GA prepares for unleaded future
- Thread starter scooter2525
- Start date
Flightnerd
Well-Known Member
I hope it doesn't happen. I don't think lead in fuel is that big of a deal. The EPA is getting power hungry, they want something new to regulate
darrenf
resident denizen
Barty
Well-Known Member
Actually this is something you want to happen. Avgas can't be transported via pipeline because of the lead, and it is my understanding that there is ONE manufacturer of TEL left in the world.
To top it off, most aircraft engines less than ~250hp don't need the 100 octane fuel to begin with. If it weren't for the poison (read: Ethanol) being put in motor fuel today, many aircraft are perfectly happy running on 87 octane gas. Bringing aviation engine technology out of the 1920s would probably take care of the higher hp aircraft.
He's right, power hungry. The levels of lead in the fuel are so small, you'd die from the carbon poisoning before the lead made you sterile. I know that lead is bad for us, but so is beer, red meat, etc., etc. Heck, some of perscrip. drugs say "may cause suicidal thoughts or sudden death." It's not that big of a deal. To re-enginear the entire piston fleet would be a waste of time and money for the gains. And what about 100LL availible in other countries? So the US's piston fleet would have to be "special?"
darrenf
resident denizen
I don't understand your analogy. I can choose to eat red meat or drink beer. I cannot choose to not breathe the lead that was just deposited in the atmosphere from the Bonanza that just flew over. Without any info on costs, or benefits, I don't know how you can come to these conclusions.
contactground.9
Banned
Isn't it relatively simple to convert to auto gas?
There is no "drop in" fuel available for piston engines, so says the article.
From the article
"The agency also acknowledged that a joint effort will be critical in the likely case that engine modifications will need to be developed and certified. The EPA continued, “Given the potentially large number of affected aircraft and the potential complexities involved, a program affecting in-use aircraft engines would need careful consideration by both EPA and FAA and the two agencies would need to work together in considering any potential program affecting the in-use fleet.” "
You think that it's going to be cheap? No one knows just yet. If it's just a simple matter of a few adjustments, and those adjustments take, say 5hrs, x's $100 per hour, thats $500 per engine. Now say a company like AmFlight is forced to make this change. I don't know the size of their fleet of pistons, but just imagine the cost to just that company. My school operates a fleet of 15 airplanes. Just where I work alone, on those airplanes, loss in revenue because the airplane had to be down for the modification, and the cost of paying a mechanic to do it would be a huge impact on business.
As for the Bonanza flying over your house, sorry about your luck. But if you don't like it, there isn't much you can do about it. Think of it like your daily commute to work. Sure you could choose to never commute to work, or the grocery store, or the post office, etc., etc., etc., but then life as you now know it would be extremely difficult because you chose not to drive on the roads where cars put far more pollutants into the air than that single Bo that flew over your house at 1500' agl, who's exhaust will more than likely never reach you.
If your seriously more worried about the lead than the carbon, I think your concerns may be a little misguided.
BTW, you playing the devils advocate or something, or was my post just retarded?
For some engines, as in most non-turboded trainers. Some of the larger engines will need some serious changes to deal with the loss of lead. It helps to cool things and cushions the burn of the fuel. When your only dealing with 100/200 horse power, it's realtivly simple. But when you need everybit of octane and lead the fuel has right now to keep it from self destructing, there isn't a good alternative at the moment. A drop in fuel is whats needed, not a fuel that requires modifications. Otherwise the expense of the mods could lead to some airplanes never flying again.
contactground.9
Banned
oh ok, thanks for the info!
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Not sure what they'd do about the big-bore turbo engines in current use. Those types of engines absolutely require lead to run properly. Unleaded fuels would cause serious detonation at high power settings. Completely re-engineering and modifying these engines is cost prohibitive to put it nicely.
darrenf
resident denizen
I doubt it would be cheap, but that is also a relative term. Flying is never "cheap". But, as I said, the numbers are not yet in, so it makes it hard to form an opinion. Now, lets take your $500 example. If I could use auto gas at the going rate in my area, that would save $2.00 a gallon. How many hours would it take to recoup that $500. Not much. Of course that assumes current prices.
