6 ms·

Small airplanes still use a leaded aviation fuel known as Avgas. I think of that every time I drive by the airport in the middle of Renton, WA right next to the

Small airplanes still use a leaded aviation fuel known as Avgas. I think of that every time I drive by the airport in the middle of Renton, WA right next to the lake. https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/06/06/the-future-of-unleaded-avgas/ https://generalaviationnews.com/2019/06/06/the-future-of-unl...

__turbobrew__ 5y ago
The first unleaded avgas was approved by the FAA this year: https://gami.com/g100ul/G100UL_Oshkosh_Press_Release.pdf https://gami.com/g100ul/G100UL_Oshkosh_Press_Release.pdf
- lutorm 5y ago
  This is awesome. However, since it appears every certified airplane needs an STC to be able to use it, it doesn't seem likely that I'll be able to use it in our experimental aircraft any time soon. I can't imagine that our small FBO will switch from 100LL to G100UL as long as there are any airplanes around that can't use it.
- jeffbee 5y ago
  No. Unleaded aviation fuels have been available forever. That certification helps people convert obsolete aircraft to unleaded at lower cost, a thing which should be a non-goal of national policy. The federal government should outlaw leaded aviation fuels immediately and let the hobby aviation community figure out how to proceed from there.
  - outworlder 5y ago
    > Unleaded aviation fuels have been available forever True. But irrelevant if most aircraft cannot use it. > That certification helps people convert obsolete aircraft Obsolete? Is a Cirrus SR-22 obsolete? > The federal government should outlaw leaded aviation fuels immediately and let the hobby aviation community figure out how to proceed from there. The government also uses planes. Whole industries use piston planes. And helicopters. Why are you singling out 'hobby' aircraft? Mind you, experimental aircraft have been able to use unleaded fuels (including automotive gasoline) for a while now. The reason most can't is that there were no fuels certified for use in their aircraft. Certification requirements come from the government, so the government has to fix it.
    - jeffbee 5y ago
      > Is a Cirrus SR-22 obsolete? Yes, the naturally-aspirated SR22 that requires 100LL is obsolete. The turbocharged SR22T that can use unleaded is not. One of the nice things about having principled beliefs is the ability to unambiguously answer simple questions.
  - __turbobrew__ 5y ago
    Small planes are used for much more than hobbyist uses. Prior to G100UL there were no drop in replacements which made adoption of unleaded avgas fuels impractical. G100UL can be manufactured at the existing avgas plants, stored and transported in the existing avgas infrastructure, and even mixed with leaded avgas. Banning unleaded fuel without a replacement would have been heavy handed and short sighted. The government should be working with industry partners to develop a suitable replacement -- as G100UL was -- and subsidize the fuel costs to make the more expensive replacement the same cost as leaded fuel.
- outworlder 5y ago
  YAY. Missed that! Drop in replacement, no engine changes, no performance changes, no compatibility issues with storage tanks, pipelines, anything. They are claiming it will even increase time between overhauls, prolong spark plug life, maybe even increase engine life and require less oil changes. Seems more costly though. But if the above materializes it might offset the costs too. That sounds like the holy grail - if more airframes are issued STCs
gengelbro 5y ago
We're near a small airport and I think of this every time they fly over (which is quite frequently). Essentially hobby aviation is completely stuck in the 1970s and getting the engines modernized would be "cost prohibitive". Since wealthy people still want to play around in planes they get to rain lead on our heads.
- base698 5y ago
  Unless you live on the airport in a hangar it's not going to be in concentrations high enough to worry about. The wealthy are in jets or turbo props which don't use leaded gas.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  If I were in government, I would tax avgas at $100/gallon this year, $1000/gallon next year, and $10,000/gallon the year after. Then the super-rich can continue to fly, paying the nation for the economic and health effects they're causing, but regular hobbyists will have to ground their planes till unleaded avgas is available. Should be easy-ish to enforce, because planes and flight plans are registered, and anyone paying no tax and flying a lot ought to be easy to catch.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Why not phase-out completely then, rather than allow a few thousands to buy an exception?
  - outworlder 5y ago
    Good thing you are not in the government. 'Hobbyists' have been waiting for lead free avgas for decades. You should just crush their planes while you are at it. While the super rich do whatever they want? By the way, if you are super-rich, you are probably burning Jet-A anyway, not AVGAS. The real fix is to just issue the damn regulation and provide some incentives. Engines have to be overhauled and replaced periodically anyways. Make it easier to recertify aircraft, provide a path for aircraft that no longer have the original manufacturer around. Give incentives for small airports to stock on whatever the proposed avgas replacement is until the demand catches up. > flight plans are registered No they aren't. No requirement for flight plans in VFR. If you are proposing such harsh legislation, you should at least try to learn something about the subject matter.
jws 5y ago
In the US avgas (which has similar lead content to pre-phaseout automotive gasoline) is 0.14% of gasoline usage and declining at about 5%/year. Fuel supplied lead is a 99.86% solved problem which is solving itself. Congress has been funding a program to develop lead free fuel which can safely power aviation piston engines, it is ongoing. Intermediate results are largely not available because it is required to protect all commercial entities participating. https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/ https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/ Here is a nice article from someone involved in avgas lead removal: https://www.avweb.com/insider/going-to-the-moon-was-easy-compared-to-100ul/ https://www.avweb.com/insider/going-to-the-moon-was-easy-com...
- 55873445216111 5y ago
  There is a big fight over Avgas going on in San Jose over Reid Hillview airport. Yes, while total use of leaded fuel now makes up a tiny percentage, it is still measurably significant to the people who live in the flight path of a municipal airport. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/08/18/reid-hillview-airport-san-jose-lead-levels-closing/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/08/18/reid-hillview-a...
  - outworlder 5y ago
    They are using that as an excuse to close the airport since that's in an area where real state is highly valued. Reid Hillview is a 'relief' airport - that means it is used to shift small GA traffic away from San Jose airport. Those aircraft will not disappear, they will just move to SJC a few miles away and pollute just as much. I seriously doubt that, if the lead was removed overnight, they would change their minds and stop complaining about the airport. This NIMBY fight is older than that. I feel similarly about my HOA who complains about noise pollution from SJC. The airport predates the houses by decades but now it is suddenly a problem. There should be far more outrage about lead in avgas than there is today - maybe then the FAA and EPA would stop bickering and issue some new regulation. Noone wants to take responsibility for the monetary damage and possible disasters stemming from the decision to phase out lead, so decades later we are still looking for the perfect avgas replacement. Meanwhile, European planes are transitioning to other fuels. Either Jet-A or motor gas. Diamond has developed great engines, but when their aircraft are sold in the US, guess which engines they use? People will ask specifically for lead burning Lycoming or Continental. If there was a penalty for doing that, maybe this would change.

