While I fear the ‘health hazards’ of the trivial amount of lead our humble little airplanes contribute not at all I agree our motors ARE indeed better off without it. This fact ameliorates part of the increased cost of the UL fuels.
Yes, we should go to STC’s for engines to use ul94. There will never be an acceptable UL100 fuel, period
Art W. writes: “GAMI says it meets ASTM D910 (100LL) for detonation and D909 for full take off power (equiv to 115/145 Avgas), yet in Q30 asking about ASTM certification GAMI states, “No. GAMI elected to use the existing and approved STC
pathway to obtain approval for our general aviation aircraft and engines to use G100UL avgas.”
The FAA can be good at dragging issues out. Failure to give them something to lean on, like compliance data in the form of ASTM consensus standards, ensures it will drag forever. GAMI argued the ASTM standard was flawed and that their findings were more acccurate. Maybe so, maybe not. But the FAA is anything but dumb, and just because an applicant says it’s so, doesn’t mean it is.
My little plane is FINE without 100 octane and without lead. Just stop putting in the lead in the current AvGas and I’m fine.
As for everyone who bought planes that actually NEED 100 octane, well, you’ll need to work out your own complex and expensive alternative to what everyone knew was coming.