Alternative fuels forum at OSH

tadsargent · #1 07-31-2010, 06:56 AM

I sat through a seminar at Airventure hosted by the Alternative fuels coalition. Several important points were made I thought I should share.
No fuels to date satisfy as a replacement for the current 100LL, NONE

The date to replace LL is just that a date. If no alternatives are found LL will continue. Just taking out Lead is not an option. Too many of our fleet need it, and not just the warbirds. Octane is not the only problem they are dealing with, that is the easy part. Lead does so much more than I realized. The issue is ONE company makes TEL and this is not a long term solution and currently there are 7 suppliers for 100 shortly that number will diminish to 5. Each fuel must be tested and approved for 100% of the fleet with no one left behind.

The seminar was an eye opener as I thought LL could be deleted and voila issue solved. Not so fast. A date had to be set or no one would take it seriouslyenought to find an answer. The EPA is gathering data on the Lead content of the air around major airports. I would have thought they had this data and were making a determination based on that data, but at this point Lead contend information is an assumption.
Use at your own risk
, Tad Sargent

jcaplins · #2 07-31-2010, 07:19 AM

It seems to me....

That requiring a single 100% replacement for 100ll is a recipe for failure.

When cars switched to unleaded there was a long period of choosing between leaded and unleaded and now if your vintage jeep with the go devil engine still needs lead you add a lead additive. (I know this is not quite apples to apples, but it is fairly close)

I think the removal of lead from aviation fuel needs a similar process. There are many, many aircraft that are perfectly happy without lead. There should be an alternative available to those aircraft immediately.

Sure there will be infrastructure costs involved in adding pumps and trucks at airports, but if given the option to buy cheaper, no lead fuel then it will be cost effective to install them.

New engines produced should not require lead (ie. rotax, perhaps a design change of a lyc.?). Alternatives in overhauling engines may diminish the need for lead.

my point is, I don't see the need for an "all or nothing" solution to the problem.

We don't expect a 152 and a learjet to use the same fuel, why do we need the 152 and P-51 to use the same.

Ron Lee · #3 07-31-2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadsargent

The EPA is gathering data on the Lead content of the air around major airports. I would have thought they had this data and were making a determination based on that data, but at this point Lead contend information is an assumption.

That confirms a feeling I had. This is just politics or whatever. Determine what level is bad and see if it is an issue. If lead were such a problem then aviation workers at GA type airports should have lead induced medical problems at a higher rate than the general public. Can they provide that data?

tadsargent · #4 07-31-2010, 07:29 AM

Jeff, the solution they are looking for is an "all or the same" if a fuel cannot be produced than we keep what we have. We already have leadless STC's for those wanting a no lead alternative. The cost for a new fuel will be born by the user. Additionally they do not want to require overhauls or grounding as answers, that is not accecptable to them.

Ron, I agree why remove lead at all. What we have works perfectly. The negative is that one supplier in the UK holds all the cards

Tad

Ron Lee · #5 07-31-2010, 07:43 AM

Tad, thanks for the feedback. Along with the Bob Collins blog, what before this week was hysteria and certainty that 100LL is going away has been blown away. I have no problems with an unleaded fuel as long as it meets the fleet requirements.

Based upon inputs this week, I am not going to worry about 100LL availability.

aerhed · #6 07-31-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Sure there will be infrastructure costs involved in adding pumps and trucks at airports, but if given the option to buy cheaper, no lead fuel then it will be cost effective to install them.

"Most" airports are tiny, with tiny FBO's. The cost of a new fuel setup or even just a truck may represent several years of profit margin for the owner(s). I had a tiny FBO. 80+% of sales was JET-A. Only 8% of net profit was avgas. "Just add a tank", is enough to make a lot of small FBO owners lose sleep. I love little planes, but we don't make any money for most FBO's. Don't lose sight of the big picture. No profit, no FBO, no services for anybody, period.

erich weaver · #7 07-31-2010, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadsargent

Octane is not the only problem they are dealing with, that is the easy part. Lead does so much more than I realized

Fill us in here...What else? How are the many engines that can accept mogas able to do it if lead serves so many important roles?

Thanks
Erich

AirbusPilot · #8 07-31-2010, 09:04 AM

I was hoping swift fuel is getting ready to the market

did you heard any news about swift fuel at OSH???

David-aviator · #9 07-31-2010, 09:17 AM

Innospec is the only company on the planet producing the lead for 100LL.

http://www.innospecinc.com/octane-additives.html

At present they appear to be committed to continuing its production. Some foreign countries rely on it more than we do, their economies are hinged to its availability.

Perhaps a more important factor for us are the refineries in the U.S.

Manufacturing and distributing 100LL is a nuisance and a pain in the butt for refineries. I believe 100LL will become more expensive because of these cost factors in the market place. Fewer refineries producing 100LL WILL drive the price up. That may well be the element in the equation that will lead to a satisfactory replacement fuel, not the availability of lead.

Just like so many aspects of our life these days, the problem of 100LL has been pushed off to the future for others to resolve but a day of reckoning is coming.

tadsargent · #10 07-31-2010, 09:41 AM

Aered, any new fuel would not require any changes to existing pumps or tanks. If it is a suitable fuel for all engines then it would work for existing systems at the FBO. The cost of the fuel may go up but the profit should not change.

Swift fuel has not shown to be a match yet otherwise we would be using it. My guess is that the petroleum industry will find the answer, they have the funding to research an answer.

Erich, I am not a petroleum engineer nor an engine manufacturer. I understand lead cools the vital engine parts. The major issue is in high performance aircraft, ie. radials, turbo, supercharged and most engines above 300HP require Lead. Without it they could not fly at altitude. Simply removing lead would ground the following examples P-51, B-17, Cirrus, B-18
Constellation, Yak, etc.
Tad