All due respect @Antonio, but we might end up in a disagreement on this one 
The table below shows fuel prices on my field, as of today’s date:
The difference between Avgas 100LL and Mogas UL98 is substantial.
The day G100UL hits the streets, it will certainly be pricier than the present Mogas, and probably more than Avgas 100LL too…
During trips, when Mogas is not available on the airfield, I try to put my fuel bags to good use by filling at the nearest station.
Antonio wrote:
What we need is a universally available and usable aircraft petrol/gasoline.
I think that’s correct. The problem in Europe is that European politics has led to chaos, as it so often does, in this case not just in political circles where it wouldn’t matter much but at the pump. There are so many different names and types of fuel available that nobody can keep track of them, and ALL of them are very expensive. And as Peter says, I don’t think it will be that long before all auto fuel in European countries will have alcohol so that is no solution except for low power microlights. I wouldn’t myself put alcohol-laden fuel in any aircraft.
In the US we have a universally available and usable aircraft petrol/gasoline and its called 100LL. I pay $5.42 per USG for it, which is 1.33 Euro/Liter. When an unleaded aviation gasoline is available at a competitive price 100LL may be phased out, but not before. And meanwhile life in the real world goes on as it should.
On topic, my go-fast Mooney flying friend has now returned to Europe with his plane and was at Boscomantico the other day. I imagine he was pleased to find fuel there 
Dan wrote:
The difference between Avgas 100LL and Mogas UL98 is substantial.
Right, but why?
Not sure since I’m not the vendor, nor the producer.
The price difference is probably due to the relative scarcity of 100L vs the broader use of UL98, which I suspect is the same stuff one gets as “Super” unleaded at any station here…
Dan wrote:
The difference between Avgas 100LL and Mogas UL98 is substantial.
At the same time Mogas UL98 is cheaper than Jet A1 which is ridiculous but it’s a consequence of taxation policy with Jet A1 base price below €1.
Antonio wrote:
It exists and its name is G100UL
I don’t think that will ever happen. Not in my life at least. According to Hjelmco, more than 90% of the certified GA aviation fleet can use 91/96 UL. Lots of things has to happen. First, for this to have any result other than symbolism, 100LL has to be banned. Will that ever happen? Perhaps, perhaps not. If that happens, then we will se what the environmental bureaus feel about the aromats in this G100UL. It’s essentially alkylate mixed with some ink. Nasty stuff that the industry itself want to stop producing because the demand is steadily dropping due to newer and better (less nasty) substitutes. The commercial part of aviation is heading in direction of biofuel, same as automobile. How long will it take before some clever-mind suggests that GA should head in that direction too. It wouldn’t surprise me that TEL becomes acceptable after all, as long as some % of bio-gasoline is added into 100LL. TEL is a known factor, this ink is not. We only know it’s nasty. Only 10% need TEL anyway.
This whole lead business is 30-40 years behind. The issue today is adding biofuel into aviation, and GA is bound to follow sooner or later.
According to Hjelmco, more than 90% of the certified GA aviation fleet can use 91/96 UL
That may be true in Norway and Sweden (whose GA communities are either very small or rarely fly abroad, or both) but worldwide around 2/3 of 100LL is used by engines which cannot burn 91UL (the non TEL version of 100LL). It may actually also be true in France due to the makeup of the fleet and its particular mission profile, but there TOTAL runs the scene anyway.
I am sure it is not 2/3 in Europe but the “GA world” is run from the US and it will be the US where the future will be determined.
If 100UL never happens it will be because the patent holders (GAMI, basically) are too greedy, and the producers walk away from it. This is a possibility.
I was a bit sloppy in my references. This is what Hjelmco say:
carrying the recognition by the major aircraft engine manufacturers Textron Lycoming, Teledyne Continental and Rotax. More than 90 % of the entire piston powered General Aviation fleet of the world is certified to use Hjelmco AVGAS 91/96 UL
Peter wrote:
The “GA world” is run from the US and it will be the US where the future will be determined.
