Getting the Lead out of Avgas and How FBO's Price 100LL - InTheHangar Ep 133

[@henryostman5740]

High octane gas does not have more 'power' (i.e. btu's??) than regular, it just has chemicals in it that reduce pre-ignition or knock. Knock is basically your engine behaving like a diesel, igniting the fuel from compression heat rather than the spark plug. Most aircraft engines would be perfectly happy with a 90 octane fuel with no ethanol in it but the higher horsepower engines do need the octane rating, these are engines used on the fancier planes that are used by corporations or wealthy folks mostly but they are the biggest customers of avgas and without their share of the market little guys would be without gas completely since it wouldn't be worthwhile. So far nobody has managed to concoct a gas mixture above about 96 octane without lead that meets engine manufacturers and FAA requirements. Current 100 octane low lead has way much less lead than the older formulations and even less than it had even a few years ago so progress is being made but it ain't perfect and the EPA only accepts perfect. By the way, auto gas has a lot of product in it that is 'cracked', heavy oil stock that are artificially modified to act like gasoline, these work fine in cars but would cause a lot of grief in an aircraft engine. Most all gasoline is shipped without ethanol added since this would create problems in the pipeline or vehicle carrying the product, rather it is added at the shipping point when the gas is put in the delivery truck, ethanol is not pipelined but is shipped by train, barge, or truck to the distribution point. Way back in the good ole days, airliners had piston engines that used 130 octane gas as did the military. At that time avgas was a much bigger market overall but now they all use jetfuel.

[@phlodel]

Leaded gas should be outlawed NOW. The aviation industry has had a pass for more than 30 years, being allowed to poison the environment with lead. They didn't develop alternative because there was no incentive. If leaded fuel is simply unavailable, they'll have to get off their leaded asses and develop alternatives.

[@TodayIFoundOut]

As she questioned, it's not just supply and demand but that FBO's make a lot of money on it and if you station your plane at a given one, you have to buy it or your plane doesn't fly. Very little competition. Case in point, there's an airport somewhat near me (which I wish was closer) with a nice freshly paved 4500', 100' wide runway. Super nice FBO with free snacks and drinks if you fuel up, etc. They charge $3 per gallon for avgas. Every single airport around it, and there are many extremely close because it's a very well populated area, charge $5-$7 per gallon. Same metropolitan area, same fuel suppliers, in this case the FBO manager who is pretty new at taking it over and spending money to renovate stuff like crazy, unlike the others. The difference? Talked to the FBO manager and he said he STILL makes very good money on it at $3 a gallon and he's just trying to get more planes to fuel up there vs his nearby competitors and more airplanes to station there. That way he'll make more in volume and more money for the mechanic on site, etc. Etc. So, the point being, clearly he's paying less than $3 a gallon to still make a good profit as he said, and he's in the same metropolitan area, and paying a lot of money to renovate things, and offers a all your common amenities and services at that airport, so the price is massively cheaper than what most FBO's charge, and so not just a matter of scale in terms of supply in demand or metropolitan area etc. The issue is lack of competition on a given field in most cases. Have it common to have multiple fuel providers at every airport and watch how quickly the price drops to closer to something like premium unleaded and, yes, the airport would be less profitable in the short term, but help open up aviation to a lot more people who can't afford $5-$7 a gallon to fly or people who would then fly more and buy more gas. It seems like the one FBO manager has the better view of it; the more planes he can bring in the more he and the service providers on the field makes overall, even if less per plane. -Daven

[@JustaPilot1]

One group of people that really want the lead to go away are the engine manufactures. I saw an interview with the president of Lycoming at Oshkosh and he stated lead, as most of us know, causes a lot of problems to aircraft piston engines. It is one of the reasons it's hard to get an engine to reach TBO without something going amiss. He said if we can get a lead-free 100 obtain fuel engines will easily reach TBO and beyond. PS, Octane reduces the tendency of the fuel to pre-ignite or detonate early in the compression stroke, that's it. It doesn't add power to the engine.

[@ulbuilder]

You are right that higher octane does not make more power, but it does enable more power production. As octane increases a more aggressive ignition timing can be used, without suffering detonation, resulting in increased power. This mostly only matters on a fuel injected engine with computer controlled ignition because the computer can detect detonation and adjust timing to prevent it. When running higher octane it will adjust to a more aggressive timing producing more power.

[@JustaPilot1]

@@ulbuilder Correct on all points but none of that applies to piston aircraft engines. Aircraft engines have fixed timing and there's no adjustment in operation. The timing is set for continuous operation at cruise typically between 28-32 DBTDC depending on the engine. The timing can not be set at any other advance other than what the manufacturer publishes. That is also the timing that the engine was certified with. Also, piston aircraft engines have no computers to control any of the engine's operation whether carburated or fuel injected.

