2018 100LL mandate

tkatc · #1 10-20-2012, 09:54 AM

I recently read that the FAA has formed a division to work closely with the EPA to come up with a solution to phase out 100LL by the mandated date of 2018.

Does this scare anyone else? As an RV owner, I'm worried. As a builder, even more so because I have to make an engine decision within that time frame.

Any experts or theorists out there to ease my worried mind? (yeah, I'm a Zeppelin fan)

aerhed · #2 10-20-2012, 10:45 AM

Lead WILL go away. I wouldn't build a sport plane that can't run car gas. I'm still waiting for Neil Young and Fishman to cough up my electric airplane. Any day now.

N427EF · #3 10-20-2012, 10:50 AM

First off, 100LL will not go away without some sort of replacement.
If you want to be pro active and wean yourself off avgas, you set up your fuel system for mogas.
Many of us are using mogas and many have used it for years. The forum is full of posts on mogas.
All mogas users will agree that unleaded gas keeps you engine and plugs cleaner much longer and generally contributes to a better running engine.

Bob Axsom · #4 10-20-2012, 12:58 PM

I think this time it will come to pass because a solution will be worked out. I suspect it already has been but a 6 year specification/transition/ implementation/distribution phase makes it less painful on the companies involved. You could write your congressman but I think this is an idea who's time has come and some of our great minds and working problem solvers will step out of the ranks and get their justified moment of glory before the management elite recognize the potential and step in to push it across the goal line extend their arms into the air and take the credit.

If you are going to take many more years to finish your airplane and you expect to live many more years, perhaps you want to sacrifice the next 6 years of flying and wait it out. I couldn't do that.

Bob Axsom

David Z · #5 10-20-2012, 06:13 PM

There will be a 100+ octane replacement for 100LL, many airplanes won't fly without it. My only concern is the price.

RV10inOz · #6 10-20-2012, 06:41 PM

The good news is there is a solution, an unleaded Avgas, I have seen, smelled tasted.....well almost.

It has passed all the required FAA testing just recently, I am a few weeks out of touch, but the component compatibility testing was ongoing last I checked. This is very important, as it must be proven acceptable in all the old fuel systems.

I have read the Dixie Labratories test reports, and this unleaded Avgas is a higher performance (in terms of octane) fuel than the old purple 110/145 and is most likely to be known as a 100/150 or 160 as it regularly tests over 160 mon.

It is 100% compatible with Avgas, in any mix you create. Take 999 gallons of Avgas and mix in 1 gallon of G100UL and you have have 1000 gallons of G100UL conforming fuel. Sure it has a TEL content still but it is a conforming fuel certified to go fly. So tank mixing, either in the ground or wing is not an issue.

Just how long it takes to get the piles of reports finalized and ready to produce I can't tell you, but it should be long before 2018 and I suspect maybe before the nd of 2013.

What changed from 2023 to 2018? I suspect they know the answer is here and the dates have been pulled forward for total compliance.

If the Ameicans could bestowe a knighthood honor on somebody for their services to General Aviation, I know one deserving and worthy receipient.

So don't panic about losing avgas, in fact I can't wait to see it go! This new stuff is way better. Ohh yeah, and it has about 2-3% more BTUs so you will pick up a bit of extra range, for me thats about 7 minutes which when Ifr could be a fuel planning deal breaker some times.

az_gila · #7 10-20-2012, 06:55 PM

I'm confused, if it tests at 150 mon, shouldn't it be called 115/150 or similar?

Mark Albery · #8 10-20-2012, 08:04 PM

Avgas 91UL is already in production and is approved for most Lycomings except the turbos and higher compression models.

Avgas 100UL has been successfully trialed in Sweden by Hjelmco, but it was not accepted by the ASTM committee that governs the fuel specification.

In other words, with sufficient will and investment there will be an acceptable 100UL and possibly less expensive to produce (doesn't need TEL and quarantined refinery facilities)

RV10inOz · #9 10-20-2012, 08:53 PM

Good question, but perhaps as it is allowed to be blended with 100LL it may just be called G100UL and thats it. What the lab results are at different blends matters not.

In its pure form it may get a conservative label......

I don't have the answer for you right now! But here is an extract made public by George Braly a few months back.

Courtesy GAMI & George Braly

the_other_dougreeves · #10 10-20-2012, 09:04 PM

Yes, 100LL is going away. Sadly, we (the GA community) had the opportunity to solve this on our own, but there was general dragging of feet and nothing happened. In the last 3-4 years, there has been renewed interest in lead, and EPA was sued by NGOs to revise the lead standard and eliminate 100LL. EPA has no choice once someone sues them but to take action (I will leave my onw conspiracy theories out, but suffice it to say I think the truth is out there).

2018 is probably a soft deadline IMHO.

TODR