5 ms·

I'm pretty sure a lot of small to y planes use leaded gas.... Correct me if I'm wrong though cuz iv always wondered how bad the fumes would be to a community t

I'm pretty sure a lot of small to y planes use leaded gas.... Correct me if I'm wrong though cuz iv always wondered how bad the fumes would be to a community thats near a busy airport. Iv always hear jokes about how lead is the miracle element....its great for so many things and pushing efficiency in many areas....but the human body just can't stand it at all.

djmips 2y ago
Indeed, I live near a seaport and there are many a day where the wind blows the fumes in our direction. I do know that the larger seaplanes use lead free fuel but the smaller planes do as I understand it.
someothherguyy 2y ago
Go sample the air and find out, be a hero
- lazide 2y ago
  There were many, many studies. Answer: minimal, but measurable, compared to other sources. So worth getting rid of eventually, but not a major priority.
louwrentius 2y ago
Scott Manley has a very detailed video[0] about usage of lead in aviation fuel, for smaller piston aircraft. From my perspective, it’s absolutely ludicrous that we still allow lead to be used in any kind of fuel at all. [0]: https://youtu.be/8zfIy17q9sE?si=f9K31eeecOde_YzO https://youtu.be/8zfIy17q9sE?si=f9K31eeecOde_YzO
- Retric 2y ago
  It’s disappointing but predictable. Lead use by a subset of small piston aircraft is several orders of magnitude less than when cars used leaded gas. So the general public doesn’t care that much, but aircraft owners care a great deal. That’s a voting block which often ends up being appeased in a democracy.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    Small aircraft owners would happily pay a slight premium to get rid of leaded gas because doing so would eliminate the biggest avenue by which Karens complain about them. The FAA is the big hurdle. IIRC they recently just approved some fuel as a replacement but I'm not sure if it was a "go start selling it" type of approval or if it's some sort of intermediary approval and there's further ring kissing to be done before people can actually buy it.
    - Retric 2y ago
      There was a huge amount of lobbying in the 1970’s which says otherwise. The small Aircraft market is tiny and diverse as aircraft last a long time and many past manufacturers have failed. So, there wasn’t a viable alternative for many airplanes owners who couldn’t just swap to some other fuel or certified engine at the time. It’s been 50 years and people are still making the same arguments.
  - hwillis 2y ago
    Uh, no. It's because when plane engines break they fall out of the sky onto things. They break when they aren't correctly modified to take the new fuel. It is not very realistic to mandate conversions for all of the (often quite old) planes today- like from manufacturers going out of business. It is not trivial to convert an engine, fuel system etc. and also meet the same performance so that things like stall and thrust and altitude are still accurate across the important ranges. In practice, it's a choice between: 1. Banning or buying out older planes at not-insignificant cost 2. Swapping fuels and doing your best to get people to fix their planes, causing crashes 3. Playing it slow, requiring new planes to be compatible with lead-free fuel, building new lead-free infrastructure, and gradually encouraging people to transition Currently we're doing 3 until it's determined that 1 is cheap enough to do. That said the FAA could certainly be doing more, but that's much more (IMO) on them not taking the issue seriously than on voters being appeased. Its a national agency, not the local school board.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Lead in cars was banned in the 1970’s, any actual transition would have long been played out by now. A “this will be outlawed in 30 years” would have hit in 20 years ago. Instead the people convinced regulators to simply wait until some hypothetical perfect alternative could be made.
- extraduder_ire 2y ago
  Until I saw that video, I had no idea about the level of compatibility required to change over to a new fuel type. Since the lead-free fuel would need to be compatible with the plane you're putting it in (e.g. seals, pipes) as well as other fuels that it could be mixed with.
flyinghamster 2y ago
If by "toy" you mean R/C aircraft, that's usually not even gasoline, but a mix of methanol and nitromethane, no lead in sight (and these days you'll find a lot more R/C stuff that's battery-powered instead). But when you move over to the general aviation world, yes, leaded gas is still the rule rather than the exception. While 100 LL has less lead than the older 100/130, it still has far more than even now-phased-out leaded auto gas. There are some aviation diesels that run on jet fuel, but they're few and far between (and sometimes vaporware), and aviation engines certified for auto fuel aren't very common, either.
- the__alchemist 2y ago
  Methanol? Yikes!
  - jandrese 2y ago
    He's referring to glow fuel[1]. I would not suggest drinking it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_fuel
- dweekly 2y ago
  The good news is we in GA are finally getting reasonable 100LL replacements like G100UL and Swift 100R - and not just in the lab, but rolling out at airports. The best time for this to have happened would have been two decades ago: the second best time is this year.
bluGill 2y ago
Busy airports tend to imply jets which use lead free fuel. While small airplanes that use lead fuel can land at those large busy airports, they avoid it. Those airports have high landing fees and because of the amount of traffic are harder to navigate. (there are lots of other issues - as a pilot) Small airports that are not busy compared to the large ones above can still see a fair amount of traffic and that is likely to be lead fueled.
richwater 2y ago
Look up GAMI100UL. Slowly the industry is moving but it requires an STC for both the engine and the airframe. It's an expensive and slow process. Plus it's only available at like 3 airports right now

djmips 2y ago

Indeed, I live near a seaport and there are many a day where the wind blows the fumes in our direction. I do know that the larger seaplanes use lead free fuel but the smaller planes do as I understand it.

