.
 
tspear said:
In the USA, the FAA and many others have done surveys and monitores sales. The last stats I have seen show 30% of the fleet requires 100LL, however they consume over 80% of the fuel.
There just is not enough volume to support two avgas fuels in the in a broad measure USA.
Click to expand...

I've been hearing that stat since the 80s, and all the big piston cargo planes are long gone. A Bonanza burns more than a 172, but a the average 172 flies a lot more hours (and burns more fuel) than the average Bonanza.

Anyone have an updated stat?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top