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@JustaPilot1 RIGHT ON !! You pulled the thoughts out of my head !! Yea in order for a computer to adjust timing, it needs lots of sensors, one being knock sensors. On my Camry as an example, the computer will lean the fuel and advance the timing until it "hears" a knock then it will readjust. The purpose is for fuel economy. They have literally designed these car engines to knock then readjust. I know because when I first got my Camry, I heard knocking. I went to HIGHER octane and it actually GOT WORSE !! I finally found a Toyota expert and he said I need to only use 87 because the computer "assumes" that's the octane you're using. The owners manual says to use 87. He also said in the Toyota, the occasional light knock is completely normal. The car has 240,000 miles on it and I borescope the pistons once a year and there's ZERO damage. HOWEVER on an aircraft engine, ANY knocking is UNACCEPTABLE. My theory is the aircraft engine is designed to operate in many cases "wide open" or at MCP which is a shade below "wide open". The goal with the aircraft engine is to provide safe power only and getting every last "MPG" is not even on this list. On my Camry, if I drive conservatively, I can get in the high 30's low 40's. If you drive like a maniac, you get in the mid 20's. But to achieve that, it will definitely knock in short bursts then correct. I don't fret over it anymore, I just crank upthe radio !! But aircraft TOTALLY different breed of cat.

[@KevinSmithAviation]

Great episode Dan and Christy. Thank you Gary for the inside information on aviation fuel. Keep up the great work, as always, I love the show. 🤘🇺🇸🛩️

[@altebo]

octane is a rating that determins at what amount of compression the fuel will self ignite. the higher the octane, the higher the compression you can expose the fuel to. more compression means a longer stroke for a given bore, results in more power for a given amount of fuel at equal rpm. you can also run at lower rpm for the equal amount of power, and gain fuel efficiency. so for any given compression ratio in your engine, you need a minimum octane rating to prevent the fuel to self ignite prematurely while the piston is still in the up stroke, also called knock. this can lead to anything from the cylinder being prematurely decelerated (with reduction of power), all the way to excessive pressure in the system & possible engine failure. running fuel with an octane rating higher than specified by the engine manufacturer, results in you paying for a fuel that has a performance capability surpassing that, which is required by your system.

[@stevenhorney7735]

Interesting info on the future UL fuels; I hadn't heard that they had a good replacement yet. Thanks for another great show!

[@garykeller1158]

actually they do have a replacement. it is Swift100R. Problem is FAA, over the last 7 years, has refused to certify it.

[@speedomars]

There is no replacement because so many old planes are still flying. Want to get the lead out? Ban any aircraft older than 10 years.

[@HairyTheCandyMan]

I run octane at 230. It's so resistant to knock that it just flows out my tailpipe without detonation. Good stuff.

[@flyinbrianewing]

Gary really put a lot of very interesting information out. Great show!

[@twentyrothmans7308]

Gary: "I'm not an expert in anything". That's what experts say.

[@alwaysopen7970]

He sells propane and propane accessories.

[@robertfulton1576]

Super informative, enlightening and helps keep us all optimistic about the future. Thanks so much guys!

[@garykeller1158]

Optimistic? Been almost half a century that they took lead out of automobiles. Aviation gets a pass on everything.

[@mesflyer]

When I started flying in 1992, avgas was pretty much the price of premium unleaded everywhere. Now I wish that were true. BTW I remember stopping to fuel at Redbird and being livid at their outrageous 1.69 price.

[@TheTerrypcurtin]

This is propaganda BS.

[@paratyshow]

👍☑️ Love the new look Christy! Really interesting subject that I have never seen discussed, thanks guys.

[@flyingjeff1984]

And that Dan........lawdy!

[@paratyshow]

@@flyingjeff1984 Dan, Dan the Taking Off T-shirt man!

[@TakingOff]

Oh baby.🙃

[@srinivasnyayapathi9083]

Thank you for the interview with Gary.... very enlightining. I am suprised that you do not have more subscribers or views for the information that you present.

[@TakingOff]

Thanks! We’re growing.

[@CharlieLamdin]

You guys in the USA have no idea how lucky you are, your AvGas is so cheap compared to Europe! We’re paying the equivalent of around $7.50 a gallon over here.

[@garykeller1158]

True. But they care more about the lead emissions in Europe.

[@SoldiaT]

More like $9-10 per Gallon, at least here in Germany

[@speedomars]

Hence, Europe does not build 100LL planes, they are going for diesel.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

G, day In the Hanger from Sydney, Australia. * very informative show, thank you. For one drop of fuel an FBO has to make or exceed the safety standard to store, supply and maintain the dangerous good (Australia). * Marketing all other auxiliary benefits to attract the company or pilots, to increase gross profit. * Maintaining FAA regulations. * Providing maintenance service. 🌏🇭🇲

[@SmittySmithsonite]

KBOS (Logan Airport, Boston, MA) is $8.60 right now for 100LL. Just 30 miles away, it's in the high $4 / gallon range. It'll also cost you about $3k to land and fuel up a small jet there, between the fees and fuel cost. KORH (Worcester) in the center of the state is $5.33 a gallon. MA ain't shy about taking your money ... Here in MA, you cannot buy ANY fuel at ANY pump (outside of an airport) that is ethanol free. The only ethanol free fuel available is in quart, gallon, or 5 gallon (or larger) container from a powersports, or outdoor power equipment dealer, or big box store like Home Depot. Some gas stations will sell it in their stores, but it's not available at the pump. God forbid you mow your lawn and not pay road taxes! I normally drive 2 hours out with a 55 gallon barrel, and fill that up with ethanol free fuel out of state for my 2-stroke power equipment, and my paramotor. NY has ethanol free premium fuel at certain stations, and northern VT, ME, and NH have ethanol free fuel right at the pump. Pretty inconvenient for us down here in MA, but, it's worth the effort for the lack of ethanol related fuel system problems. Great info guys!

