Been through several fuel threads this am... seems they keep getting locked.
Lead isn't good..... ok, ok I get it. The LL battle is lost, that's obvious too.
Do I believe the environmental cost is worth losing "affordable" hi-po fuel? I don't.... but we really have crossed the Rubicon on this subject.

I'm 52 this year. I was born in mariposa ca in the shadow of Yosemite to a 2nd generation aviation family making me number 3. I worked the fields as a kid and teen flagging loading and, with dad maintaining his rotor and fixedwing ag craft It was hard work, and being from Scott, German and viking gene pools I was the minority....

I’ve always worked my lower sphincter off, probably to my detriment, I never cracked the wealth code. I lost my home in the 08 bravo sierra and to this day my bride of 33 years and I rent. I was badly injured at work at the beginning of a deployment and still have a good percentage of disability, but I dont have a handicap tag or take disability. By the time my bills, initial recovery and subsequent surgeries were over, there was nothing left of the "settlement " they shoved down my throat.

I could be bitter but I'm th happiest I’ve been. Due to my injuries I thought I'd retrain to be an atp, however circumstances changed my perspective. These days I'm self employed. I restore, mod, and paint a/c... every day. If I roll over and can't walk without nerve pain I take the drugs and soak in the tub and convalesce until I can move again. It doesn't happen too often but when it does... I don't need to call an employer ....

Anyway mom, almost 80 now visited my shop at the airport yesterday, we talked for a long time... she was in tears when she thanked me for caring for and extending the family legacy..... I'd never seen it that way. I’m the eldest of 5 and the only one .

I don't have retirement savings, right now in order to fly I’m in labor based partnerships. If I fly alone it's in a mogas bird.

I’m a little concerned that.... it's not just the gas man. The environment movement in ca put a non native fish above the food and water needs of its population. There are piles of junk scientific "reports" that have jerked us around for decades now.

A couple questions based on others comments in locked threads. One brother here mentioned we need to take away all of their arguments....
One accused another he thought the sky was falling.
Several insinuated we're wealthy and can afford it ... basically shut up and color.

Do you think it's just the gas or is there more?
Will we get knock sensors and expensive induction to offset crappy gas?
How many of my brothers here are on the bubble of not being able to afford the "Slightly more expensive" gami gas in your hi-po mills?
Will the 100ll subs have the long term stability we have come to appreciate in avgas?
What kind of contingencies are you considering?

Maybe I’ll be able to get to the end of my life and ga will still be "a thing" I wonder about my grandkids though...

never mind

If the fuel threads even start to get a little political I will lock them. If that means you don’t get to make the full argument you want, so be it. There is no argument on my moderation. Thanks for respecting that.

G100UL.....It may be the straw the broke the camel's back, it may be just another item that we have to manipulate our budgets to account for. Pondering my own personal use case of approximately 100 hours a year of personal flying, a dollar a gallon more for a more socially acceptable fuel is an annoyance but nothing more. At 12.5 gallons an hour average fuel burn that is $1250 annually. My insurance went up by over half that this year, my mechanic increased his rates, and my annual and other costs increased by about half that amount also. Oil costs increased, parking costs increased, everything related to my plane has increased in cost this year as it does every year. Fuel is the only cost that occasionally goes down.

If I run a fully inclusive cost analysis (don't ever do this the numbers are not pretty) of owning my airplane I am in the range of $400 an hour for 100 hours a year. Granted that includes engine reserve, paint reserve, avionics reserve etc. By spending one day washing my airplane instead of flying it for 3 hours I can absorb the increased cost of a new unleaded fuel. I probably won't even notice the difference in flying 97 hours versus 100 hours. I would rather not spend that money, but the world has moved on from lead, we don't have to like it or agree with it, but it has and we need to move with it.

Fuel costs I can mitigate by flying slightly less. The ones that will prevent me from flying and probably prevent my kid from flying will be the day that an engine overhaul runs into the six figures, insurance bills are regularly five figures, and maintenance and parts become unaffordable. Aviation is a victim of economies of scale, with an ever-dwindling population every item gets more expensive because fewer units are available to spread costs and profits over. The one bright spot from a cost perspective for me is experimental I am sure over time more people will move in that direction which will only exacerbate the cost problem for the rest of us in the certified world.

Good post, thanks.