A myth. The GA world in the US is run from the US. The GA world in Europe is run by Diamond (diesel), Rotax and a whole bunch of UL/LSA/VLA manufacturers. The only thing happening in the US is experimental. Right now they have burned their eyes badly with a laser The rest is recirculation of old stuff that gradually. but surely disappears.
Peter wrote:
but worldwide around 2/3 of 100LL is used by engines which cannot burn 91UL
Exactly. People aren’t using 100LL, except if they have to, or cannot readily get anything else. The use is already minuscule, and it’s not growing. Even a dull 360 use 3 times as much fuel as a Rotax per hour. MOGAS is a big chunk. Diesel is a big chunk. Unleaded AVGAS is a big chunk, and let’s not forget about Jet A1. They tend to use a lot.
A PC-12 use 250 l/h. A 100 HP Rotax use 16. That’s a ratio of roughly 16. 8 h flight in a weekend with a PC-12 is 128 h with a Rotax. That’s about what a very eager pilot fly in a whole year.
It would be interesting to see actual statistics on this. How much 91UL (or similar) + MOGAS is actually used compared with 100LL, and then recalculate back to flight hours. I guess it will be very hard to find good data, but some data surely could be produced.
What has to happen is that EASA (EU) gather some forces to set the course for a future GA fuel. Then they come up with G100UL as the answer. I cannot see it happening. I don’t buy it. Not when the entire GA industry (Rotax, diamond etc) will be sitting around the table. Even the FAA is not even lukewarm to this G100UL. Shell already has a recipe of an alternative laying around in some drawer, but why bother when TEL still is in demand. What will happen for sure if EASA gathers the forces, will be that biofuel will be the main ingredient. Rotax will say 10% ethanol or whatever other kind of bio-gasoline, no problem. Diamond/Austro will say sure, no problem, we use whatever the jet folks use. Then, when looking at the actual fuel usage (a whole bunch of MOGAS and Diesel/Jet and UL91), another result is that TEL is no real problem. Then Shell will say, 10-20% bio-gasoline in 100LL, no problem. Even 100% bio-gasoline would be no problem.
We should be careful of what we are asking here. The result may not be at all what we like it to be. It will for sure not be G100UL IMO.
What I think will happen is nothing. If something will happen it will be in the form of CO2 taxes and a demand for a percentage of biofuel also in specific GA aviation fuel. But then as a general demand, not as a “one fuel to rule them all” kind of nonsense.
more than 90% of the certified GA aviation fleet of the world can use 91/96 UL
worldwide around 2/3 of 100LL is used by engines which cannot burn 91UL (the non TEL version of 100LL).
There is no conflict between these two statements, but suppliers selling to the needs of the aviation gasoline market, and maintaining the standards needed to serve that market responsibly are not interested in planes that don’t fly much. Nor those which will continue to use car fuel with increasingly suspect reliability as that fuel departs from suitability to aircraft – which is not an insignificant problem.
The GA world in Europe is run by Diamond (diesel), Rotax and a whole bunch of UL/LSA/VLA manufacturers.
People spending money run the world more than those selling to them, and those buyers are worldwide. European GA specifically by my observation includes some diehard participants operating under tremendous political and financial/tax pressure, within an international system that provides some utility despite being vastly over controlled. Plus UL owners operating ‘under the radar’ (literally and figuratively) under national regulations, just trying to avoid the mess. This situation is a problem for all participants, not a solution. As the situation has developed local aviation certification standards and fuel availability has devolved into chaos in Europe, and self evidently has no direction.
What I think will happen is nothing.
That’s what happens in any directionless situation, except for entropy, which is already operating.
If something will happen it will be in the form of CO2 taxes and a demand for a percentage of biofuel also in specific GA aviation fuel.
The former fits the European pattern for sure, taxes are the ‘solution’ to every problem, real or imagined. The latter appears to me a product of vivid imagination and little else in relation to aviation gasoline and the healthy future of general aviation anywhere in the world.
Silvaire wrote:
European GA specifically by my observation includes some diehard participants operating under tremendous political and financial/tax pressure, within an international system that provides some utility despite being vastly over controlled.
For once, I agree with the way you put it!
