Good news regarding Swift fuel study...

[pierre smith]

...according to the EAA's newsletter:

http://www.eaa.org/news/2010/2010-08-24_FAA-Swift.asp

Best,

[cfiidon]

It will be good news when an alternative to 100LL reaches the market at a reasonable price. My pessimism screams "Not Likely".

I admit that I am not knowledgeable, but when one-tenth of one percent of all transportation fuels are 100LL, I wonder how much of a detriment that lead really is to the environment. Perhaps someone can enlighten me.

There is documented proof that human lead levels have decreased significantly since lead in automotive fuel was banned in the 70s. Would we see a measurable decrease if 100LL were banned. Is it worth it? To the non-flying public, I'm sure they would say yes. To those of us who cherish aviation as a quality of life issue, if fuel prices rise demonstrably we would say "No!"

Has anyone seen anything that discusses this issue other than the "Lead is bad for you, get rid of it."

Don

[David-aviator]

Lead will go away because of its impact on the environment and cost to produce and transport it. There was a time when it was in paint but no more and we seem to not miss it much in paint. There was a time when it was used for water pipes, same thing, we get along just fine without lead water pipes. The stuff is as bad for the environment as was DDT when back when.

Technology has advanced. Lead is not needed in fuel for engines except in those areas - boats and airplanes mostly - where the cost of redesign has been deemed prohibitive to moving forward.

Get rid of lead and we will have engines in boats and airplanes that will run just fine without it. That's where this is headed and it is time to begin to accept it.

From what I know about Swift fuel they have the answer except they have not figured out how to mass produce and distribute it.

[nomocom]

Good new on engine wear and deposition, but putting on my curmudgeon hat here, there are big problems associated with the boiling point profile of this formulation. The fuel wouldn't support a satisfactory start after the engine cooled down to ambient (I didn't see it stated what that was on the test cell). Personally, I want some cold start capability down to at least zero F. I suppose we could do like the ethanol powered Vanguard squadron and install little weed wacker sized fuel tanks for the priming system- filled with unleaded car gas so we can get a cold start!

Another issue would be accumulation of the fuel in the oil. Instead of seeing the lead content of the oil climb with tach time as it does with 100LL, we can look forward to watching the oil accumulate fuel, since normal oil temperatures won't do much to boil off the fuel. (page 11 and 17). Maybe not a big deal on a fresh cylinders, but what will that mean on high time engines with lots more blowby?

Hmmm. Whose testing dollars were these? If they were mine, as in taxpayer dollars, how about testing a formulation that will meet a fundamental expectation, like a cold start!

[Ron Lee]

As suggested, I do not know if there is proof that 100LL lead is a health hazard. People just resort to "it is politics" to justify the effort.

DDT may not have been the hazard thought decades ago and I have heard unconfirmed comments that millions have died in Africa since DDT does not control mosquitoes now.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by nomocom

Personally, I want some cold start capability down to at least zero F.

.....

Hmmm. Whose testing dollars were these? If they were mine, as in taxpayer dollars, how about testing a formulation that will meet a fundamental expectation, like a cold start!

Did you read the part that says "Cold Starting does not refer to cold weather operations such as winter temperatures?"

[nomocom]

Originally Posted by Phil

Did you read the part that says "Cold Starting does not refer to cold weather operations such as winter temperatures?"

Phil, yes I did read that and took it to mean that it didn't even start well in moderate conditions, let alone winter. So looks like the test was on a formulation that would work in South Florida, if you remembered to plug in your engine heater the night before

[plehrke]

Originally Posted by David-aviator

Lead will go away because of its impact on the environment and cost to produce and transport it. There was a time when it was in paint but no more and we seem to not miss it much in paint.

We do not miss it in paint because we no longer remember how good paint was when it had lead in it. Just like we are starting to forget how nice paint used to spray when we were allowed to have VOCs and how cold your air conditioning was when you had freon.

[RV10Man]

Originally Posted by plehrke

We do not miss it in paint because we no longer remember how good paint was when it had lead in it. Just like we are starting to forget how nice paint used to spray when we were allowed to have VOCs and how cold your air conditioning was when you had freon.

I totally agree. Remember when your car a/c would "freeze you out"? That was with R-12. 134A doesn't get near as cold.

Marshall Alexander

[nucleus]

Originally Posted by Ron Lee

As suggested, I do not know if there is proof that 100LL lead is a health hazard. People just resort to "it is politics" to justify the effort.

DDT may not have been the hazard thought decades ago and I have heard unconfirmed comments that millions have died in Africa since DDT does not control mosquitoes now.

You are right on DDT, but I can tell you from personal experience lead in aviation fuel is a hazard to pilots and mechanics. I doubt is is a hazard to the environment generally.

Hans