There is plenty of lead at my local airport anywhere I care to test...at the runup areas, on the tarmac, on our airplanes, on the seats inside our airplanes, etc. It's everywhere. The large majority of us don't need the lead in our fuel anyway, me included. It was certified for 80 octane, and it runs fine on auto gas.

The existing lead will gradually continue to wash out into the lakes and streams and otherwise diffuse into the environment, where it finds its way into food webs, and there isn't really much need for it beyond inertia for most of us.

There is no safe level of lead in the environment for young, developing neurological systems. It's all around us, and its impacts are permanent and measurable.

Change means winners and losers. I certainly don't count myself in the losing category in the process of removing lead from aviation fuel, and there are a lot of winners.

lesuther wrote:There is plenty of lead at my local airport anywhere I care to test...at the runup areas, on the tarmac, on our airplanes, on the seats inside our airplanes, etc. It's everywhere. The large majority of us don't need the lead in our fuel anyway, me included. It was certified for 80 octane, and it runs fine on auto gas.

The existing lead will gradually continue to wash out into the lakes and streams and otherwise diffuse into the environment, where it finds its way into food webs, and there isn't really much need for it beyond inertia for most of us.

There is no safe level of lead in the environment for young, developing neurological systems. It's all around us, and its impacts are permanent and measurable.

Change means winners and losers. I certainly don't count myself in the losing category in the process of removing lead from aviation fuel, and there are a lot of winners.

Got to think about more than just you “winning” for the environment

None of the study’s that follow any standard reaffirm this 100LL problem

I have yet to see a cancer study that even comes close to linking being near 100LL

Personally I’m just not affluent enough, I’m “it’s just a little more” into oblivion, over taxed, over worked, my dollar is worth less and less, and my passion is being stolen from me to solve a “problem” no one has even proven exists

I don’t care about the tiny about of lead in 100ll, I care that my kids and grand kids could decide to fly if they want to, I care that a blue collar kid in “fly over country” could work and put himself through his CPL without having to be the next Elon musk


I think peoples hearts are in the right place, they just don’t put the brain into gear before the heart, and often don’t think of their ideals costs on others

Lots of the people I hear talking about these things fall into one of two camps

1 college kids who still haven’t felt what it’s like to be independent and fighting to provide while the majority of their labors go into taxes

2 VERY affluent people who even high taxes have them living better than most in America


For me it’s about the guy who goes into logging, or works roofing, or on the ramp to get their CPL, a buck a gallon, we’ll maybe two, it’s the difference between a dream come true and dream on

NineThreeKilo wrote:
None of the study’s that follow any standard reaffirm this 100LL problem

The primary concern with lead is not its potential as a carcinogen, but rather its very well established role in harming neurological development. I've seen several people bring up cancer in these few threads, but that's not the actual concern.

The neurological harm done by lead in developing brains is very real and very well supported by mountains of evidence.

Brian M wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:
None of the study’s that follow any standard reaffirm this 100LL problem

The primary concern with lead is not its potential as a carcinogen, but rather its very well established role in harming neurological development. I've seen several people bring up cancer in these few threads, but that's not the actual concern.

The neurological harm done by lead in developing brains is very real and very well supported by mountains of evidence.

We have more airports than any other country on earth, do you have a study or something showing that people living under the approach path of a GA (not kerosine burners) have a higher cancer rate, or are producing dumber kids (factoring demographics)?

Or that people who are around 100LL have these issues?


I mean it’s super clear, obviously and all, I’m just a guy who wants to see the facts put out in front of me before I fall on my sword for ideals

Most people I know who are right close to 100LL tend to be more successful than the average bear, maybe the low lead should be promoted

Helio295 wrote:G100UL.....It may be the straw the broke the camel's back, it may be just another item that we have to manipulate our budgets to account for. Pondering my own personal use case of approximately 100 hours a year of personal flying, a dollar a gallon more for a more socially acceptable fuel is an annoyance but nothing more. At 12.5 gallons an hour average fuel burn that is $1250 annually. My insurance went up by over half that this year, my mechanic increased his rates, and my annual and other costs increased by about half that amount also. Oil costs increased, parking costs increased, everything related to my plane has increased in cost this year as it does every year. Fuel is the only cost that occasionally goes down.

