GA Flying Down 20%

In article .com,
M wrote:
On May 31, 8:29 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:

I wonder if those sales figures from the 1980s included military
aircraft? There used to be lots of military hardware burning avgas
-- not any more...

I don't think the Military had active duty piston engine aircrafts in
the 1980s. It was all GA.

One thing to consider is old frieght dogs changing from piston
powered beasts to turbine monsters. A Twin Beech or DC-3 burns
quite a bit of fuel.

One stat I've seen, but can't source right now, is that $bignum
percent of piston engines could run on a 95UL fuel (basically a
super premium blend of mogas), but the majority of avgas burnt goes
into the $smallnum percent of engines that can't burn 95UL and need
100 octane. I wonder if that stat is still true, with there being
a lot less big piston aircraft out there now.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/

Good point. and the aerial applicators as well.
Jim

"John Clear" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
M wrote:
On May 31, 8:29 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:

I wonder if those sales figures from the 1980s included military
aircraft? There used to be lots of military hardware burning avgas
-- not any more...

I don't think the Military had active duty piston engine aircrafts in
the 1980s. It was all GA.

One thing to consider is old frieght dogs changing from piston
powered beasts to turbine monsters. A Twin Beech or DC-3 burns
quite a bit of fuel.

One stat I've seen, but can't source right now, is that $bignum
percent of piston engines could run on a 95UL fuel (basically a
super premium blend of mogas), but the majority of avgas burnt goes
into the $smallnum percent of engines that can't burn 95UL and need
100 octane. I wonder if that stat is still true, with there being
a lot less big piston aircraft out there now.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.clear-prop.org/