Now for a slight change of direction. If you're writing your
legislators, one thing to remind them of is that we got the TEL out of
gasoline, NOT because it was making us sick (although I was never keen
on eating the blackberries that grow right alongside the highways
everywhere in Oregon), but because it destroyes catalytic converters.
And whatever anybody's opinion about catalytic converters is, nobody
is proposing CCs for the tiny piston-powered general aviation fleet.
Therefore efforts to remove the TEL from aviation fuel for
"environmental" reasons are quixotic and contrary to good sense.

Catalytic converters only do in a short time what nature does in the
free air over a longer time anyway. They do not change the LONG TERM
effect of burning petroleum, which is to release carbon dioxide.

We could get rid of automobile emissions control in most of the cars
in the continental US with a tiny effect in air quality in most of our
landmass. Only six cities-LA, SFO, Denver, the greater NYC metro area,
and a couple others would be impacted. They would, however, be VERY
impacted if all the car fleet went back to 1963 standards. Los Angeles
in particular would be uninhabitable.

Where I live Mexicans buy certain 1980s-1990s trucks (primarily) and
cars and remove the EFI and factory ECM and backfit them with a carb,
vacuum distributor, and remove the cat con, AIR and EGR systems and
assorted stuff. Those vehicles are then taken back to Mexico and sold
at a profit, as the Mexican infrastructure can maintain them that way.
This is great for rural Mexicans, but a little tough in Mexico City.

In fact, a good case could be made for a mandate that TEL in avfuel be
REDUCED from the current ridiculous levels to something that wouldn'f
foul sparkplugs without drastic leaning.

THAT would make everybody happy.


That is called 80/87 aviation gas. All grades of aviation gasoline are
of essentially the same base stock with only the levels of TEL varying.


A better solution is the use of common car gas in aircraft with
thoroughly refurbished fuel systems, if auto fuels are of sufficient
octane rating to assure detonation is not a concern. Better yet was
what the Europeans started to do in the late 80s, before giving up
because of the perceived factory efforts: replacement of air cooled
cylinders with ones having modern combustion chamber designs and liquid
cooling jackets. Liquid cooled engines can safely operate on a given
fuel at up to two points higher compression ratio as opposed to air
cooled ones.