Is it just me or has the response from the EAA & AOPA to the proposed
rulemaking eliminating TEL from aviation gasoline been muted?

I've been thinking that one could tell how the leaded AVGAS issue would play
out by watching the intensity of the response from general aviation
lobbyists. A muted response would mean they think the issue is lost. A
spirited response means they think they can win.

Maybe, the aviation lobby knows the Indian source of TEL is going away so
they made a deal with the EPA to let them "get out ahead of the issue" by
issuing a rule eliminating leaded AVGAS before the bad news from India hits.
This sort of deal could get them some future favors.

The EPA is the most political agency in the US government. It wouldn't be
like them to let an opportunity for some headlines get away. They'd want to
claim it was their rule that eliminated lead and not some little company on
the other side of the world going out of business.

Of course, it's yet another Washington conspiracy theory, but that's how
washington works.

Bill Daniels


"Jim Meade" wrote in message
...
The comment is made that ethanol is net energy negative. That depends
on how you measure it. If you measure all energy in versus all energy
out, studies show it has about a 30% net energy positive. That
includes the energy value of the dried distillers grains and other
useable byproducts. If one does not like ethanol, then one ignores
that data and shows only the energy to get the corn to the plant
versus the energy of the ethanol out and pretends the DDG livestock
feed doesn't exist.

I've run 10% ethanol no lead gasoline in my equipment, some as old as
from 1962, for over 10 years. Ethanol will indeed "clean out" a fuel
system and changes in filters may be necessary. In addition, ethanol
is corrosive. This means airplane fuel systems (not engines) may need
to be changed. A modification most of us would not choose to do.

I use a lead replacement for the old tractors but don't for the
automobiles which date from as old as 1993. (Car engines since 1986
should have the better valve systems that can handle ethanol.)

Some aircraft run successfully on ethanol, even pure ethanol, as we
all know from the well-publicized demonstrations.

The possible near term elimination of 100LL is causing some
consternation. MOGAS may not be a solution to that loss, whether it
has ethanol in it or not.

I'm a farmer and pilot who would like to see 100LL remain and access
to non-ethanol MOGAS be widely available, but what ever we believe or
desire, it will help us all to push for good scientific research and
wide dissemination of the facts so we can all make or support informed
choices.