[@alanaspurling6469]

I know that there’s 100+ octane unleaded racing fuel, this is available at most race tracks, and at some gas stations. Sunoco and VP are a couple of the largest sellers. What I notice is that this fuel is fortified with “oxygenates” which translates into some form of modified alcohol, mbte or ebte (methyl tert-butyl ether or ethel tert-butyl ether) as examples. Often these substitutes are actually worse than lead.

[@speedomars]

Correct. Ethanol is death to an aviation engine that does not have the hoses for it. It will melt them.

[@joecummings1260]

Octane has nothing to do with the btu value on the fuel. Octane is strictly and anti-knock quality. BTU or energy content of the fuel is an entirely different perameter

[@danr597]

Thank you!!!! You beat me to posting this. I was almost cringing when he said that.

[@joecummings1260]

@@danr597 how the hell can experts say such a thing? And worse yet how can you say such a thing and not be challenged by the hosts?

[@dsavage128]

Actually, regular gasoline has MORE energy per unit volume than higher octane gasoline. The octane rating is ONLY a measure of resistance to knocking or detonation. A common misconception. If your engine does not require the higher octane, there is no advantage to use it.

[@speedomars]

The lead in aviation fuel is there for knocking, not for power.

[@tomcorwine3091]

There are different methods for measuring octane, so the comparison of AvGas to MoGas octanes are not 1:1. In north America, we use (R+M)/2 method for MoGas which is the average of RON and MON. RON is Research Octane Number, and MON is Motor Octane Number. Many other countries just use RON for MoGas. AvGas is rated by MON only. It gets even more complicated as there are two MON numbers for AvGas, one for normally aspirated and one for turbo charged. The 100 number in 100LL is the normally aspirated rating. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating#Aviation_gasoline_octane_ratings

[@davidnolle6638]

Curious with the proliferation of ROTAX engines that use MOGAS, will transporting gas from the local gas station to the airport a thing of the past? Will the use of MOGAS and AVGAS come together in ULGAS?

[@drsmsaracino]

This gentleman was being very tactful when it came to discussing the cost of fuel to the consumer. His livelihood depends on FBO's buying his fuel, so I don't think he is going to call out anyone for price gouging. They might seek another supplier. The truth is large fbo's overcharge because they can. They make so much money on bloated ramp fees, handling fees, catering and fueling of large corporate aircraft-they could easily sell us avgas at reasonable prices. Corporate aircraft don't really care about these costs, so again the fbo can gouge them all they want.

[@lanse77lithgow]

A couple of Philippine refineries had introduced magnesium in their car fuels 6 or 7 years ago , raising octane a couple of points .

[@aeroengguy448]

At a nearby regional that will remain nameless, there were two FBOs and 100LL prices were competitive with other airports. The day after one of the FBOs ceased business, the other FBO immediately added $1.00/gal to 100LL. Assuming they were previously meeting their costs, this is just greed.

[@TakingOff]

Sad

[@danielruff4632]

Great show, guys! Very interesting topic on the future of AVGAS.

[@Treasureson78RPM]

Really interesting conversation. It's awesome to hear that they are working on removing lead from avgas. Would the unleaded gas help save the operation of old piston powered planes like DC-3, DC-4 etc...?

[@Heathfx5]

The real solution to this is develop more diesel engine options that burn jet-A. If there were diesel drop-in (as in bolt-on) replacements for the io-360 and io-550 with the same HP ratings. It would eventually eliminate the need for gas (and associated handling equipment) at most airports for a significant chunk of GA piston airplanes.

[@TakingOff]

Cessna actually made a diesel 172 for a couple years, but demand was so low they discontinued.

[@n3roc]

I read an article many years ago about Continental and Lycoming engines running on hi-test Mogas. And they ran just fine with very minimal wear and very minimal HP losses. I heard the argument against is that if you go to your local gas station, you never know what you get. However, I’ve been driving for 45 years and have had one small problem with a small amount of water in the fuel, something that can easily be checked for on pre-flight. So I really have had No problems with mogas in 45 years. So does the “you never know what you get” argument hold up?

[@TakingOff]

I’ve never heard the “never know what you get” argument. The reason I’ve heard is that lower octane, unleaded detonates, exploded early in the chamber, and that’s the reason not to use Mogas.

[@speedomars]

You can run on high octane mogas, but not with Ethanol in it. It will melt the filters and hoses.

[@travisguide4516]

What a interesting man highly knowledgeable

[@HoundDogMech]

100 LL has 4 times the old 80/87 avgas had. 100 LL even more detrimental to older low power aircraft engines because of the excesives led content.

[@vernonazuki8422]

@@notj5712 100 LL has 4 times the lead that the old 80/87 avgas had. 100 LL causes problems like spark plug fouling in lower compression engines designed for the lower lead content of 80/87.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

3:47 that is an over simplified version of what happens in a refinery, it leaves out cracking with HF and the use of zeolites.

