Status
Not open for further replies.
Enlighten Me

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
 
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.
 
Not ready for Prime Time (IMHO)

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 :D 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!
 
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.
 
nomocom said:
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!
Click to expand...

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

Phil said:
Did you read the part that says "Cold Starting does not refer to cold weather operations such as winter temperatures?"
Click to expand...


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 :D
 
It is not that we do not miss it but we learn to live without it

David-aviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
plehrke said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
Lead Health Hazard

Ron Lee said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
lead health hazard

In more than 40 years of clinical dental practice in the UK I have come across only one example of lead poisoning. This manifests as a blue line along the gum margin. [leap to the mirror chaps!]

This patient was making a substantial living buying old, painted wooden furniture, stripping the paint in a closed, unventilated environment (no protection), containerising the furniture and shipping it to the US at huge profit margins.

I really doubt that 100LL has any clinical effect at all to our exposure.

Graham
 
Does a small group of people spouting uneducated opinions about the environmental consequenses of lead or DDT really belong on an RV forum?
 
Isn't that what a forum is for?

scsmith said:
Does a small group of people spouting uneducated opinions about the environmental consequenses of lead or DDT really belong on an RV forum?
Click to expand...

Forum - a medium (as in a newspaper or online medium) of open discussion or expression of opinions or ideas - Websters

This forum has no shortage of information and/or opinons. It is up to the reader to glean the chaff from the wheat.

Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.