Among the reveals during George Braly’s unleaded aviation gas forum here at Sun ‘n Fun Aerospace Expo yesterday was the announcement that UK-based Innospec, the only company in the world still producing the octane-enhancing tetraethyl lead (TEL) that goes into 100LL avgas, has announced it expects to discontinue production in the 2029-2030 time frame.
We have know for a long time (at least those who look for facts) that this stuff is bad for engines and people. The question is, why are we still waiting to get the transition done? Two reasons; Profitable 100LL; American Lawyers.
The market for 100LL is probably smaller than for brass kazoos.
Shut it down and force the issue. Necessity is the Mother of Invention. Procrastination is the Uncle that crashes on the couch until he can get back on his feet.
Even though the article says they plan to continue producing TEL through 2030, one accident at the plant could shut it down before then, and we may get just that. I would just prefer to see at least one of the 3 replacement fuels be successful across the market before then.
High octane is good for high performance engines, the challenge is how to get it without lead. Some people don’t like one of the alternatives, some nervous nellies in BC stopped buying gasoline in WA state because the common practice is different. Ethanol causes problems with old seal materials and old fibreglass tanks.
I don’t know why you blame lawyers, George Braley is one.
There is some useful information in his long exposition, such as:
his 100R will eventually contain an additive to substantially reduce recession of valve seats
UND’s engine wear was in operations that use peak EGT for some reason, whereas few people run lean or rich of peak EGT. (I’m curious as to why a school would do that.)
some information about Swift’s testing for durability and of sealing materials.
I don’t have his graphics that his words refer to, not on his web site.
But he throws the term ASTM around, without saying if his fuel meets the present standard. I take the answer is NOT since he has spent on getting STC approval. (He does say that owners of non-certificated airplanes have authority to decide on use.)
Claims to have endorsement from OEMs of engines and aircraft.
Yaps about the EAGLE project, as status of fleet-wide approvals I guess.
Goes on and on about people friendly to him who are promoting his fuel.
From a Swift Fuels FAQ:
" Can Someone Opt-Out of ASTM: No avgas fuel producer should opt-out of ASTM International and its deep collaboration with industry and OEM representatives. However, it is our understanding that to date, the producers of G100UL have not followed and will not pursue an ASTM International industry consensus fuel specification. Swift Fuels believes this omission of ASTM collaboration by the producers of G100UL (i.e., avoiding development of a full industry consensus fuel specification) is a major defect for G100UL fuel offering that should give the aviation industry and piston aviation pilot’s serious concerns about aircraft reliability and ultimately flight safety."
‘opt out’ statement is a slide-by-you IMJ, Swift may be engaged with ASTM committees but is not saying its fuel meets the present ASTM standard - Swift offers STCS, just as GAMI does.
GAMI has explained gaps in the ASTM standard, and recommended additions.
If there’s an opportunity in the marketplace, perhaps an Asian interest would manufacture TEL for everyone. While we wait for an unleaded replacement for 100LL, these folks could ensure the continued viability of the current piston fleet. 2030 isn’t that far away.