No, they said they never could justify the effort of benchmarking the 87 octane data on the 160HP models because when they went to the FAA with the 89 octane data, the FAA stiffarmed them and said "91 or else". They effectively cut their losses on the 8.5:1 Lycos after the 89 octane push was not well received. It's a shame really.

My "anectdotal" evidence with 87 is congruent with Petersen's experience on 89 octane. Fuel delivery system construction and positive pressure delivery is a bigger player with these fuels than merely octane ratings. Which is why they directed the re-plumbing of the 160HP Warrior and Warrior IIs, even while "mandating" 91 octane (again, per the horse's mouth). It has always been a matter of old fuel system design than the "quality" or viability of modern car gas. In essence you can put magic rabbits and easter eggs in the nova, but the sucker is still gonna vapor lock..because it has a Nova fuel system. Fix the fuel delivery, you fix the "vapor lock". Octane at that level of discussion has no bearing, and serves more as a scapegoat to justify an unnecessary premium than supporting safety and performance. Which is par for the course as far as the FAA and Lyco is concerned.

Of course all this talk was academic in the context of certified aviation (since the FAA holds the hammer over us little people jousting at supposed windmills). However, it is not just academic in the realm of experimental aviation, which will be the only outlet to take advantage of these strides long before certified aviation gets slapped with the eventual phasing out of 100LL (God willing).

We also discussed ethanol and Mr. Petersen merely left it at acknowledging the real threat he documented about alcohol-based additives damaging the seals and rubber components of these old airplanes and engine technology. He did not challenge the assertion that a simple reconstruction of the target parts to be ethanol friendly (like the rest of the automotive world) would suffice to appease the scared masses. Instead he defaulted to pointing the finger at what he sees as the fundamental differences between getting such change mandated by the FAA versus the freedom car manufactures have to effect a similar change, and I quote: "simply with a press release". I really do not disagree at all with his sentiments about differences in behavior between the automotive propulsion industry and the aviation propulsion industry from a regulatory standpoint.

I think the days of 100LL are counted, and people can cling to their "guns and bibles" (100LL) and accept big brother's assertions about safety as gospel, or they can go to the people who provided the unbiased numbers (i.e. the people who probably got stiffarmed by the FAA) and use it to push forth the agenda of re-capitalizing aircraft engine technology and fuel use. Energy costs are only going to go up, and if we wish to keep American GA alive the way our parents saw it, as opposed to the prohibitive landscape the British have, we need to push forth these viability and affordability enhancing measures. Or we can just accept only the rich and the non-professionals can afford 100LL and expensive overhauls on de facto civil war steam engines, and let them enjoy aviation while your kid gets to watch them soar while he wonders why daddy and he can't do the same as y'all sit on the airpark parking lot. Not very American in spirit IMO.