The Long, Twisted and Slightly Ridiculous Story of Avgas Part 2

For decades, the general aviation industry has struggled with finding a replacement for leaded avgas without success. The biggest driver of this failure is that there's no reason to do so because the industry has been given an exemption to continue using lead.
In this second of a two-part series, AVweb's Paul Bertorelli explains how industry inertia and bureaucratic foot dragging killed efforts to eliminate lead from aviation fuel. See the first part of the series here:
• The Long, Twisted And ...
For an excellent overview on leaded fuel in the wider world, see Veritasium's excellent video on the topic.
• The Man Who Accidental...

[@biffaplayz]

9:55 I like how you got them to spill fuel all over the cowling to show how it won't strip the paint off

[@DawgPro]

Yup well placed clip but I would have scowled and mauled that fuel attendant... to oblivion.

[@scottfranco1962]

As a good member of the aviation community, I perform that test virtually every time I use the fuel island. You're welcome.

[@cshk100]

Paint stripping fuel? Concern about un-filled tanks, has some instructing the line boys to “fill it till it overflows”. That would leave a mark.

[@scottfranco1962]

@@cshk100 If you fill your own fuel from credit card automated stations you understand. You are looking into a dark tank in various lighting levels, from bright sunlight to total darkness with a flashlight.

[@chrisruf7590]

@@cshk100 but it saves weight, paint is heavy you know.

[@racries8708]

Incredible two-part report! Once again Paul kills it in education and entertainment!

[@gillesodonoughue5390]

AND video editing!

[@chrisruf7590]

GAMI seems to have this issue solved, so WHY is EAGLE asking us to delay 8 MORE YEARS? Is it just the established suppliers want to protect their market for another decade?

[@77thTrombone]

Yup, _and_ they don't want to shed license fees to GAMI, I'm sure.

[@ulbuilder]

@@77thTrombone or unwilling fund their own research and develop their own blend and STC. Having congress set a hard deadline on when 100LL can no longer be sold is what's needed to drive these companies into action. But the manufacturer lobbies are surely doing a great job preventing that.

[@77thTrombone]

@@ulbuilder no doubt. No doubt at all on that one. It's an inversion: a democracy responding not to the people but to the people with the money.

[@johnschreiber1574]

Gami's patents regarding G100UL are a pretty good checkmate against the establishment. So, yes it is a protection racket.

[@JohnPlocher]

The cynic in me says that patents last 20 years, so Eagle will take 8, followed by another dozen years of flight testing and paperwork accumulation, and, right around the time those patents expire - voila! GAMI is a no-brainer - everywhere but inside the coin-operated beltway, it seems...

[@noelwade]

Thanks so much, Paul! Would it be greedy to ask for a "Part 3" highlighting which congress-critters and FAA addresses we should bombard / put pressure on? I'm as cheap and as momentum-driven as any other pilot out there, but let's get a solution to this so we can move on to other challenges! 😕

[@PiefacePete46]

@Noel Wade Absolutely right! Let's face it... the people tasked with finding the solutions so far have spent millions of dollars for ZERO result. Those are real dollars, and have to be found somewhere... Forget about "there's no such thing as a free lunch"... what about "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE FIRST-CLASS FLIGHT, FIVE STAR HOTEL, TWO MICHELIN STAR RESTAURANT, ETC. ETC. ETC.! We all end up funding this ongoing nonsense.

[@jdoe9518]

For what reason would anyone want inflame this situation? Use AVGAS and STFU BTW as fertiliser production and CO2 decreases so will food production. A basic understanding of supply and demand suggests deceased production will result in higher demand = higher prices which factor in well to increasing inflation and the FED raising interest rates causing cost of living increases. If you're too tight to pay for AVGAS your future in aviation and life in general is not bright

[@daszieher]

Having been on a national fuels standard committee for over a decade and a half and having driven an at least partial reduction of sulphur content against the industry (of which I still form part) I can imagine how this is going to play out. If the general public and the aviation community are serious about a lead-free option, they will have to drive it themselves. The oil companies only sell what they have and most use their money to maintain the status quo in the market. I have heard over and over from the mouths of official representatives of oil majors: if you want to reach this, you will have to force us through regulation. Get your man pants on and lobby for a definite ban of leaded avgas in 2040, regardless of how it's going to pan out. Then, when the regulation is in place and all appeals have been swatted down, they will begin listening. Not one minute earlier.

