Aircraft nearly brought down by Tesco Fuel

topdaddy_2

Bodger and badger on this thread. Silly distractions.

Nilrem

NSA16 wrote: »

Although I've not put any fuel into a microlight, I do have an issue with Tesco fuel.


I've recently been shopping at Tesco so that I can take advantage of the money off coupons on fuel and filled up my Fianc!'s Audi A5 using 2p a litre off using my clubcard points. Filling the tank did help my wallet as it cost £69.00 as opposed to the usual £75.00 on average. Price of the fuel was 125.9 on this occasion.


The trip on the car said it could do 450 miles once I'd filled up and having discussed the difference in price to my fianc!, she said that should last her two weeks.


To my surprise, 5 days later, she came home to say that her car was empty with only 15 miles left in the tank. When we went over where she had been, we worked out that she had done around 150 miles that week - 300 miles less than what the car said it should have done!


My fianc! is a sensible driver and does not drive with her right foot flat down on the accelerator, nor does she have any weight in the car. The car was only driven to work & back and to pick me up from the train station.


I checked her tyre pressures and they were fine.


I've since filled the car up at Morrisons, again at 125.9 and although it cost us a little more (£77.00) this time, she has done the same journeys and still got half a tank left!


So although I thought I was saving money by filling up at Tesco's in order to take advantage of my clubcard points, we would have had to put another £69.00 of fuel in the tank, whereas the £77 at Morrisons has lasted us two weeks - a saving of £61!


Has anyone else had a similar issue?

That sounds very very odd.
As the performance of the fuel is very closely monitored and regulated, if one brand only gave you half the performance of the other the engine probably wouldn't even turn over! (or you would at least notice the difference in how the engine performed just by listening).
All Fuels in the UK have to meet minimum standards, and are very closely checked to make sure they do meet those standards, so the difference between one brand of fuel and another at the same standard (say normal unleaded), is going to be pretty tiny, with the "super" versions it can be a little bit more variation as IIRC there is a standard they have to meet, but some versions are a percentage point or so higher than that minimum standard.

Remember not just distance covered affects how much you get out of the petrol, but what you're doing with the car (running heaters, AC, radio, lights etc all cause the engine to do more work*), getting stuck in traffic or slow moving traffic makes a huge difference, or even just it being colder.
I've found it interesting to note how my current car reckons it's performing at fuel efficiency in "real time" (it displays on the dash), and it's surprising how little it takes to make it go from say an estimated 30mpg to 40mpg+ around town.

And of course if it's a diesel engine, if the DPF kicks in that will ruin your fuel consumption whilst it's running.

Oh and remember estimate fuel consumption for how far you'll go on a new tank is usually based on your previous trips, so if you've done a lot of motorway driving on one tank the trip computer might estimate that you'll be able to do 400 miles, because you've been running it at near maximum efficiency for the past tank, but then if you do a lot of town driving or shorter trips you might only get a couple of hundred miles out of the tank.
Estimates of how far you'll get on a tank are almost always very rough at best unless you're doing the same trip at the same times every week.



*If you're used to your car's engine you can sit parked up and sometimes hear/feel the difference in how the engine is working as you turn on things like the lights, heater, radio (I used to notice it with my old car, it was just a slight change in rev's at idle)..

photome

2 first time posters have managed to get this thread up to 3 pages

hilarious

interstellaflyer

A._Badger wrote: »

Top marks for a completely irrelevant comment.

The quality or supermarket fuel is a regularly debated one here. The OP's post threw some light on the subject. It may be murky light but it's better than 'he shouldn't have thrown the switch at all'.

It's not an irrelevant post at all, it's directly connected to the opening post, he came on here basically looking for sympathy when he's only got himself to blame. The supermarket fuel didn't bring down his aircraft, he knew there was something not right about it yet still chose to use it

andygb

neilmcl wrote: »

I wasn't the one trying to tell the OP that he needs to learn how to handle in-flight emergencies better as if you're more experienced than him (not me) to feel able to give such advice.

There is a world of difference between microlight aircraft and conventional aircraft, particularly when it comes to "engine out" landings.
Here is an example of a microlight having to make a forced landing after an engine failure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/10462720/Microlight-aircraft-engine-fails-at-300ft-in-Somerset.html

As the pilot says, you only get one chance to get this right.

System

But the OP wasn't (yet) in that situation but he was in danger of putting himself in that position by not making a controlled emergency landing while he still had an engine instead of crossing his fingers and hoping he could get back

debbiereynolds76

man is not mean't to fly anyway.

Sorry could not resist it.

On a serious note, my understanding was that all fuel comes from the same bunch of refineries and it is just marketing that distinguishes Tesco fuel from say, Shell or BP ??

Avoriaz

bigjl wrote: »

..Not sure if you are a troll or should be put forward for a Darwin Award.

My money is firmly on Troll.

Nodding_Donkey

andygb wrote: »

There is a world of difference between microlight aircraft and conventional aircraft, particularly when it comes to "engine out" landings.
Here is an example of a microlight having to make a forced landing after an engine failure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/10462720/Microlight-aircraft-engine-fails-at-300ft-in-Somerset.html

As the pilot says, you only get one chance to get this right.

So what's the difference then.

neilmcl

andygb wrote: »

There is a world of difference between microlight aircraft and conventional aircraft, particularly when it comes to "engine out" landings.
Here is an example of a microlight having to make a forced landing after an engine failure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/10462720/Microlight-aircraft-engine-fails-at-300ft-in-Somerset.html

As the pilot says, you only get one chance to get this right.

I never said there wasn't and I'm not the one trying to tell the OP how he should fly a microlight when I have absolutely no experience myself.