I think, that unleaded fuel would be even much better for the engines, if they could use it. The Rotax doesn’t like lead at all, it reduces service Intervalls etc., because the sh…. settles everywhere in the engine/gearbox, where you don’t want it.
europaxs wrote:
The Rotax doesn’t like lead at all, it reduces service Intervalls etc., because the sh…. settles everywhere in the engine/gearbox, where you don’t want it.
The Lycoming doesn’t like it either, you get the exactly same issues. TEL is WWII crap and even back then they had to reduce the engine service intervals when they started adding TEL to the fuel. 100 octane fuel with TEL was invented during WWII to increase the power output of engines.
Two different issues here. Yes 100LL and lead in general may eventually be banned but that does not necessarily equate to the end of all forms of avgas, nor does it mean a sudden jump to all GA aircraft being diesel.
If lead was banned someone would find an alternative solution that works with current GA spark ignition engines.
Plenty of very high octane unleaded fuels already in use out there in motorsport and with octane ratings far higher than 100.
http://www.aaoil.co.uk/products/racing-fuels/unleaded/sunoco-260gt-plus-109ron-99mon-and-4.8-oxygen/
It seems to me it’s mostly politics and the glacially slow progress in aviation that they’re not yet approved.
Yes 
It’s “easy” to create a 100LL replacement which doesn’t contain lead but every known lead replacement creates a theoretical risk of incompatibility with fuel system seals. If it was not for this, we would have a certified replacement by now.
The first thing to check would be PR1422 which is the most commonly used fuel tank sealant. But there are many other risks.
It’s not enough to say that you have flown with some proposed fuel for years and it worked fine. One has to do lab tests on seal materials. The GA fleet is huge, very old, and very diverse. Solutions could be found for everything but it’s a lot of work for somebody. And in many cases you won’t get help from the manufacturer because he’s long gone, or refuses to communicate.
Plenty of very high octane unleaded fuels already in use out there in motorsport and with octane ratings far higher than 100.
Yes, but
achimha wrote:
So you have the right to pollute because the others don’t? That argument doesn’t hold up. Why do you get the privilege to pollute and the owners of historic cars don’t? I for myself do not want to exercise privileges that others don’t have, that’s not what a democratic society should be about.
Now come on. Did you ever hear of the expression throwing stones in a glass house? Or how about the pot calling the kettle black?
" I for myself do not want to exercise privileges that others don’t have," Really? How many people can afford to have a private airplane in Europe or even around the world? You have that privilige because you can afford to have that privilege. In a lot of Green eyes you are still polluting the planet. Walking will produce less of a carbon foot print but remember not to breath too often or too deeply.
“that’s not what a democratic society should be about.” I think your confusing democracy with the uniformity of communism and fascism.
I believe in environmental protection but where it really counts NOBODY is even bothering to say anything about it as in plastics pollution. By the way lead is not mercury
The truth, like so many other times, is exactly in the middle …
THIS VERY afternoon i heard a report on TV that lead is the environmental and health problem # 1 on our planet.
OTOH: 0.03 percent of all fossil fuel in Germany is AVGAS. So in real life that’s a non-issue. Probably the pollution by Avgas is less than from cigarette smoke.
And all us here fly these airplanes.
i heard a report on TV that lead is the environmental and health problem # 1 on our planet.
I am sure that’s not true. It does depend on which bit of public policy you want to focus on, obviously, but the biggest health issues in the UK are dementia and diabetes (obesity-triggered diabetes) which each cost of the order of 20BN/year. Dementia would cost much more if it wasn’t for the fact that they make you sell your house to pay for the care home, until your assets fall below about 20k (some caveats which I won’t go into e.g. if you are violent or make sexual advances to other patients, or within weeks of death, will trigger NHS funding regardless of assets). Diabetes is NHS funded regardless of your assets (you bet that will change) and is becoming very expensive because with modern care it can take decades (of declining heath) to die.
Smoking (lung cancer) is probably the next cause of ill health and death. Also NHS funded regardless of assets, but you die fairly fast so that’s OK and doesn’t cost much. With tobacco taxes it is probably cash-positive 
Environmental toxins are almost insignificant compared to the above. And they come from many sources. Most lead is apparently historical and comes from smashed up (illegally dumped) car batteries – no solution to that one, as yet!
I don’t think anybody can make a case against avgas that’s based on real data.
And all us here fly these airplanes.
Yes. But I would still prefer to inflict the minimum possible harm to others by doing so. It is not just the lead in the exhaust gasses which is poisonous. TEL is a very nasty substance which can be resorbed through the skin. Everyone who handles it (or AVGAS), which means people at the chemical plants and refineries and the refueleres are affected. Even the guy who discovered that TEL can be used as anti-detonant in the 1920ies was killed by it.
C210_Flyer wrote:
Really? How many people can afford to have a private airplane in Europe or even around the world? You have that privilige because you can afford to have that privilege.
Gene, you really didn’t get my point at all or are you saying that just because you’re rich, you have the right to pollute the planet with lead? All those owners of old cars do not have the right to procure leaded fuel, they were forced to live with unleaded fuels. Banning leaded fuels was one of the most effective policies to improve the environment in the last 50 years and I am fully behind it. Therefore I am disappointed that aviation is still allowed to use lead. If there was a clear political mandate coming from the US (where else, this is where most avgas engines are located) saying that in 10 years it’ll be banned, we would see a lot of investments in technology and in the end there would be good solutions. GA can do just fine without leaded fuels, it’s just that there is currently zero incentive for anybody to do something about it.
Peter,
I put that wrong. Actually the report was very credible – but it talked about GLOBAL problems. Of course lead is not the main problem in Germay or UK, but if you watch the planet as a whole, it is the number one pollutant and still many thousand people die from it directly in the third world.
