Norway follows EU regulations regarding this, and there is absolutely nothing that prevents fuel resellers from selling ethanol free 98
In many places around the world, oxygenated gasoline is mandated by law and the only approved additive is alcohol. Even gasoline produced in Mexico (an oil exporting country) now has alcohol.
Besides what kind of fuel are all the people with classic cars using in, say Germany? Or all the boaters everywhere? It for sure cannot be 95 mogas with 10% ethanol?
In my area (the most active GA area in the world) and anywhere within a long days drive, nothing else has been available for legal use in cars and motorcycles for decades, at maximum 91 pump octane ((R+M)/2). This is not allowable for use under the TCs and STCs that govern its use in most aircraft and with some low wing types its use proved to be very dangerous due to vapor lock in hot weather.
Boaters can buy non-alcohol gasoline at the dock only, and like 100LL it is illegal for road use.
@vic there are those who run the Stag, happily without additive, others added hardened valve seats, and others like my wife uses the additive. Hers is an early Mk1.
The UK Stag owners club ran a range of tests when Super (with lead) was being phased out. No definitive answer was reached and we prefer to run the fuel with additive rather than changing valve seats or risking UL without. The wife is happy and its her car.
This was recently published. Translated from original German text
After the aviation authorities in Germany (LBA) and Switzerland (BAZL) reported an accumulation of malfunctions on aircraft with Rotax engines and asked to submit fault reports, DULV and AOPA-Germany also asked their members to report with their experiences in a joint action.
The first sighting of these reports has now been completed. New findings came to the fore, about which we want to report here.
Statistically:
The total number of feedbacks was relatively small at 22. This may be due to the fact that the operation of the engines is relatively safe. However, only carburetter engines were affected, there were no problems with injections. All cases are distributed among the classes E-, K- and M. There is apparently no significance in individual seasons. Low-rise decks were affected more often than high-deckers.
Technically:
In most cases, the causes of the engine malfunctions could be determined. These were essentially defective spark plugs, defective fuel pumps, incorrectly adjusted carburetters, or other mechanical problems.
In some reports, however, the causes of the disturbances could not be clearly identified. Stand runs and various checks did not reveal any findings, so steam bubble formation in the fuel lines was quickly suspected. In higher heat due to sunlight or insufficient engine compartment ventilation, vapour bubbles can also form in the fuel system of an aircraft depending on the air pressure, both with automotive fuel and Avgas. Avgas is basically better protected than automotive fuel by special additives against the formation of steam bubbles. However, the risk of vapour bubble formation remains solely due to the physical properties of the fuel. Therefore, various measures must be taken in the design of the fuel system to avoid disturbances in the fuel supply. There are basically two options for this. Firstly, you should prevent vapour bubbles from developing as much as possible and secondly, you have to make sure that you get rid of them before they reach the engine. Both measures must be implemented by the aircraft manufacturer because he is responsible for the design of the fuel system. With its installation instructions, the engine manufacturer virtually only defines the intersection between engine and aircraft.
In the UL community, the risk of vapour bubble formation in the fuel lines has been known for several years and is apparently under control by appropriate precautions, so there are only very few significant cases there.
However, the patterns of a manufacturer were striking.
According to the manufacturer, most fuel pumps are not able to pump gas. So if a steam bubble has penetrated to the pump, the pumping capacity suddenly drops to zero. Furthermore, the power is not high enough to transport the fuel over large height differences. What absolutely must be avoided are constructions in which the fuel lines are first moved upwards and then down again. Because in these places, vapour bubbles can settle particularly easily and stubbornly block the fuel flow.
An operator of a UL aircraft reported in great detail about steam bubble formation, how it occurred, what was discovered during an analysis, and how the problem could be solved permanently by modifying the fuel system.
Of course, such modifications cannot be carried out for model-approved aircraft without corresponding additional approvals or a “design change” from the manufacturer. In the UL area, the bureaucratic hurdles for such a change are slightly lower.
At this point, we do not want to take advantage of the possible actions and also do not want to “put a manufacturer on the wall” before he could take the appropriate measures. However, we believe that the problem requires taking countermeasures before personal injury occurs. We will therefore stick to the matter and report on the further course of the events.
Interesting that in this sample of 22 cases, the majority was a clearly identifiable cause and no reason for concern given the large number of hours flown on carburetted Rotaxes. So they suspect vapour lock for the remaining cases. But then I would not think UL91 is to blame, to the contrary no?
They elude to a certain aircraft manufacturer but did not wish to nail him to the wall.. They only say that modifications are trickier in case of a certified design, so that may narrow down the candidates a bit.
They say “fuel lines going up and then going down” should be avoided. When at the plane next time I’ll have a closer look. AFAIR the aux pump is placed relatively low, the outgoing line goes up to the engine driven pump and from there more or less horizontally to the carbs. The aux pump is properly cooled by ducted outside air btw.
I don’t know, it still seems like a lot of conjecture.
If there’s anyone who would have had vapor lock it would be me 
aart wrote:
the classes E-, K- and M.
I assume this refers to German registrations? I know that E is SEP up to 2 t and M is UL, but what is K?
the patterns of a manufacturer were striking.
This refers to Bristell?
Interesting that in this sample of 22 cases, the majority was a clearly identifiable cause and no reason for concern given the large number of hours flown on carburetted Rotaxes.
Do you have rough idea of numbers split between carburetted and injected Rotax engines?
Airborne_Again wrote:
but what is K?
Motorgliders
Emir wrote:
Do you have rough idea of numbers split between carburetted and injected Rotax engines?
All incidents were carburetted engines, not a single fuel injected.
Airborne_Again wrote:
I know that E is SEP up to 2 t and M is UL, but what is K?
“K” are motorgliders, including TMG’s