[@xeridea]

Better yet, lobby for a definite ban in 2025, because we know if the ban is in 2040, they will wait until 2038 to start looking into it, then complain they can't find one, and lobby to push it to 2050. Alternatively, just put a public health tax on avgas, making it cost $20/gal.

[@daszieher]

@@xeridea while you are right, a ban in 2025 would be repealed as unreasonable. The complicating fact of the matter: TEL has been a crucial component for high performance spark ignition fuels with high knock resistance. In almost 100 years of aero-engines relying on TEL and two wars with boycotts, nobody has yet come up with an alternative solution. The only way that I see to go unleaded and retain high power would be through different engines.

[@xeridea]

@@daszieher 2025 would be reasonable, but would require actual effort. The reason TEL is still around is no one has cared enough to invest effort into an alternative. During 2 wars, there was no effort to come up with better alternative. There hasn't been any cattle prodding to come up with a better one, so no company has cared to actually change. New engines keep being designed for TEL. As long as the asterisk is there, nothing will ever change. The rest of the ICE industry has seen huge technological improvements, and piston airlplanes often still use carburetors, which have been obsolete for 40 years. CFCs were extremely common a few decades ago, then there was a large coordinated effort to replace them, and they were quickly replaced. Alternative and often superior chemicals were found. The difference is there was no asterisk. There has been pushback against TEL, but without forcing change, it will never happen.

[@daszieher]

@@xeridea all true, however, TEL makes a huge difference, that cannot be compensated by other means. Hence the "asterisk" that you mentioned. Even the Germans in WWII tried to make synthetic high-octane fuel without TEL and did not succeed. C3 fuel relied on the addition of lead. As I have already said, I do not advocate the use of lead, however, we must recognise, that effectively ending the use of TEL will necessitate new engines.

[@xeridea]

@@daszieher Yeah, a true drop in replacement including carburetors may be difficult, but utilizing fuel injection it would seem more doable at least short term. I can see why aviation was excluded when we switched to unleaded, but would have liked perhaps a 10 year extension, rather than indefinite asterisk, which enabled feet dragging. If there was also a stipulation that new planes needed to be designed to be compatible with 93, or perhaps whatever would be higher and feasible it would have at least got the ball rolling.

[@tennesseered586]

"A slow motion noise machine." As a long-time observer of the FAA, it's business as usual. Thank goodness we don't get all the government we pay for. Informative and entertaining, Paul.

[@archilot9354]

Always very well researched reporting by Paul. What a pro!

[@billsmith5166]

Paul is one of the best presenters on KZbin. He is a special talent.

[@jheathanderson]

Together with Part 1, an excellent primer on a fairly complex and long-lived case example on the political economy of general aviation. Nice work, Mr. Bertorelli.

[@HappyDuude]

Great reporting, with a depressing outcome. Fundamentally it feels like there are no significant penalties to the FAA for not making a decision. It's extremely frustrating - in the corporate world it's so common internally instead of saying 'no/yes' to something, it's 'we need more data'. The difference being in the corporate world, if something is a big enough priority someone eventually either gets bitten for feet dragging or promoted for pushing. The FAA in this case seems to only see downsides of making a change, with limited upsides that would bring the agency itself any benefits.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

In the corporate world, the profit motive drives absolutely every decision, so, if it were up to corporations, lead never would have been eliminated from any form of gasoline.

[@testboga5991]

Good old corruption...

