There can be only one fuel for the fleet. Sounds like you may be a candidate for MOGAS. Run it. The rest of us need a fuel that is as good or better than 100LL (aka G100UL).
âThere can be only one fuel for the fleetâ
Be careful now, you want it to be Jet A or 100LL?
Point is that for 40 YEARS now that same dumb mentality of âone fuelâ has caused both prolonged leaded 100LL use and has delayed UL fuels from being in common use.
Gami 100 UL and engine mods for the rare few that need it.
When did Jet-A enter the conversation? No need to be careful about a fuel that is not relevant.
When? When YOU said âThere can be only one fuel for the fleetâ.
The âfleetâ uses more than one kind of fuel, Jet a or 100LL in case you have not noticed the 2 tanks at the self-serv ramp. We could have had one more tank added in the last 40 years by now so Iâm a little incensed when people go down your argument that âwe only need one fuelâ when obviously we already can and do have more than one.
Not all airports have JetA, because not all airports can even support jets/turboprops (by and large the biggest consumers of JetA).
If there were some aircraft that could only run on 94UL, then airports would have more of an incentive to carry two kinds of avgas. But with that not being the case, itâs a bit of a chicken-and-egg game. Why would an airport make the investment into 94UL tankage (as an example) when there wouldnât even be a guarantee that theyâll sell enough to make the investment worth it in the long run? Especially when we have cases like Burke and others that are under threat of closure because of the perception that they donât bring in enough income.
But rather than having a hypothetical discussion about this, why donât you just go to your local airport manager and make the case that they should sell a second avgas. If itâs such a slame-dunk case, it should be easy to convince them to do so. And if youâre successful at that, it can be used as a template for others to do the same.
2 Likes
When all âpilotsâ in flight schools are taught only 100LL, most âpilotsâ donât understand that they can use 80/87 or 91/96. Unfortunately thus these âpilotsâ would not use anything but 100LL even if there were suitable alternatives at airports.
Thatâs probably why âpilotsâ today are brainwashed into thinking that âone fuelâ is the answer (even if it costs more and can be overkill for their engines). I see the same thing with people paying for premium auto gas because they donât RTFM on their cars.
1 Like
In the last month I have been to the Reedley, California airport a few times while training my grandson on my Skyhalk. I found out Reedley, California is planning to have a third pump soon to sell Swift UL 94. The reason that this came about is because the College just purchased 5 Rotax power training aircraft for their flight school and the use of 100LL is considered very bad for the Rotax engine but is usable. The College has been able to talk the city into providing the third tank option which will be installed soon.
1 Like
My earlier comment (to a different poster) about contacting the local airport manager or FBO to get additional fuel tanks installed wasnât to be condescending or facetious. I really did mean it, and this shows that it is possible.
Conspiracy theory?
Conspiracy theory?
(to make Avwebâs ridculus 20 threshold)
Good for the airport, helping a local operator who buys volume I presume.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.