Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
#1776948
Some of us made large investments in aircraft with high compression engines. Most of us I expect would not be able to dump an aircraft and just go out and buy another.

The lack of support from those not in this situation is palpable. Stop preaching and start helping to work out a solution.

Luckily there will still be a market for our aircraft in the rest of the world outside of the EU. If not as a whole aircraft, certainly for parts.

This single move will take more aircraft off the European fleet than any other change in aviation regulation ever.
Pilot Pete liked this
#1776951
neilmurg wrote:Take it or leave it ...... (and stop saying 'my engine needs it' I already accepted that!)
I accept that some aircraft HAVE to use 100LL, but if you can use UL91 you should EVEN IF IT COSTS A LITTLE MORE MONEY. If you're a flight school, explain why.
It's not rocket science (that's a jokey reference to why it IS related to rocket science, in case you don't get subtlety and irony)
User avatar
By cotterpot
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1776972
If it was JUST a little more money I don't think it would be an issue - but it's not.

We have used UL91 in the past and it was very good for keeping plugs/engine clean and had no effect on consumption.

Three months ago we needed more fuel and apart from not being able to get UL91 easily it was significantly more. We sourced 100LL for 90p per L including VAT (for 10,000 L) as the companies seemed to be offloading aviation fuel as a result of the cancellation of airshows. The delivery driver told us ours was his only delivery that day.

We then reduced the flying rate. If we could have got UL91 and maintained the flying rate we would have done that.
neilmurg liked this
#1777009
In terms of supply and demand, and I doubt this will happen, it would be useful to see the effect on the whole of GA if the Avgas price could be held at a low price for a full year (assuming it is not a washout with the weather).

Would GA pilots still fly the same number of hours or fly more? If more, would flying schools/clubs be leasing more aircraft for the increased demand from renters and/or new students? If more aircraft utilisation that is more work for the maintenance companies. More utilisation is also more landing fees and fuel sales for the airfields, and more footfall for the cafes.

Will there be an increased demand for GA rentals by airline pilots that have been made redundant due to covid that want to fly GA to help get their next flying job?

It is very difficult to measure the true supply/demand for GA whilst prices are high for the customer at the end of the chain.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1777014
Lockhaven wrote:Can 100LL and UL91 be mixed assuming you took off with say 100LL, landed at destination requiring fuel to find only UL91 is available.


Yes
Lockhaven liked this
User avatar
By Pete L
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1777207
Shows how small a market aviation fuels are - 10 years of unleaded UL91 / 91UL and still only a few airfields with it - Hjelmco and Swift don't seem to operate in the UK - only Warter and Total. BP seem to have added UL91 to their website but it seems to just reference Scandinavia and France so I'm guessing they just distribute rather than blend.

Interesting note on the Warter spec sheet - stable for 2 years but whether that's in a tank or unopened drums I don't know.
#1777257
I think in Europe the only place making UL91 (which I use) is in France. It's very common in the UK AIUI for oil companies share basic product before modifying it to their own spec. [I'm not an oil industry guy, treat with caution]
#1777276
Leaded gasoline was outlawed for cars because it fouls catalytic converters in short order. The hypothesis that lead oxide is toxic came later, but it is with enough exposure... much like the ethyl alcohol many people drink. However I think with the exposure level produced by aircraft engines, there is approximately zero effect of lead oxide on human health, very much unlike ethyl alcohol as it is consumed by many.

My aircraft engine runs fine on unleaded fuel, and did so for some time before I owned it, but the same political power structure that want to eliminate lead from Avgas wants to add alcohol to car fuel, along with benzin, toluene etc. My plane doesn’t like the former, and I’d prefer to avoid the latter when I can. I think fuel politics are in general irrational, except perhaps for the issue of preventing fouled catalysts, and given the lack of real world consequence in my use my main interest is in buying fuel that works with as little tax applied as possible. Avgas is good stuff, lasts forever when stored and leaves no stinky residue. I’m happy I can avoid Diesel anything in my life and happy I don’t have to fuel my plane with car petrol. UL 91 would be fine for me but not for others and I have more respect for their needs than the environmental argument against lead oxide.
skydriller, johnm liked this
#1777284
When forced, the automotive industry adapted to survive without lead. Engines were retuned, with retarded ignition timing, and some modified with hardened valve seats. A pain, but most engines survived.

It just needs a bit of research and no resistance to certified modifications.

If someone gave me the option of converting a £50k 300hp engine to run on UL91, for say £5k with the compromise being 280hp, I'd do that rather than scrap the aeroplane. It may not even cost that if tweaking the timing is all that is required.

Personally, I need UL91, a Rotax 582 combined with fuel tanks that are not resilient to ethanol. I have no problem with the current higher cost of UL91, my problem is availability. Flying to my closest source, and back again, burns quarter of a tank!
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1777286
As was pointed out earlier, catalytic converters were what stopped TEL in cars and they were introduced to stop CO, unburnt Hydrocarbons and NOx.

There was never any evidence that TEL was a health risk, though some of the compounds in UL are carcinogenic as it happens.

There is absolutely no need to kill off 100LL other than green politics which is all too often solving the wrong problem for the wrong reason sadly, though the green movement is very important for wider reasons.
skydriller liked this
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1777302
Sooty25 wrote: It just needs a bit of research and no resistance to certified modifications.

If someone gave me the option of converting a £50k 300hp engine to run on UL91, for say £5k with the compromise being 280hp, I'd do that rather than scrap the aeroplane. It may not even cost that if tweaking the timing is all that is required.


The trouble is, if you have a little think about that, reducing peak power output by 20hp would introduce all sorts of knock-on performance effects which you really do need to certify are actually acceptable for the overall aeroplane. Remember, for a 200hp Bulldog reduced to 180hp, that is a 10% power reduction...

Regards, SD..
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7