tadsargent

tadsargent

Well Known Member
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
 
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.
 
tadsargent said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
fuels

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
 
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.
 
Not being realistic

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.
Click to expand...
"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.
 
tadsargent said:
Octane is not the only problem they are dealing with, that is the easy part. Lead does so much more than I realized
Click to expand...

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
 
What about swift fuel???

I was hoping swift fuel is getting ready to the market:confused: did you heard any news about swift fuel at OSH???
 
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.
 
Fuel

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
 
A dual fuel solution is probably not going to make economic sense. Self-serv is the only cost effective way to go and even the tank and dispensing equipment may be very costly...if possible.

If that tank system..or the old one, will be obsolete at the end of the transition period. expect the full cost of that to be included in the fuel. I don't have good numbers but I would wager $2 a gallon or so. Might be more at smaller airports.

That reality may be one reason behind the 100 octane solution or keep what we have.

I expect 100LL to be here a LONG time.
 
Ron Lee said:
If that tank system..or the old one, will be obsolete at the end of the transition period. expect the full cost of that to be included in the fuel. I don't have good numbers but I would wager $2 a gallon or so. Might be more at smaller airports.

That reality may be one reason behind the 100 octane solution or keep what we have.

I expect 100LL to be here a LONG time.
Click to expand...

more and more people will be making their own tank setups, and either transferring from a car gas station or getting it delivered. A fuel tank is not expensive, and someday you might just need what you got there in your spare tank for your car so it could serve two purposes
 
tadsargent said:
....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
Click to expand...

I believe lead acts as lubricant for valve stems with Lycoming engines but it does not take much of it to do the job. In some cases as with the 0235, too much lead is present.

Grounding the above mentioned aircraft is not an incentive for the EPA to support the continued use of lead in aircraft engine fuel. Most of these aircraft are not in the economic equation as they are primarily flown for fun and games, i.e., air shows and/or the pleasure of persons who can afford them. Probably all these aircraft could be accommodated one way or another so as to continue flying. I believe the P-51 already has a manifold pressure limitation with 100LL. The engines really should have 130 octane fuel as was used during the war but they manage on 100LL which of itself is not the same as the old 100 octane fuel.

The hardest hit aircraft owners will be those who own light twins for business purposes. Those aircraft would have to be re certified if the new fuel was not an exact performance match to 100LL.

At this point Lycoming and Continental have no incentive to re certify any of their engines to operate on mogas in certified aircraft. It may happen if it is mandated but that probably won't in this "put it off until next year" situation. The 0235 is available for experimental LSA use with mogas but that is a nich market not involving the certification detail of commodity aircraft.

Swift fuel might just be the answer but there is a huge marketing and distribution problem not the think about competing with oil giants.
 
Swift Fuel Forum

AirbusPilot said:
I was hoping swift fuel is getting ready to the market:confused: did you heard any news about swift fuel at OSH???
Click to expand...

Swift Fuel did have a forum at Oshkosh. I was impressed with their bio fuel. It is a direct replacement for 100LL with ZERO lead.

Swift Enterprises that designed Swift Fuel (100SF), is going after ASTM certification. They said there were working with ASTM and the FAA to come up with a renewable fuel that will cost NO MORE THAN the current price of 100LL and be able to be used in anything that now requires 100 octane fuel.

As a side note, Swift Fuel had more BTUs per gallon than 100LL so you did not need as much of it. It is 100% compatible with all the materials that are compatible with 100LL.

The Forums made the fuel sound like the best fuel ever made. IF they can live up to 90% of what they said, then we will have a no lead replacement for 100LL in less than 5-years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.