I wonder what it is with fuel prices in the UK.
First we heard here that Jet A1 gets taxed so that it is more expensive or equal than 100LL, which would mean a total distortion of pricing.
Now we hear that UL91 is more expensive than 100LL?
I believe that if that is so, there must be a massive problem in terms of arbitrary taxation or some other reason why prices in the UK are not what they ought to be.
The only way to sort this out is to really gather prices from where these fuels are sold and then see what the story really is.
I found a few examples:
At Koblenz EDRK:
Avgas 100 LL :2,49 €/ltr.
JET A-1 :2,07 €/ltr.
Avgas UL 91 :2,39 €/ltr
Fricktal Schupfart LSZI:
Avgas 100 LL pro Liter CHF 2.65
Avgas UL 91 pro Liter CHF 2.35
I will try to find some more prices in the next days, if other members here have information it would be good if you could share them.
Alone in the 2 examples, UL91 is definitly cheaper than 100LL, 10 cents at Koblent and 30 Rappen (25 cents) at Fricktal Schupfart. I hear about the same spread in Switzerland for other airports who however do not post their prices online.
At least in the example of Switzerland, the difference in price is significant enough.
What is the mogas price in Switzerland?
Swiss Mogas is the only thing that’s a relative bargain when compared to neighboring countries, as a result of tax differences. Alpine motorcyclists might buy fuel in CH and stay the night in Austria (or better, buy both in Livigno!)
I don’t know what your agenda is
Neither do I. Maybe there is none? Just because I don’t subscribe to this fuel conspiracy theory you have going here, don’t mean I have an agenda. I believe in common sense, that’s all.
The red fuel, died, because the infrastructure became too expensive and not many airfields were prepared to keep double pumps
30 years ago 91/96 UL started to appear in Sweden side by side 100LL, today most airfield have double pumps. The GA market there is microscopic compared with the US. Clearly there are more to it than the cost of “infrastructure”. What infrastructure are you talking about exactly? In my opinion, the Swedish way is the future, at least he foreseeable future until 100LL is gone for good.
A few days ago I was afraid that 100LL would disappear when Statoil/Warter starts selling UL91 here this summer. Today I’m not. 100LL should be banned along with banning of lead in mogas. Then we would be in a much better situation today. We would even have some diesel engines that doesn’t fall apart every 50 hours. But no, technological development, what kind of nonsense is that? We are GA, we gladly sacrifice future development to protect our hangar queens. The situation today is that a jungle of engine technologies are growing underneath GA. Rotax, UL Power, D-Motor, MW, engines with full FADEC, engines that runs on any fuel, engines that have a hp/kg ratio that surpasses Lycomings and Continentals by miles. They are eating their way into GA from underneath, step by step, bit by bit. I welcome this for the most part, but I would also like to see Lycoming and Continental do some real development again for a change. A FADEC isn’t that hard to do, optimizing combustion chambers for higher compression without detonation isn’t that hard to do, and it would completely cut the dependence of 100LL even for the most powerful turbo engines.
I mean what is wrong with you people? Why is it so difficult for you to see that the whole 100LL dependency is based on a stone age technology that has long passed its final days. Its a dead horse kept alive by sheer ignorance and bone headedness. Anyway, in the mean time I will happily fill up the tank with 100LL, UL91 or mogas at my choice here in the “split market” in Norway at a better price than you can dream of in the UK. You are good at protecting queens, I’l give you that.
I believe that if that is so, there must be a massive problem in terms of arbitrary taxation or some other reason why prices in the UK are not what they ought to be.
So it seems to me as well. 100LL is more expensive than 91UL. After all 100LL is simply 91UL with TEL, and TEL is expensive stuff. Come to think of it, one single factory produces TEL today, and supplies world wide. That factory is supposedly situated in the UK. Hmmmm conspiracy conspiracy 
Prices at my home field, ENVA is (incl all taxes):
Jet A-1 : 1.18 €/lt
Avgas 100LL: 1.83 €/lt
Mogas*: 1.20 €/lt
* For mogas we can subtract a special road tax when using the fuel in airplanes. It will be interesting to see what UL91 will end up at. Judging by the German prices it probably will end up just below 100LL.
