• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Avgas Coalition and AOPA...Avgas is an endangered species!

What's the limit, if any, for futures contracts? I'm 40, and, God willing, have 30-40 more years of flying left. If enough folks stretched the norm for buying, theoretically at least there wouldn't be an all out ban should the supplier not want to be breach. Tie them up with paper. ??

Unless we get a dictator running this parade and they wave their magic nitwit wand which we could very well have right now.

How about Mexico? Could 100LL still be sold there if banned here? Want an incandescent light bulb? Smuggle it in... Crazy world when the good guys use words like that. THINK ABOUT THAT!!!!

Sad we live in a country when one needs to think outside the boundaries of normality.

I remember 80-87 we had in a tank at the farm. The stuff lasted darn near forever. The "cleaner" the fuel, seemingly, the shorter the shelf life, another consideration.

SJ- If any of the above needs deleted please delete and don't lock the thread. Thanks for all you do!

Sikorsky
 
I think one of the most important points made so far on this thread was made by Denny.

There is only ONE plant on Earth that produces Tetra-ethyl Lead, folks. And, that's in Britain.

I'm not sure there is any other fuel besides 100 LL that has managed to dodge the bullet that's removed lead from virtually every other product we use regularly.

So, you have a small company making the product, for a very finite product (100LL), which is used mostly in the US, and we in the US have absolutely NO say in the matter IF that plant were to go out of business. Frankly, I'm amazed that we still have 100LL fuel right now.

The salient point is, as others have pointed out, 100 low lead is going away, and no organization is going to stop that. All it's going to take is one or ten "green" organizations deciding to litigate...... Right, wrong or indifferent, we'll lose that one.

So, what AOPA is trying to get done is to encourage industry to come up with a viable replacement, that works in all our light aircraft engines, high and low performance alike.

When I owned a PA-11, I regularly ran non oxygenated auto fuel, and it worked fine. But, pumps at airports that sell that stuff are scarce. We need a viable solution BEFORE the pin gets pulled on 100 LL.

MTV
 
Must be just me but noting the direction we're heading I'll feel lucky if I can buy regular car gas for my Chevy Corvair by next year. I am budgeting $10.00 gallon, if available.
 
A&P/IA acquaintance told me recently he'll not work on any plane that's been run on non-100LL. I suggested he plan an early retirement as lead is ------>

Gary
 
Some interesting stuff in this thread. Bottom line is it is gonna happen, just a matter of when. There are too many hyperbolic comparisons to list about trying to stop the elimination of 100LL.

I have watched quite a few videos about the new UL fuels. Seems some are not willing to play nice, some are dead tired of the constant retesting demands to meet silly standards. Bottom line I took the easy route with MoGas. YES I do realize that some high performance engines do not have that option. I think rather than pushing back on the inevitable, why don’t people push the giant in the room (FAA) to certify the Gama and 94UL or equivalent fuels.

The video of the ethanol/alcohol being used for crossing the pond is impressive, even more so that it was 1989!!!

Now…. Not being political at ALL, but typically if there is a problem the easiest way to solve it is to follow the money…. So…. Who is benefiting from the continued long life of 100LL?

Answer that question and you likely have the the roadblock to new certified unleaded aviation fuels.

Remember, it is always about the money
 
Now…. Not being political at ALL, but typically if there is a problem the easiest way to solve it is to follow the money…. So…. Who is benefiting from the continued long life of 100LL?

Answer that question and you likely have the the roadblock to new certified unleaded aviation fuels.

Remember, it is always about the money

Actually, in aviation, it is USUALLY about the FAA.

MTV
 
Compression ratio and octane are a very interesting topic. My Cessna at 7.5-1 runs fine on good quality car gas. Illegal by FAA definition, and that right there is the problem. Not the gas, but the regulations. My Cub at 10-1 would have problems with car gas but boosting octane isn’t a new science and being exp, I don’t care what the FAA allows or doesn’t.

Nothing in government moves fast and most of us believe the political landscape will be different a year from now so bottom line, while elimination of 100LL will likely happen, it likely won’t be anytime soon.
 
The inevitable is getting much closer. In my flying career I have seen purple, green and now maybe blue AvGas go away. A key to previous attempts was our past powerful senator "Uncle Ted" Stevens who had a lot of constituents that burned AvGas both commercially and privately who he fought hard for. NAC was flying DC-6s then and hosing down a huge amount of AvGas every day. I am afraid as has been pointed out, we are in the minority and our need to fly has little pull with those who make regulations and write laws. There still might be a chance to lobby congress and get a stay or a transition period if there is no reasonable alternative. Making the state go cold turkey from 100LL is not a reasonable action, and the general public would be harmed because a good chunk of air commerce in this state would come to a screeching halt. A couple of airports in SoCal is one thing, there are close by alternate fueling locations.
 
Consider that LEAD is the problem.....as in lead into the atmosphere. Frankly, I'm amazed that some green group hasn't already sued the refiners of 100LL. When that happens, and it will eventually, if government doesn't get off it's rear, then WE have a problem.

