Those figures are surprising to say the least… maybe worldwide if at all, source?
This is the figure mentioned, for worldwide, many times over the years. I have zero doubt that it does not represent Europe, but European GA is around 1/10 to 1/5 of US GA. Numbers can be found here. And then there is the rest of the world (GA is pretty big in Africa for example – take a look at the AIR BP booklet) so Europe is even smaller.
The reality is that US is full of planes which are either turbo or 9:1 CR or higher. Lots of SR22s, all of which need 100LL. Lots of twins; MEPs in Europe died over past 20 years (except small numbers of DA42s) as long term owners got out of GA. Europe is different; I never disputed that. Not just a different makeup of the engine types but also a lot of low time engines, hangar queens, and very low time mission profiles in some aeroclub communities. The US is full of owners who go places. We have to accept reality of business which is that US is what drives the market. If somebody here thinks Europe is more important than the US, they need to ask who builds and certifies most of the engines! And the restrictive practices in European noncertified flight and long term parking privileges mean that the number of people who can fly say an RV is always going to be limited.
“100UL” will be driven (or not) from the US. If it happens there, it will happen here too, soon afterwards. And it will take over from 100LL and dominate the GA airport scene just like 100LL does today. Other fuels will carry on in small markets, just like they do today. Some of them due to a self-contained pilot community where one oil company dominates, some in a country where there is a high acceptance of high taxation in return for reducing or eliminating lead, some in areas where there is a lot of particular type engines, etc.
That’s only one page out of six. But yes, no turbo models.
I was not quoting any document. I have this from US engine shops, as to what runs off 91UL. 9:1 is the max CR they accept as long term reliable (no detonation) and even 9:1 is buildable only for Experimental engines. 9.5:1 will not run on 91UL.
What’s important in the general picture, and in the future, is this.
TEL works today because the amount used is insignificant, and it largely goes under the radar politically (no 18 year old environmentalist has any clue what TEL is). The only thing that will happen if we put pressure on 100UL (of some sort), for “environmental reasons”, is politicians will say “What? no reduction in CO2? 100% fossil fuel?That’s not environmental friendly – at all”. The thing is, they are 100% right. Then if you start explaining stuff, you also will have to explain what the TEL substitute is and does regarding the environment. You also have to come up with some statistics, data and numbers, for the actual usage. How many persons need TEL in Europe today? And what for?
The whole thing is just weird. Nobody sees TEL as a problem today. No politicians, not the public, not even the aviation authorities (both the FAA and EASA are more like “Oh please, why must you keep on whining about this”). But for some strange reason it is seen as a problem for pilots, while the real problem, CO2 emissions isn’t.
In the mean time, Diamond, one of the most successful GA manufacturers today has a whole fleet of aircraft that can use any SAF that the industry can cook up. Rotax, the most selling aviation piston engine manufacturer today, can use fuel up to 10% alcohol (SAF in practice), and none of them needs TEL whatsoever. And if that’s not enough, unleaded AVGAS exists, it’s readily available, and can be uses for 90% of piston powered GA (excluding diesel engines).
For most cases this G100UL is a solution to a problem that exists exclusively between the ears of a few pilots. Rather funny. If and when it becomes available, then we will see what it costs. How is this going to work anyway. Will this fuel be imported from the US? How much is that going to cost? It’s patented. Will BP, Total and Shell just sit still and let Gami take over the world? All it takes is a phone call from Shell to some hot shot in EU telling they have this new aviation fuel that will reduce CO2 emissions by 20%, because they have, it’s used in gasoline. Then we will start having fuel problems.