[@davemachoukas6175]

No one wants to be responsible

[@davemachoukas6175]

No one wants take responsibility

[@EDesigns_FL]

HappyDude, you're describing the systemic problem with all government employees: lack of personal accountability. SCOTUS amplified this problem when the contrived the defense of "qualified immunity". The ridiculous aspect of this dilemma is that it can be easily resolved, but that will never occur because of untenable conflicts of interest. Congress would have to pass legislation which allows government employees to bear the same personal liability as private employees; and there's no way our corrupt politicians are going to enact anything that would potentially expose them to personal accountability.

[@Luvurenemy]

This is like a documentary on the Amazon rainforest. All the little critters feeding off of one another. Using camouflage and dominance displays while secretly colluding under the forest floor in relative harmony. Now GAMI, a new organism, gets deposited onto the forest floor from a freak hurricane. All the organisms scramble to protect their interests while adapting to a possible new reality. Great stuff. Paul is a real blessing to aviation education. Thank you, Paul.

[@truckerallikatuk]

Would be amusing to see what would happen if the EPA turned around and banned lead in avgas, then said "You guys have had 30 years to figure out a fix, now deal with it."

[@gacmyver]

$6,99 a gallon of AVGAS? Lucky you… In Germany we pay about $11 per gallon at the moment… :D And as always: Excellent video!

[@fastfox23]

Aviation engines are still stuck in the 20's and 30's, not surprising then that we still use leaded gas as well. EFI, liquid cooling, and efficient combustion chambers would allow the "high performance" engines with 10:1 compression run 91 octane MOGAS with no issues.

[@fastfox23]

At the same time, 100 octane UL gas has been available for a decade or so for race cars.

[@Nickersont88]

I love seeing what Rotax is doing with modern tech. Simplify the cockpit and pilot workload while enabling smaller, lighter and more efficient engines. Unfortunately I think a lot of pilots are put off by 3k+rpm cruise and turbochargers. Ye-olde air-cooled engines have their place, but Lycoming and Conti need to start putting their R&D into newer tech or they'll soon be pushed out of the market. 40yo airframes are not a good platform for sustainable business.

[@LiraNuna]

As a plane owner, Rotax' issues are low HP and TBR instead of TBO.

[@fastfox23]

@@Nickersont88 I like what UL Power is doing, just wish they had gone with liquid cooling as well. Tighter tolerance provides less blow by, you're not cooling cylinders with excessive fuel, etc ..

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

@@LiraNuna Check out Adept Airmotive.

[@cameronh5442]

In A&P school, my instructor told us that the lead acted as kind of like a lubricant and cushion for the engine, as well as increasing the octane rating. I would rather the fuel be lead free though. There's alot of a&ps that get old and get cancer, and i'm sure working with lead fouled engine components don't necessarily help the situation.

[@user60521123]

The oil companies are so powerful that the government doesn’t even behave like a government. You hit the nail on the head: Continuing to produce Avgas is profitable and developing new technologies is so costly that for-profit companies that they aren’t going to make a serious investment. Government has to do it; they used to do it, but won’t now. I think energy is all forms needs to be expropriated and state run. It won’t solve all the problems, but will solve the major ones. Really interesting video.

[@emileeloimillius]

What a great pedagogical humor Paul’s gifted with! Fantastic teacher.

[@K0S0s]

I was secretly hoping this was about GAMI the whole time. I love their work and agree that its absurd that it is taking so long.

[@chrisrose1508]

What can we do to get the GAMI solution to market NOW? It’s not going to happen if we wait for Government. GAMI is not one of their “favorites” and doesn’t have lobbyists so the Government will largely ignore the GAMI solution.

[@K0S0s]

@@chrisrose1508 I’ve been meaning to see if there were any updates during OSH but haven’t had a ton of free time to watch all those panels.

[@kentd4762]

Thanks again, Paul, for keeping up on this slowly-evolving situation and making it available to us. All the best and smooth sailing to you.

