I think he is talking about GA 100L fuel.
Which, as someone stated elsewhere, I think absolutely should be changed to 94UL across the board.
I don't believe there is no possible way a small single prop GA plane simply cant run on unleaded gas. That seems eerily close to propaganda from Midgley himself. Some performance alteration without some small changes to the plane? Maybe.
But cataosrophic outcomes even with some small changes? Highly unlikely.
Presumably they did that if the cost were an issue, the primary problem discussed in the article though is keeping weight balanced on the airplane so it doesn’t crash, not the cost of fuel.
Good question. Maybe they were too busy flying the airplane and could divert attention to dumping the fuel? Or maybe they need hydraulics to dump the fuel?
I think drop-in replacement fuel is the most realistic approach. The lifespan of aircraft and of some aircraft engines mean that your suggestion would require a large number of engine replacements and make it prohibitively expensive for the whole of GA.
This approach clearly can work, and is only not working because of an incompetent administrator.
Bu the Cessna in the article wasn't being refuelled - it was over the ocean the entire time. The question was about fuel endurance, not mechanical or lubricants endurance, as in your example.
Dumping fuel has environmental impacts though, and could be a disaster if happened over a populated area. Maybe they decided it wasn't worth it considering the plane could safely be kept in a holding pattern.
reply