MTV
 
Consider that LEAD is the problem.....as in lead into the atmosphere. Frankly, I'm amazed that some green group hasn't already sued the refiners of 100LL. When that happens, and it will eventually, if government doesn't get off it's rear, then WE have a problem.

MTV

That's one argument in our favor. Of all petroleum based fuels produced and used, avgas barely registers on percentage produced. When you consider all the pollutants put into the atmosphere in a month or year, we don't even register when compared with other sources.

That being said, I reluctantly agree that we need to be planning for viable alternate fuels. It's just the military in me, list the 'what if's' after you make a plan. In our case 'what if' 100 LL goes away in spite of attempts to save it? What's the best replacement? Something we have right now, like mogas? A derivative? Do we need to produce something completely new? Consider that we're in the same boat as the automotive industry. We can get by with low performance fuel in a low performance aircraft engine but not in a high performance engine.

If you want to argue, remember that if 100 LL never goes away, then we won't need to switch.

Web
 
GAMI and Swift both have 100 octane fuels, GAMI even has approval for some planes already Swift is working on getting approval. The big issue as far as I can tell is the FAA won't just do or can't figure out how to do a fleet wide approval.
DENNY
 
I've noticed that the airboat crowd use a lot of airplane engines. What are they using for fuel? Have they had issues? I'm suspecting they just use whatever auto fuel is handy? Is the FAA making a bigger deal out of our avgas than there needs to be? I do appreciate the stability of the avgas and use it in everything from weedwhackers to airplanes. I have had issues with the gumming up and reduction of volatility of auto gas in the past, particularly after having been stored for a few months or more. Perhaps the current ethanol auto gas doesn't do this? ???
 
Following the exp scene like I do, whenever someone specs out a hi comp engine, built for 100 LL, I wonder if they consider discussions like this!
 
Being exp @ 10-1, I have options other than 100LL. The only reason I use 100LL is I already have it for my certificated airplane.
 
GAMI chose not to attempt FAA Certification. As I understood it, they saw the FAA certification to be so onerous and lengthy of a process, that it wasn't worth the expense for the questionable results. They chose instead to go via STC and plan to offer a free STC to every engine possible. Does that imply that some engines may not be able to use it? Possibly.

Swift attempted, and is still attempting to go the FAA/ASTM certification. That process has dragged out for nearly a decade. Swift has now chosen to sell STCs for their fuel for $100 per plane and now say they plan fleet wide implementation via STC. Why have both potential drop in replacements had to go the STC route rather than certification? This clearly points to a problem with the FAA and their professional foot dragging.

MOGAS issues. The big oil producers have actively pursued running Mogas off airports. FBOs and fuelers that sell Mogas are threatened with having their supply of 100LL shut off if they don't remove the Mogas sales. I ran Mogas exclusively for 10+ years until I left NM and retired to AR using a 110 gal tank and fueling rig in the back of my pickup.

In AR, Alcohol free premium Mogas is readily available. However, all of the stations in my area now have an injector cleaner additive in the fuel that I have found to cause as much or more damage than alcohol contaminated fuels. (details of the damage and testing on my web site) The carb and engine was fine with it, but it will dissolve pipe dope from the pipe fittings and will break down epoxy resins and any plastics or rubberized fuel lines in the fuel system. The last station in my area that was carrying clean fuel without the additives lost his source of clean Mogas a few months ago, so I have no choice but to switch to 100LL for both of my planes for now. Mogas has always had an uphill battle getting onto airports and local supplies around the country, even at gas stations it is iffy at best.

One other issue with buying Mogas. Most pilots that use it buy at the gas station and haul it to their planes. The fuel taxes paid there go toward the state and federal highway funds rather than the Aviation trust fund. And there are no flowage fees to support the State Aviation fund or the local airport.

100LL environmental issues. I have little doubt the environmental issues to the public from 100LL are so far below the noise level as to be negligible. However, the lead contamination many mechanics suffer continues to go untested, unreported and usually unnoticed. Mechanics routinely exposed to inhalation of lead salts from bead blasting combustion chambers and regular exposure to 100LL fuel on their skin often times have abnormally high lead levels in the bloodstream, well beyond the EPA acceptable limits, and often times with devastating effects. That grumpy mechanic that acts like a mad hatter might just be that way thanks to his chronic exposure to lead. It's only a matter of time until some smart enterprising lawyer decides to bring a class action law suite against the oil companies in behalf of the many thousands of mechanics with chronic lead exposure, that could also spell an end to 100LL and would certainly discourage the oil companies from continuing to produce it.

100LL is a threatened and endangered species. As well it should be. If the AOPA will lead the way to support a transition away from 100LL as rapidly as possible, they will have my support. Had the FAA supported this effort, 100LL should have died out shortly after leaded autogas decades ago.

