and still sprayed all around the surrounding land at almost every airport in the USA and worldwide from prop aircraft exhaust despite knowing ANY amount is toxic and irreversible for 30+ years

* https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

▲

dnemmers 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Very true that only recently, a lead-free substitute was available.

https://g100ul.com/

	▲	projektfu 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Also UL94 (https://www.swiftfuelsavgas.com/) could be used in many models. Unfortunately some have been previously upgraded to high-compression engines to get a few more horsepower and they can't use UL94. Some can run on ethanol-free 87-octane automotive fuel, generally the low-compression engines that already can run 80/87 aviation fuel. 80/87 and 100/130 leaded fuels are all but unavailable, but 100LL is ubiquitous. There is a chicken and egg problem to make G100UL and UL94 available, which will encourage its use. Even automotive fuel is hard to find at airports, possibly because they don't want the liability of improper fueling. (100LL is compatible with almost every gasoline aircraft engine, the rest are not.) The G100UL also may have an issue with being too good of a solvent, although the developer insists that's a libel. Swift Fuels is also supposed to introduce a different type of 100-octane unleaded called 100R that has had good results in testing but hasn't been broadly approved yet. It was like pulling teeth from a dragon to get the FAA to move forward with G100UL as I understand it, and then they suddenly approved it for just about anything provided they write a supplemental type certificate. So maybe the same will happen when/if 100R is approved and someone will handle the marketing.

▲

londons_explore 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You say that in the past tense... But pretty much every propeller plane worldwide still uses the stuff...

▲

mr_toad 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Only in piston engines, which are a minority of propeller planes. Most commercial propeller aircraft are turboprops, and they use jet fuel. And diesel engines are slowly taking over from gasoline in piston engines.

▲

mh- 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Correct. For others reading this though: virtually all piston-engine GA aircraft in the US today are still burning 100LL (leaded), and there are nearly 200,000 of them actively flying.

There is a timeline to transition to UL, but very low collective confidence it'll happen by the 2030 goal.

edit: to the commenter that fired off the reactionary reply and deleted it before I could help you. No, not because "[rich people] won't do the right thing." It's because lead is an anti-knock additive for piston engines, and a safe replacement has to go through unimaginable amounts of testing. Once it's certified, one must still figure out scaling production, distribution, etc. Aviation is a very slow moving industry and regulatory environment, which I'm personally thankful for.

PDF (77pgs): https://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2026/2026-01_Draft-Unlead...

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

ck2 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

the amount of lead that is acceptable is ZERO

ZERO, thirty years ago when there was definitive proof is it forever and irreversible

all lead exhaust aircraft should have been phased out a decade ago if not two decades ago if they cannot be converted

again, there is no acceptable amount, imagine it being sprayed on you, your car, everywhere

your body tries to process it like calcium and stores it forever

how much damage and disease to you and your family are you willing to accept just so someone can keep using their prop aircraft for another decade to make profit?

yes it's all about the money, it's pretty obvious, if there wasn't profit involved it would have been phased out with cars THIRTY YEARS ago

all that lead sprayed all around the land and on people is FOREVER, it doesn't go away, it doesn't wash away, it doesn't evaporate

	▲	mh- 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm unclear who you're arguing with. I don't fly GA and I live under the approach to a GA airport, which is why I'm well-read on this subject.
	▲	cucumber3732842 15 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's mind boggling that people will screech about how the professionals say zero but then turn around and act like GA is a big deal, despite the fact that the same professionals will say that unless you have occupational exposure other vectors are going to be what dominate your lead level. And by "mind boggling" I just mean a more polite way to say "condemnation of people's logic and reasoning abilities or honesty" Yeah, sure we should get rid of GA leaded gas and we're working on it but it's not really a front burner priority because of how little it gets into people.
	▲	dalyons an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		personally i think we should just stop selling the leaded version, tomorrow. alternatives exist, update your planes or dont fly, but no more leaded fuel.