[@jameshyatte7230]

I am sure this will be worked out eventually but my concern is basically every pilot who flies a general aviation aircraft will be a test pilot when the "new no lead fuel" is introduced because we have no idea how these fuels are going to affect these engines, the unforeseen issues that always creep up because no one thought about it or it was dismissed. People with higher performance aircraft will probably be the ones with most concerns because we just won't know until many hours are put on these engines with the new fuel. As with anything today, the long term effects on all these engines is something we don't want to disregard.

[@kevincollins8014]

Anytime they discontinue something to better the environment, it ends up costing a fortune. Remember how cheap the R12 Freon was compared to R134. I hate to see what this new and improved UL100 is going to cost.

[@garykeller1158]

Call Swift and ask them

[@ulbuilder]

Banned ozone depleating R-12 and replaced it with the greenhouse gas R134A. Must have taken some super genius politicians to solve one problem by creating another. I enjoyed the extra income converting cars to use R134A so I guess it did at least create some economic opportunities but it did little to improve the environment.

[@VictoryAviation]

One thing I either missed or didn’t hear mentioned, was whether this new UL100 would be congruent with current 100LL in cost.

[@jaba430]

G100UL will be 100% fungible

[@WolfPilot]

Thanks for the informative video Dan!

[@chrisc161]

Very interesting. Great guest.

[@GaryWGrant]

What’s probably taking unleaded avgas so long to get out of the pipeline (pun intended) is because of the glacial pace at which the government regulators move. The FAA will more than likely hafta certify the new UL100 fuel, and that will take time. FAA will hafta ensure the manganese-based additive (MMT perhaps) that will replace tetraethyl lead is not going to cause any unintended consequences to the legacy infrastructure and equipment.

[@byronnightingale5550]

No good putting manganese in gas, it causes Parkinson's disease.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

8:12 and what is the cost for Pb cleanup in the environment by still using it?

[@kevinjarchow8812]

The question really should be: "Why were Lycoming and Continental (plus others) not directed or incentivized to manufacture engines that could burn both low lead and premium mogas. Unleaded fuels came on the scene in around 1973 or so. It seems that engine manufacturers could have made a transition over the past 47 years to enable low compression engines to run on premium mogas. I would be that there are very few 47 year old engines that are still running as originally build in today's American GA fleet.

[@garykeller1158]

I believe that they came out in the early 1980"s. Pilots were convinced not to use it. Ever hear of a crash due to MoGas? Neither have I.

[@LimeyTX]

I moved from England to Tulsa in 1979. I purchased a 1975 Caprice Classic and I remember the first time I went to fill it up. It took unleaded gasoline. But at the pump in front of me there was a Bubba with a brand new pick up truck trying to fill it with regular gas. He was ranting and raving about how the gas filler was too damned small and so he was just dribbling regular into the tank. I decided against explaining to him what was wrong as I thought continuing to live was more important. 😀 But the point is the unleaded fuel was around in 1975 at the latest.

[@mustardseedsociety]

AvGas has higher anti vapor lock characteristics which is something to consider also.

[@429thunderjet2]

@@garykeller1158 nope, Kevin is correct it was early 70s.

[@garykeller1158]

@@429thunderjet2 State your source. I need it for my research.

[@jed-henrywitkowski6470]

So my dad handled JP as part of his MOS in the early 1990s. He's got now got some kind dermatological ailment. I know Uncle Sam would never knowingly allow troops to be exposed to hazardous agents outside of combat, so is there any vets who handled petroleum products that have developed ailments that can shed some light on what I brought up?

[@Cavalier-lp8tr]

I wish the storage life of fuel would have been discussed.

[@speedomars]

It is patently unsafe to try to store aviation fuel.

[@Cavalier-lp8tr]

@@speedomars referring to shelf life

[@Ravenscaller]

Non taxed fuel is a different color so the state can, if the chose, inspect the fuel in the tank to determine on the spot if you are cheating. A for instance is that when I lived on a boat I heated it with non-taxed diesel brought at the truck stop rather than the marina. Perfectly legal. The same would be true for av-gas.

[@hectorgonzalez5030]

Can't believe it's called Low LEAD, that fuel has 4x-5x the lead of old leaded gasoline 🤨

[@danielbishop1863]

It's "low" by comparison to the original 100-octane avgas formulation, which had twice as much lead. But still higher than was allowed for car gasoline in the 1980's.

[@waukeshapilot6462]

Nascar "Airport" FBO's always Jack up the prices during Race Weekends too!!!!!!!!

[@lisaleedavidson]

I like you guys, but... you should have had Mike Busch on. He does a great seminar on exactly this issue. Mike would tell you that Jet A is currently the fuel of the future.

[@LimeyTX]

Can you post a link to the Mike Busch video? I can't find it.

[@VictoryAviation]

Mike Busch could do about 10 episodes and would never run out of material. The guy knows A LOT!

[@garykeller1158]

GA has decreased 33% in the last 45 years. It continues to go down. Lot of reasons why. Jet A will be the fuel of the future.

[@garykeller1158]

@David Erickson What would make you write that? An article? Personal observation?

[@garykeller1158]

@David Erickson Great. When was it published? I'd like to read it myself.

[@robertborchert932]

Yes. These FBOs aren't necessarily evil. Some are, personal experience. Keep the shiny side up, gentlemen!