Again, where are you getting your information from? Enlighten me as to the concerns about lead versus carbon in our environment. And you are right, I can do nothing about the aircraft flying overhead, but that is what the regulatory agencies are for. I am not playing anything. I am just saying that I don't have the info to make an informed decision. Please show me enough to do so.
This could put many of the smaller companies out of buisness. And you can almost gaurentee it will not be $2.00 a gallon. After reading current articles, it will still have to be a special blend. The cost will more than likely be the same, if not more. Simple economics prove this one(supply and demand).
The amount of lead in 100ll is 0.721 kg/l. Some stays in the cumbstion chamber, some goes out the pipe. Gasoline content of carbon 2.1 kg/l. More than double.
The EPA also did a study of the lead around SMO recently, and average ppm's (thats parts per million), was only above acceptiable levels at two of the tested sites, and that also goes with a revised level that went from 1500ng m3 in 2008 to 150ng m3(thats nonograms, or almost immesurable). Average human lung capacity is 6,000,000 nano grams, but on average we use 1/10 to 1/4 of that in a normal breath. Most sites, which were well away from the airport had suprisingly higher levels of lead vs the points tested at the airport. An example would be the run up area at 16-43ppm(Blast Wall) vs the farthest north east point at 53-120ppm(Near Road sample). So why is the run up area less? It sure doesn't make a good argument for taking the lead out.
So, in conclusion, do we really need to get the lead out? Nah, it's not enough of an impact. If it was, the pilots/mechanics of WWII would have all died of lead poisning. 100/150 av gas (no longer produced) had between 50 and 150 times the lead content, WAY MORE. Leave it be, go fight another fight EPA because this one doesn't have a signifigant enough of an impact to matter much.
Here is the study the EPA did.
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/...ings/EPA Lead Modeling Study Presentation.pdf
Hope this helps.:beer:
Oh yeah, the information, I googled it.
darrenf
resident denizen
This could put many of the smaller companies out of buisness. And you can almost gaurentee it will not be $2.00 a gallon. After reading current articles, it will still have to be a special blend. The cost will more than likely be the same, if not more. Simple economics prove this one(supply and demand).
The amount of lead in 100ll is 0.721 kg/l. Some stays in the cumbstion chamber, some goes out the pipe. Gasoline content of carbon 2.1 kg/l. More than double.
The EPA also did a study of the lead around SMO recently, and average ppm's (thats parts per million), was only above acceptiable levels at two of the tested sites, and that also goes with a revised level that went from 1500ng m3 in 2008 to 150ng m3(thats nonograms, or almost immesurable). Average human lung capacity is 6,000,000 nano grams, but on average we use 1/10 to 1/4 of that in a normal breath. Most sites, which were well away from the airport had suprisingly higher levels of lead vs the points tested at the airport. An example would be the run up area at 16-43ppm(Blast Wall) vs the farthest north east point at 53-120ppm(Near Road sample). So why is the run up area less? It sure doesn't make a good argument for taking the lead out.
So, in conclusion, do we really need to get the lead out? Nah, it's not enough of an impact. If it was, the pilots/mechanics of WWII would have all died of lead poisning. 100/150 av gas (no longer produced) had between 50 and 150 times the lead content, WAY MORE. Leave it be, go fight another fight EPA because this one doesn't have a signifigant enough of an impact to matter much.
Here is the study the EPA did.
http://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/...ings/EPA Lead Modeling Study Presentation.pdf
Hope this helps.:beer:
Oh yeah, the information, I googled it.
Thanks for the info. For the record, I love the smell of 100LL.
Me too. You should smell the fuel we use in the race car. 118 octane with way more lead!
darrenf
resident denizen
When I first started flying my first thought was wow, this smells like the track! :beer:
Arooo! Circle or drag?
darrenf
resident denizen
Both.