100LL Avgas phase out - end of warbird flying?
Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:24 pm
It's coming folks, and probably sooner than most think. 100LL gas will soon be a thing of the past. From this link in a discussion at Oshkosh:
http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentB ... 56cfc4210&
"An environmental activist group called the “Friends of the Earth” has petitioned the EPA to ban all leaded fuels in aviation. He went on to say “The status quo has changed”. Lycoming fully expects that the EPA will rule against 100LL fuel, forcing the industry to find an alternative in the next 5 to 7 years. They believe that this ruling will come because of global economic, political and regulatory pressure."
Wow, 5 to 7 years and all 100LL will be gone. What will this do to warbirds? Will they all be grounded or will a solution be found in time? What does every one think, will the prices of warbirds suddenly drop when none can be flown anymore due to a lack of fuel? Are there any solutions on the horizon? How hard would it be to convert the radials and V's to other octanes?
http://aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentB ... 56cfc4210&
"An environmental activist group called the “Friends of the Earth” has petitioned the EPA to ban all leaded fuels in aviation. He went on to say “The status quo has changed”. Lycoming fully expects that the EPA will rule against 100LL fuel, forcing the industry to find an alternative in the next 5 to 7 years. They believe that this ruling will come because of global economic, political and regulatory pressure."
Wow, 5 to 7 years and all 100LL will be gone. What will this do to warbirds? Will they all be grounded or will a solution be found in time? What does every one think, will the prices of warbirds suddenly drop when none can be flown anymore due to a lack of fuel? Are there any solutions on the horizon? How hard would it be to convert the radials and V's to other octanes?
Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:34 pm
It's my understanding that they've tried to do this in the past and the FAA said no dice.
Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:36 pm
I think it's time to send a strong message to the EPA now if possible...
Ryan
Ryan
Thu Jul 30, 2009 8:53 pm
Yeah! poor your fuel samples directly on the ramp!
Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:02 pm
Once lead is banned the US congres will have to introduce legislation to subsidize the TEL industry...
Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:42 pm
I think it's scare tactics by the EAA. The only time it comes up is either at the convention or in conversation with someone who has had their cage rattled by reading an EAA article. Total B.S., IMHO.
TEL and CFC
Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:20 pm
Scare tactics or not, I don't think there are many firms in the world who still make TEL, at least not the type that is used as a fuel additive. They may not need to pass a law or a regulation to ban TEL if no chemical company will make it in the first place. I suspect that one of the reasons for the high price of Avgas is that it really is becoming a specialty chemical.
Just for fun, Google Thomas Midgley Jr, the inventor of TEL and check out the other chemical that he invented. If you can find his bio, check out the rather strange way that he died.
Just for fun, Google Thomas Midgley Jr, the inventor of TEL and check out the other chemical that he invented. If you can find his bio, check out the rather strange way that he died.
Re: TEL and CFC
Fri Jul 31, 2009 1:00 am
astixjr wrote:Scare tactics or not, I don't think there are many firms in the world who still make TEL, at least not the type that is used as a fuel additive. They may not need to pass a law or a regulation to ban TEL if no chemical company will make it in the first place. I suspect that one of the reasons for the high price of Avgas is that it really is becoming a specialty chemical.
Just for fun, Google Thomas Midgley Jr, the inventor of TEL and check out the other chemical that he invented. If you can find his bio, check out the rather strange way that he died.
Just did. What a way to go!
How long until there's a movie? 
Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:37 am
Hjelmco Oil has produced unleaded aviation fuel (91/96UL) for quite some time. Their website is partially in english and contains some information from Lycoming.
Re: TEL and CFC
Fri Jul 31, 2009 5:21 am
astixjr wrote:Scare tactics or not, I don't think there are many firms in the world who still make TEL, at least not the type that is used as a fuel additive. They may not need to pass a law or a regulation to ban TEL if no chemical company will make it in the first place.
IIRC, there's now only ONE company left in the world that makes TEL for 100LL, and plus there's not even that many refineries left producing 100LL either.
Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:26 am
my dad has owned a 1930 Model A for about 40 years now, and he really thought he was in trouble when they went to unleaded gas. but he found some lead substitute that he pours in with each tank full. if they do take out the lead from avgas hopefully someone will come up with something for airplanes.
Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:02 am
In my opinion, no lead gas is a much lesser problem than the bloddy alcohol in the gas !!!