__turbobrew__ 5y ago

The first unleaded avgas was approved by the FAA this year: https://gami.com/g100ul/G100UL_Oshkosh_Press_Release.pdf https://gami.com/g100ul/G100UL_Oshkosh_Press_Release.pdf

lutorm 5y ago
This is awesome. However, since it appears every certified airplane needs an STC to be able to use it, it doesn't seem likely that I'll be able to use it in our experimental aircraft any time soon. I can't imagine that our small FBO will switch from 100LL to G100UL as long as there are any airplanes around that can't use it.
jeffbee 5y ago
No. Unleaded aviation fuels have been available forever. That certification helps people convert obsolete aircraft to unleaded at lower cost, a thing which should be a non-goal of national policy. The federal government should outlaw leaded aviation fuels immediately and let the hobby aviation community figure out how to proceed from there.
- outworlder 5y ago
  > Unleaded aviation fuels have been available forever True. But irrelevant if most aircraft cannot use it. > That certification helps people convert obsolete aircraft Obsolete? Is a Cirrus SR-22 obsolete? > The federal government should outlaw leaded aviation fuels immediately and let the hobby aviation community figure out how to proceed from there. The government also uses planes. Whole industries use piston planes. And helicopters. Why are you singling out 'hobby' aircraft? Mind you, experimental aircraft have been able to use unleaded fuels (including automotive gasoline) for a while now. The reason most can't is that there were no fuels certified for use in their aircraft. Certification requirements come from the government, so the government has to fix it.
  - jeffbee 5y ago
    > Is a Cirrus SR-22 obsolete? Yes, the naturally-aspirated SR22 that requires 100LL is obsolete. The turbocharged SR22T that can use unleaded is not. One of the nice things about having principled beliefs is the ability to unambiguously answer simple questions.
- __turbobrew__ 5y ago
  Small planes are used for much more than hobbyist uses. Prior to G100UL there were no drop in replacements which made adoption of unleaded avgas fuels impractical. G100UL can be manufactured at the existing avgas plants, stored and transported in the existing avgas infrastructure, and even mixed with leaded avgas. Banning unleaded fuel without a replacement would have been heavy handed and short sighted. The government should be working with industry partners to develop a suitable replacement -- as G100UL was -- and subsidize the fuel costs to make the more expensive replacement the same cost as leaded fuel.
outworlder 5y ago
YAY. Missed that! Drop in replacement, no engine changes, no performance changes, no compatibility issues with storage tanks, pipelines, anything. They are claiming it will even increase time between overhauls, prolong spark plug life, maybe even increase engine life and require less oil changes. Seems more costly though. But if the above materializes it might offset the costs too. That sounds like the holy grail - if more airframes are issued STCs