[@TooLowGear]

I’ll continue running ethanol free mogas in my 470-R.

[@CK-dt6nx]

Why can't you use a lead substitute additive like I do my 41 farmall H? I feel like something else is pulling strings. If people wanted it we could do it. Same with making planes affordable. We have phones in our pocket that could send Apollo 11 to the moon and back but we can't make an efficient GA engine that runs on 91? 30 years ago phones were corded. Today we still use carbs and lead in GA planes.

[@mustardseedsociety]

Well more engines now use fuel injection but I see your point. The huge thing that was not mentioned was vapor pressure characteristics of the fuel. That's another reason why avgas is more expensive than car gas. Then even ANOTHER thing not mentioned were engine alternatives. There was an engine called the DynaCam engine that has ALREADY been tested on a Piper Arrow. The aircraft had a huge increase in performance. These engines I have been told, can run on lower octane. The Dyna Cam engine even was "certified". But obviously something went wrong to get the engine to rhe next level.

[@cturdo]

@@mustardseedsociety Unlocking the grip of engine makers and fuel refiners will be a nearly impossible task.

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@cturdo Well in the case of the dynaCam engine, it's STILL a good idea to use aviation quality fuel to "fight" vapor lock. As far as unlocking the grip, I think that can be acheived. Nearly everyone on this platform is in agreement that the aviation piston engine is a TINY market. How much of a grip could they possibly have ?? What would do the trick is finding somebody with some money who is more excited about changing history than making a buck. Those kind of people do exist in the world, we just got to find them. The obvious problem is so few understand GA. But say for example in the case of the dynacam engine, the engine has been certified, it's already been flight tested, so if some dude {or gal} that's got some cash will just crank out say 250 engines and get on the internet saying Dyna Cam aircraft engines available for aircraft, then let the chips fall. It's hard to switch over to a new engine if they are not available. So the answer is MAKE THEM AVAILABLE. But I get it, there's financial risk involved, which is why "we" need to find that unique kind of investor.

[@TheTerrypcurtin]

100% This guy's covering his ass. We are being ripped off and it's hurt GA. Light twin market is destroyed

[@cturdo]

@@mustardseedsociety The cost of entry is prohibitive and Lycoming and Continental are certainly not going down quietly. Just making the point, not saying that is a good thing.

[@skigolfmike]

We have a new FBO at HEF and it charges more than a $1.00 a gallon than the existing FBO. That building has to cost a ton, they gotta pay for it somehow. Plus I think they priced 100LL so as not to deal with the piston crowd so they could focus on the Jet A crowd, which is where the money is.

[@garykeller1158]

Lot of truth in that statement.

[@ПётрБ-с2ц]

so what's the problem with G100UL?

[@CalebICT]

Great info. Thanks!

[@rickclayburn9111]

Seems like if you put “aviation” with any other word you are going to pay.

[@altebo]

yep, it's like adding 'wedding' to anything you plan - kaching!

[@carloscruz7317]

Believe me it’s not in transportation cost I’ve hauled it and always heard from management that it pays nothing.

[@TheTerrypcurtin]

This guy's full of crap

[@cturdo]

Municipal airports can subsidize fuel costs and offer lower prices.

[@garykeller1158]

the 1/4 of 1% of the population do not need any more subsidies.

[@cturdo]

@@garykeller1158 It is usually made up in volume to break even as mentioned in the video. The additional air traffic helps the local tourism economy.

[@garykeller1158]

@@cturdo Pretty sure the kids breathing in all the lead emissions aren't too concerned with the local tourism economy.

[@cturdo]

@@garykeller1158 That wasn't the point of the comment thread but yes getting rid of lead is a good thing.

[@garykeller1158]

@@cturdo I agree. The main point is probably the cost of the AvGas. However, it did mention getting the lead out. I believe that the unleaded UL94 is generally less expensive than 100LL. It should be, there is not the cost of the TEL additive. The tetra-ethyl lead (TEL) is all made in England by an American company. But as the conversation went, the people selling it really are not locked into any price. Depending who you talk to, it works in 65 - 75% percent of piston driven planes. Many pilots don't even know that their plane can burn the UL94. It is not in their pilots manual. Most manuals recommend 100LL even if the engines can burn UL94.

[@christinewunder1672]

Interesting show!

[@Jeepsteve1982]

When I was young, for twelve years I worked at an FBO and we used sumped 100ll to rinse our hands daily. Had I been older and wiser I would not have be done this, obviously. However, I have suffered no ill effects, ever, nor has anyone else I have kept in contact with and maintain that the "low lead" content is safer than is being argued, and this argument is ridiculously arbitrary.

[@garykeller1158]

468 tons of leaded emissions from GA planes a year is not a small amount. Almost half a century since they began taking lead out of automobile fuel and still GA is bucking the need to change. Pilots are continuing to get a bad rep due to their continued lead polluting of the public. The FAA does not want to find an alternative fuel. They do not want to certify a 100 unleaded fuel and require pilots to use it. It is easier to maintain the status quo.

[@flyingcarguy]

Right now avgas and premium in CA is only about 10 cents difference.

[@snyparaustralis540]

Christy "some FBOs are charging $8/g for AvGas!" me "damn... i pay $2.80/L....."