[@jazzandbluesculturalherita2547]

On a side note, when I was completing Navy Flight School in Pensacola in 1979, Navy pilot training at Sherman Field still included flying the North American T-28C Trojan, powered by the Wright R-1820-86 Cyclone 9-cylinder radial engine. This engine required very high octane 115/145 AVGAS, available on the aerodrome, in an official capacity. I envisioned trying to "borrow" some of this high-test fuel to tank up my Harley-Davidson Sportster … but thought better of it. Instead, I rode my bike out to the local general aviation airport, and tanked up on 100LL AVGAS. Paid up at the counter and stole back to my bike, whereby I added an ounce or 2 of Klotz TE-Lead replacement, which was still available to buy at the auto parts stores. Started her up, and MAN, did she PURR! The idle speed picked WAY up, and the dry-sump oil tank was VERY WARM against my Levi's-covered leg. I loved putting my Sportster-based XLCR-1000 through its cafe-racer paces during the remainder of that tank of gas. I also used up the Klotz supplement in later fill-ups at the 76 station where you could get high-test racing fuel at the pump. Nothing compared to that tank of 100LL, though. Man, I just LOVED that bike! A "Willie G Special" collector's edition.

[@aldenconsolver3428]

That was excellent, I'm not even GA involved these days but that kind of clear profiling of how things get done is a great help to everybody.

[@susansticazsky9787]

Great work Paul!! The question is what we pilots can do if anything to push this change forward a bit faster.

[@andrewkennedy1172]

What cracks me up about all this is that there is exactly ONE place in the world where tetraethyl lead is produced and it ain't in the USA. If that place (in the UK) decides to cease production, or just plain blows up, them 100LL goes the way of the dodo almost instantly. I'm always amazed folk are prepared to drop massive amounts of money on new aircraft like Cirrus, knowing they are completely and utterly dependent on a fuel hanging on a single supply chain. My airplane could run on UL91 or mogas for a very good reason......

[@knoxflier5171]

Always love when I see Paul with a new video! Great video and explanation!

[@josepha7621]

Absolutely impressive video series you put together here and thank you. Great reporting and its awesome that somebody is talking about some of the current and future issues we will face as an aviation community.

[@ExperimentalAircraftChannel]

Good work Paul. Thanks for putting this together!

[@joeshmooo5327]

Always a good day when a new Paul Bertorell video drops. Really like your topics and delivery.

[@earlfoss99]

Thanks, Paul, for another great segment.

[@michaelguy7168]

Really appreciate your style of reporting, I come away with an understanding that I can rap my mind around. It’s a breath of fresh air in this day of tell what ever big lie you have to to support your cause.

[@dennislyons3095]

i've been watching this slow motion train wreck for the duration. I will age out of flying before there is a "drop-in" 100LL replacement for my P&W or Lycoming.

[@friedclutch97]

Incredibly well done. Thank you Paul and team.

[@wylieecoyote]

Paul, thanks for weeding through the mire to explain the issues, the history and where we seem to be now.

[@Heathfx5]

electronic direct fuel injection could easily make 91 mogas work in high compression or high boost applications. The auto industry has performed black magic with preventing detonation in small displacement high compression high boost engines (ecoboost) all while using 87 octane to do it. It's about time for 550 ci and 360 ci (very common) engines to only be built new as FADEC setups certified for 91 octane as well as FADEC upgrades offered during overhaul. So they can benefit from cheaper gas...then GAMI's fuel will fill in the gaps for engines that can't/won't be upgraded.

[@MikeG4936]

Not sure why this isn't the obvious solution. Modern EFI should easily be able to pull this off....

[@billkrokoship]

Thank you for “as always” a detailed history of 100LL saga!

[@patrickarmitageWWW]

Holy Toledo! You did come right back! Great presentation.

[@m.villagrana9677]

Thank you Mr. Bertorelli. As usual, your informative and highly educational videos have come thtough for me again. This video answered 4 questions I have pondered over the past 3 decades. When I come across a video of yours, I grab a beer, sit somewhere and actually listen to what you are saying. Its time well spent and you never disappoint. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

[@maggus999]

Your reporting is my favourite aviation video content, thank you!

[@av8tor261]

The topic is very interesting. The delivery is awesome. Thank you.

