Not sure who all heard about the ruling that the EPA didn’t have carte blanche rule, but hopefully this ends the witch-hunt against 100LL and GA.

Not sure how this will actually work out, but hopefully the AOPA/EAA/etc will use all that membership money to spool up the lawyers and start filing injunctions left and right.


https://nypost.com/2022/06/30/scotus-re ... er-plants/

Ah yes, the witch hunt about a chemical proven to be toxic with alternatives that are better for the airplanes and the humans. I'm glad that crap is over!

asa wrote:Ah yes, the witch hunt about a chemical proven to be toxic with alternatives that are better for the airplanes and the humans. I'm glad that crap is over!

Don’t give an inch.

In the big picture the amount of lead going into the atmosphere from GA is a rounding error, and if they get their way it won’t stop there, wait till they require ethanol in the fuel, or something else that requires some crazy modifications, or just mothballs most of the fleet, jack fuel prices up, and so on until we are like Europe where us peasants can’t fly anymore, just a activity for the elite.

It will take a while for the dust to settle to see how much impact this decision will have on the alphabet agencies, but I am in the camp of not wanting lead in my fuel for the sake of my engine. I too believe that GA is a drop in the proverbial bucket of environmental issues.

With your high wing you can just go to the station, or taxi in from the frontage road in Kansas, and get some gas. In low wing, we need to keep the boost pump on. With a hot end inspection after, we could put anything that would burn in a Huey.

Utah-Jay wrote:It will take a while for the dust to settle to see how much impact this decision will have on the alphabet agencies, but I am in the camp of not wanting lead in my fuel for the sake of my engine. I too believe that GA is a drop in the proverbial bucket of environmental issues.

I’d always like a fuel that easier on my overly expensive engine, however I don’t want that fuel if I’m going to be forced to buy it, as when competition is outlawed prices reflect this, Now offer it as a free market alternative and sure, I’ll give it a whirl so long as the FAA isn’t going to bend me over a barrel over its use.

Gimme my 80 octane back

asa wrote:Ah yes, the witch hunt about a chemical proven to be toxic with alternatives that are better for the airplanes and the humans. I'm glad that crap is over!

I am not aware of any alternative except perhaps mogas for some low compression airplanes. Perhaps you are referring to a number of yet to be approved new fuels that are projected to cost more than our old friend 100LL.

The old red 80 octane aviation gas had .5 grams of lead per gallon. 100 LL has 2 grams of lead per gallon..

Fixed it for you...

C180_guy wrote:

asa wrote:Ah yes, the witch hunt about a chemical proven to be toxic with alternatives that are better for the airplanes and the humans. I'm glad that crap is over!

I am not aware of any alternative except perhaps mogas for some low compression 75% of all airplanes in the GA fleet. Perhaps you are referring to a number of yet to be approved new fuels like GAMI G100UL that are projected to cost more than our old friend 100LL.

Current formulations of 100LL have 4X as much lead as the original LEADED gas. Unleaded MOGAS is and has always been cheaper than 100LL - and is available now - if we as pilots demanded it at our county airports it could be delivered. GAMI's G100UL was approved in October of 2021 and has an 611 aircraft on its AML to cover the rest of the fleet. However, there are other high octane unleaded formulations that were not tested to my knowledge and I don't understand that. "Cost" is only 1 of a number of important factors - and I submit that if you cared mostly about that you'd already be running mogas and be making choices in your equipment that didn't require higher octane variants.

Lead is not a friend of ours. The sooner we get on board the better, imo. You can call that "giving an inch" - but that ain't how I look at it. We should all want cleaner running fuels in our planes - and if it's better for the environment that's a bonus - a big bonus.

soyAnarchisto wrote:Fixed it for you...

C180_guy wrote:

asa wrote:Ah yes, the witch hunt about a chemical proven to be toxic with alternatives that are better for the airplanes and the humans. I'm glad that crap is over!

I am not aware of any alternative except perhaps mogas for some low compression 75% of all airplanes in the GA fleet. Perhaps you are referring to a number of yet to be approved new fuels like GAMI G100UL that are projected to cost more than our old friend 100LL.

Current formulations of 100LL have 4X as much lead as the original LEADED gas. Unleaded MOGAS is and has always been cheaper than 100LL - and is available now - if we as pilots demanded it at our county airports it could be delivered. GAMI's G100UL was approved in October of 2021 and has an 611 aircraft on its AML to cover the rest of the fleet. However, there are other high octane unleaded formulations that were not tested to my knowledge and I don't understand that. "Cost" is only 1 of a number of important factors - and I submit that if you cared mostly about that you'd already be running mogas and be making choices in your equipment that didn't require higher octane variants.

Lead is not a friend of ours. The sooner we get on board the better, imo. You can call that "giving an inch" - but that ain't how I look at it. We should all want cleaner running fuels in our planes - and if it's better for the environment that's a bonus - a big bonus.

My 520 doesn’t run mogas, and cost is my biggest concern with a gallon of go juice.