[@AirmanBrown]

Great content you all

[@tbas8741]

So Ga pilots in Australia will be happy as our Premium Car Fuel is 98 Octane with Zero ETHANOL that 98 RON not MON or watever.

[@dangreen3702]

Gasoline octane rating is a difficult concept to communicate to non-specialists, but this guest makes some errors. Octane rating measures how much the fuel /air mixture can be compressed without detonating, as he states. High performance engines tend to also be high compression, meaning that the fuel/air mixture is compressed to a smaller volume and corresponding higher pressure in the cylinders before the spark plug ignites the mixture. That is why high performance car engines use high octane mogas, while my Subaru uses regular. But high octane gas does NOT contain more “BTUs per gallon”. High and low octane fuels have about the same energy density, it is just that compression detonation difference. High octane can be achieved by blending different hydrocarbons, but it was discovered that adding tetraethyl lead did the same thing much less expensively. It was used extensively both in mogas and avgas for decades before the health risks were recognized. The lead provides some lubrication in the engines, which is one reason we are still stuck with it today for planes.

[@traceydeakin6055]

Electric is the way forward. Until then FBO's will remain expensive. Due to the limited 100L production runs, and each delivery is labour-intensive and costly $. An alternative not yet established - a nonprofit self-servicing 100L countrywide Phone-activated App pumps to members only - a large membership of users would share in the benefit of volume purchase nationwide without the expensive interplane FBO charges.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

4:18 or you replace the components with materials that don’t corrode. Given the 1000 hour rebuild that has to happen why not do it at that time.

[@scottmacdougall2843]

Sweet

[@flyifri]

I Caught You Looking.!

[@072570ppft]

What will be price of UL100?

[@garykeller1158]

Call Swift and ask.

[@FlyingNDriving]

Them Franklin's already hate the lead like there's no tomorrow

[@gtr1952]

In NY we can buy premium leaded non-ethanol gas at some stations that have a permit to sell it. Lawn companies use it in their mowers etc., and some cars (BMW for example) have to use it or ruin the engine. The penalty for using that fuel is about $1.00/gal!! The state keeps the $$ under all conditions! I run it in my Chevy HD2500 truck, it runs better and it gives me 2 more miles per gallon. I only get 10 MPG so that's 20% better, and all around well worth the "King Cuomo Tax". I also played guitar in a band for many years. We had a long standing Friday happy hour at a bar, the gig was called "Get the Led Out" and we played 2 hours of Led Zeppelin tunes!! LOL 8) --gary

[@patrickstonetree1]

BMW recommends unleaded. I don't know why anyone would want to run leaderd gas in lawn equipment, you are just asking to damage your brain.

[@gtr1952]

@@patrickstonetree1 Now that I've thought more about it, your right. It's the 'ethanol' that does the damage, so we have to pay extra to leave it out. --gtr

[@patrickstonetree1]

@@gtr1952 I go out of my way to find ethanol free gasoline. It is more efficient, less impacting to the environment, and keeps the valves of direct injection motors from gumming up so quickly.

[@GRW3]

Gary’s expertise is in selling and delivering aviation fuel, not in the fuel itself. Most everything he said about the fuel amounts to conventional wisdom but unfortunately mostly wrong. The actual aviation fuel experts have been working on alternatives to leaded a AvGas for three plus decades but the nature of the problem, primarily driven by the basic light aircraft engine technology, has made it extremely difficult.

[@mustardseedsociety]

And also there was no talk about vapor pressure characeristics which is just as important as octane numbers. Also when the engine is operating as designed, the fuel does not "explode", it burns at a nice rate. Just like when you're riding a bike, you PUSH the pedal not slap at it with your foot.

[@kellytrimble4120]

I agree, Gary Wilson, a lot of the technical explanation this guy was giving about octane, lead additives, etc, sounded like a salesman trying to explain something that he didn't fully understand. He was wrong on a lot of the details, the real explanation is more technical. It constantly amazes me how little understanding a lot of pilots, whom you would normally think of being technically minded, have of the important technical details and the implications of these details to aviation.

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@kellytrimble4120 And what amazed me was the constant supposition that higher octane rating means more power. All that means is the 100LL fuel is designed to NOT explode !! {The guy kept saying the fuel "explodes" } You do not want the fuel to "explode", but BURN at a nice even predictable rate which firmly but evenly PUSHES that piston "down" {or sideways} {or sometimes up in a radial engine} There's energy in the gasoline REGARDLESS. You just want that energy released in a very nice even manner which is what octane does for you. In cars you can have them just barely knock then the knock sensor tells a ECM to retard timing and/or enrichen the fuel. The timing on a traditional aircraft engine is set in stone. Then the other thing that was NEVER mentioned, is Reed Vapor factors - or the way I like to put, anti vapor lock characteristics. This quality in AvGas is JUST as important as the octane rating. This is why I'm leary of using auto gas in airplanes is because of the vapor pressure factors. In theory, AvGas is suppose to REMAIN a full liqiud under all possible ambient pressures and temps, until it goes through a jet or an injector.

