Dan wrote:
I should have been more precise, the more so since you’re located in the US. As you know, IFR flying in EU (_Euro_GA ) is usually not legally approved in homebuilts.
As per my post 79 there are quite a number of false ideas here, rooted in unfortunate and negative local politics plus lack of local infrastructure. One of them is the idea that high payload GA aircraft are “obsolete” by comparison with whatever lightweight type is of interest, they aren’t by any technical or practical measure, and another is that amateur built aircraft are incapable of IFR when it is done every day and is certainly what an RV10 is designed to do. It doesn’t help anybody to propagate dumb ideas that result from looking inward, not outward.
Dan wrote:
End of Avgas in Europe in 2025?, anyone?
It’s a typical European doomsday scenario, the product of politics and fear, this one being as unlikely as any of the others. There’s got to be a way to make money by investing in the opposite view and winning the bet, as you would 
Silvaire wrote:
including IFR capability
Ok, I should have been more precise, the more so since you’re located in the US. As you know, IFR flying in EU (_Euro_GA 
) is usually not legally approved in homebuilts. My thinking was more geared towards capability as in ice protection (specifically TKS), which at the moment is not available on the RV-10, but for the Cirrus.
Another point is that Piper stopped building them Comanches in the 70’s, so all the ones flying now are survivors, and can’t be purchased new.
End of Avgas in Europe in 2025?, anyone?
The RV-10 is not playing in the Comanche’s court, but rather in the Cirrus one. Missing full IFR capabilities, but doing pretty well performance wise, payload, interior space, and performance.
All three of them are playing in exactly the same court, including IFR capability. 60 years has made very little difference except that the newer planes (in this case the RV10 and Cirrus) have better attention to detail design in terms of parasitic drag reduction, while having a lower level of detail quality where that reduces manufacturing labor cost.
The engine on a Comanche 180 is exactly the same as that used on a two seat RV, and the 250 engine is the same as on the RV10. The structures on all of them are built in exactly the same way except that the wing is more sophisticated on the Comanche.
And all of them use the same fuel.
Guys, yes, I love to blow away the cobwebs from time to time. Hope no offence taken as none intended. Agreed, should use more of those since they’re free, here’s one
@Silvaire, the 2 seaters designed by Van’s are sport aircraft, in the same line as sport cars. No relation to any heavy underpowered but overfeeding 4 or 6 seater being flown solo WOT. Ah yeah
The RV-10 is not playing in the Comanche’s court, but rather in the Cirrus one. Missing full IFR capabilities, but doing pretty well performance wise, payload, interior space, and performance. As for the looks…
So, we sure don’t wanna upset @Peter, so why don’t we paint some resemblance of heading back to the OP’s thread title: The end of AVGAS in Europe in 2025 ?
I’m not sure what percentage, or in what proportions, the active pilot, or rather the whole European aircraft community is represented here on EuroGA. But one thing transpiring is that aircraft requiring Avgas today are already in minority. Rotax powered airplanes are becoming very common now, ranging from trainers to ULs with amazing performance. And most homebuilts, as well as quite a few certifieds already take advantage of Mogas.
History shows that mainland EU fields Mogas offerings are expanding. In the past, almost all airfields used to provide Avgas, only. Then came the demand for Mogas, and prob 99 of those fields then added Mogas to the existing offer as either an additional pump, or a trailered tank, or bowser.
Now, assuming an Avgas replacement is happening in EU, the demand might be quite low…
PS
@Mooney_Driver, I now owe you a beer!
“n 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.”
There’s an EU regulation allowing 199(?) litres for your own use. Has anything been done to continue this post Brexit in the UK?
I used to have a copy in my flightbag. Only once did I end up reading it to a Tesco girl.
Now I use Avgas because of the alcohol problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