someothherguyy 2y ago

Go sample the air and find out, be a hero

lazide 2y ago
There were many, many studies. Answer: minimal, but measurable, compared to other sources. So worth getting rid of eventually, but not a major priority.

louwrentius 2y ago

Scott Manley has a very detailed video[0] about usage of lead in aviation fuel, for smaller piston aircraft. From my perspective, it’s absolutely ludicrous that we still allow lead to be used in any kind of fuel at all. [0]: https://youtu.be/8zfIy17q9sE?si=f9K31eeecOde_YzO https://youtu.be/8zfIy17q9sE?si=f9K31eeecOde_YzO

Retric 2y ago
It’s disappointing but predictable. Lead use by a subset of small piston aircraft is several orders of magnitude less than when cars used leaded gas. So the general public doesn’t care that much, but aircraft owners care a great deal. That’s a voting block which often ends up being appeased in a democracy.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  Small aircraft owners would happily pay a slight premium to get rid of leaded gas because doing so would eliminate the biggest avenue by which Karens complain about them. The FAA is the big hurdle. IIRC they recently just approved some fuel as a replacement but I'm not sure if it was a "go start selling it" type of approval or if it's some sort of intermediary approval and there's further ring kissing to be done before people can actually buy it.
  - Retric 2y ago
    There was a huge amount of lobbying in the 1970’s which says otherwise. The small Aircraft market is tiny and diverse as aircraft last a long time and many past manufacturers have failed. So, there wasn’t a viable alternative for many airplanes owners who couldn’t just swap to some other fuel or certified engine at the time. It’s been 50 years and people are still making the same arguments.
- hwillis 2y ago
  Uh, no. It's because when plane engines break they fall out of the sky onto things. They break when they aren't correctly modified to take the new fuel. It is not very realistic to mandate conversions for all of the (often quite old) planes today- like from manufacturers going out of business. It is not trivial to convert an engine, fuel system etc. and also meet the same performance so that things like stall and thrust and altitude are still accurate across the important ranges. In practice, it's a choice between: 1. Banning or buying out older planes at not-insignificant cost 2. Swapping fuels and doing your best to get people to fix their planes, causing crashes 3. Playing it slow, requiring new planes to be compatible with lead-free fuel, building new lead-free infrastructure, and gradually encouraging people to transition Currently we're doing 3 until it's determined that 1 is cheap enough to do. That said the FAA could certainly be doing more, but that's much more (IMO) on them not taking the issue seriously than on voters being appeased. Its a national agency, not the local school board.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Lead in cars was banned in the 1970’s, any actual transition would have long been played out by now. A “this will be outlawed in 30 years” would have hit in 20 years ago. Instead the people convinced regulators to simply wait until some hypothetical perfect alternative could be made.
extraduder_ire 2y ago
Until I saw that video, I had no idea about the level of compatibility required to change over to a new fuel type. Since the lead-free fuel would need to be compatible with the plane you're putting it in (e.g. seals, pipes) as well as other fuels that it could be mixed with.

flyinghamster 2y ago

If by "toy" you mean R/C aircraft, that's usually not even gasoline, but a mix of methanol and nitromethane, no lead in sight (and these days you'll find a lot more R/C stuff that's battery-powered instead). But when you move over to the general aviation world, yes, leaded gas is still the rule rather than the exception. While 100 LL has less lead than the older 100/130, it still has far more than even now-phased-out leaded auto gas. There are some aviation diesels that run on jet fuel, but they're few and far between (and sometimes vaporware), and aviation engines certified for auto fuel aren't very common, either.

the__alchemist 2y ago
Methanol? Yikes!
- jandrese 2y ago
  He's referring to glow fuel[1]. I would not suggest drinking it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_fuel
dweekly 2y ago
The good news is we in GA are finally getting reasonable 100LL replacements like G100UL and Swift 100R - and not just in the lab, but rolling out at airports. The best time for this to have happened would have been two decades ago: the second best time is this year.

bluGill 2y ago

Busy airports tend to imply jets which use lead free fuel. While small airplanes that use lead fuel can land at those large busy airports, they avoid it. Those airports have high landing fees and because of the amount of traffic are harder to navigate. (there are lots of other issues - as a pilot) Small airports that are not busy compared to the large ones above can still see a fair amount of traffic and that is likely to be lead fueled.

richwater 2y ago

Look up GAMI100UL. Slowly the industry is moving but it requires an STC for both the engine and the airframe. It's an expensive and slow process. Plus it's only available at like 3 airports right now