[@joecummings1260]

Yes some expert, he flunked the basics. He knows as much about avgas as your average 14 year old girl

[@mustardseedsociety]

@@joecummings1260 Yea when he said "EXPLODE" for the 100th time, I wanted to scream !! I guess the guy has NEVER riden a bicycle. Or wait a minute, maybe he has riden a bicycle but perhaps he has the most strange way of pedaling. He NEVER gets the bike past 6 MPH because instead of PUSHING the bike pedals, HE KICKS down at the pedals like he's karate choping a board. He's always screaming in pain because Newton's law of action reaction is giving him extreme pain in his foot and knees. If he'll just learn to PUSH the bike pedal, maybe he'll stop saying the fuel in the cylinder "explodes" !! LOL

[@TeemarkConvair]

interesting; excepting the distracting "B-roll" cuts i found quite a lot of good information.

[@gersonpriante4031]

Poderia ter tradução em português

[@speedomars]

100LL is more expensive than Jet-A for obvious reasons. Volume. Far less GA fuel is used...the big jets WALLOW in fuel...and that volume lowers price.

[@TheTerrypcurtin]

AV gas cost is cheap. I know an FBO owner. $2 a gallon or so. It's simple. We are being screwed. I would like to see this guy's house and assets. No expert he says. I say. Bullshit. Look at some airports it's fairly cheap. Then a busy spot. 1 to 3 more. Why? Risk? Please. Salaries? Minimum wage for a fueler. I just don't feel this guy's being honest at all

[@joecummings1260]

He doesn't even know what octane is.

[@timduncan8450]

@Taking Off Who can apply for a fuel tax refund as you discuss at 16:00?

[@TakingOff]

Anyone.

[@klacasse2903]

Doesn’t Europe already have unleaded Av fuel?

[@timmholzhauer3342]

No we don’t. At least not for all engines that cannot use autofuel. Still using 100LL at 8$ a gallon or more. Lots of ultralight and light sport aircraft over here with Rotaxes using auto fuel.

[@masonmax1000]

welp i hope they are gonna pay for every private pilots airplane engine to be modified to take none leaded gas. doubtful tho

[@BrianGochnauer]

So sad to hear 100UL is going to contain magnesium; that is little to no better than lead; fouling spark plugs, contaminating engine oil and newer engine management systems that use O2 sensors cause early failures because of metals in the fuels contaminates the sensors. Forcing GA to stay with the 1950's designed engines forever because of poor fuels and high costs of engine development.

[@Ravenscaller]

Marinas do the same thing. Most boats need non ETOH so they gouge he heck out of you.

[@Ravenscaller]

@David Erickson Yes and no. I can buy non ETOH "boat gas" a half mile from the marina for about $1.00 less and the gas from the self serve station has road fuel tax added whereas there is no road tax from the marina. Of course I have to carry the gas in cans which on a sailboat with a small outboard is no problem. In theory I can save my receipts and send for a tax refund but it's not worth the bother on small amounts. The reason boat gas is different is that over time alcohol separates from the gasoline and settles to the bottom. Then the engine won't start from pure ETOH which also attracts moisture and you end up with s slurry of water and alcohol in the bottom of the tank. Actually you can use regular LL gas in a 4 stroke outboard if you plan to use it all up. Finally the same truck brings boat gas to the self serve as the marina. Yes the marina had more cost to install the system and they have to pay an attendant. However you have to pump your own fuel but Iwon't go into that. Sure you pay to play.

[@justsnappy]

13 - 14 second intro is a bit much for KZbin

[@superskullmaster]

It’s been long overdue.

[@robertborchert932]

Ah, Avgas. Let's backtrack 35 years at the least. I fueled my 1968 Honda 350 twin at the airport. The good stuff. 100LL was meat and potatoes. I set the timing advance to keep the exhaust pipes from glowing red! Beautiful slow burn. Motor vehicle fuel is taxed to support, in theory, the roads. As a grandpa today, well, I understand the folly of this. They have been stealing the money. We've devolved from true aviation gasoline. I know my history. The Ethyl Corporation. I also understand chemistry. We figured out that lead tetraethyl was not benign. Designed in the 1920s. I am also saddened that economics of scale has been a conundrum. The petroleum market is based upon the market. Aviation has moved to Jet-A, but piston engines need that slow burning fuel. We figured that out in the last great war. Because of regulations, we cannot simply modify an aircraft engine to run on "mogas", or automotive fuel. It must be run as designed. I understand. 100 low lead is a compromise.

[@MurryR100]

Some tech errors.

[@jeromehiggins3001]

The reason why Aviation is expensive is because of a Government three-letter acronym... FAA!

[@notj5712]

The guy in the blue shirt is right. He's not an expert. Octane has nothing to to with BTU. Neither does lead. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of hydrocarbon fuels. Just because you sell something doesn't mean you understand it. Might want to publish a clarification of the facts.

[@wingleberry1]

Christy....where's your cool pants?

[@turnbank3492]

Its only 1.90 up here in canada. Per liter hahahahha

[@jhaedtler]

Most of what he is saying is not true! Sad. Ethanol is only added by the jober. Lead is used as a lubrication agent for the valves! That is why most old ag operators used Marvel in the fuel and used car gas! Most round engines where made to run on 80/87, so 100 LL is not good for all round engines! It all depends on the compression ratio of your engine!