If I run a fully inclusive cost analysis (don't ever do this the numbers are not pretty) of owning my airplane I am in the range of $400 an hour for 100 hours a year. Granted that includes engine reserve, paint reserve, avionics reserve etc. By spending one day washing my airplane instead of flying it for 3 hours I can absorb the increased cost of a new unleaded fuel. I probably won't even notice the difference in flying 97 hours versus 100 hours. I would rather not spend that money, but the world has moved on from lead, we don't have to like it or agree with it, but it has and we need to move with it.

Fuel costs I can mitigate by flying slightly less. The ones that will prevent me from flying and probably prevent my kid from flying will be the day that an engine overhaul runs into the six figures, insurance bills are regularly five figures, and maintenance and parts become unaffordable. Aviation is a victim of economies of scale, with an ever-dwindling population every item gets more expensive because fewer units are available to spread costs and profits over. The one bright spot from a cost perspective for me is experimental I am sure over time more people will move in that direction which will only exacerbate the cost problem for the rest of us in the certified world.

This is a great perspective. The truth is we live in an inflationary environment. Will GA flying be too costly in the future. Everything is costing more not just flying. It is one of the reasons I try to fly as much as possible while I still have the health and "wealth" to afford it. This G100UL fuel could be a wash with extended engine life and a greater time between oil changes due to use of synthetics. I have an open mind about it. I also don't think 100LL fuel is risky to the environment in the grand scheme. The fact that this new fuel only requires an STC sign off and no changes to our equipment makes it a reasonable solution. The fact is - when I started flying over 30 years ago a C150 rented for 30/hr. Same plane now rents for 120/hr. Luckily I have some hobbies that only cost time and dedication.


Josh

NineThreeKilo wrote: For me it’s about the guy who goes into logging, or works roofing, or on the ramp to get their CPL, a buck a gallon, we’ll maybe two, it’s the difference between a dream come true and dream on

Great. My family logged for nearly 30 years. It helped me through college, along with framing, roofing, trail and road construction, wildlife biology, and other roles before college even started. I even bought a plane with my wages in high school, and Jerry canned it 36 gallons at a time....largely because of cost, but also because of lead.

If the costs of lead in gasoline are distributed on others, particularly kids (as it is), I'm pretty glad to see it go. It's been on my mind for the past 38 years or so I've been flying. I won't miss it, and I'm glad there is an alternative for those who will.

The neurological (not oncological) effects of lead at virtually any level are very well documented, repeatable, and comprise the consensus.

NineThreeKilo wrote:
We have more airports than any other country on earth, do you have a study or something showing that people living under the approach path of a GA (not kerosine burners) have a higher cancer rate, or are producing dumber kids (factoring demographics)?

Or that people who are around 100LL have these issues?

There are very few good ones. Here are two.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230438/

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/691686

I have been happy to also demonstrate the pervasive presence of lead at my home airport. I've used cheap lead tests in the last to show the striking levels in the soils and tarmacs, and of course on the planes themselves, to the few that have been interested. However, I also own HPLC/MS equipment necessary to carefully quantitatively measure levels of lead and lead compounds. I could also measure lead and aromatics levels in the adjacent waterways if desired...I have not done so.

There are other sources of lead that are perfused throughout our communities...the rubber in your tires likely contains it...a reason why tire burning in cement plants and other processes is clearly a serious matter. It remains a primary source of leaded aerosols and precipitates in urban areas. Locally, after presenting data showing significant risk of lead exposure from the recycled crumb rubber at local school athletic facilities, access was limited to events in one case, and signage indicating lead exposure risks was posted at others in the area.

Lead is something that is a reliable cause for concern from a lot of the public. It shouldn't be a surprise that attention has turned to avgas.

Brian M wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:
None of the study’s that follow any standard reaffirm this 100LL problem

The primary concern with lead is not its potential as a carcinogen, but rather its very well established role in harming neurological development. I've seen several people bring up cancer in these few threads, but that's not the actual concern.

The neurological harm done by lead in developing brains is very real and very well supported by mountains of evidence.

