that lead is required for the majority of aero engines. It is mostly a
legal/regulatory issue. I wouldn't put 100LL in any engine that I owned
anyway but I would not own an engine that needed higher octane than
premium mogas. I think the octane rating rather than lead is what a
purchaser's concern should be. Then you don't have to be concerned with
future fuels.
Ken
Ralph Baker wrote:
Our USA tree huggers are suing to eliminate lead. It is also a
market reality as there is only only one tetraethyl lead supplier
left to my knowlege. At the same time there is considerable research
on no lead avgas replacement fuel. In fact, there is already a
turbine fuel replacement being tested by the military. A 100LL
replacement is available in small (test) quantities and so far no
drawbacks for most of the fleet. The sticky applications are
turbocharged and radial engines.
Personally, I'd not worry about the fuel. Ben Visser (ret. from
Shell) says that after 300 hours on 100LL they can be operated to
normal TBO on auto fuel. There are to many stakeholders to phase out
100LL without a replacement. I like the Rotax engine (especially
with the new 2000 hour TBO) and we have an O-360 in our long building
Elite. Pick the engine that prrovides the performance you want and
get on with building. Ralph Baker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
List archives located at: https://mail.dcsol.com/login
username "rebel" password "builder"
Unsubscribe: rebel-builders-unsubscribe@dcsol.com
List administrator: mike.davis@dcsol.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