-Cub Builder
 
GAMI chose not to attempt FAA Certification. As I understood it, they saw the FAA certification to be so onerous and lengthy of a process, that it wasn't worth the expense for the questionable results. They chose instead to go via STC and plan to offer a free STC to every engine possible. Does that imply that some engines may not be able to use it? Possibly.

Swift attempted, and is still attempting to go the FAA/ASTM certification. That process has dragged out for nearly a decade. Swift has now chosen to sell STCs for their fuel for $100 per plane and now say they plan fleet wide implementation via STC. Why have both potential drop in replacements had to go the STC route rather than certification? This clearly points to a problem with the FAA and their professional foot dragging.

MOGAS issues. The big oil producers have actively pursued running Mogas off airports. FBOs and fuelers that sell Mogas are threatened with having their supply of 100LL shut off if they don't remove the Mogas sales. I ran Mogas exclusively for 10+ years until I left NM and retired to AR using a 110 gal tank and fueling rig in the back of my pickup.

In AR, Alcohol free premium Mogas is readily available. However, all of the stations in my area now have an injector cleaner additive in the fuel that I have found to cause as much or more damage than alcohol contaminated fuels. (details of the damage and testing on my web site) The carb and engine was fine with it, but it will dissolve pipe dope from the pipe fittings and will break down epoxy resins and any plastics or rubberized fuel lines in the fuel system. The last station in my area that was carrying clean fuel without the additives lost his source of clean Mogas a few months ago, so I have no choice but to switch to 100LL for both of my planes for now. Mogas has always had an uphill battle getting onto airports and local supplies around the country, even at gas stations it is iffy at best.

One other issue with buying Mogas. Most pilots that use it buy at the gas station and haul it to their planes. The fuel taxes paid there go toward the state and federal highway funds rather than the Aviation trust fund. And there are no flowage fees to support the State Aviation fund or the local airport.

100LL environmental issues. I have little doubt the environmental issues to the public from 100LL are so far below the noise level as to be negligible. However, the lead contamination many mechanics suffer continues to go untested, unreported and usually unnoticed. Mechanics routinely exposed to inhalation of lead salts from bead blasting combustion chambers and regular exposure to 100LL fuel on their skin often times have abnormally high lead levels in the bloodstream, well beyond the EPA acceptable limits, and often times with devastating effects. That grumpy mechanic that acts like a mad hatter might just be that way thanks to his chronic exposure to lead. It's only a matter of time until some smart enterprising lawyer decides to bring a class action law suite against the oil companies in behalf of the many thousands of mechanics with chronic lead exposure, that could also spell an end to 100LL and would certainly discourage the oil companies from continuing to produce it.

100LL is a threatened and endangered species. As well it should be. If the AOPA will lead the way to support a transition away from 100LL as rapidly as possible, they will have my support. Had the FAA supported this effort, 100LL should have died out shortly after leaded autogas decades ago.

-Cub Builder

Well said.

MTV
 
....One other issue with buying Mogas. Most pilots that use it buy at the gas station and haul it to their planes. The fuel taxes paid there go toward the state and federal highway funds rather than the Aviation trust fund. And there are no flowage fees to support the State Aviation fund or the local airport.....

In Washington, you can apply for a refund of the road tax you paid on mogas used in aircraft.
They deduct regular sales tax & aviation tax from that refund.
So I get a little jingle in my jeans, and also support GA-- a win/ win.
 
In Washington, you can apply for a refund of the road tax you paid on mogas used in aircraft.
They deduct regular sales tax & aviation tax from that refund.
So I get a little jingle in my jeans, and also support GA-- a win/ win.

Same in Idaho, I looked into it, but the paperwork involved was daunting. Your mileage and tolerance for that may differ! Same thing when I attempted to deduct the road tax from all the diesel I burn while operating my boom truck on a job site, instead of driving down the road, I was told I could, but not worth the hassle involved. There is something to be said for having as little involvement with taxing authorities as possible (keeping a low profile...) even if it costs me a few bucks.
 
100LL is a threatened and endangered species. As well it should be. If the AOPA will lead the way to support a transition away from 100LL as rapidly as possible, they will have my support. Had the FAA supported this effort, 100LL should have died out shortly after leaded autogas decades ago.

-Cub Builder
I was 100% tracking with you until reaching the last couple of sentences. Disagree
 
In Washington, you can apply for a refund of the road tax you paid on mogas used in aircraft.
They deduct regular sales tax & aviation tax from that refund.
So I get a little jingle in my jeans, and also support GA-- a win/ win.
Be sure and donate your tax savings to the Aviation Trust Fund for improvements to aviation facilities.
 
Are they going to dye it so that there’s no confusion over pump car gas? What’s their additive to keep from pounding valve seats into the head of round engines?
 
Yep,and guesstimated to cost a dollar more a gallon so we can probably assume twice that. No thanks
Where did you hear it was going to be a dollar more? $1 is more than slightly. Using local prices that would be a 15% increase. The article says: "the arrival of G100LL at airports means that the fuel will cost slightly more than leaded avgas."
 
Back
Top