100LL becoming increasingly scarce in the south of Sweden

Just because they have to change aircraft types to be able to tour more freely?

You have to take into account that changing aircraft for majority of pilots is selling the old one and buying a new one. A coordinated process, probably exactly in that sequence. And if you have a 100LL aircraft that everyone wants to get rid of, what are your chances to get good deal on it and make a smooth transition without loosing a fortune?

When it came to choosing a new club aircraft some years ago, we went diesel. We needed a certified machine. Avgas fuelled aircraft and diesel fuelled aircraft were of a similar price range for what we needed.
So we bought a DA40D. The airfield 100LL tank had sprung a leak and it would cost far more to fix it than we would ever get a return on. Fitting a diesel reservoir for our own use was much much less costly. So that’s what we did. Certified Rotax engined with 3 or 4 seats were not much available at the time. Now we are looking at our 2nd replacement engine both because of TBR. Engine costs have increased in the time by well over €10000 as has many of the ancilliaries. And the small items which were always highly priced, like everything in aviation has risen.
So we are looking at what to do next. At the moment we are favouring a Rotax powered 4 seater which would still allow the range of missions that complete most of the hours..
However, we could just buy another ULM.
But as Frans has written UL fuel on most airfields means carrying a couple of fuel canisters and finding a way of getting to and from a local garage or supermarket, whereas JetA is available on most larger airfields.
But things are changing in both the UL world here and in fuel.
For a start more small airfields (still not enough).are finding a cost effective way to migrate from 100LL to UL91 and/or mogas.
Secondly the rumoured new UL rules for 600kg in France will allow much more scope for JetA engines to be used in ULs.
Thirdly, and at the moment more significant to us, here at LFFK, the rise in weight will give greater range to many ULs, even those with a good range already such as MCR UL and CTLs.
The range on a certified Robin, Elixir, Simba with Rotax engines or Lycomings which use mogas are generally enough for most of our missions.
I will note that the reason we are looking more favourably at Rotax here rather than Lycoming,is after the research done so far, is that they are going cheaper with the promise of less down time in the club environment. Many larger clubs than us have opted for Rotax but in the Annexe 1 environment with an Elixir or similar for initial training. But at present the situation is fluid and no one can be sure what will happen in the 2000hrs of a new engine, approx 4 to 5 years. The only thing we can see is the decline in Avgas pumps at the airfields we use.

Nice aircraft the Robin Safari, I noticed what seems like a goo, well equipped low time one on planecheck.

AVGAS 100LL availability in some parts of Nordics is quite ok. In Finland the availability has recovered in last 5 years and I consider to be quite good now for touring around the country. Ten years ago Shell was shutting down their AVGAS 100LL stations one by one and finally a small entrepreneur Kanair acquired their Finnish AVGAS 100LL distribution business (the fixed tanks, etc) and brought back most of the previous network. Their network status can be found here
Additionally some airports (like EFLA, EFSI, EFTP, EFJO) have arranged AVGAS 100LL supply independently.

I think most of the AVGAS 100LL stations (if not all) are self service stations accepting credit cards. Also many of the airports have IFR approaches and the station is available even outside of airport opening hours which makes it very convenient during summer light nights (daylight 24/7).

Also in Baltics, Estonia AVGAS 100LL available at state airports EEKE, EEKA, EEPU, EETU and from very expensive EETN from serviced station which only operates during opening hours.

Fly310 wrote:

The sad part, as always in European GA, is that airports do not take responsibility for their role in the system. They are part of crucial infrastructure and their f***ing job is to have fuel available for based and visiting aircraft.

Exactly that is the problem with European GA and it’s LACK of infrastructural thinking: Many airfields are owned by private entities such as aeroclubs and their prime interest is in using it for their own purposes. In their ideal world, they are a closed community with a bunch of airplanes flown by a bunch of members who more and more move onto unregulated or less regulated airplanes, to the point where their core business is purely local. People come to learn to fly, rent the airplanes out and return them the same day (often after flying not even 100$ burger runs which implies landing somewhere else but just joyriding) and cash in on rent and landing fees. They are not seeing themselves as catering for visitors and often even discourage them by imposing PPR or by getting rid of infrastructure they know visitors need such as customs and mainly fuel. Often enough they are also restricted in the number of movements they can do per year and like to keep those movements to themselves.

boscomantico wrote:

It‘s only in the SR22/Malibu class where there is no mogas or UL91 capable alternative.

That however is exactly the few currently available airplanes which are state of the art and actually produced in relevant numbers.

And in any case, it is simply too easy but unfortunately very common that the moment that “I” don’t need something or don’t think it is important that we tend to think in our own little sphere of action and loose the big picture. That unfortunately is very much the same with the above argument regarding airfields. THEIR fleet does not need it and who gives a warm wind about visitors? MY airplane does not need Mogas or Avgas, so why should I care?

boscomantico wrote:

But these people can upgrade to a small turbine aircraft, get a DA50, or similar.

Or they have to downgrade to some older conventional spam can which can. To reduce GA to folks who have this kind of flexibility and choices is cynical I am afraid. You don’t change airplanes like underwear. And in most cases, if you HAVE to sell, you loose money.

Peter wrote:

We need everybody in GA. This is yet another contrast between the US and Europe. In the US they pull together while in Europe there is too much divisiveness. 70/75 year old men can just go on the scrap heap.

