Hello Stan,

Is there a fact you dispute, or are you just being disagreeable?

Paul

Let’s see, you accuse Lyondell of being like a little kid with a hammer looking for a nail to pound and you accuse me of being disagreeable? How quaint, and thoroughly professional.

“3) Lyondell began with the solution in mind: better utilize their ETBE manufacturing capability. So like the little kid with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. They’re not searching for the best unleaded avgas, they’re seeking an outlet for their manufacturing capacity.”

If you’re not seeing your all-in bias for G100UL here and elsewhere (including in the CEH litigation), then I’m certainly not going to be changing your mind about much of anything.

Eagle sent out an email update today mentioning there is an interactive toolkit on their website now showing detailed progress for VP's fuel, including materials, paint, engines tested to date, etc. Interesting to see the details on each.

My answer was incorrect, timing changes will also be a major change requiring a form 337.

Hi Dan,

the data behind that 337 will be the challenge. For example if you look at the past, some of the STC's for using autofuel in aircraft required climb-to-altitude cooling tests, single-engine ceiling test, etc.

When you start thinking about a fleet-wide change in engine performance that is going to impact every airframe differently and require flight testing of each model to develop the new performance charts to accompany the STC documentation. It is certainly an ambitious path you have chosen, as opposed to just making a fuel that keeps engine configuration and performance unchanged from what was originally in each airframe model's TCDS.

The path they have chosen is to not be involved in any of that work that adoption of their fuel will require, and certainly not to be responsible for any costs or liabilities related to the shortcomings of their product.

Their only ambition is to use politics to shove their garbage non-solution down other people throats and expect other people to bear all the costs and risks while they receive the profits.

Has anyone checked on Matt S????

Hi Dan,

the data behind that 337 will be the challenge. For example if you look at the past, some of the STC's for using autofuel in aircraft required climb-to-altitude cooling tests, single-engine ceiling test, etc.

When you start thinking about a fleet-wide change in engine performance that is going to impact every airframe differently and require flight testing of each model to develop the new performance charts to accompany the STC documentation. It is certainly an ambitious path you have chosen, as opposed to just making a fuel that keeps engine configuration and performance unchanged from what was originally in each airframe model's TCDS.

His spirit seems alive and well in this thread.

Yup.

The entire light piston aircraft industry needs to move to power plants that don’t have such high octane requirements. Long term, we can’t survive on boutique fuels long term. It will have be something easily made with the refinery blending stocks for other mass market gasolines.

Till then, it’s going to be a winding road for the whole fleet.

The problem with that is the aircraft fleet has a very long half life so it's likely that there will be a big market for 100 octane avgas for the next 50 years or more.

In other words, for us, in this life, for the time being, G100UL, taking into consideration the recommendation about maintenance by GAMI is still the best option (can be used by 100% of the fleet), if unleaded is what we need to look for.

What is the motivation to pick the winner long before the process is over? We are the customers, and we will benefit from having more options to compare.

Well, I am not picking a winner.
I am buying it, using it.
There is no other option at hand.

As I've said before, the best thing that could have happened is 50 years ago, in 1975, the government should have just put it down as law, that in 50 years, leaded avgas was going to go away.

That would have caused a lot of bitching, but it probably would have re-invigorated light GA with new technology and maybe, just maybe, we'd all be in better shape today, flying newer aircraft, or at least aircraft that have been re-engined with more modern designs.

It's not a "big" market. It's a small market, and it gets smaller every year and we're unlikely to remain large enough to be interesting to sell into.