Expected Demise of 100LL

This is similar to a query I recently sent to AOPA, but thought the folks who frequent this site might be able to offer some insight on an issue that has me a bit perplexed.

There has been news over the past two years indicating the impending availability of unleaded aviation gasoline dubbed 82UL. The AOPA web site and other sources have said that leaded aviation gasoline would some day no longer be available. I’ve also read that Alan Klapmeier believes that currently-produced turbocharged aircraft engines will not be able to run on 82UL while non-turbocharged engines will.

I have several questions:

  1. Is the demise of 100LL an event that is actually being planned by someone? Has this action been mandated by EPA or some other regulatory agency or this just a belief that refineries will tire of producing the stuff? Is there a timetable for phasing out 100LL?

  2. If 100LL goes away, what happens to the current GA fleet? Will Continental IO-360, IO-520 and IO-550 engines run on 82UL? How about Lycoming IO-360 and IO-540 engines? Will turbocharged engines be affected differently? Will turbo-normalized engines be affected differently than factory-delivered turbocharged engines?

I would be grateful for any insights readers of this forum might offer.

This is similar to a query I recently sent to AOPA, but thought the folks who frequent this site might be able to offer some insight on an issue that has me a bit perplexed.

There has been news over the past two years indicating the impending availability of unleaded aviation gasoline dubbed 82UL. The AOPA web site and other sources have said that leaded aviation gasoline would some day no longer be available. I’ve also read that Alan Klapmeier believes that currently-produced turbocharged aircraft engines will not be able to run on 82UL while non-turbocharged engines will.

I have several questions:

  1. Is the demise of 100LL an event that is actually being planned by someone? Has this action been mandated by EPA or some other regulatory agency or this just a belief that refineries will tire of producing the stuff? Is there a timetable for phasing out 100LL?

From what I have learned at the AOPA expo in long beach it is already hard to find or imposable to find in europe and canada.“read the righting on the wall”

  1. If 100LL goes away, what happens to the current GA fleet? Will Continental IO-360, IO-520 and IO-550 engines run on 82UL? How about Lycoming IO-360 and IO-540 engines?

They have or will have additives to support engines in the field. This does not seem to be a problem unless it Turbo.

Will turbocharged engines be affected differently? Will turbo-normalized engines be affected differently than factory-delivered turbocharged engines?

The additives will not work on turbo engines from what I hear from TCM at AOPA, Something about cooling and lubricating

I would be grateful for any insights readers of this forum might offer.

I would like to thank all the tree huggers for all the work they have done to keep CA. in the dark due to the lack of power plants. And lets not forget the elimination of 100LL. Did you guys know that spotted owl tastes just like bald eagle?..Ed

I would like to thank all the tree huggers for all the work they have done to keep CA. in the dark due to the lack of power plants. And lets not forget the elimination of 100LL. Did you guys know that spotted owl tastes just like bald eagle?..Ed

Dear Ed,

You are entitled to your opinions… absolutely. But would you please refrain from name-calling? That accomplishes nothing, weakens your point, and in this case, certainly has nothing to do with Cirrus products. (It may also be hurtful to those who donate their time and efforts to trying to be sure your grandchildren will have healthy air to breathe and fresh water to drink.) Perhaps you should take your opinions to a political news-group, you old powerplant hugger!!! (-:

Bob

(A tree-hugger, AND hooked on Cirrus airplanes.)

Mr. Miller,

FWIW, I’m with Ed. It’s well past time for common sense to prevail in re balancing valid environmental concerns with quality of life concerns, and that’s true whether environmental extremists make a political issue out of it or not which, of course, they always try to do.

The unfolding situation in California is not only asinine, it reflects unbelievable short sightedness, and will reduce one of the world’s leading examples of human accomplishment (the California phenomenon) to a mere shaddow of its former self unless someone starts to apply common sense, and soon.

