In summary the vapor pressure of a highly volitile fuel was doing this. My little volitility meter confirmed this.
Next i went to most of the different brand gasoline stations and found an alarming number with volitile fuel.
Next i took some of this volitile fuel, placed it in a can and set it near my airplane on the morning of a good hot day. By that afternoon measured temp. Was near 120f the volitility was unreal. The avgas in my wing tanks was 124f but the volitility was acceptable
My concern now is that. How safe will i be if i totally trust the faa testing of the 150 hp 0-320. Buy the stc, then fill er up with mo gas, leave her sit in the good old hot tropical sun (directly overhead at noon now), take off and try to hop over a 9,000 ft cloud.
With avgas i am able to do this routinely. If i were to switch to mo gas i would check very carefully the volitility.
In summary to this i would say for the little engines like mine i would be happy with 91 or 100 ul – with proper volitility. As well to anyone planning to switch to mogas; buy a volitility meter and use it.

A noteworthy example of how one owner-pilot is adapting to possible phase-out of 100LL: On pages 76 and 77 of said edition of Flying, we read about a guy who uses his Cessna Citation jet to fly clients to and from locations where advertisements are filmed. Here’s how he’s coping with the whole matter of decreasing 100LL availability, possibly having to settle for 94UL, the possible high cost of lead-free 100 octane gas, et cetera: The aircraft he flies just for fun, a Marchetti SF.260TP, is one of only seven privately owned SF.260′s that have been converted to TURBOPROP POWER!

Expensive? Yes, but we’ll probably see more sportplanes of that kind in the foreseeable future.

>>Also, if US. DOD does succeed in having one single fuel for all engines on military aircraft and vehicles, do you think that single fuel will be a new kind of gasoline, or simply jetfuel (partial bio-jetfuel later) already available everywhere and fueling all the big Lockheed-Grumman-Boeing toys?

There is such a fuel, called JP-8. Its use is required for Army ground vehicles (which are nowadays all Diesel) as well as turbine-powered vehicles (nowadays only the M1 series Abrams main battle tank powered by an AGT-1500 gas turbine engine) and of course, helicopters (i.e. Blackhawk, Chinook, etc) which are turbine-powered. In combat theaters, JP-8 is also used for jet and turboprop aircraft.

In general aviation, JP-8 could be used in Diesel engines or turboprop engines, if said engines are FAA-certified for said fuel. I don’t think JP-8 would be usable in spark-ignited aircraft engines.

Mettatal Airport in Canton Township, Michigan, home of EAA Chapter 113, is not far from a railroad main line. I’ve been there numerous times for Chapter 113 pancake breakfasts. People I’ve met there agree its silly that those living near that airport complain about aircraft noise, but not about railroad trains which have to blow their air horns constantly to let everyone know they’re coming.

Given the high cost of “botique” avgas, including both 100LL and the forthcoming 100 octane lead-free formulations, I have often wished a railroad track would be built, branching off the nearby main line, to enable railroad tank cars to be delivered to Mettatal Airport so as to reduce aviation fuel transportation costs. That might lower the cost of avgas at that particular airport to less than $10.00/gallon, or whatever price is forecast for the next few years. Of course one also has to consider the many other small airports which are part of our nation’s general aviation system.

You write:
>>The remaining questions are: If its cost is around $6 in 2010, what will be its final retail price including margins and various amortization & depreciation charges, and when will it be available at any airfield for your Cirrus, Mirage or other. Then the Invisible Hand of the Free Market will decide…<<

You should not seize on the $6.00 /gal number I quoted as a starting point for the price to "go up". Rather, you should, based on what I wrote, seize on the $6.00/gal number I mentioned as a starting point for the price to "go DOWN."

Consider again, the very carefully chosen language that was used: "In fact, it was around $6/gallon, made in small quantities. "

By that statement I had assumed that most readers would appreciate that the pricing point as quoted was not derived by using components that came in bulk quantities measured by dozens or many dozens of rail road tank cars. But, rather, it was made at that price from components that came by truck, in barrels, to a little town in southeastern Oklahoma.

Regards, George