[@jameshenshaw7668]

Ethanol has contaminated a fair amount of non-ethanol supplies. With the lead issue, not sure why they don't convert the av gas like when they did away with leaded fuel. Just stop selling it and say convert your engine or buy lead substitute.

[@scottmiller4711]

The easiest way to make his points are that the higher the Octane, the more it can be compressed before detonation (ie High Compression engines). This is also why high performance sports cars recommend Premium gas. Ethanol is an Octane booster and it is not that airplane engines can’t handle it but because their fuel systems are not ethanol friendly. 100LL served a purpose many years ago when engines needed the additional lubrication lead provided. That is no long necessary given the much better quality of engine oils. Most people don’t realize that the STC is mostly a piece of paper you pay for to legally put MOGAS into your plane.

[@garykeller1158]

@@jameshenshaw7668 Expensive convert, but I agree with you. Avgas should have has an endangerment tag added to it years ago. We're still trying.

[@garykeller1158]

Get an STC for Swift fuels. You will have the Swift 100R when the FAA certifies it.

[@429thunderjet2]

@@scottmiller4711 the problem with ethanol is it degrades fast. So aircraft that sit unused say over the winter have stale degraded fuel that screws up, plugs up fuel systems and hardens rubber. This has been an ongoing problem with small engines.

[@JC-wr7mu]

How much more expensive will UL100 likely be than 100LL?

[@garykeller1158]

Call Swift fuels and ask them.

[@HoundDogMech]

AV Gas 100 LL is less than 1/2 of one present of all gas produced.

[@garykeller1158]

It still is responsible for 468 tons of lead emissions every year.

[@andreask9382]

It beggars belief that 100LL is still around. Time to ditch it. And yes, that would mean that some ancient engines would no longer be around. GA could do with some rejuvenation of their fleet.

[@king_ofthe_newbs1742]

😂😂there are already alternatives to high octane problem is its cheap and cheap don't pay the bills they couldn't justify you pay 10x if it cost .01 get it.

[@corindikevcorindikev]

I gave up after only 5 minutes. This guy is wrong and doesn't understand the chemistry at all. Mogas and Avgas are not the same. The main difference is avgas is based on completely different chemistry, paraffin (the flammable component of candle wax) and mogas is based on aromatic hydrocarbons (like benzene). The paraffin base makes avgas much more stable (so it can be stored a long time) and it has a much lower Reid Vapor Pressure (a much higher boiling point, to avoid boiling, or vapor lock, at altitude.) Avgas's paraffin chemistry makes it more dependent on tetraethyl lead to achieve its octane rating, which is much higher than mogas in the first place, whereas mogas's naturally more detonation resistant chemistry, lesser vapour pressure requirements and lower octane requirements allowed for lead to be eliminated in the 70s using other means (now xylene and toluene) to achieve its octane rating.

[@zadyhellin7880]

The dusty pressure scully gather because thread phenomenologically buzz as a decorous box. periodic, amused cloudy

[@schnabel69]

Nothing new here to learn that hasn’t been talked about since the 80s. They will still be talking about it 40 years from now. The liability for all the different engine types and compressions out there is just too restrictive. If it only works for half the engines out there it is not feasible. The best point made here is that avfuel is such a small volume, it’s not worth the cost to change. The oil companies consider aviation fuels and oils “boutique” products and know they can charge more. Sorry millennial snowflakes, lead is here to stay in avfuel

[@garykeller1158]

Swift 100R is a solution. The FAA will not certify it. Care to guess why?

[@429thunderjet2]

@@garykeller1158 Do tell? $?

[@429thunderjet2]

I'm a boomer gearhead and have an old 1970 high compression big block car engine that ran fine for years on 91 non ox premium. It had been overhauled before I got it but it didn't get hardened valve seats installed. Had a head off and the seats are recessing now. That was thought to be why those engines needed leaded fuel, besides the antiknock properties of lead. So aside from the political bulloney, wouldn't av engines & valves take unleaded if a suitable octane was formulated? Idk? Do they have or can hardened valve seats be installed?

[@429thunderjet2]

Also unleaded certainly runs much cleaner, less carbon buildup, spark plugs and stuff last longer. Unleaded is dryer so maybe a top lube would help. Just kinda thinking out loud I guess.

[@garykeller1158]

@@429thunderjet2 Because it is easier. If they were to certify a 100 fuel that worked in all piston driven planes (and yes they already have had one for almost 7 years) what would be the next move by the FAA? Make sure that all 19,000 airports would get it? Force pilots to use it? Give them a choice to use the leaded stuff or the unleaded and continue with lead emissions? Actually have to do something? All of the above? Now if they never quite seem to find that fuel what would they have to do? Absolutely nothing except to kick it down the road some more.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

Avgas also stinks. No good for public road use..

[@hansjakob9495]

AVgas smells pleasant, and I've been using it for over 30 years in my high compression hot rod and boat without a single issue.

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

@@hansjakob9495 You must find latrines pleasant odor too.. Are you a glue snifffer? they have weird tastes..

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

@@hansjakob9495 You must sniff glue too. Sniffers like shittt odors..

[@hansjakob9495]

@@emergencylowmaneuvering7350 , you must be a liberal tree hugger....