Elimination of 100LL
 

Is anyone concern about the elimination of 100LL by the year 2005. I have read that the EPA is going to phase out 100LL and the replacement will have a lower octane. I also understand that many of the 200 hp and higher engines currently dependent on 100LL, and originally certified to higher octane fuels that have already been phased out, will not be convertable without major modifications.

I'm thinking about the purchase of my first airplane and I don't want a plane that, in 5 years, will require a new engine and/or will lose much of it's value due to an obsolete engine.

I am a concerned owner, however there are also frequency assingment changes targeted for 2005 that will make coms with less than 3 digits after the decimal no longer functional.

My point is, I hope that organizations such as the FAA and AOPA have enough forsight to not "hot-cut" anything that will cause GA to go into a stall-spin crash.

I don't know what they plan to replace 100LL with--probably an unleaded variety of aviation fuel.

Then, with the thousands of engines out there used to and designed for 100LL, there will certainly be additives--just as there are for cars--that will likely make the new fuel compatible for most aviation engines.

------------------
DJSchaut

When 80 octane became unavailable people clamored that 100LL was causing all kinds of problems, same with the old 100 octane. Most people now realize that 100LL is generally superior to the old products. I have never found the lead content to cause a problem in 80 octane motors if one uses a wee bit of common sense in operation. Politics, religion, and petroleum products are the things people feel the strongest about and know the least about. I'm sure that a suitable solution(pun intended) will be found that will be less objectionable to enviromentalists and less of a hassle for refiners. I doubt this program will stay on schedule and won't affect us for another 6 or 7 years. The economy in general, and your own in particular will have a greater effect on your aviating than what goes in the tank. You are probably going to spend more on avionics per hour than engine anyway on a small single.



[This message has been edited by skid (edited 10-27-2000).]