I seem to remember John Deakin (who has forgotten more about octane, detonation, and so forth, than most of us dumb throttle pushers will ever know) writing a column at AvWeb about leaded aviation fuel; here it is:
Lead in the Hogwash. In short: Captain Deakin argues for 95NL. (Mind you, this is from 2002. I'm sure that things have changed a little since then.)
(As an aside: From a safety perspective (and as someone who used to pump aviation fuel...) I firmly believe that ONE and precisely ONE aviation fuel should be used in aviation reciprocating engines. Nightmares enough about misfueling with two types of fuel on the airport...)
To me, the constant bellyaching about lead in aviation fuel is a lot like the bellyaching ('discussion and implementation' if you prefer) about NextGen: we've been hearing about it for
n > 20 years, and it's not ready yet. (That said, I would consider its extinction to be relatively imminent; for whatever reason, apparently now is the time?)
I currently operate an airplane that is type certificated for 80/87, 100LL or 100/130. No modifications on timing are required (as I recall: I don't switch fuels, since the only fuel I can by here in California is 100LL) for the engines to develop rated takeoff/METO power, although I would want to consult my maintenance manual and a familiar A&P before switching fuels out of habit. If you're curious, the engines in question are Lycoming GO-480-F1A6s, 275HP.
The other turbocharger failures are junk going through the impellers. With no valves to break off and get ejected through the turbo, and with a good air cleaner on the intake side, and a good clean oil, I think the turbo has a greater chance than with an air cooled, carbon deposited, soiled dinosaur oil engine.
This.
I'm reminded of the colloquialism for the PRT on the R-3350 Turbo Compound fitted to the Lockheed Constellation: "Parts Recovery Turbine".
The supercharger will probably not go to TBO based on the belt drive. That will probably need to be replaced (with a prop removal $$$$$). Also, not crazy about the same belt running the alternator, because now a seized alternator will take out the supercharger. Also, no current room for a belt driven air compressor for a/c.
I'm not enamored with that...and I wonder what the FAA will think.