That airfield deals with Air BP and they have not mentioned UL91 to them.
Does AIR BP sell 91UL?
The biggest problem for this particular airfield (which is a major supplier of 100LL) would be the cost of storage.
That, presumably, is why TOTAL are giving away free bowsers. But I still fail to grasp their business model, looking at how it places airfields in a very difficult position.
Only the biggest GA airfields (e.g. Gloucestershire EGBJ) can afford to run 100LL and 91UL in parallel. However, even there, the sales of 91UL are known to be tiny.
If i may proffer my views:
1) The green agenda is going to bite GA if it does not change its image - UL91 is a friend in that respect.
2) "Some suggest that TOTAL's strategy is to generate demand for UL91 at the expense of 100LL and thus push airfields into no longer offering 100LL. Of course that would ground most of the turbocharged and "high compression" community but a fuel supplier does not have to care for the long term welfare of GA as a whole." I don't agree with this - I know the UK UL91 business development manager personally and have taken him flying - he's an ordinary guy, trying to make a living like everyone else. Please try and resist lighting the conspiracy theory touchpapers. I think Total are simply providing a greener choice fuel and monitoring how it goes. Long term (once more engines can get the 'approvals' to use it), it will become a good thing.
3) Bowsers offered to sweeten the deal seem like a good idea to me - enables good quality fuel to be accessible to more/smaller fields - in the build-up phase to wider acceptance.
4) Some of us can use UL91 and Mogas too - the fuel quality control itself is worth the price premium over Mogas to me. motoring unleaded may have any percentage of ethanol in it (indeed the Eu are encouraging every more ethanol), and therefore potentially not legal under CAA rules. Ethanol is an oxidant - fuel line makers are already having to coat the inner surfaces to protect against it - and it is corrosive to other materials like plastics too.
Finally, the original question about what the rest of Europe is doing wrt UL91 is a good one - I will alert the total UK B devt mgr to this thread, and ask him to comment.
Please try and resist lighting the conspiracy theory touchpapers.
"Conspiracy" implies a criminal conspiracy. I don't see anything like that being suggested anywhere.
Eliminating a competitor is just good business practice 
The problem I see with 91UL is that until there is a replacement for 100LL (i.e. a "100UL") it is a bit too early to push airfields into carrying 91UL.
And of course if/when someone does develop a "100UL" fuel, at anything like 100LL price (which is now practically the same as the 91UL price anyway, once one sets aside differential pricing due to airports dropping their margins to sell 91UL) the demand for 91UL will instantly fall to zero.
It is therefore in TOTAL's interest to establish 91UL before that happens, but "establish" has to mean an irreversible closure (i.e. a dismantling) of the 100LL facility. Otherwise, the moment "100UL" comes out, the 100LL facility will be switched to 100UL at the next delivery, and the 91UL facility will never be filled up again.
IMHO, "100UL" will come. It is the only meaningful solution for the US market, where an awful lot of fuel is burnt in high compression and turbo engines which are unlikely to ever be certified for 91UL.
The problem with any "100UL" is that "something" has to be in there which isn't present in 100LL, which introduces the theoretical risk to fuel system components. AFAIK, that is what is holding back 100UL, not making the stuff for which there are several known formulae.
"Conspiracy" implies a criminal conspiracy. I don't see anything like that being suggested anywhere."
Nothing criminal implied - rather, colloquially, as from wiki: 'The term "conspiracy theory" is used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies.The term is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at "stealing" power, money, or freedom, from "the people'
However, point taken.
As I understand it, UL91 IS actually 100LL - but without the lead - but I await some comment from the Total gent to confirm/deny/clarify this.
As I understand it, UL91 IS actually 100LL - but without the lead
Yes; I think that is right, which is why once the engine is certified for 91UL, there should be no need for any airframe (fuel system) certification or even testing.
Unless, I suppose, there are fuel system components that rely on the lead for lubrication. I have never heard of such...
I believe the TEL in 100L is an antiknock agent - boosting the Octane rating, and a valve seat lubricant. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead
I've run all sorts of old vehicles on unleaded fuel for 30 years... because with the exception of AVGAS, unleaded has been the only fuel available locally for that long. With the exception of veteran side valve engines engines running cast iron valve seats, I've never come across any need for lead in terms of lubrication. BMW famously modified their motorcycle engines in about 1980 in anticipation of valve problems with unleaded and created a bigger problem, worse than any they were trying to solve. In switching to a harder valve seat material, they reduced the thermal conductivity away from the valve and made the valves burn after a much reduced mileage. Meanwhile, earlier engines ran fine on unleaded, and by the mid-80s they got back on track with new production engines.
With respect to certification for UL91, I think if the aircraft type certificate doesn't list it, by definition it's not certified. However, EASA has released a dodgy memo, referencing a Lycoming service bulletin generated outside of regulated process, intended as work-around to circumnavigate the aircraft type certification. In their eyes that makes it legal even as it makes a mockery of the safety related government processes EASA represents. In my eyes that's a bit of a joke. 91 UL won't hurt the engines or airframe regardless, as long as the aircraft TC says 80/87 or anything else at or below 91 octane.
In fact, making a totally unleaded 100+ octane motor fuel with a sufficiently high boiling point isn't a complex problem. A few such liquids can be bought cheaper than avgas - at least because they are excise-free. An example is technical grade xylene. Unfortunately, it is more toxic by inhalation than regular avgas and may also cause a much stronger swelling of elastomers. Nevertheless, xylene, toluene and benzene were used as principal components of aviation fuel for high-compression engines during WWII.
Running a busy GA airfield the issue is really rather simple. I supply 100LL and UL91 utilising my infrastructure for the 100LL and the 'free' bowser from Total. For a number of months my margin on the UL91 has been significantly lower in order to keep the price below that for 100LL; I have been taking the business punt.
I now pay more for UL91 than I do for 100LL. Put simply, I will sell each fuel with the same margin (percentage) and the customer can decide what he shoves in his aircraft.
Thank you David for your input on this. It is what I heard from another airfield operator, too.
Neither of you is likely to drop 100LL, fortunately, because the volumes are substantial enough.
The bottom line, however, is that I still don't get the TOTAL "business plan".
If 91UL was say 30p cheaper (wholesale) than 100LL, it would be obvious...
Edit: just seen a notam that EGBO have dropped 91UL. One can only assume they weren't selling much of it.