[@planetmadness5202]

Thank you Paul for another excellent, entertaining presentation!

[@nvpatentlawyer]

Once again you have made a complex subject understandable, even if it raised my blood pressure. Kudos. And thanks.

[@tollcollectorsquirrel342]

Paul, you’re a gem. Well-researched, well-presented, and I love your sense of humor and animation style. Keep up the great work!

[@mingram008]

Excellent information! Love your style of explanation. Will be looking forward to more videos!

[@wrphelan]

Thank you for these two amazing pieces of information.

[@TuomoMooneyFlying]

Thank You for the extremely candid report. Very well done and researched! Unfortunately even 8 years sounds optimistic considering how little motivation the bureaucrats have in getting an alternative available.

[@bobteter4300]

Paul, great presentation. I wrote a short article on the History of AVgas for Air Facts Journal. My article pales in comparison to your presentation. You put a lot of effort into it and it shows.

[@Bubble_0f_d00m]

Nice, I just commented on part 1 saying I couldn't wait for part 2, and poof, part 2 released a few minutes later! A delightful surprise.

[@kenmohler4081]

This is a great report. Thanks for producing it.

[@johneshoffnerjr9823]

Never mind Paul, I just watched your "why new engines never work" video. My question was answered. Thanks

[@rigilchrist]

Thanks Paul. How frustrating and costly for GAMI!

[@tripflycfi]

Thanks for this report. Excellent presentation

[@speedomars3869]

Extra excellent this time, Paul.

[@KW-ei3pi]

Thank you Paul. I have a limited interest in the subjects that you cover, but your presentation is so good that I enjoy your videos very much. Almost all, if not ALL, of the KZbin creators making informational videos could learn a LOT from your presentation skills. Regards.

[@thomascharlton8545]

Thank you so much Paul! Well done. Clear, concise summation. Having attended the three day course in Ada . . . G100UL is something I’m very interested in. Feel free to go for a Part 3!

[@incog74]

Truly incredible level of research and attention to detail. As always - supremely impressed. Thank you, Paul!

[@spavatch]

Beautifully delivered. Thanks!

[@Peacewind152]

Found this channel quite by accident. Now I'm running through all the videos. Wonderful format! Makes studying to be a commercial pilot a bit more bearable.

[@rudranathtalukdar3196]

In Paul’s inimitable style, this is great in-depth reporting and deeply informative

[@damongulick4306]

Always good thanks so much!!! I wish there were others as well presented/produced as yours!!!

[@davidkleinthefamousp]

Paul, I love your work and attitude! I’ve no aviation connection (except a photo of Mr. Spock holding an E6B), but those presentations are so soothing. So many new words! I tell. Myself, “ i’m gonna look that up“ but I never will 😄. Thank you, God Bless

[@garrygballard8914]

Geezzz Paul, tks for all the work figuring all that out.

[@thomasturner1099]

Outstanding two-part presentation, Paul. Side I see: as I understand it the general aviation “asterisk,” as you put it, had a time limit. Pushed through by AOPA (again, as I understand it), the GA exception to lead removal in the 1974 Clear Air Act was for 10 years. The fact that FAA did nothing well beyond that 10 years, and extensions, and then that EPA did nothing to penalize FAA for not eliminating lead on schedule, is why environmental groups suing the EPA is what drove this issue for the last couple of decades. Any perspective on that?

[@AVweb]

Unfortunately, I do not. The lawsuits may have driven the EPA to act, but it took them 30 years.

[@dig1035]

Google showed me this. Super high quality video and information. Thank you for being an intelligent AVperson who cares! I previously pieced together similar information for myself with skattered pdfs and web research that left me with many questions. Your two part video, so through and high quality video, summerized my hours of crappy pdf reading and answered many questions. Personal aviation is one of the greatest gifts on earth. Thank you and keep a stiff upper lip! Thumbs up and subscribed!

[@LightAndSportyGuy]

Thank you Paul (and AVweb).

