That's not what I was getting at and you're combining two separate points. Some folks in the aviation community tend to have the perception that they need to thumb their nose at the FAA/manufacturers/etc as much as they can. A lot of these folks (at least around here) tend to be the same ones who crow about how they love running gasoline so they aren't under the "thumb" of the 100LL racket. That is, right up until their engine pukes or their fuel lines start leaking. Then it's a massive government conspiracy which is about the time I start to tune them out. These guys tend to rapidly move off the local airport to a grass strip when they realize that the cost of having a separate system for their automotive gasoline at the field is prohibitive in many cases (in other words, they get pissy with the airport management for not catering to their minority and either leave or are told to do so because of their hostility; one guy here was escorted off the premises in cuffs by the local PD because of he was being so bellicose) or otherwise remove themselves from the local pilot population.since when is wanting to spend less money a "screw you" attitude?
I know a lot of people who have to run off the airport to get it and bring it back to their plane. It seems like a lot of extra work for something that's likely to damage the seals, gaskets, etc of the aircraft.Not everybody has to tanker in auto gas
You mean besides the fact that the fuel systems and most of the engines were designed to utilize 100LL and that the ethanol in gasoline is causing problems? That's a pretty good set of them in my book. That's not to mention it's a heck of a lot easier to just taxi up to the 100LL pump and fill the tanks. I'll pay a little more for the convenience factor alone.You haven't made the least bit of technical explanation as to why people should NOT deviate form 100LL.
Well, when the same stuff isn't working and people are complaining about the damage it's doing, that doesn't exactly sound like "innovation" to me. When you're ruining your engine, that's not really "independence" now is it? Aviation has never been "independent" but we sure like to tell ourselves that (just like how we like to blow smoke about it politically, etc). Show me a plane with a motor that can be literally built by someone (not a corporation) with no input from an outside source and isn't beholden to the oversight and input of numerous other folks and then we will talk "independence".What you call a "screw you" and "get away with it" attitude is the the experimental aviation idea of innovation and independence.
Ethanol in gasoline isn't going anywhere anytime soon and instead of grousing about it maybe folks should start building their aircraft to accommodate it rather than trying to skate by with the older designs. How many of the folks do you see on these threads that are developing modifications to their fuel tanks, lines and engines to run the stuff without destroying them? I can't recall any of them. Instead, we get people whining about politicians and how they need to be booted out of office for supporting this. The problem is the next crop will go right into the pockets of the ethanol lobby, the oil lobby, etc. I might be a little less pessimistic about the automotive gas as an aviation fuel crowd if they banded together and said "Here's the problem, here's the practical solution we need to make this work. Let's get to it" instead of sitting around howling like a bunch of cats in a room full of rocking chairs and licking their wounds. If we're supposed to be "innovating" and "independent" then damn it, people need to start acting like it instead of just talking about it.
We need more folks who have the education, knowledge and experience to fix these issues. The problem is that the average homebuilder is chasing his tail by not innovating. In one way, this is good because most of us (including myself at the moment) are not engineers or expert mechanics. In another, it makes the "idea of innovation and independence" little more than a slogan and has caused us to stagnate into a bunch of copycats. Very few people in "experimental aviation" are really experimenting. It's simply called that because of historical context and the FAA classification of our aircraft. The average homebuilder buys a kit or a set of plans and build someone else's design. Sure, it's an "experiment" by definition but unless they did something really boneheaded, most aircraft will fly. I love the RV series and the rest of the popular kit aircraft are great too but the average homebuilder isn't innovating at all. Trying to pin that medal on every last one of our lapels is doing a disservice to aviation as a whole. Recognize those who are and hold them out as an example (which is why Rutan was honored a couple of years back at Oshkosh). The rest of us need to abide by the old Chrysler marketing slogan: "Lead, follow or get out of the way".