Letters to the Editor

Letter: No good avgas replacement

It is obvious the people who wrote the recent commentary demanding the replacement of 100LL avgas have not read the patent on the FAA-approved drop-in replacements. Swift Fuels has a technical and toxin problem due to the high amount of aromatic hydrocarbons needed to boost the octane rating on their alternative to 100LL. Swift’s fuel functions but contains a lot of known cancer-causing agents and burns too slowly in the cylinders, therefore damaging valves and polluting the atmosphere with unburnt hydrocarbons.

Secondly, GAMI’s 100UL has an aromatic amine at a circa 10% level needed to boost their alternative to 100LL, as the patent states. All aromatic amines are cancer-causing agents, plus this particular amine (methyl aniline) has the nasty habit of adsorbing through the skin and blocking the iron in red blood cells from accepting oxygen — you turn blue and die if exposed enough.

Maybe the authors of this under- researched commentary on the evils of 100LL should do a tad more research on toxins before forming their opinions.

— Gordon E. Bowen


Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.