Based on the pics on the site, AIS fly Tampicos aka TB9 with O320s. And fairly low levels in the Netherlands.
No idea about an STC.
If you want to have ethanol-free mogas, you need to buy the premium line of Total (Excellium), Shell (V-Power) or Aral (Ultimate) at you nearest petrol station.
I’ve merged an older identical thread into this one.
Just some random observations:
Very few airports sell MOGAS (whatever that exactly means – E0 with “quality control”, E0 car petrol, E5 car petrol). This makes GA flight planning a nightmare – unless you are based at one, and fly to the same places all the time.
Past STCs were often granted for the engine and then the buyer thought it applies to the whole aircraft. A lot of engine STCs can be thus implemented (relatively safely) – for example a minimum operating temperature – but not a fuel STC, for obvious reasons.
The TB series are 4 seat tourers and use way too much fuel to make “jerrycans in the back of a pickup” a viable method – unless you are built like [the modern equivalent of] Geoff Capes 
If you really want to use “car petrol” then I would bet the logistics will be unviable for most people. You have to drive a “tank” to the petrol station, and then there are regulations on storing any quantity bigger than trivial, and in N Europe you can’t easily bend those. People who do this – with avgas or car petrol – usually buy a self propelled bowser (often ex mil) and that addresses these issues well.
Ultimately people who develop STCs want to make money selling them. I know somebody who had a C182 with a MOGAS STC and AFAIK almost never put any in, because the UK almost never had any at airports, and a C182 is way too big for jerrycans. I’d say any high wing plane is going to be too hard for jerrycans, unless you have a portable pump.
I don’t think you can get E0 here in the UK. I don’t know of any anywhere around here, and I always put in the most expensive fuel (diesel VW) There is big political pressure to kill off E0.
So one needs to check fuel system materials compatibility (Socata may help, or may not) and then establish “no change in performance” otherwise the POH needs changing and that is always a BIG job which STC producers try like hell to avoid at all costs. But performance will be less, plus there will likely be an altitude limitation, and an OAT limitation (vapour pressure). On paper, these limitations are very serious. See this search and especially this (posts by Pilot_DAR). The ability to run safely on MOGAS depends on the fuel system design, and geometry.
The website is clear that only E0 will be sought for but E0 is on its way out, in areas where there is political pressure (true for N Europe especially).
AFAIK, Total’s Excellium E5 is “put-your-favorite-supermarket-here” ’s E5 with a Total additive in it. No less ethanol.
I agree that in the UK, an STC for ethanol-free mogas is almost worthless.
A bit different in other parts of Europe. The main countries where a lot of Lycos and Contis use mogas are The Netherlands, Germany and Austria. Not most of Europe, but a sizeable chunk of the European GA scene. In these places, we have a mogas infrastructure in many airfields, i.e. “real” fuel pumps with decent tanks, etc. These are indeed not filled by someone going to the nearest road fuel station, but through a fuel supplier. And in these cases, the operators take good care that fuel comes from a supplier that actually does have E0 fuel (usually 98 MON). Which is possible, it just needs a little research / due diligence.
In other countries like CZ, Italy, Spain, etc., it is different. Their “GA” scene is mostly Rotax-powered. That means that up to E10 is fine and 95 octane. And they burn 16 litres an hour. And they tend to operate their aircraft more on a shoestring. So, in these markets, they often do the jerry-can thing.
In NL, GER, AT, people love mogas, as it is about 50 cents per litre “straight to the bottom line”. Even where there is no official fuel pump operated by the airfield, there are hundreds of small tanks/trailers parked behind hangars in Germany. Some people even routinely operate aircraft with mogas which have absolutely have no mogas approval at all (as in the case of the Rocket that crashed at Nabern). This obviously does not work for flightschools, etc. as they must have their paperwork 100% in order.
This is not even taking into consideration the effect that mogas is better for many engines than Avgas. People who are primarily interested in this aspect also have the choice of using UL91 for this purpose.
boscomantico wrote:
This is not even taking into consideration the effect that mogas is better for many engines than Avgas
Which models or specs?
Ibra wrote:
Which models or specs?
I guess for any engine that can use unleaded fuel, MOGAS is better than 100LL. Most Lycoming engines that run on unleaded AVGAS run on MOGAS too.
¨
Yes. Essentially all engines developed before 100LL came along. These ones happen to be the majority of engines approved for mogas.
Well, yes, but we are talking decades ago, and back then all petrol was leaded.
The typical petrol around then, for “fast cars” was what here they called “five star” which was the amount of lead. Today’s 100LL is similar to 5* petrol. There was also 4* (which lasted until about 15 years ago and long after 5* disappeared; I used mostly 4* in my cars), and we also had 3* and 2*. As I said, 4* was the last leaded petrol here.
There was no unleaded petrol in the old days, so “MOGAS” was definitely leaded petrol and probably similar to 100LL.
Reports from car petrol users in say a C182 were that the CHTs were a lot higher, and many were flying with car petrol in one wing and 100LL in the other, and using 100LL for the climb and car petrol for the cruise. This was also a popular strategy for when you got caught somewhere with no 100LL and “officially” could not use “MOGAS”.
Sure, but for a a fact, that’s how old these engines are.
Avgas 80/87 was the fuel at the time (for lower compression engines). It had 0.14 g/l TEL. 100LL has .56 g/l TEL. More than three time as much.
Anybody who you ask who is running these old engines says that the the troubles are much less with unleaded fuel.
Peter wrote:
There was no unleaded petrol in the old days, so “MOGAS” was definitely leaded petrol and probably similar to 100LL.
The “MOGAS” referred to in Lycoming’s service instruction SI1070AB “Specified Fuels”, dated April 2020, is certainly not leaded petrol.
