The future of fuel- 100LL to be replaced??

[LysanderUK]

I've just been reading about a development that could spell trouble for all us warbird fans, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news! It seems that Continental are carrying out tests with 94UL fuel, with a view to it replacing 100LL. It seems as though there is official pressure to remove all traces of lead from aviation fuel, and Continental are trying to plan for the future.

Now my question is, how would the majority of warbirds run on 94UL? I'm not an engine expert of any kind, but from my understanding the majority of the high-performance, high compression ratio engines (your average Merlin for example) NEED 100LL to stave off such nasties as detonation. Would the termination of 100LL spell the end for high performance warbirds? What kind of additive options might there be if so?

Sorry to be all doom and gloom, but I read the following article and it brought the above questions to mind.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/TC ... 536-1.html

[EDMJ]

The entire general aviation and warbird movement should have started considering this issue seriously about 30 years ago.

Very few did, least of all Messrs Continental and Lycoming. According to the avweb link, Continental is taking 100LL without the lead and putting it in their engines to see which ones can use it and which ones can't. That's not what I as an engineer would call research. Research to me means developing engines capable of running on other fuels than 100LL and/or a replacement fuel with the same specifications but without the lead. Not much is happening in these respects, particularly the latter.

It is very likely that production of 100LL will stop before it's forbidden, simply because demand is decreasing. There are less and less aircraft around needing this fuel (in some places it is now very difficult to obtain, need not go further than Italy or Greece!) and a very costly infrastructure is required to produce and transport this fuel, so it's becoming financially less attractive for the refineries/producers.

Everybody has been burying their heads in the sand over this issue for decades and it appears to me to be too late to anything seriously now. I think we will see a lot of grounded high-performance piston aircraft, including warbirds, and a lot of "surprised" owners operators when the time comes.

[Cubs]

There is much discussion about replacing 100LL in GA trade magazines,etc. There seems to be a dilemma about producing a high octane, lead-free fuel. Within 50 miles of my house are 4 gas stations that I know of, that have 112 octane fuel, lead-free. I know there are different methods used to rate octane. 100LL and 112 octane pump gas may not be equitable values but,
obviously there is some significance to this number because this fuel is being used by many performance,high compression, street automobiles. This fuel is available at SUNOCO gas stations. Price is high, currently $6.25 a gallon. But, it is available. So why can't this fuel be used as a substitute for 100LL?

[EDMJ]

So why can't this fuel be used as a substitute for 100LL?

1) What is the ethanol content like? Many hoses/gaskets don't like this, and, if I recall correctly, ethanol absorbs water and can create vapour locks at higher altitudes.

2) The also lead doubles as a lubricant (valves) in some engines, so cannot simply be dispensed with.

Incidentally, the lack of responses in this thread is to me simply additional proof that the great majority are closing their eyes to this problem....

[Christer]

Well, since the lack of responses is lamented, I can post a link to Hjelmco Oil, a Swedish company who has researched and produced lead free fuels for years. They also produce high performance (leaded) fuels. Place your orders ... ... !

[RyanShort1]

So why can't this fuel be used as a substitute for 100LL?

1) What is the ethanol content like? Many hoses/gaskets don't like this, and, if I recall correctly, ethanol absorbs water and can create vapour locks at higher altitudes.

2) The also lead doubles as a lubricant (valves) in some engines, so cannot simply be dispensed with.

Incidentally, the lack of responses in this thread is to me simply additional proof that the great majority are closing their eyes to this problem....

Not necessarily...

Ryan

[Cubs]

So why can't this fuel be used as a substitute for 100LL?

1) What is the ethanol content like? Many hoses/gaskets don't like this, and, if I recall correctly, ethanol absorbs water and can create vapour locks at higher altitudes.

2) The also lead doubles as a lubricant (valves) in some engines, so cannot simply be dispensed with.

Incidentally, the lack of responses in this thread is to me simply additional proof that the great majority are closing their eyes to this problem....

1. I was assured that the ethanol content was "0".
2. The lead is a lubricant but, aviation piston engines have replaceable valve seats so
hardened seats can be installed. If I remember correctly, new cylinders already come with these hardened seat that don't require lead.