Pete

Dear Ed,

You are entitled to your opinions… absolutely. But would you please refrain from name-calling? That accomplishes nothing, weakens your point, and in this case, certainly has nothing to do with Cirrus products. (It may also be hurtful to those who donate their time and efforts to trying to be sure your grandchildren will have healthy air to breathe and fresh water to drink.) Perhaps you should take your opinions to a political news-group, you old powerplant hugger!!! (-:

Bob

(A tree-hugger, AND hooked on Cirrus airplanes.)

I would like to thank all the tree huggers for all the work they have done to keep CA. in the dark due to the lack of power plants. And lets not forget the elimination of 100LL. Did you guys know that spotted owl tastes just like bald eagle?..Ed

Dear Ed,

You are entitled to your opinions… absolutely. But would you please refrain from name-calling? That accomplishes nothing, weakens your point, and in this case, certainly has nothing to do with Cirrus products. (It may also be hurtful to those who donate their time and efforts to trying to be sure your grandchildren will have healthy air to breathe and fresh water to drink.) Perhaps you should take your opinions to a political news-group, you old powerplant hugger!!! (-:

Bob

(A tree-hugger, AND hooked on Cirrus airplanes.)

Gentlemen, please. I had hoped to inspire a little helpful commentary on aircraft engines and fuel, not stir political debate.

Ed, I thanks for sharing your understanding of the situation. I guess I would be happier if I could understand the “why” of some of these things.

Why will normally aspirated engines run on 82UL and turbocharged or turbonormalized engines will not? I understand that 82UL was developed at least partly as a replacement fuel for 80/87 and is intended for low-compression engines. By design, I undertand that turbocharged engines are lower compression than normally aspirated and turbonormalized engines would not normally see manifold pressures in excess of sea level.

So it is not clear to me why 82UL presents the kiss of death to turbos but will burn happily in altitude engines.

Again, I would be grateful for any insight.

FWIW, I’m with Ed. It’s well past time for common sense to prevail in re balancing valid environmental concerns with quality of life concerns, and that’s true whether environmental extremists make a political issue out of it or not which, of course, they always try to do.

I can drive to my friends house and use 2 gallons of gas or I can fly in a C172 and use 10. I fly because I like to fly but I accept the fact that GA flying is not environmently friendly. I am buying a plane, but I am also aware that someday private flying will recognized as socially irresponsible and be banned. I will miss flying but I won’t take up arms against the more socially responsible people who banned it.

Guys, sorry to say but you are wrong for the simple reason that you don’t see the big picture.
Firstly, you’re fuel calculation is rather far from the truth. If you calculate properly, you’ll see that the difference is much less.

Furthermore, before Private Flying will be banned JUSTIFIABLY, just about every other means of transport will have to be banned: GA (total GA incl. buisness jets etc.) use but 2% or so of the fuel burned. To do anything about the environmental effect of travel you will first have to take up cycling again and to prohibit tourism by airplane (package tours incl) (which, btw. account for ca. 70% of ALL airline pax -> close down airlines big time).
I suppose the ‘socially responsible people’, as you call them, that will ban flying will find it easier to ban GA rather than to prohibit private cars or to ban all kind of pleasure flying on airlines, i.e. to do anything about the problem …

I can drive to my friends house and use 2 gallons of gas or I can fly in a C172 and use 10. I fly because I like to fly but I accept the fact that GA flying is not environmently friendly. I am buying a plane, but I am also aware that someday private flying will recognized as socially irresponsible and be banned. I will miss flying but I won’t take up arms against the more socially responsible people who banned it.

Firstly, you’re fuel calculation is rather far from the truth. If you calculate properly, you’ll see that the difference is much less.

I live in Rockville, Md. my friend lives in Culpeper, Va. The driving distance is just under 70 miles, and I get 35 miles per gallon in my Accura Integra SI so it requires less than 2 gallons. The flying distance from GAI to OMH is 88 knautical miles (under Washington/Dullus VFR cooridor). My C172 will do 115 knots at 10 gph that is 7.5 gallons. Startup, taxi, and climb is 2 gallons and landing and taxi is .5 gallons (that equals 10 gallons).

