Welcome to our forums

Forum → Maintenance & Avionics

100UL (merged thread)

469 Posts

28-Dec-22 19:01

I believe Europe is more concerned about jet fuel.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

09-Jan-23 10:19

Depressing BS-PR from over here, working the usual PC-ratchet angles

Aeroplane hobbyists are putting a third of a million households at risk of developing cancer by using fuel containing lead, experts have warned.

Anyone living within four kilometres of 134 recreational aerodromes in the UK could be breathing in emissions that are stored up in their body, causing “irreversible” harm to children and potentially lowering their IQ.

Ministers have been urged to follow the US and EU with plans to ban lead-based fuel, which is used by hobbyist airmen rather than commercial jets.

In a letter to four Cabinet ministers, cancer charities said that the UK is in danger of “falling behind international standards” because it has left the EU’s system for regulating potentially harmful chemicals, UK REACH.

The letter – whose signatories include the chief executives of Breast Cancer UK and the Cancer Prevention and Education Society, as well as the environmental charity, Green Alliance – specifically raises concern about a decision by the UK Health and Safety Executive not to curb the use of tetraethyl lead.

While lead has been banned from use in car fuel since 2000, it is still used in fuel for small piston-engine aircraft.

Emissions may be 14,000 times higher than previously thought
A recent study from the University of Kent found that there are 370,632 residences within 4km of a general aviation airport at risk from exposure to lead emissions, with emissions from leaded aviation fuel potentially 14,000 times higher than previously thought.

The letter says: “Lead is a toxic heavy metal for which there is no safe level of exposure.

“It accumulates in the body, is stored in the skeletal system, causes irreversible and untreatable harm, and is particularly damaging to children.

“Studies show that children’s IQ can be affected by the smallest of doses and environmental exposure has been linked to several cancers.”

The letter points out that “lead emissions from aircraft are highest during take-off and landing, meaning airport workers are likely to receive a particularly high dose”.

“We are therefore greatly concerned that the UK HSE, which implements UK REACH, has ruled out further controls on tetraethyl lead, citing efforts that ‘appear to be underway’ to find substitutes, and adding that ‘additional regulatory pressure is unlikely to speed up this work’.

“Tetraethyl lead in aviation fuel is due to be phased out in the EU from 2025 and the US has a proposal to eliminate leaded aviation fuel by 2030. Given the UK is the last remaining manufacturer of tetraethyl lead globally, we should be in a particularly strong position to drive the search for alternatives.

“This, among other recent regulatory decisions, illustrates a worrying direction of travel. We fear that this is driven by a lack of resource in the HSE rather than a desire for better protections.”

UK ‘risks falling behind international standards’
The letter finishes by saying that the UK “risks falling behind international standards with people and the environment needlessly exposed to toxic substances”.

Zoe Avison from Green Alliance said: “The UK could be leading the way in developing a new cleaner fuel for small aircraft, but instead we’re lagging behind the EU in phasing out this hazardous substance.

“Ministers should be doing all they can to protect the public and to incentivise the market to find solutions.”

A government spokesman said: “The Government and key organisations in the General Aviation sector are considering alternatives to the use of tetraethyl lead in Aviation Gasoline – a blend used by private, light aircraft.

“We are keen to promote the use of unleaded fuels across the sector, and decisions on what is included on the UK REACH list of banned substances are kept under review based on the evidence available.”

Normally one counts the primary schools and convents…

The stuff about UK leaving the UK and dropping out of REACH is BS. All the EU regs were absorbed as of 31/12/2020. The EU will be doing its own thing on 100LL, probably using similar angles, but with US 100UL on its way, not much is likely to happen anytime soon.

A google on Ms Avison / Green Alliance reveals the sort of interests which get bread on the table at home from this

Administrator

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

09-Jan-23 10:45

Peter wrote:

No airport wants to carry two piston GA fuels, which is why so few airports are carrying 91UL, or actually anything apart from 100LL

I would love to only use 91UL. Cheaper, doesn’t foul the plugs and takes the wind out of the anti GA lobby to a small extent.

IMHO the best variant for the way forward still is diesel/Avtur/Jet A1, primarily from an availablility point of view. Otherwise engines which are capable of using automotive fuel. MOGAS is huge in Germany and Switzerland. Failing that, UL91.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

09-Jan-23 11:18

When you say MOGAS is huge in Germany how widespread are we talking?

Is it offered at most airfields?