That is a worst thing to fight...
That is a worst thing to fight...
Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:29 am
I used to work in the aviation fuels business about ten years ago, and I suspect that there's more to this than EAA/EPA cage rattling.
TEL is nasty stuff (especially in large quantities), and the refiners would just as soon not deal with it. For instance, all gasoline manufactured at plants that handle TEL has to be tested for lead content, even if that particular product doesn't contain lead, because of the possibility of cross contamination. That's enough of a nuisance to give refiners an incentive to get rid of TEL if it is practical to do so.
Ten years ago, I took a course on aviation fuels, and the suggestion then was that the eventual replacement for 100LL would be something like a super premium unleaded fuel -- exactly like the Hjelmco fuel described by Christer. My guess is that this is something close to the existing 100LL without the TEL. Fuels like this would generate two problems -- their lower octane rating, and the possibility of valve recession due to lack of lead.
The effect of this on warbirds would be variable. Lots of general aviation aircraft with inline and horizontally opposed engines are already running on motor gasoline (unleaded) without too many problems. I take it from this that L-birds, Tiger Moths, Chipmunks, Cornells, etc. should be okay with some modifications. Also, some of the older radial engines were designed in the era before the addition of TEL to aviation gasoline was standard practice, and they should be able to cope (with some adjustment for tuning/performance). I don't know how practical it would be to "detune" some of the bigger engines to run on lower octane fuel. Some of the bigger engines were designed to run on 115/145 avgas which hasn't been manufactured for years, but it has been possible to run them on 100LL without too much trouble.
As for valve recession -- It hasn't turned out to be much of a problem for vintage cars. It's only a problem for cars of a certain vintage -- before a certain point, engine valve seats weren't designed for leaded fuels, and after a certain point (circa 1970), engines were designed with hardened valve seats for use with unleaded fuels. For the periods in between, it doesn't seem to have been as big a problem as anticipated -- I think most vintage cars are well cared for and driven sparingly, which minimizes the effect. (I don't know if the after-market additives actually do anything).
I don't know if there is any possibility of re-fitting aircraft engines with hardened valve seats, or if they can be sufficiently detuned to run on the lower octane unleaded avgas. But I suspect that this unleaded avgas is coming sooner or later, and warbird operators should be thinking about what they're going to do when it arrives.
TEL is nasty stuff (especially in large quantities), and the refiners would just as soon not deal with it. For instance, all gasoline manufactured at plants that handle TEL has to be tested for lead content, even if that particular product doesn't contain lead, because of the possibility of cross contamination. That's enough of a nuisance to give refiners an incentive to get rid of TEL if it is practical to do so.
Ten years ago, I took a course on aviation fuels, and the suggestion then was that the eventual replacement for 100LL would be something like a super premium unleaded fuel -- exactly like the Hjelmco fuel described by Christer. My guess is that this is something close to the existing 100LL without the TEL. Fuels like this would generate two problems -- their lower octane rating, and the possibility of valve recession due to lack of lead.
The effect of this on warbirds would be variable. Lots of general aviation aircraft with inline and horizontally opposed engines are already running on motor gasoline (unleaded) without too many problems. I take it from this that L-birds, Tiger Moths, Chipmunks, Cornells, etc. should be okay with some modifications. Also, some of the older radial engines were designed in the era before the addition of TEL to aviation gasoline was standard practice, and they should be able to cope (with some adjustment for tuning/performance). I don't know how practical it would be to "detune" some of the bigger engines to run on lower octane fuel. Some of the bigger engines were designed to run on 115/145 avgas which hasn't been manufactured for years, but it has been possible to run them on 100LL without too much trouble.
As for valve recession -- It hasn't turned out to be much of a problem for vintage cars. It's only a problem for cars of a certain vintage -- before a certain point, engine valve seats weren't designed for leaded fuels, and after a certain point (circa 1970), engines were designed with hardened valve seats for use with unleaded fuels. For the periods in between, it doesn't seem to have been as big a problem as anticipated -- I think most vintage cars are well cared for and driven sparingly, which minimizes the effect. (I don't know if the after-market additives actually do anything).
I don't know if there is any possibility of re-fitting aircraft engines with hardened valve seats, or if they can be sufficiently detuned to run on the lower octane unleaded avgas. But I suspect that this unleaded avgas is coming sooner or later, and warbird operators should be thinking about what they're going to do when it arrives.