Brian is correct!! just read some of the posts.
I tried to stay out of it for a while because I tend to be a bit short. If you REALLY want your kids and grandkids to be able to fly!!! Look at the Rotax engines, they can run on E10 mogas. I remember back in the day I could have my buck knife on my belt on a plane no one cared. The only thing in live is change constant is change!!! SUCK IT UP. I was a poor white farm boy (1 of 7) in Cushing Minnesota that went to a one room school house with 17 kinds and 1 teacher rode behind a tractor when the road grader got stuck for weeks on the main road. So unless you can beat that don't tell me about what being poor is!! So I really don't need any of that how are the kids going to learn crap!! We have a beater Champ at birchwood with floats and skis for 30,000/offer. Buy that for the kids and run mogas!!! If you REALLY look at it the fun flying is low and slow, A 150 hp Pacer will get you 400 miles of real flying (not auto pilot). All of the great old trainers, fun planes run mogas. We have had an alternative for 100LL for years we just need approval. I put a young ATP jet pilot on my cub insurance so he could get his taildragger rating this year, that is how you help the young ones!! DENNY

I find myself torn between my usual stubbornness of never wanting to give an inch, and actually not really liking lead in fuel. Almost everything I enjoy, from planes to farming to guns and hunting is slowly being chipped away at with greater rules and higher costs.

I will say that I think quite a few of even the big injected engines could be adapted to Mogas if there was any will to do so. 8.5-1 compression, like in my I0-520 shouldn't actually be a problem for Mogas. Making valves and seats that don't require leaded fuel shouldn't be an issue. Utilizing gaskets and seals compatible with Mogas also shouldn't really be an issue. I think it has more to with obstruction by governing bodies than anything else. In a 185, if a guy was worried about it, put this new fuel in one tank for takeoffs and landings and cruise on Mogas from the other tank.

Fraser Farmer wrote: In a 185, if a guy was worried about it, put this new fuel in one tank for takeoffs and landings and cruise on Mogas from the other tank.

Your points are well made, but if you’re going to put Mogas in a bladder tank, make sure is alcohol free….them bladders are spendy.

MTV

Good point on the ethanol issues.
What I don’t see in any of this is the necessary certification of digital engine controls. Ok perhaps not fundamentally necessary but it seems reasonably priced digital engine controls could make the transition a whole lot easier and provide better efficiency and engine life.

PNW Flyer wrote:Good point on the ethanol issues.
What I don’t see in any of this is the necessary certification of digital engine controls. Ok perhaps not fundamentally necessary but it seems reasonably priced digital engine controls could make the transition a whole lot easier and provide better efficiency and engine life.

How do you spell certification? There are a very few gas burners out there, but really rare. Frankly, it might be easier/cheaper to STC diesels…..look how long it took to get a no lead gas approved.

MTV

PNW Flyer wrote:Good point on the ethanol issues.
What I don’t see in any of this is the necessary certification of digital engine controls. Ok perhaps not fundamentally necessary but it seems reasonably priced digital engine controls could make the transition a whole lot easier and provide better efficiency and engine life.

Why do engine controls make a transition easier?

lesuther wrote:

NineThreeKilo wrote:
We have more airports than any other country on earth, do you have a study or something showing that people living under the approach path of a GA (not kerosine burners) have a higher cancer rate, or are producing dumber kids (factoring demographics)?

Or that people who are around 100LL have these issues?

There are very few good ones. Here are two.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3230438/

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/691686

I have been happy to also demonstrate the pervasive presence of lead at my home airport. I've used cheap lead tests in the last to show the striking levels in the soils and tarmacs, and of course on the planes themselves, to the few that have been interested. However, I also own HPLC/MS equipment necessary to carefully quantitatively measure levels of lead and lead compounds. I could also measure lead and aromatics levels in the adjacent waterways if desired...I have not done so.

There are other sources of lead that are perfused throughout our communities...the rubber in your tires likely contains it...a reason why tire burning in cement plants and other processes is clearly a serious matter. It remains a primary source of leaded aerosols and precipitates in urban areas. Locally, after presenting data showing significant risk of lead exposure from the recycled crumb rubber at local school athletic facilities, access was limited to events in one case, and signage indicating lead exposure risks was posted at others in the area.

Lead is something that is a reliable cause for concern from a lot of the public. It shouldn't be a surprise that attention has turned to avgas.

The levels from GA burning 100LL, no

For one lots of homes around airports are in the ghetto

For two, they didn’t mention the level of lead that would actually cause any notable level or morbidity or mortality

https://certifiedkit.com/how-much-lead- ... dangerous/


And their studies were very very lacking in any detailed data on how much actually came from my tailpipe, it was a ”study” looking for reaffirmation