Will try to refuel next monday there again
( this airstrip is only at weekends in use in acordance to AIP) and will fill 1 tank avgas, the other UL , then I have there ia kind of backup and I will post here the latest experience with it…
Goaround wrote:
Will try to refuel next monday there again
( this airstrip is only at weekends in use in acordance to AIP) and will fill 1 tank avgas, the other UL , then I have there ia kind of backup and I will post here the latest experience with it…
It don’t really see what you’re worried about. As long as you’ve double-checked the data plate on the engine and use the correct oil according to Lycoming SI 1070T, what could happen?
Just because something is certified doesn’t mean it will work exactly the same 
For a fuel to be legal to be used in an airplane, does one not need both an approval for the engine (eg. SI-1070T) and the airframe (in the AFM, or via an STC such as the Petersen ones)?
tmo wrote:
For a fuel to be legal to be used in an airplane, does one not need both an approval for the engine (eg. SI-1070T) and the airframe (in the AFM, or via an STC such as the Petersen ones)?
EASA has issued a blanket approval. First for 91/96UL and 91/98UL in their Safety Information Bulletin (SIB) 2010-31, later for both of these and UL91 in CS-STAN.
Is UL91 / 91UL on the way out?
Note received today from our local airport re fuel supplies and pricing
AVGAS price down by 4p but UL91 currently not available.
We are currently out of stock of UL91. Air BP has mothballed its supply facility and we are awaiting price and availability from Total and World Fuel Services before we restock this grade.
It makes me think that the days of UL91 are numbered. I had expected to see some UL100 appear on the scene by now, which would be an obvious replacement but this still isn’t commercial even in the US. I suspect that the airport may have felt exposed to price fluctuations because UL91 wasn’t selling so much and this had made for a higher price than AVGAS during some periods.
The manager of EGBJ (Gloucestershire airport) has posted on various sites that only about 10% (IIRC – this was years ago) of his sales are 91UL.
I believe TOTAL gave him the bowser for free (their tactic elsewhere) but even with that there is little point in carrying the stuff, on economic (price/volume) grounds.
I thought UL91 would have been a winner. As the 3 airfields that I visit on a regular basis the largest fuel user by far are the resident flying schools. and they represent 90℅ plus of all fuel sales.
If it was cheaper then they all would have switched to it
But due to the simple fact that is has always been more expensive than avgas and at times quite a bit more expensive. It’s fallen totally flat.
Never having been in, how could it be on the way out? @Bathman confirms my impression that it always was too expensive, at least from Total, who are/were in my observation the main offerer and proponent of the stuff.
This is actually a very old topic and it’s amazing that TOTAL’s attempt at a pincer movement, or perhaps more accurately biting off more than they could chew or a bridge too far, has lasted as long as it has given that everybody and their dog knew that most of GA’s consumption (not the same as most of GA’s aircraft) cannot use the stuff
It was incredibly arrogant of TOTAL to think that airport managers are stupid enough to compromise their 100LL volume pricing with a product which most of their customers cannot use. Obviously there are exceptions (e.g. airfields dominated by UL users) but they are not widespread, nor are they big users.