gengelbro 5y ago

We're near a small airport and I think of this every time they fly over (which is quite frequently). Essentially hobby aviation is completely stuck in the 1970s and getting the engines modernized would be "cost prohibitive". Since wealthy people still want to play around in planes they get to rain lead on our heads.

base698 5y ago
Unless you live on the airport in a hangar it's not going to be in concentrations high enough to worry about. The wealthy are in jets or turbo props which don't use leaded gas.
londons_explore 5y ago
If I were in government, I would tax avgas at $100/gallon this year, $1000/gallon next year, and $10,000/gallon the year after. Then the super-rich can continue to fly, paying the nation for the economic and health effects they're causing, but regular hobbyists will have to ground their planes till unleaded avgas is available. Should be easy-ish to enforce, because planes and flight plans are registered, and anyone paying no tax and flying a lot ought to be easy to catch.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Why not phase-out completely then, rather than allow a few thousands to buy an exception?
- outworlder 5y ago
  Good thing you are not in the government. 'Hobbyists' have been waiting for lead free avgas for decades. You should just crush their planes while you are at it. While the super rich do whatever they want? By the way, if you are super-rich, you are probably burning Jet-A anyway, not AVGAS. The real fix is to just issue the damn regulation and provide some incentives. Engines have to be overhauled and replaced periodically anyways. Make it easier to recertify aircraft, provide a path for aircraft that no longer have the original manufacturer around. Give incentives for small airports to stock on whatever the proposed avgas replacement is until the demand catches up. > flight plans are registered No they aren't. No requirement for flight plans in VFR. If you are proposing such harsh legislation, you should at least try to learn something about the subject matter.

jws 5y ago

In the US avgas (which has similar lead content to pre-phaseout automotive gasoline) is 0.14% of gasoline usage and declining at about 5%/year. Fuel supplied lead is a 99.86% solved problem which is solving itself. Congress has been funding a program to develop lead free fuel which can safely power aviation piston engines, it is ongoing. Intermediate results are largely not available because it is required to protect all commercial entities participating. https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/ https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/ Here is a nice article from someone involved in avgas lead removal: https://www.avweb.com/insider/going-to-the-moon-was-easy-compared-to-100ul/ https://www.avweb.com/insider/going-to-the-moon-was-easy-com...

55873445216111 5y ago
There is a big fight over Avgas going on in San Jose over Reid Hillview airport. Yes, while total use of leaded fuel now makes up a tiny percentage, it is still measurably significant to the people who live in the flight path of a municipal airport. https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/08/18/reid-hillview-airport-san-jose-lead-levels-closing/ https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2021/08/18/reid-hillview-a...
- outworlder 5y ago
  They are using that as an excuse to close the airport since that's in an area where real state is highly valued. Reid Hillview is a 'relief' airport - that means it is used to shift small GA traffic away from San Jose airport. Those aircraft will not disappear, they will just move to SJC a few miles away and pollute just as much. I seriously doubt that, if the lead was removed overnight, they would change their minds and stop complaining about the airport. This NIMBY fight is older than that. I feel similarly about my HOA who complains about noise pollution from SJC. The airport predates the houses by decades but now it is suddenly a problem. There should be far more outrage about lead in avgas than there is today - maybe then the FAA and EPA would stop bickering and issue some new regulation. Noone wants to take responsibility for the monetary damage and possible disasters stemming from the decision to phase out lead, so decades later we are still looking for the perfect avgas replacement. Meanwhile, European planes are transitioning to other fuels. Either Jet-A or motor gas. Diamond has developed great engines, but when their aircraft are sold in the US, guess which engines they use? People will ask specifically for lead burning Lycoming or Continental. If there was a penalty for doing that, maybe this would change.