I feel they will go from strength to strenth.
They will, up to a point, which will be limited firstly by the size of the community for which strip flying alone floats their boat, and secondly by how many can be set up.
I looked at this when starting flying, just over a decade ago. I tried to contact a few places, and was basically told to f. off; no new members wanted. You had to be "in" for some time, and knowing the grandfather of the owner was perhaps a help. You have more chances of setting up a water-ski school at the local fishing club lake than to get into some strips. I can see why; if I was operating under the UK 28-day rule and keeping a tractor in my "hangar" so that there is no, ahem, "change of use", I might be doing the same. Probably no windsock because they encourage visitors, and practice forced landings from nearby schools. The name of the game is to survive 10 years of neighbours' curtain twitching and even after that most don't apply for the lawful use statement because they don't want to rock the boat.
Then you have severely limited mission capability. The UK countryside is so broken up from decades of farming that there are loads of ~400m fields but very very few ~800m fields. A friend of mine (400m garden) has solved this with a C182 with canards (N-reg only)...
Later I looked at doing it myself, and advertised in Farmers Weekly. Got several leads, the best of which was 750m, with 60ft trees at each end, and a 1.4% slope to the east, so one would take off downwind unless the wind was more than about 7kt. OK for a TB20 if going light... The farmer was very keen to diversify (many are) but it would not have worked. OK for a C182, etc.
And in quite a number of countries in Europe it isn't possible to set up what we have in the UK.
In the longer term, the strip scene relies on the existence of GA elsewhere, starting with pleasure flights for the public, PPL training, etc, for the supply of pilots.
It's all got to hang together, or it's going to hang separately.
It's all got to hang together, or it's going to hang separately.
Agree to that, firmly. As recreational aviators we already are a very minor subset of (wo)mankind, we cannot afford to be divided among our own few. Perhaps that was the kind of wisdom Total aimed at with their UL91: one fuel to bind them all? But they must have underestimated our shrewdness, WE clever aviators would consider the price (and even more) before conceding.
one fuel to bind them all?
If they did the slightest due diligence they would have found that a large chunk of GA cannot burn UL91.
And I can't believe they are stupid.
They may have been biased, from a view of French GA which, I am told, involves very little long distance flying and which probably can burn UL91. None of the Robin fleet is turbocharged, or above 9.5:1 CR, AFAIK.
And I for one can't help wondering if they considered the current way of European GA flying to be in its last throes. Long distance private flying is, even today, and will be even more so tomorrow, a luxury for a small and ever dwindling group of well-to-to individuals with very personal preferences.
In a US-an view, they correspond to the well-to-do middle class. Worldwide, this is a regressing population, a product of nationwide commercial success. There have been comments on these pages on the European political view of being rich (i.e. not being utterly poor) an ultimate sin, largely punishable, and I can only subscribe such comments.
In the so-called third world, there never was any middle class: one was and is either poor, or perhaps very poor, or otherwise one is rich, or perhaps very rich. The poor don't even dream of private flying, the rich have their private jet flown for them. Few Barons in the Gulf, but no lack of Learjets and the like and upwards, up to the private A340.
As the crisis goes its way, we in the "West" are thrown back at the same basic dualism - either one flies not at all, or one has their private jet flown for them. The only way in-between is cleverness, both in aerodynamics and in legislation, that might perhaps allow us to take to the skies legally and in safety.
Reading the latest edition of one of the UK aviation magazines I see that Cyma Petroleum are advertising that they can supply UL91.
I wonder if this is really the case and if they might be cheaper than Total?
... and if their product conforms to the same standard as Total's. Actually, who governs the "UL91" fuel classification? I can't help feeling it might be introduced by Total. If so, if they don't like this possible competition, they can disable it by adjusting the norm - and adjust their own product, accordingly.
UL91 is specified by ASTM D7547.
Great to see another supplier :)
UL91 costing more than 100LL ? Why ?
Because they can.
It's the general aviations fault that we're not all flying diesel fueled planes. I can't stand the hourly cost anymore. I just say: I'm going to fly 100 to 150 hours this year. That will cost me X amount of money this year. I reserve the money and fly. That's what I do, and I forget about the hourly cost.
UL91 is specified by ASTM D7547.
Ah well, if the classification is controlled by an independent party then indeed it is good to see some competition on the horizon. Thanks for enlightenment!
It's the general aviations fault that we're not all flying diesel fueled planes.
Hm. Might I elaborate "it is (at least partly) the governing authorities' fault that few of us are willing to take the risk of handing in a lot of money to depend on a technology little-tried for our kind of flying, and as yet not having shown reliability and economy sufficient to make it worth the cost"?
I agree that we may be looking at the tail rather than the dog. To me, the only long-term solution is to run on the same fuel as the airlines as that is the only way to ensure the necessary quality whilst sensibly managing costs.
