I have seen somewhere 100l jerricans on rollers. I was thinking to get some when trying to buy a MCR4s – which had 200l. My problem on this (beside finding the correct plane) is been able to go through LFMD club entry with 2 of these as it’s considered as dangerous good. But I know that many are doing it, among them a C210.
Peter wrote:
It’s way more than a hassle. It’s an indication of how far GA has sunk into Stockholm Syndrome (not to mention I am allright Jack.) that anyone thinks that would be even remotely practical.
It is a hassle, we have used jerrycans to refuel the C185 last time it was on float and that was quite challenging. It meant asking security at ENVA to escort us to the 100LL pump, filling up 5 or 6 jerrycans of 20L each in the trunk of the car then driving 20 minutes to the lake and then one person climb on the wing then another one pass the jerrycans trying not to fall in the water in the process… Next summer we will have 2 trailers with 330l each, should be much better.
Peter wrote:
A proper replacement needs to be found – 100UL thread.
A proper replacement has already been found – GAMI G100UL. The only thing blocking it from being more widely available is the inertia that the current fuel suppliers have to just keep doing what they are doing – selling 100LL. And of course whatever government authorities have the right to both ban LL and approve UL with the same decree.
These guys seem to be making some progress, and they have operations in both the US and Europe: https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-approves-testing-landmark-for-unleaded-avgas-contender/
I’m very optimistic that we’ll be able to keep all the piston engine aircraft in the air for at least another decade or so.
I’m not happy changing fuel, even if GAMI have done a few hundred hours of testing.
There will be no come-back if issues are ever discovered, because in real terms, it would be impossible to prove.
If someone can run around on 20l of fuel great for them, they’ve chosen the aircraft that suits them and that’s cool.
After 20+ years of aviation I’ve finally chosen an aircraft that suits me, and 20l isn’t doing anything.
In the UK, the current guideline (often enforced like law at fuel stations is 10l in a plastic fuel can and 20 in a certified metal one.
Any more, and you’ll have probably been stopped at the pump (happend to me dozens of times) and possibly invalidated your vehicle insurance. (Definitely need to check the small print).
For a trailer/bowser you may be within guidelines up to 333l but the reading got a bit heavy, and I’m sure I couldn’t afford the insurance uplift.
using obsolete fuel guzzlers to play IFR or airliner in VMC (alternatively staying on the ground if serious IMC is present)
Shame, I thought we were a better community on here than that.
Interesting booklet produced by the gasoline industry shows that in 2021 the Avgas market was worth 12.5 billion dollars and by 2031 it is projected to be 18.8 billion dollars.
One wonders how that can be.
But obviously the industry sees it rising at 4.2% per annum so why do anything except sit back and reap the rewards?
Forget projections – normal corporate BS.
But if Europe is worth say 300M (according to Warter’s one time info) and the US is about 10x bigger then the US is 3BN. Actually that figure should be verifiable. It is probably bigger due to some other activity.
Then you have Africa which, apart from getting you converted into stew in some places, is full of piston GA, for practical getting around. Look in the AIR BP booklet for example. Probably another few BN there. S America will be a few BN more. So 12BN is in the right ballpark.
Dan wrote:
There are many different ways of practicing GA. Example: using obsolete fuel guzzlers to play IFR or airliner (…). Another GA way is to use what’s remaining in freedom and observe the ground and nature’s features whilst flying below the clouds, (…).
The presentation you give of this dichotomy assumes GA is flying for the sake of flying itself. Whereas if one wants to fly for the sake of actually getting somewhere… well, “IFR or airliner” is what gets you there with higher despatch rate… and better chance of being home in time for work next day, even if your travel was not for work.
The only real difference between an “obsolete gas guzzler” and an RV 6 or 7 is the former having more room, a higher payload, and therefore more power to lift it. It’s a false characterization rooted only in unfortunate and negative European politics, and lack of infrastructure, not technology.
Meanwhile Vans makes the RV10, a design that reflects Van’s ability to optimize detail design very well, but is not in any way revolutionary because there would no benefit in it being so. As a result the RV10 is the same thing as e.g. a 1960 Comanche in both construction and purpose, except for being an easier/cheaper to manufacture and somewhat less elegant design. The engine is the same, as is the fuel consumption.
GA_Pete wrote:
Shame, I thought we were a better community on here than that.
I think that was pretty much tongue in the cheek…. Dan is a former airline pilot who likes now to fly VFR and often teases those of us who never made it to the airlines for wanting a bit of creature comfort such as an AP in our airplanes. To each his own I suppose and if you’ve flown on AP all your life, maybe it’s time for something else.
Needless to say I disagree with the notions that anyone who has an AP is “playing airline pilot”, in my case it’s just the kind of flying I like to do. But I won’t argue with someone who flew his plane on trips like Dan has done :) he certainly is very much on top of his own game.
Obviously that does not help those for whom the Avgas threat is real.