Exactly.

Age discrimination is unfortunately a fact in GA and it exists quite brutally in the US as well, where people over 70 have problems getting insurance these days (and I am sure the case of astronaut Bill Anders may have an impact there yet again). In Europe, it’s more of a problem of many younger people having forgotten that it is those old farts who actually are responsible for them being able to spread their vicious suggestions of what the old should do with themselves. Seeing that some political exponents even dare to suggest age driven restrictions to people being able to drive or to live at all, just stopping short of suggesting enforced euthanasia as with 20, 70 looks like a long time away, is simply disgusting.

Peter wrote:

Now, obviously, if “you” feel GA can shrink and shrivel to farm strips, that’s fair enough, everybody is entitled to their POV, but then we are looking at Spain and Italy, rather than Germany, UK, Switzerland and other places where GA is doing OK.

This is the direction GA is going, not only for fuel availability but also for the fact that most larger airports do not want GA there.

I think you are right, many people will just leave, as a consequence of the hassle they face on a daily level. One of the points in many pilot’s careers when they decide to quit is when they find out that they can’t do the stuff they learnt to fly for. Which is a fact for a huge number of people.

eurogaguest1980 wrote:

Who could have ever predicted that 100LL would be phased out? Of course I have empathy for those that didn’t really understand the situation and bought an aircraft that “requires” 100LL, but honestly, the demise of 100LL has been in the cards since the 1980s. We’ve had time to adapt, and we chose not to.

According to some not only 100LL but ALL fossil fuel will be phased out. Clearly, leaded fuel has been a political hot potato for years and it’s not getting better. But if we end up with electro driven UL’s which can fly for 1 hour as the GA of the future, then yea, a lot of people WILL leave.

gallois wrote:

Nice aircraft the Robin Safari, I noticed what seems like a goo, well equipped low time one on planecheck.

If you mean the HR100, it is a great tourer with immense range but lacks the availability of retrofit AP’s. An airplane with 10 hours endurance without a 2 axis AP is a non starter for many people. But I think most of those should be capable of UL91 or not?

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Many airfields are owned by private entities such as aeroclubs and their prime interest is in using it for their own purposes. In their ideal world, they are a closed community with a bunch of airplanes flown by a bunch of members (…) They are not seeing themselves as catering for visitors and often even discourage them by imposing PPR or by getting rid of infrastructure they know visitors need such as customs and mainly fuel. Often enough they are also restricted in the number of movements they can do per year and like to keep those movements to themselves.

While this is certainly a problem at some places, it fortunately does not represent the average GA aerodrome. Especially in the Nordics, airfields are often more than happy to welcome international visitors, even if they can’t offer 100LL. Some airfields simply don’t have the financial possibilities to run their own 100LL pump, so they could only serve it, when a national company would take care of the infrastructure and supplies (outsourcing). Even in Germany, Switzerland, and France, this is also often done by Total Energies or BP. Not many airfields still deal with their fuel completely by themselves.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Exactly that is the problem with European GA and it’s LACK of infrastructural thinking: Many airfields are owned by private entities such as aeroclubs and their prime interest is in using it for their own purposes. In their ideal world, they are a closed community with a bunch of airplanes flown by a bunch of members who more and more move onto unregulated or less regulated airplanes, to the point where their core business is purely local. People come to learn to fly, rent the airplanes out and return them the same day (often after flying not even 100$ burger runs which implies landing somewhere else but just joyriding) and cash in on rent and landing fees. They are not seeing themselves as catering for visitors and often even discourage them by imposing PPR or by getting rid of infrastructure they know visitors need such as customs and mainly fuel. Often enough they are also restricted in the number of movements they can do per year and like to keep those movements to themselves.

As the chairman of the board of my flying club, I take a little offense to such broad statements.

It’s down to basic economics.
We used to have a separate tank for 100LL, owned controlled and operated by the club. It’s a little tank (3000 liters). Every 5 years we had to empty it and pay roughly 1000€ for control (mandatory).
When it was time to fill up 3000 liter x (24.9 SEK/l + 3.14 SEK/l CO2 tax + 2.67 SEK/l energy tax) +25% VAT, that’s a big hole in the bank account.

Last time it was filled, it took almost 2 years to sell everything. We actually had to pump out the last few 100 liters into drums so the controller could do his thing.
Despite our airport having a 2.2km runway, instrument approaches both ways, zero landing or parking fees when visiting the club, only a PN outside ATC hours (we fought nails and teeth the airport against their earlier PPR proposal) and nothing at all during ATC hours, people don’t seem to like talking to an ATC tower and they landed elsewhere. As listed earlier in the thread, there are plenty of alternatives nearby.
The last owner-plane that required 100LL finally got a hangar space much closer to his home and moved out. The 8 other planes in our hangars are happy with the 91UL fuel provided by the airport (owned >80% by the local town), where we only pay what we consume as we consume it.
From a cash perspective, it’s not a difficult decision.

Maybe your club/field operator is wealthy and decides it can afford to have 10-20k€ stuck in a tank for many months, and that’s good for you. But don’t think every entity out there can make the same judgement. The returns can be dreadful.

Nowadays when visitors ask us about 100LL, I send them to Eslöv. No need for BP/Total/Shell non-sense, just a god old Visa/MC. If one club can have enough stock rotation so their economics works, that’s good for everyone. It’s the hard truth.