I'm not getting this: They claim a 100LL substitute to be called G100UL. Same performance/octane as 100LL, commonly known as "avgas" as it's the fuel used in most general aviation piston aircraft.
What I don't get is:
1. Here in the Springs (and elsewhere), 100LL already costs about $0.45 to $0.50 more per gallon than Jet A
2. Turbo-diesels for general aviation are substantially more efficient during cruise while offering better performance during climb, reducing overall fuel consumption.
Sure, I understand there are tens of thousands of general aviation aircraft owners who which will not convert to diesel and need a replacement for the 100LL that's going bye-bye very soon. Several times, however, the fuel industries have said they would soon discontinue 100LL even if the EPA continued granting extentions, nor would they support a substitute if one were developed.
Since Jet-A is so widely available, and perfomance is that much better, I think a financial case could be made for conversion to diesel for the majority of the fleet.
A napkin calculation shows that for a Cessna 172, a diesel conversion would break even around the 3,000 hour point, which is a lot of hours for your privately-owned 172. Not so much for one used at a flying school.