I agree with kmisegades. Diesel is the way to go due to its lack of lead, it's commonality, and the fact that diesel engines will run on nearly anything that can burn, including biofuels.
If I had the money to buy a brand new plane today, I certainly would try to buy one with a diesel engine. Hell, even if I bought a used one, I may consider retrofitting it with a diesel engine in the future.
Hunters and target shooting enthusiasts in the US and Canada dump more lead into our environment than our small GA fleet. Problem is we don't have a million vocal members of the NRA fighting this. The Center for Biological Diversity and other left wing opponents of lead-based bullets want the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Though the EPA denied a petition to enact such regulation last year, and a Washington federal judge dismissed the ensuing lawsuit, more than 100 groups and scientists filed a new petition in March so the NRA is being proactive and fighting the issue. Where is AOPA on this? The tree huggers are after our throttles and we need to fight back with education and logic. Millions of pounds of lead are dumped into our environment each year by hunters with direct evidence of toxic poisoning in scavenger birds and small animals. Yet not ONE empirical study to show any environmental evidence of any harm by the microscopic emissions left after our already LOW leaded gas (from tree huggers activity in the sixties) leaves our engines during flight. The arguments of hese so called environmental groups are duplicitous and specious and need to be challenged immediately and in force.
As far as I am concerned, this is a non issue.
We have already removed so much lead from what is burned in cars,trucks, lawn mowers and every other gasoline powered engines that this is like worrying about a grain of sand on the beach.
It is pointless. If you weren't poisoned as a kid by handling lead 30 years ago , I don't think you could encounter enough lead laying around from man's use and disposal to poison a mouse.
C'mon people just accept the fact that this is all about government control and has nothing to do with real environmental issues.
Do away with lead and you take GA out of the air and do away with bullets all at the same tme.
An environmental whacko , tree hugger's dream come true.
Wake up and see this for what it really is.
There are numerous reasons why "Lead is Dead" including source availability, existing producers not wanting to handle it and the costs associated with that, the anticipated ban from an EPA "endangerment finding" and the liability fallout for fuel producers, FBOs, airframe and engine manufacturers, etc. who make or sell fuel or products that use leaded fuel, to name a few, whether or not lead in avgas is a real threat to human health. The vast majority of 100LL is consumed by the higher performance (8.5:1 compression ratio or higher) normally aspirated and turbocharged aircraft that are used by owners and businesses for other than pure recreational purposes. This existing fleet and the market it represents will dictate the requirements for the fuel solution for obvious economic reasons. What we need is a 100 MON, unleaded, petroleum-based, (read- affordable) fuel that works in the airplane and engine without any or with only minor changes to the airframe/engine.
GAMI's G100UL is just that. All indications thus far indicate GAMI's G100UL fuel is a viable "quasi drop-in" fuel meaning it can be used in the airplane/engine without changes, to the same operating limitations, mixed with 100LL without issue, and can be produced at the existing refineries, distributed through existing channels, resulting in an affordable fuel solution. It differs modestly in three "distillation points", very slightly in energy content and has no lead compared to 100LL and its specification D910, and as such, can't be called a true "drop-in" fuel. Operationally, you really can't tell the difference.
There are some in the industry who would prefer to ignore or discredit the viability of the G100UL, in order to sustain the belief that "there is no workable replacement" which serves to maintain the status quo in terms of source/supply and ignores the recognized risk to the industry should the EPA mandate a near-term removal of lead from our fuel. The legal actions and EPA direction are already at hand.
Please excuse my ignorance, but can someone explain, in a nutshell, why is it so hard to find a replacement fuel?
What is so special about airplane piston engines that any 100 octane unleaded mogas (which presumably offers the same protection against detonation) won't work?
What about the unleaded gas used in car races? I'd guess that an F1 engine is at least as high-performance as an aviation engine (yes, I know, we are happy if the F1 engine endures one race and we want our Lycoming to have a 3000 hours TBO, but still)
And finally a comment to the other user that emphasized that our avgas is already LOW lead. Before the 100LL there were two fuel grades: 80-87 and 100-130. Obviously, the higher-octane 100-130 had more lead than the low octane 80-87 (which is low octane even for current mogas standards). The 100LL came as a unified replacement of both. By placing the octanes at the lower limit of the 100-130 gas, and working with the formulation and additives, they were able to make a 100 octane gas that had low lead compared to the 100-130 it replaced. BUT, it had a higher lead than the 80-87 it also replaced. Compared to the full range 80-130, the 100LL was a medium octane, medium lead solution. The choice of the Low Lead name was obviously for marketing reasons.