[@RD2564]

Great two part series on where we came from, where we are now, and where we aren't going thanks to vested interest foot dragging WRT the toxic octane enhancer tetra ethyl lead and it's long overdue replacement.

[@dyske-]

Thanks for the great insightful reporting.

[@nobodynoone2500]

You clearly presented the Problem, It's effects, It's context from multiple perspectives, and proposed solutions both tried and better ways foreward. Bravo. Everyone please send a link to your representatives.

[@Rodeo32145]

Great video’s Paul. As usual!

[@mwp1088]

I like the fuel spillage during refueling. I am sure all pilots have had (or did themselves) fuel dumped out all over the ground. Tons of pollution is generated that way too. At some point, I think they just need to ban lead with some sort of time frame (like they did with ADSB) or keep raising the prices to phase it out naturally.

[@galactictomato1434]

Thank you for reporting on this issue.

[@kcfreels]

Really great breakdown of this complicated issue. Makes sense, there's no financial motive to fix it and no requirement to do so. The market dictates no change under these conditions.

[@philipbyrnes7501]

Thank you Paul. As usual this two parter is insightful, relevant and valuable. Well worth anyone’s time to pay attention here, a very important and serious issue that needs to be addressed with simple common sense and decency. But, as my very late but very correct Great Aunty Lilly often said, “The most uncommon thing in Australia is common sense”. I reckon she’s still right near 60 years later, and not just here either it seems quite sadly. But on the very positive side, we have people like you Paul, that are both able and willing to share such important insights and knowledge that gives others like myself the opportunity to learn and hopefully I pray, act decisively on issues of such import to us all and on the behalf of myself and what I am sure are a very large number of people that don’t voice their thoughts, I’d just like to say thank you Paul, not just for these two articles but for all of the videos you’ve put out that I’ve seen and I’m sure, all of the ones I haven’t yet, all of you hard work, your knowledge, your experience and your dedication to what you are trying to share and to explain in such a straight forward, concise and understandable way, well, it works mate, thank you Paul, you are a great teacher and are doing a great job, thank you and all the very best to you and yours and all who look at the clouds and the sky and dream, from here Down Under all the way to those Up Over, take care and thanks Paul, 11 out of 10 👍 😎

[@PiefacePete46]

What a fantastic pair of videos. I am a non-pilot with a "love affair from afar" interest in G.A. The Power-Brokers involved in this side of aviation scare me... Death by Beaurocracy. Things will continue to muddle along, spending squizillions of dollars, until some ultimate (U.S. based) authority finally says "Here's what is going to happen, and here's the deadline date"! Once it is set in motion, most of the rest of the planet will follow suit over time. For ALL of our sakes, KEEP RATTLING THE CAGE! Thank you so much.

[@rexmyers991]

Thank you such a clear, concisely produced report on our bumbling, stumbling aviation bureaucracy.

[@ackack612]

Pretty impressive reporting. Thank you, Sir.

[@rickestabrook4987]

Outstanding Paul. Thank you.

[@hotttt28]

Always a pleasure Paul .

[@5thGenNativeTexan]

Best series on Avgas/Mogas and future fuels I've seen!

[@pilotgirl5953]

Excellent. Very informative!! Thank you

[@MrSixstring2k]

Thanks for the very educational video on the subject, I am hoping Aviators who want to see aviation grow will watch this video and think that we fly into and over communities who are not happy with GA burning lead near there homes. I am hoping that Gami gets the approval but I am with you its a long road that will be delayed to a snails pace. As long as 100LL is still around it give a reason to closed airports it needs to go in order for aviation to remain and hopefully grow.

[@ferrarikingdom]

Every time I see a video with Paul I get excited.

[@northernandyboy]

Super good overview! Thanks for the great work Paul. Wish we could get rid of pb.

[@dfriendperc]

Great reporting! If the FAA & EPA mandated that no engines that required leaded fuel could be installed in planes after certain date, the engine manufacturers and the fuel suppliers would figure it out pretty quickly. No incentive= no change. As was stated: f… the planet. Keep the margin.

