Originally published at: Final Unleaded Avgas Transition Plan Is Here
The roadmap retains the 2030 goal while leaving the detailed schedules for its national and Alaska phases unsettled.
This program the FAA is putting forward is just not workable and they all know it but that’s why it is good to have government job where you keep you job when performing this poorly.
The FAA actually started to follow a path that would have created results. They realize that Europe was making progress to get rid of the lead with their program which allows ASTM approved UL 91 to be used without an STC in most Aircraft. To follow that idea the FAA was going to give a fleet approval for ASTM approved UL 91 in the United States, but they did not follow through.
A two tank solution is probably the only way we will see real results that get us off the Lealed Fuel. Because of the nature of the this type of fuel, different octane levels should be available, depending on the engine. Cars offered different octane levels of fuel because of that. Considerable savings can be achieved by using the octane level that is most appropriate for an engine.
With the current one tank solution the FAA has chosen for us, it will require aviators to purchase very expensive fuel that most Aircraft engines really don’t need. Currently by blocking the Two tank solution the FAA is effectively damaging the progress toward transitioning off of leaded Fuel.
I talked to a Swift fuel rep at EAA AirVenture. Asked if we would have unleaded fuel before we all go electric.
Keep in mind that while “most” aircraft do not require 100 octane fuel, “most” of the aviation gasoline sold is dispensed into aircraft which do require 100 octane fuel. Arguing that since most aircraft do not require 100 octane fuel that the availability of 100 octane is somehow not a priority is a disservice to the avgas using community.
All this once again proves the Limbaugh theory to be accurate: Everything the government touches, turns into a mess. Zero regulation of anything always leads to lower costs, more choice, and a growing economy. The number one producer of piston aircraft engines in the world is Rotax. The preferred fuel for their engines is ethanol-free, lead-free, auto fuel, available everywhere - but California, of course.
1 Like
Rotax engines will run on E10 if ethanol-free is not available and Rotax would prefer using E10 over 100LL The main problem with E10 is that the ethanol will evaporate so it does not store as well as ethanol-free fuel. I am not familiar with California fuel availability. Is ethanol-free not available in California?
You are correct, however Rotax will tell you to avoid leaded fuel and ethanol-free if possible for all the usual reasons - corrosion, less energy, lower fuel economy, water absorption, etc. California has essentially banned the sale of E0 within its borders, go figure. It is an “ethanol free desert” within a country with currently 19,928 sellers of E0, according to pure-gas.org. Ethanol’s biggest problems are (a) it absorbs moisture and creates a highly-corrosive substance, (b) it contains only 70% of the energy by volume as good old gasoline. The only reason it is in our fuel is due to the horrible EISA 2007 law that forces gasoline sellers to mix it into our fuel. E0 is what is available at all fuel terminals, as ethanol may not be send through pipelines due to its corrosive properties.
I have never read so many people beating around the bush! The issue is; exhaust valve burning; what will prevent exhaust valves from burning over 3000 hours of flight? Leaded Avgas will do this. Anything else? Nothing that I have seen or read, yet! I heavy non toxic metal, other than lead, is probably required; steel fillings, copper fillings, are the two obvious. Though copper is likely to stick to the exhaust valves over time; leaving steel! Maybe nickel. Must be non toxic! No one has even tested any of these obvious solutions! Just ridiculous so far! And in the same quantities in avgas as lead; up to 25 PPM? Though, during the 1970s, the EPA demanded lead levels in avgas be reduced to 5 PPM, I believe! And since there are only around 200,000 certified aircraft and the their engines, spread over the entire US; where is the problem? There is none. If ever a problem has been made up, it is this one! Maybe at Van Nuys, the busiest general aviation airport on Earth; maybe! I believe and hope the FAA is monitoring lead levels around Van Nuys to know what has settled on the ground, next to the runways, 10 feet from the runways, a quarter mile from the runways, and a mile from the runways. And what lead levels are in the air around Van Nuys over the same distances from the runways. And what ever these numbers are: divide by them by 100 to 1000 for all other airports, I would say! Or, no lead problem anywhere else! One large volcanic eruption puts more lead in Earth’s atmosphere than all of the aircraft on Earth; another reason why this is not a problem! Considering all relevant, I repeat all relevant facts matter; and has never happened regarding lead in avgas! Environmentalists are like rabid dogs, they get a bone and will not let go, no matter what! One would think the FAA would have the above figured by now, but if they have, I have not seen it in writing anywhere! Very regrettably!
Complete debacle. If a gut feeling tells you anything, this comes through in spades. Virtually every plane will require an STC? It won’t be like having an STC for some known hardware where the effect on the airplane is immediately obvious and has no reason to change over time. No, once airplanes roll out of the factory, all kinds of things happen to them over decades of use, different equipment and configurations, some components very old, some new, some covered by OTHER STC’s, even some installed via FIELD APPROVALS from long ago where fuel plays a role. Knowing how many configuration variations of the same models of airplanes exist is like asking how many shades of gray exist. IMO, some airplanes that are perfectly legal to fly today with 100LL are going to fall through the cracks of an impossible effort to determine the safety of flying with unleaded fuels. On the other hand, what if it is actually determined up front that a particular airplane, again safe to fly today with 100LL, cannot reasonably be converted to fly with unleaded fuel? That airplane instantly assumes the value of a brick and the owner assumes the loss? Aside from the possibly argument that companies will, at some point, just not want to continuing to manufacturing 100LL, the rest of this push to make the change is agenda driven. I think most of us know it.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.