The FAA has awarded Crown Consulting a five-year $12.5 million contract to assist the agency’s Aviation Fuel and Engine Test Facility (AFETF) at the William J. Hughes FAA Technical Center in performing research, test, and engineering analysis to develop standards and aid in selecting unleaded gasoline for general aviation.
The company “will play a critical part in the scientific research that AFETF is conducting under the Piston Aviation Fuels Initiative (PAFI), supplying the empirical basis for high-visibility regulatory decisions and ultimately market selection,” company officials said in a press release.
Noted CCI’s President, Charlie Keegan, “This work is exciting and meaningful for us in many ways. To say that we are honored by the FAA’s selection is an understatement. Not only do we look forward to helping AFETF in facing the scientific challenges ahead, but welcome the opportunity to contribute to the GA’s transition to environmentally sustainable operations.”
Founded in 1989, CCI provides analytics, information solutions, management, and engineering services to assist government and private organizations, with an emphasis on aviation. The company owns and operates a state-of-the art analytics laboratory with an array of modeling and simulation tools.
For more information: Crownci.com
There are many aircraft out there with higher compression and/or turbo charged engines that cannot burn mogas. Although a smaller percentage of the total number of aircraft, these aircraft probably burn much more fuel than the percentage of the fleet that can burn mogas. A solution is needed for these aircraft. However, I am not saying that the government program to find a replacement fuel has been anything close to efficient.
What I think you are saying then is that because there is such a demand by the high compression engines, a substitute for lead is required in those engines and unless a viable substitute for that lead in those engines is not available then there is no need to eliminated the lead in the fuel because the mogas that most of the little airplanes use is not enough demand to eliminate the need for the leaded fuel. What about the Bardhal “lead substitute” product that they sell to put in the old muscle cars? What is in that formula? Will it work in high compression aircraft engines like it can in the high compression auto engines? Or how about having an AD for the high compression engines that would require the operator to simply add the lead on every refueling of mogas if a universal mogas was given a blanket approval?
Once again, the true motive behind the never-ending, unnecessary search for the mythical one-size-fits-all replacement for 100LL is on display – cronyism. The replacement has been there for decades and its called mogas. This is all about protecting government jobs and crony relationships in industry. If any company were really needed, the obvious choice should have been Petersen Aviation, the world’s authority on aviation fuel testing. When however did common sense and saving taxes play a role in a government decision?
What????? Another 12.5 million and another 5 years? Can somebody explain this and why this is necessary? We have been burning just regular ol mogas on STC’s now for many years and now this testing is required? It can’t be rocket science. Somebody that knows something about this needs to do something to stop this nonsense. Just a bunch of nuts that are going to try to make it sound like aviation fuel is something exotic in order to charge us more for it at the punp. Thanks.