100LL Fuel Availability

[hharney]

The way I see it, the engine manufacturers are to blame. They have had years to come up with a solution. How long ago was leaded fuel banned? They have just sat on their hands and not explored the alternatives that could have solved this by now. Every time we turn around there seems to be something else that is trying to keep us from having the freedom to fly our aircraft. The other outside vendors that are trying to develop such alternative fuels will have a license to steal if approved. It will ultimately end up costing more money to fly and comply. The world is changing for us. It will kill general aviation as we know it.

I am going to love it as long as I can.

Coming soon ........................ SOAPA 2011, stay tuned.

[WebMaster]

Mistral was developing a rotary (Wankel) aircraft engine, but their funding dried up. It was to be a true multi fuel engine, quite comfortable on 90 Octane unleaded fuel. In fact, the performance charts are based on 90 Octane unleaded. The turbo, 230 HP engine weighs 328 pounds. Not a lot heavier than the IO-360.
The problem with Continental, and Lycoming, is that they don't have an engineering staff, or funding, to bring a lot of new engines to market. Add to that the variable configurations that they make. If they decided they would make a 550, and it would produce 350 HP, and then tell the airframe manufacturers, that is the product, deal with it, the airframe manufacturers would all be up in arms. The 550 is in a lot of different airframes, with power ratings from 280 to 350 HP. Makes no sense.

[wybenga]

As most you you realize, SOAPA and all consumers of 100LL avgas are now part of the political process by which the transition to an unleaded fuel will be determined. The next urgent call to action is our response to the EPA's Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The attached letter (complements of Dave Duntz of the Aerostar Owners Assn) is a template for your individual response. Please download it and modify as you see fit to make it your own, sign and mail. Please CC me as well and I will forward to the correct contacts at AOPA. This is a first opportunity for a letter writing campaign. Any letters must be received by EPA no later than August 27, so please do not delay.

I need EVERY member to take this seriously, whether you burn avgas or jetA, makes no difference. This is about the GA economy. Feel free to distribute the template to others so everyone can get involved.



Date

EPA Docket Center (Air Docket)
US Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Code 6102T
Washington DC 20460

ATTENTION: DOCKET ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0294
Federal Register Volume 75, No 81, April 28, 2010, Page 22440-22468

Dear Administrator:
I own an FAA certified general aviation aircraft with a high compression piston engine that must operate on 100 octane avgas. I use my aircraft for both business and personal use. It is a serious personal investment and an essential tool for efficient travel. I am concerned that a date may be set by the EPA to require reduced lead emissions that is premature and could render the use of my plane non flyable or unsafe without major modifications. I oppose any rulemaking on lead emissions for piston engine aircraft at this time or in the near future until the following critical steps are accomplished first:
1. The process for approval of any new fuel is clearly defined by the FAA and the authority of the EPA and FAA are clarified. Stakeholders in fuel development need to know what they have to do for approval.
2. A viable 100 octane alternative aviation fuel is developed and fully tested. There is no viable 100 octane alternative at this time. A viable 100 octane alternative must provide the same engine performance and margin of safety in high compression engines at a comparable price in all flight conditions as 100LL. It must be mixable with current 100LL and handling and burning must not be any more toxic than current 100LL. Complete testing must involve fleet tests on a variety of high compression piston aircraft in real world conditions with adequate duration to allow significant time on the engines and teardowns to inspect and analyze internal parts.
3. A realistic timeline supported by industry that provides any necessary infrastructure changes for refining, transportation and storage is developed.
4. A realistic transition period supported by suppliers, users, and retailers is defined to allow for using both current and new 100 octane that minimizes impacts to users and retailers.
Because of the widespread use of high compression engines in general aviation, not having a viable 100 octane fuel replacement available by some prematurely determined date for new lead emissions will have a significant negative financial impact to owners. Grounding these aircraft or modifying the engines because a viable 100 octane replacement is not available is not acceptable.
I strongly disagree with any rulemaking on lead emissions for piston engine aircraft until a viable 100 octane alternative exists, and achievable timelines for making infrastructure changes and the transition are agreed upon by all stakeholders.
Sincerely,
Cc: AOPA, Type Club
________
Bubbler Pipe

[CO_Skymaster]

http://www.aero-tv.net/

has a good interview with the CEOs on the fuel issue. I didn't pick up a lot of specifics, but I enjoyed watching it.

Karl