5 ms·
> 100LL low-lead aviation gasoline It's absurd that it's legal to bring a new product to market burning a fuel with such well studied negative impacts on human
by NegativeLatency 3y ago
> 100LL low-lead aviation gasoline
It's absurd that it's legal to bring a new product to market burning a fuel with such well studied negative impacts on human development. Yes it's an existing airframe and other stuff, but enough has changed that I'd expect it to not get to emit lead into the environment.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- doctoboggan 3y agoMy understanding is that it's not a technology problem, but a regulation problem. The FAA does not make it easy to get approval for unleaded fuel.
- mynameisnoone 3y agoSort-of untrue now. There have been obstacles and there are now mostly supplier problems. There's presently UL94 available and G100UL that no one can get because no one makes it outside of GAMI in Oklahoma.
- rbanffy 3y agoThis is a modded Robinson 44. Is the Robinson certified for unleaded?
- mynameisnoone 3y agoPreach. TEL is awful and studies have shown elevated lead levels in children near RHV. Where 1x0LL has been banned, the tendency has been to go to UL94 (STC & MoGas). The main barrier to another option, G100UL, that complies with ASTM D910 100LL, is that it hasn't been deployed anywhere, there's no fuel supplier (Chevron or GAMI), and it requires an STC for owners. Honestly, I don't see them ever deploying it. 100LL for the entire west coast is made only by Chevron and only in Richmond, CA. California's legislature may decide to ban TEL's use in fuel manufacturing, which would end LL in the western half of the US. PS: My cousin owns a bunch of helicopters, airports, hangars, heliports, and fuel bunkers.