Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1861550
based on how slowly UL91 has spread across the UK, don't hold your breath!
User avatar
By 2Donkeys
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861560
Only the US Market is big enough for an initiative like this to scale enough to get off the ground. Europe and elsewhere would almost certainly be followers rather than leaders

That said, the price differential suggested in the article will be a serious impediment to progress unless either scaled production brings the differential down, or the US passes laws to outlaw 100LL. Good luck with either of those prospects.
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861569
60 cents / US Gallon is about 11 pence a litre more.
Very interesting!
By Bathman
#1861570
And the possibility of an increase in oil change frequency to 100 hours with Lycoming engines?

Save a few bob there.
By G-JWTP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861572
The Scandinavian countries have had different flavours of unleaded for yonks.

Hjelmco I think.

G-JWTP
User avatar
By CloudHound
#1861589
Interestingly the CAA/DfT are conducting an aerodrome operator survey into UL91 provision and appetite for change.
User avatar
By skydriller
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861591
CloudHound wrote:Interestingly the CAA/DfT are conducting an aerodrome operator survey into UL91 provision and appetite for change.


Appetite for change is different from fuel provision. The first is free, the second is extreamly expensive. And if the fuel is not cheaper there is no financial incentive for a pilot or company to use it anyway - aviating is expensive enough as it is.

Regards, SD..
Rob P liked this
User avatar
By Bald Sparrow
#1861593
If the speed of change in cars, vans and trucks is any indicator, aviation should at least be looking at zero-carbon avgas for roll-out in a few years time like these people - https://prometheusfuels.com
If aviation doesn't come up with a good way of keeping our aircraft in the skies that will satisfy the climate change activists, we will become a target that the Government can use to show how green they are.
Kemble Pitts liked this
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861615
Once a full alternative is available, the tax man will see an opportunity to make sure that AVGAS is just as expensive as the alternative.
Grelly, RisePilot liked this
User avatar
By Bald Sparrow
#1861620
New fuels are probably going to be far more expensive to produce than 100LL so sticking a few pennies on as duty are not going to make much difference to the final price.
If new fuels are made in the USA, transporting from the USA to UK (and EU) is going to make it even more expensive here anyway.
JodelDavo liked this
By G-JWTP
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861637
riverrock wrote:Once a full alternative is available, the tax man will see an opportunity to make sure that AVGAS is just as expensive as the alternative.



What will probably happen is that UL100 will be taxed the same rate as 100LL. Then the tax on 100LL will be increased to act as a dissencentive. This way tax take is maximised. Whilst encouraging the switch.

G-JWTP
User avatar
By TLRippon
#1861641
You do know 100UL is not the same as 100LL in terms of bang for your Buck. You’d need 104UL for that so no use to the high compression owners who face grounding if TEL is banned as the Eu propose
By riverrock
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1861645
TLRippon wrote:You do know 100UL is not the same as 100LL in terms of bang for your Buck. You’d need 104UL for that so no use to the high compression owners who face grounding if TEL is banned as the Eu propose

@TLRippon - read the link.
https://www.avfuel.com/Fuel/Alternative ... gas#G100UL
Are there any airspeed or range changes or limitations with the use of G100UL avgas?

There are no significant airspeed or range effects with the use of G100UL avgas. The slightly higher density of G100UL (~6.3 lbs/gal) vs. 100LL (~6.0 lbs/gal) is offset by slightly higher volumetric energy density. As a result, when operating at the same volumetric (GPH) fuel flow, Lean of Peak (LOP), the aircraft may be one or two knots faster.

Will G100UL avgas be approved for “Warbirds” at full rated power?

It is anticipated that G100UL will be approved for “Warbird” operation under the same limitations, if any, as are appropriate for operation with 100LL.

However, detonation testing data supports a “full rated power” application. The standard ASTM detonation test for operation at full take-off power (D909) demonstrates G100UL is superior even to the old 115/145 “purple” avgas used on DC-7s and Constellations.


They say that it out performs 100LL with no issues for high compression engines.

Now wouldn't it be great if CAA wrote "All aircraft approved for 100LL are now approved for G100UL".
That would save a very large mountain of paperwork, cost, stickers on fuel caps (as required by the STC) and allow easy, simple access to the market.