We live in a rural community and I have been elected to the township board for the last few years. A couple of years ago, the board applied for a grant to replace all of the traffic signs in our township. We won the grant and received the new signs.
A few weeks ago, I got a call from a representative from the company that has the contract to install the new signs, and they wanted to set up an appointment for us to select new signs for our township. I tried to explain that our township had already received the new signs. The representative said that was ok — they would just go ahead and replace all of our new signs because it would not cost our township a cent.
I did not handle this reasoning well and immediately called several county and state officials and got it changed. I am old fashioned and believe that wasting even federal government money is still a waste.
This immediately brought to mind the program to replace 100LL with an unleaded product. Here the federal government and others are spending large sums of money to solve a problem that does not exist except in their minds, but will create real problems in general aviation with their “solution.”
Each summer, I enter several antique tractor pulls for which I buy racing gasoline. I asked our local racing fuel representative if the fuels contain lead. He replied that many of them do, but that they are legal for off-road use only.
When I dug into the data, I found that 22 of the 48 fuels contained lead. But all of the fuels have names like NO2 or Q16. And then it hit me — the problem with 100 Low Lead is the name. We need to get the lead out of the name.
So I have come up with a simple solution to general aviation’s biggest problem. We need to rename 100LL to something like Aviation Grade 100, or AG100, and the problem is solved.
Just think of the advantages for the new AG100. First and foremost, we can claim that we got the lead out of 100LL (out of the name that is!)
Second, we have saved general aviation to live another day. All of the old warbirds and high performance aircraft will be safe to continue to fly without expensive modifications.
The exhaust valve seats for aircraft from O-200s to P&W 4360s will have a life expectancy of over 50 hours and maybe even to full TBO.
Third, all of the lawsuits that will come with the new unleaded fuels will suddenly just disappear.
Fourth, since 100LL has no pollution problems, the air we breathe will not be harmed in any way.
And fifth, look at all the money that will be saved by the government reducing its budget, by pilots who will not have to modify their aircraft, and the reduction in repairs caused by using the new unleaded fuels.
And I think we can claim that it is for off-road use only, because the few airplane landings on public roads are not that significant.
So what happens to all of that money that is saved?
Most people do not care about saving money except for their own, but I think it is important. I am also sure that it will just disappear, or we could have a program to add a second fuel, let’s call it AG91 (the secret formula for which would be 100% premium mogas and 0% ethanol). This would allow overhauled engines to break in on AG100 and then switch to some AG91 during the life of the engine.
Damn, I just saved general aviation and it is not even lunch time yet. Maybe I should work on world peace until dinner. No, I think I will take a nap instead, this thinking stuff can really tire one out.
Ben, good post. Good comments and discussion, all of us. Let’s face it: tetraethyl lead is an evil substance, now on the wrong side of history. Jurisdictions with large amounts of lead in paint or pumpgas have increased mental retardation and violent crime, with a 21 year time lag. Toxic to people, fouls plugs, sludges oil. The scavengers are why auto exhausts used to rot out so quickly.
Let’s try to “get ahead of the plane”, get ahead of history. When Innospec gets tired of the flack, or has an industrial accident, do we really want to trust our lives to the blends from PRC? TSC’s when 100LL defaults to 91UL? Swift Fuels, uspto.gov, #8,556,999 B2 to see what they are trying to sell, how they intend making it. Also, Lycoming’s website has a service bulletin on what fuels they approve for each engine, and some good articles on why. Yes, it’s a lot of harassment and hassle, but GA really has to get on the right side of history.
More damage is done to the environment each day by contrails at 30,000 feet due to both particle pollution and changing -30 deg air to +700 deg air columns 12 feet in diameter than all the general aviation pistons flown in one year. A dirty little secret about OUR goverment VS Europe. If you
fly at 30,000 ft over Europe, you pay an environmental penalty fee. What we need in the USA is high speed rail and a govt by and for the people.
best article ever!!!!
Excellent point! The “spin doctors” at all levels of government have no problem “rebranding” and “wordsmithing” their pork barrel projects so why can’t the aviation market place do the same! When “grant money” is regularly swapped with “free money” (at least in Tehachapi, California, it is) and “terrorism” is swapped with “work place violence”, then fair is fair.
Please always remember that “Grant Money” is nothing but code word for “your tax dollars” and waste is waste!
How about 100″Long Life”, 100″Last Longer”, 100″Less Limitation”, 100″Light Lift”, or……..?
Well written article and keep up the good work!
Brilliant, Ben. Simply brilliant. I sure don’t know why some money wastin’ bureaucrat, in Washington, didn’t think of this.
Oh… wait…
Er, Bryan, Sir, or whatever. Do yourself a favor and search for the term “satire”.
And the techie people keep arguing that a liberal arts education is a waste of time and other resources….
And to the-powers-that-be at General Aviation News, thanks for restoring the previous comments function on this website. You may find that your clicks pick up. A lot of geezers are simply unwilling to bare their souls and personal data for the financial benefit of young Master Zuckerberg. And many of us find the reader comments to be as interesting as the underlying articles.
Just sayin’.
Thanks for the comment about the comments section Brett. Crickets is what I saw on the administration side. The number of comments fell off a cliff when we switched to Facebook. As my Dad often said, “I ain’t smart, but I ain’t no dummy.” Happy reading… and commenting.
Ben Sclair, Publisher
General Aviation News
Seriously ? This is not helpful to keeping GA alive in any way. It is time to get serious about this and ensure that GA will be around for our kids. If this is intended as a joke, it is a poor one.
This sort of “head in the sand” reasoning is exactly what has gotten us to this point with a $6/gallon boutique fuel that we can’t continue to produce. There actually are some environmental concerns, the Friends of the Earth, who keep trying to shut us down, are not complete idiots. The low levels of lead will still be a problem for the environment, and the FOE won’t stop their law suits because of a name change. None of the warbirds you mentioned originally flew on 100 LL, though in truth, no one ever thought they would still be flying in 2015 when they were built. My airplane, and 95% of the fleet will fly right now on 100 LL with the lead not added, (which is roughly 91 octane) just fine. The Europeans are using that fuel now with Lycoming and Continentals. The rest of the fleet with higher compression engines need some help; lets get that figured out starting right now.
Your analogy about saving money on traffic signs makes no sense in this context. Let’s get serious and get something done.
Yo Bowlsbey, give it a rest. You’re wound up way too tight. Visser is right. 100LL presents NO PROBLEM, never has and never will for the ALL MIGHTY environment. It is yet another leftist cause celeb, another political football to kick around. Your other post and this one in this same issue makes it clear that you are a full fledged supporter of big government and all its intrusiveness. Yours in the head that’s buried deep in sand or some place with a similar lack of visibility.
“…the Friends of the Earth, who keep trying to shut us down, are not complete idiots.”
Maybe not. But then I’m not going to accuse them of being completely honest and forthright, either.