3 ms·
The better question is, if this an obvious improvement over the current solutions, then what is it specifically that prevents this governing body from allowin
by akira2501 4y ago
The better question is, if this an obvious improvement over the current solutions, then what is it specifically that prevents this governing body from allowing the change? And, wouldn't that same issue be a worse problem for a smaller and less well funded governing body?
- sokoloff 4y agoWhile I believe G100UL is an improvement over 100LL in every important dimension except cost (where the delta is small enough to be accepted) and a small density penalty (a gallon is 5% heavier than 100LL, but contains slightly more energy as an offsetting factor, but “full tanks” will now be heavier and if the fuel has been mixed, it’ll be heavier by an unknown amount), it still needs an amount of test cell and flight testing to demonstrate that it’s equal or better. Right now, the law says “these airplanes are allowed to use these engines”, “these engines are allowed to use 100LL”, and “100LL has the following composition”. To be legal, you need paperwork that breaks one or more of those constraints, which is what GAMI is in the process of pursuing. To get that paperwork, they have to demonstrate functional equivalence and convince the FAA to issue a supplemental type certificate (the legal paperwork that would alter the second condition above). It’s not unreasonable for the FAA to need proof. Whether they need more proof than they have is self-evidently a point of disagreement between GAMI and their supporters (I count myself among this set) and the FAA.
- BurningFrog 4y agoEven the least cynical among us understands that a government agency is not just going to abolish itself, even if it were for the best, right?