> This person lost a lot of credibility over decades of promoting corsair engines which failed.
As someone not familiar, can you explain? How have those engines failed and how does that impact credibility regarding this, rather than just being something that didn't work out?
> ...but newer ones offer very few advantages.
From the article, it seems like cost is the biggest advantage (70% cheaper to run), followed by ease of use. And then of course the lack of toxic lead, although I don't know how to quantify that.
What am I missing?
You make a lot of points, but it's not immediately clear to me how they refute the article.
The engines don’t require lead, it was just the only high octane fuel available. We do have a 100LL replacement now, and work is being done to get it into service. Lower compression engines run just fine on mogas where it’s available too.
The engines are fine with ethanol. The problem with ethanol is the issues related to it eating at materials in the fuel system (e.g. fuel lines) that aren't alcohol tolerant.
As someone not familiar, can you explain? How have those engines failed and how does that impact credibility regarding this, rather than just being something that didn't work out?
> ...but newer ones offer very few advantages.
From the article, it seems like cost is the biggest advantage (70% cheaper to run), followed by ease of use. And then of course the lack of toxic lead, although I don't know how to quantify that.
What am I missing?
You make a lot of points, but it's not immediately clear to me how they refute the article.