5 ms·

Surprisingly, the fuel used in piston-powered aircraft generally still contains lead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas Wik

Surprisingly, the fuel used in piston-powered aircraft generally still contains lead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avgas Wikipedia says that the amount of lead in 100LL avgas is "about 4 times what was in pre-1975 leaded automotive grade gasoline." As a private pilot, yes I do feel a bit guilty that my hobby adds lead to the environment ...

SpacemanSpiff 12y ago
Thankfully, the general aviation industry in the US is moving away from leaded avgas. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/September/08/FAA-selects-four-unleaded-fuels-for-testing http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/September/0...
- tobinfricke 12y ago
  Unfortunately (and I say this as a member of the organization), I feel like the AOPA is fighting - or at least dragging its feet - on the issue, since transition to any other fuel is likely to add some kind of expense or inconvenience.
gsnedders 12y ago
A large proportion of piston-powered aircraft are relatively old — many are general aviation aircraft, and the hours put on the airframes are small compared with most commercial aircraft, so most predate the ban of leaded automotive fuel. There's a lot of resistance to changing anything around aviation, especially when it comes to engines. Many (or most?) piston-powered aircraft are single-engined aircraft, where a single failure makes the plane a glider.
- dghughes 12y ago
  Old being the key since the engines require lead for valve lubrication and most have a carburetor not fuel-injection so power is not as good as fuel-injected. Getting power out of a certain quantity of fuel is also a big plus since the 100 liters of leaded avgas you carry can take you 600km but unleaded maybe only 500km.
  - tobinfricke 12y ago
    We have to weigh these benefits to (piston-powered) general aviation (mostly a hobby?) against toxifying the environment. Frankly I don't think piston-powered GA is vital enough to our economy/society to justify such a long grace period on removing the leaded fuel. If our Cessnas can't climb quite as fast or fly quite as far - that seems a very reasonable cost for removing a known potent neurotoxin from the environment.
    - dghughes 12y ago
      That's the thing though they have to climb and go fast since the stall speed is always on your mind as a pilot especially when I was learning to fly. I just hate to think of all the avgas I got on my hands when checking the fuel before each flight, dip the wood stick in the top tanks to check teh level. But even worse is when you use a small graduated cylinder with a metal spike to drain off a good 100ml of fuel from the under-tank to check for water then throw it on the ground! The taxi area must be loaded with lead.
sliverstorm 12y ago
Piston aircraft operate under more challenging conditions and many old craft even have a manual fuelmix adjuster on the dash. I EXPECT detonation resistance to be a much bigger deal for them
infinotize 12y ago
Agreed, it doesn't sit well, and we burn a lot of gas in sheer quantity as well (~9 gallons/hr in a typical 172). A big part of the problem is regulation and the certification process. Of course there is a good case for heavy regulation in aviation, but particularly in low-volume general aviation costs have been kept too high for too long that it really has stifled innovation. We are only beginning to see modern engines in light piston aircraft.

SpacemanSpiff 12y ago

Thankfully, the general aviation industry in the US is moving away from leaded avgas. http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/September/08/FAA-selects-four-unleaded-fuels-for-testing http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/September/0...

tobinfricke 12y ago
Unfortunately (and I say this as a member of the organization), I feel like the AOPA is fighting - or at least dragging its feet - on the issue, since transition to any other fuel is likely to add some kind of expense or inconvenience.

gsnedders 12y ago

A large proportion of piston-powered aircraft are relatively old — many are general aviation aircraft, and the hours put on the airframes are small compared with most commercial aircraft, so most predate the ban of leaded automotive fuel. There's a lot of resistance to changing anything around aviation, especially when it comes to engines. Many (or most?) piston-powered aircraft are single-engined aircraft, where a single failure makes the plane a glider.

dghughes 12y ago
Old being the key since the engines require lead for valve lubrication and most have a carburetor not fuel-injection so power is not as good as fuel-injected. Getting power out of a certain quantity of fuel is also a big plus since the 100 liters of leaded avgas you carry can take you 600km but unleaded maybe only 500km.
- tobinfricke 12y ago
  We have to weigh these benefits to (piston-powered) general aviation (mostly a hobby?) against toxifying the environment. Frankly I don't think piston-powered GA is vital enough to our economy/society to justify such a long grace period on removing the leaded fuel. If our Cessnas can't climb quite as fast or fly quite as far - that seems a very reasonable cost for removing a known potent neurotoxin from the environment.
  - dghughes 12y ago
    That's the thing though they have to climb and go fast since the stall speed is always on your mind as a pilot especially when I was learning to fly. I just hate to think of all the avgas I got on my hands when checking the fuel before each flight, dip the wood stick in the top tanks to check teh level. But even worse is when you use a small graduated cylinder with a metal spike to drain off a good 100ml of fuel from the under-tank to check for water then throw it on the ground! The taxi area must be loaded with lead.

sliverstorm 12y ago

Piston aircraft operate under more challenging conditions and many old craft even have a manual fuelmix adjuster on the dash. I EXPECT detonation resistance to be a much bigger deal for them

infinotize 12y ago

Agreed, it doesn't sit well, and we burn a lot of gas in sheer quantity as well (~9 gallons/hr in a typical 172). A big part of the problem is regulation and the certification process. Of course there is a good case for heavy regulation in aviation, but particularly in low-volume general aviation costs have been kept too high for too long that it really has stifled innovation. We are only beginning to see modern engines in light piston aircraft.