[@justincase5272]

You're absolutely correct about legal liability in the U.S. It's rather insane. So is government bureaucracy.

[@AirSafetyInstitute]

Comprehensive and packed with humor. Keep up the great work, Paul!

[@peterandersson3812]

Clear and concise: well worth watching. It could be mentioned that in Europe, where the majority of GA doesn’t use high-power engines, unleaded AVGAS is available. Most 160/180 hp Lycoming engines run just fine on 91UL AVGAS. Better, in fact: the engines are cleaner ans the spark plugs are less clogged up.

[@DoctorShocktor]

Yeah and Europe KILLED IFR operations for all the high powered piston aircraft by over regulating the every day IFR pilot out of existence except for little VFR jaunts. Pilots in the U.S. want a better alternative.

[@owenkegg5608]

Very informative, great stuff!

[@kristensorensen2219]

Great work Paul👍😀💛

[@jacquesparadis6756]

Paul! These two reporting were just excellent. Many thanks (nip) Jack.

[@stephen5147]

Taking notes I couldn't write fast enough! Good work.

[@roderickcampbell2105]

Paul never disappoints. I can't figure out if I like the information or his sardonic wit better.

[@tonysangwine-gould4733]

Many thanks Paul. Excellent.

[@mauriceevans6546]

You Sir, are the NPR( national public radio) of the aviation community! Thanks for the information!

[@scottanno8861]

Also as soft spoken as NPR 😂

[@theralfinator]

There hasn't been anything remotely this entertaining and educational on NPR since Car Talk went off the air. Let's not insult the guy.

[@jumpinjack1]

Excellent pictures from the old days, Thanks

[@warwicksmith-chandler3019]

Amazing 2 - part analysis.

[@thomaslincoln401]

The easiest way forward for the EPA would be to outlaw any further production of piston engines that cannot use unleaded. FAA then allows automatic STCs to fit new build engines that are engineered as direct replacements under the new rules, which should likely also incorporate modernised ignition (given the "free pass"). The petroloeum companies get a few years to manufacture, then they can only supply an actual additive. But what would I know?

[@tringalij]

I think the result would just be a big shoulder shrug from petroleum companies and we’d all just have giant expensive paper weights in the GA world. We’re just too small a group for anyone to care about.

[@thomaslincoln401]

@@tringalij possibly, though if operators have a choice to use mogas that is also cheaper and possibly in an engine with more optimisation. But it seems like a fantasy at this point.

[@ryanridgely7807]

Great series. I'm surprised that anything can be truly drop-in when you consider all the components in a fuel system. Even modern unleaded auto fuels do nasty things to fuel lines and whatnot to older cars designed for unleaded.

[@zosoachilles]

👏👏👏 Rare is the tidy journalism that Paul just laid out for us.

[@mikemazzola6595]

Thanks Paul for covering the collusion. I've been following Mike Busch's reports about GAMI G100UL. I hope to live long enough to use G100UL in my Lycoming IO-360.

[@MervynPartin]

Parts 1 & 2 now watched- very informative (and worrying with the FAA lack of action).

[@SuperHeatherMorris]

In the UK in the 70s and 80s there was enormous official opposition to the use of Mogas in aircraft even though engines like the Continental in a Cub or the Gypsey Major in a number of British aircraft were actually having a lot of technical problems with Avgas100LL and had been originally designed to run on low octane fuel. A lot of this opposition seemed to go away after RAF retired its 12 remaining Avro Shackletons, the only piston engined aircraft in service that needed 100LL. Even when Mogas got some sort of approval it was not allowed in public transport aircraft which included my Tiger Moth that did pleasure flights. The result was we kept destroying bronze cylinder heads with lead making the public transport aircraft less safe than any others. The other stupid thing was that the refueller always insisted on putting his earthing clip on the exhaust pipe in spite of the fact that the engine was not electrically connected to the airframe and therefore the fuel tank (no electrical system) and that the tail skid was already resting on the ground!