The amount of lead we put into the earth with GA is laughable, I award people no points for that argument. Go do some gorilla activism in china and India and MAAAAAYYYYBE we can talk lol

But 100LL, yeah

soyAnarchisto wrote:Current formulations of 100LL have 4X as much lead as the original LEADED gas. Unleaded MOGAS is and has always been cheaper than 100LL - and is available now - if we as pilots demanded it at our county airports it could be delivered. GAMI's G100UL was approved in October of 2021 and has an 611 aircraft on its AML to cover the rest of the fleet. However, there are other high octane unleaded formulations that were not tested to my knowledge and I don't understand that. "Cost" is only 1 of a number of important factors - and I submit that if you cared mostly about that you'd already be running mogas and be making choices in your equipment that didn't require higher octane variants.

Lead is not a friend of ours. The sooner we get on board the better, imo. You can call that "giving an inch" - but that ain't how I look at it. We should all want cleaner running fuels in our planes - and if it's better for the environment that's a bonus - a big bonus.

Mogas won't run in my plane. G100UL is not yet approved and even if it were, the distribution plan is a big mystery (see lengthy BT thread). And if it were approved and they solve the distribution thing, it is going to cost more than 100LL.

There is an STC to run big bore fuel injected Continentals on mogas. Yeah, it’s expensive and yeah, you have to add water/methanol injection but it is an option so you guys can’t mogas isn’t an option.

So far my Conti IO360 has been pretty happy on a steady diet of premium mogas. I even skipped the water/methanol injection.

whee wrote:There is an STC to run big bore fuel injected Continentals on mogas. Yeah, it’s expensive and yeah, you have to add water/methanol injection but it is an option so you guys can’t mogas isn’t an option.

So far my Conti IO360 has been pretty happy on a steady diet of premium mogas. I even skipped the water/methanol injection.

I’d probably figure out a way to home brew 100ll before I did all that, man… I’m just tired of gov, corporations and “special interests” trying to price me out of the freedoms I payed for, deserve and enjoy.

NineThreeKilo wrote:

whee wrote:There is an STC to run big bore fuel injected Continentals on mogas. Yeah, it’s expensive and yeah, you have to add water/methanol injection but it is an option so you guys can’t mogas isn’t an option.

So far my Conti IO360 has been pretty happy on a steady diet of premium mogas. I even skipped the water/methanol injection.

I’d probably figure out a way to home brew 100ll before I did all that, man… I’m just tired of gov, corporations and “special interests” trying to price me out of the freedoms I payed for, deserve and enjoy.

Amen to that. If it's only money, hey, let's all just convert to Jet A. I really like those Kodiaks . . . .

I get what you guys are saying but “all that” really isn’t very much. The methanol system is simple and only come on under certain circumstances. That’s why I can get away without it. There isn’t 25” worth up air up here and I easily keep my CHTs under 400F. Those are the only times the methanol system turns on.

Home brewing 100ll would definitely be harder.

But I agree, for the most part, about more regulation. I recognize the negatives of lead so I’ll be happy to see it go once there is a suitable replacement.

Suitable as in it will run, and they ban your other choices

Or suitable as in in a free market it is freely adopted by owners and operators.


If 2 I agree

If the engine makers and insurance would cooperate, we could go back to from the pump gas. The vapor lock problem could be solved by putting the summer additive in all year around. Political, yes. The job of politicians is to make those kinds of deals. There should be some economy in all using the same gas.

Anyway that is what worked for me as long as I owned airplanes. With low wing, I kept the boost pump on.

contactflying wrote:If the engine makers and insurance would cooperate, we could go back to from the pump gas. The vapor lock problem could be solved by putting the summer additive in all year around. Political, yes. The job of politicians is to make those kinds of deals. There should be some economy in all using the same gas.

Anyway that is what worked for me as long as I owned airplanes. With low wing, I kept the boost pump on.

I thought the vapor lock was due to ethanol

Also thought even w/o ethanol pump 91 wouldn’t jive with FI big bore?

NineThreeKilo wrote:

contactflying wrote:If the engine makers and insurance would cooperate, we could go back to from the pump gas. The vapor lock problem could be solved by putting the summer additive in all year around. Political, yes. The job of politicians is to make those kinds of deals. There should be some economy in all using the same gas.

Anyway that is what worked for me as long as I owned airplanes. With low wing, I kept the boost pump on.

I thought the vapor lock was due to ethanol

Also thought even w/o ethanol pump 91 wouldn’t jive with FI big bore?

You can readily buy 91 octane auto fuel that contains no ethanol. At least three stations that sell it here in Bozeman. The problem with ethanol in aircraft is that some components in aircraft don’t deal well with ethanol.

But, the REAL problem with leaded gasolines, as I see it is this:

There is precisely ONE facility in the WORLD that refines and produces tetra ethyl lead, which is used in 100 LL. One facility. And, that facility is located not in the US, but in Britain. So, we little airplane owners have a huge stake at present in keeping that facility open.

But, what happens when some group of loonies in Britain decide to shut that abomination of a plant down, to eliminate this horrible pollutant from our/their atmosphere? Simple answer: The end of 100 LL avgas. Period.

And we have no control/influence whatever over that facility.

THAT’S why we need an alternative to 100 LL. If you have been watching what happens in the world these days, it’s not much of a stretch to consider. And there are and will never be another facility to produce the stuff.

MTV