I know that most microlight pilots based here buy unleaded from the local petrol station and only use UL91 in the summer IF the weather is really hot.
mdoerr,
around CHF 2.10 / € 1.65
So UL91 at the places I could see is right in the middle.
At the moment, I saw (all with fuel tax and VAT):
Avgas 100 LL pro Liter CHF 2.65 / € 2,12 (LSZI)
Avgas UL 91 per Liter CHF 2.35 / € 1.88 (LSZI)
Jet A1 per Liter CHF 2.22 / € 1.77 (LSZF)
Mogas per Liter CHF 2.10 / € 1.65 (LSZF)
At ZRH in March Avgas 100LL was CHF 2.93 / € 2.34 so the prices vary.
So fuelling 100 Liters of fuel will save you
UL91 € 24
JET A1 € 35
Mogas € 47
No wonder Mogas has become a major factor here in Europe…
Now I can’t use Mogas (no STC) but I can use UL91. Still, per 1 full tank that is € 50 difference. Per 100 hrs: € 900.
For a normal 10 GPH plane which can use Mogas: per 100 hours €1740 …
So i can see why Pipistrel absolutely want that Mogas certification for the European Market….
Jude098,
thanks. Interesting. I really wonder why UL91 is the same price there. Nowhere else I checked it is like that.
Still, remarkable to notice that the difference between Jet A1 and Avgas is a staggering 84 pennies per Liter…. Considering the fuel consumption of the Thielert engine as opposed to a normal O320 in a C172 or PA28 that would mean up to £25 savings at equal fuel flow of 30 lph per HOUR, let alone if one calculates that the Thielert burns around 20 lph… which then means a saving of £ 35 per hour…
Mogas still gives a saving of £20 per hour in a certified O320….
None too shabby I’d say even if Mogas is comparatively expensive in the UK.
I mean what is wrong with you people? Why is it so difficult for you to see that the whole 100LL dependency is based on a stone age technology that has long passed its final days. Its a dead horse kept alive by sheer ignorance and bone headedness. Anyway, in the mean time I will happily fill up the tank with 100LL, UL91 or mogas at my choice here in the “split market” in Norway at a better price than you can dream of in the UK. You are good at protecting queens, I’l give you that.
I know, but this is a hen and egg problem.
I can’t find a plane for my needs with a diesel or UL91 engine for less than 100k. Give me an engine I can use? What about one with a good weight ratio? 230 to 300 hp? certified? Turbo charged for an efficient cruise at FL160+
None.
The innovation cycle in aviation are much longer than automotive or IT.
Porsche tried to get into aviation with a relative modern engine in the 80s. Electronic ignition, one lever, low consumption and usable with unleaded fuel. Right I remember. A total failure in sales and they spend millions of Deutschmarks.
Lycoming and Continental have no engineering manpower to do any new development. They sell what they got for 70 years. It is not trivial to develop a proper engine. Look at Thielert they are expensive to operate with all gear replacement and TBE Time between exchange not overhaul. This is a low power engine.
The market is not huge anymore. There is less competition. No Franklin or RR piston engines.
So what are my options? Shed loads of money on a very inefficient turboprop? Even a Lycosaurus is more efficient.
Flying for fun to the next airfield for a bacon butty, I can get a microlight. This is not my type of flying. My normal leg is 500NM.
Why is it so difficult for you to see that the whole 100LL dependency is based on a stone age technology that has long passed its final days.
The real world keeps proving you wrong though, doesn’t it? The reality is that designing engines with both light weight and simplicity dictates high quality fuels like 100LL. Automotive engines require less of both light weight and simplicity than aircraft engines, especially given that aircraft engines are a non-disposable product where ugly planned obsolescence hasn’t yet reared its head. And that non-disposable world is in reality, now, the only kind of world that functions economically for GA aircraft. Get used to that, because it isn’t going to change.
I think it is more likely that high powered GA will be pushed out of existence in Europe than the technology that makes that segment of GA work economically elsewhere will change to adapt to the desires of European politicians..