In addition the drive takes 1 hour and 40 minutes, the plane ride with preflight, pattern, and shutdown takes 1 hour and 15 minutes. It takes me 25 minutes to get to the airport and about the same to get from the Orange airport to my friends house. So not does flying consume 5 times as much fuel (leaded) it also takes longer and certainly costs more. I do it because I enjoy it but with nothing else to defend it I don’t see how it cannot eventually be banned.

There is two sides to every coin.

Just an example, I burned 1110 gallons of fuel today, and only went 800 nm. Yes, it is plenty of fuel, it was 4 stops on the East coast (heavy traffic) but the people I had in the back time is very important. They could not do all this in a couple of days. So for some people, even though it looks like a big waist, it is paying the bills and making money too. So it must be good. I am like you, don’t have a business to justify the airplane, but will sure will enjoy to have something nice to go get that $1000 lunch burger somewhere. That’s what makes the world go around. Have a great Cirrus day

Cheers,

Woor

Firstly, you’re fuel calculation is rather far from the truth. If you calculate properly, you’ll see that the difference is much less.

I live in Rockville, Md. my friend lives in Culpeper, Va. The driving distance is just under 70 miles, and I get 35 miles per gallon in my Accura Integra SI so it requires less than 2 gallons. The flying distance from GAI to OMH is 88 knautical miles (under Washington/Dullus VFR cooridor). My C172 will do 115 knots at 10 gph that is 7.5 gallons. Startup, taxi, and climb is 2 gallons and landing and taxi is .5 gallons (that equals 10 gallons).

In addition the drive takes 1 hour and 40 minutes, the plane ride with preflight, pattern, and shutdown takes 1 hour and 15 minutes. It takes me 25 minutes to get to the airport and about the same to get from the Orange airport to my friends house. So not does flying consume 5 times as much fuel (leaded) it also takes longer and certainly costs more. I do it because I enjoy it but with nothing else to defend it I don’t see how it cannot eventually be banned.

But what kind of calculation is this ?!? of course you use more for a trip like this! It’s way too short to be useful to take the plane. Unless you do it for fun (as you said), nobody is going to use a plane for a mere 70 miles. Besides not env. friendly, it takes you more time than going by car… It’s like visiting your neighbour across the street by car. by the time you open the garage and start the car you would already have walked there …

That’s definitely not an example that I consider representative … At least me, I don’t use the plane in this way to travel.

Regards, Chris

Firstly, you’re fuel calculation is rather far from the truth. If you calculate properly, you’ll see that the difference is much less.

I live in Rockville, Md. my friend lives in Culpeper, Va. The driving distance is just under 70 miles, and I get 35 miles per gallon in my Accura Integra SI so it requires less than 2 gallons. The flying distance from GAI to OMH is 88 knautical miles (under Washington/Dullus VFR cooridor). My C172 will do 115 knots at 10 gph that is 7.5 gallons. Startup, taxi, and climb is 2 gallons and landing and taxi is .5 gallons (that equals 10 gallons).

In addition the drive takes 1 hour and 40 minutes, the plane ride with preflight, pattern, and shutdown takes 1 hour and 15 minutes. It takes me 25 minutes to get to the airport and about the same to get from the Orange airport to my friends house. So not does flying consume 5 times as much fuel (leaded) it also takes longer and certainly costs more. I do it because I enjoy it but with nothing else to defend it I don’t see how it cannot eventually be banned.

Chris is right - Art’s example is not very representative. For the first example that comes to my mind - a trip from my home base (Santa Barbara) to San Jose, I’ll use the same or less gas flying than with the Valiant. Use a &$^#*ing SUV for the comparison (which, sadly, are more prevalent than cars that get 35 mpg) and flying looks even better yet. Finally, there’s the fact that flying takes just under two hours and driving takes 5-6 hours.

Glenn