Fri Jul 31, 2009 7:37 am
As mentioned above, the L-birds (STC'd - even though they ran on the gas originally) should be ok. We (at Cannon) run them almost exclusively on unleaded and they do just fine.
Ryan
Ryan
No Avgas
Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:04 am
It's already happening here in Indonesia but for a different reason , economics.
The percentage of avgas as a total of aviation fuel consumed in Indonesia is probably 1 to 2% . Last year it was up to $16 gallon and HARD to get and had to be ordered in 50 gallon drums. It's down to about $6 a gallon now but the damage has been done. The oil companies are winning this battle and to be honest they just don't make a buck out of producing it at the small volumes sold here.
The upshot was 95% of piston twins and anything with a high compression injected engine got parked (and are now slowly being sold off overseas , mainly to Australia) and all the trainers (mainly C-172) have been converted to auto fuel.The standard 'baby' general avaition aircraft now is a Cessna Caravan so the entry costs for new charter start ups are steep (as of 2012 new AOC holders must have 10 aircraft of which 5 must be owned by the company), so while the oil company has had a win the ability to start up a small cargo or charter company and develop routes with a C310 or C402 is gone , the government here doesn't understand how effective GA is in developed countries.
You could probably brew up your own fuel if you changed the category to experimental but you can't go cross country with a piston engine now in Indonesia without pre-ordering drums of fuel at your refueling points.
The biggest danger we have with using autofuel here is unless you buy it direct from the oil companies depots there's a good chance you are getting 80% petrol / 20% kerosene mix as there was a disparity in pricing and the local gas stations would blend subsidised kerosene (6 cents a litre with 60 cent litre petrol) to make a few extra bucks . I blew an engine and cracked a valve in one of my Jeeps before I worked out what was going on and used to carry a gallon tin of Xylene in the car (paint thinner) as an octane booster (chemically its a double benzene and about 112 octane) and worked GREAT but it will eat rubber and plastic fuel lines (mine were all metal lines). The practice was so widespread that the government is now pushing bottled LPG for home cooking rather than subsidized kerosene so that problem is being addressed by reducing the availability of super cheap kerosene to the average householder.
The future of warbirds in Indonesia ALREADY is low compression radials that can run on autofuel and turboprops and jets ! ... so it's not all bad
The percentage of avgas as a total of aviation fuel consumed in Indonesia is probably 1 to 2% . Last year it was up to $16 gallon and HARD to get and had to be ordered in 50 gallon drums. It's down to about $6 a gallon now but the damage has been done. The oil companies are winning this battle and to be honest they just don't make a buck out of producing it at the small volumes sold here.
The upshot was 95% of piston twins and anything with a high compression injected engine got parked (and are now slowly being sold off overseas , mainly to Australia) and all the trainers (mainly C-172) have been converted to auto fuel.The standard 'baby' general avaition aircraft now is a Cessna Caravan so the entry costs for new charter start ups are steep (as of 2012 new AOC holders must have 10 aircraft of which 5 must be owned by the company), so while the oil company has had a win the ability to start up a small cargo or charter company and develop routes with a C310 or C402 is gone , the government here doesn't understand how effective GA is in developed countries.
You could probably brew up your own fuel if you changed the category to experimental but you can't go cross country with a piston engine now in Indonesia without pre-ordering drums of fuel at your refueling points.
The biggest danger we have with using autofuel here is unless you buy it direct from the oil companies depots there's a good chance you are getting 80% petrol / 20% kerosene mix as there was a disparity in pricing and the local gas stations would blend subsidised kerosene (6 cents a litre with 60 cent litre petrol) to make a few extra bucks . I blew an engine and cracked a valve in one of my Jeeps before I worked out what was going on and used to carry a gallon tin of Xylene in the car (paint thinner) as an octane booster (chemically its a double benzene and about 112 octane) and worked GREAT but it will eat rubber and plastic fuel lines (mine were all metal lines). The practice was so widespread that the government is now pushing bottled LPG for home cooking rather than subsidized kerosene so that problem is being addressed by reducing the availability of super cheap kerosene to the average householder.
The future of warbirds in Indonesia ALREADY is low compression radials that can run on autofuel and turboprops and jets ! ... so it's not all bad
Last edited by aseanaero on Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:34 am, edited 4 times in total.