Is it offered instead of Avgas

I assume its ethanol free?

Is it cheaper than Avgas or UL91 if that is available in Germany

09-Jan-23 11:42

Availabe at many general aviation airfields. Usually not at the big airports.

Map

Usually available in addition to 100LL. Some airfields have all three fuels (Mogas, 100LL, UL91). In this regard, it really is aviation heaven compared to the UK.

The vendors usually make sure that the mogas does not have ethanol in it, to make it usable not only for the mogas crowd, but also the Lyco/Conti crowd. Some guarantee it. Others don‘t.

Price of mogas much cheaper than 100LL (50-70 cents, usually).
UL91 is a few cents cheaper than 100LL.

Haven‘t heard of many Swiss airfields offering mogas.

Last Edited by boscomantico at 09 Jan 12:22

Mainz (EDFZ) & Egelsbach (EDFE), Germany

09-Jan-23 11:42

Bathman wrote:

When you say MOGAS is huge in Germany how widespread are we talking?
Is it offered at most airfields?

Is it offered instead of Avgas

I assume its ethanol free?

Is it cheaper than Avgas or UL91 if that is available in Germany

It is offered at many airfields parallel to AVGAS – to the extent that when I was flying a lot on club aircraft that were MOGAS STC’ed, I used to get by on Mogas when flying within Germany, only reverting back to AVGAS when flying internationally. It is ethanol free. If it is offered, it is usually cheaper than AVGAS. I don’t know about UL91 as I never used it.

Hungriger Wolf (EDHF), Germany

09-Jan-23 12:19

Bathman wrote:

When you say MOGAS is huge in Germany how widespread are we talking?
Is it offered at most airfields?

Is it offered instead of Avgas

I assume its ethanol free?

Is it cheaper than Avgas or UL91 if that is available in Germany

It is very common, many airfields announce their availability, but at least as many simply have it without telling outsiders.

It is offered at most airfields, some officially, some by the local flying club.

No, it is usually not offered instead, but in addition. Only a few airfields are Mogas only and they are typically flying club operated.

Ethanol is a tricky one. As ‘Mogas’ is not a well defined term, there are even airfields selling 95 Auto Fuel, which does contain Ethanol – i.e. some of the airfields on the map @boscomantico referenced to are such cases. I’d estimate 20% of the’Mogas’ Airfields are on the Ethanol-side, so you really have to be very careful not to rely on the (DU)ltra(L)ight(V) map when flying Lycocontosaurus. Either way, you always should check and consider calling the airfield in advance to get an answer to whether their fuel is Ethanol free or not. To give an example of seriousness in certain geos – Pasewalk, Anklam and Stralsund from the map sell Ethanol-containing 95 Super.

It is a lot cheaper, just this weekend Avgas was local 2.49 and Mogas 1.79.

One bad thing is the EU having changed the ENnorm for AutoFuel without changing the number, so it may happen your fuel does have the legally correct EN clasification, but is not the fuel it was STCed against … even further, doing the simple water fuel test may not reveal all water as there are no additives in Autofuel fetching the water and nobody to my knowledge studied what these additives mean for aviation or whether the water is bound in all conditions we encounter.

Last Edited by MichaLSA at 09 Jan 12:28

Germany

09-Jan-23 12:32

As I think all of you know, there is no longer a need to use 100LL – the G100UL formulation is ready for prime time – we just need to get the UK/EU regulators to approve it. I am happy that the environmental groups are pushing to ban lead – it’s bad for all of us to breath it, and it’s bad for our engines to “burn” it.

I’m sure that within a year BP, Total, Hjelmco, Warter, and any other 100LL suppliers could switch to this new formulation, and since it’s 100% mutually interchangeable (fungible) with 100LL, they would just need to change the stickers on the pumps.

Let’s get on with it!

Last Edited by eurogaguest1980 at 09 Jan 12:33

Fly more.

LSGY, Switzerland

09-Jan-23 13:26

boscomantico wrote:

Haven‘t heard of many Swiss airfields offering mogas.

There are quite a few which have it. Unfortunately nobody has bothered to put a map together, like the ones for Germany and Austria, even though the German Mogas map includes part of Switzerland.

Speck, Birrfeld, Triengen, Lommis, Hausen am Albis, are those I know for sure, there are others too.

UL91 is available in Bressaucourt, Bern, Langenthal, again there are others.

Would be nice to compile a map as it was done for Germany and Austria.