WRT numbers-He could have a million hours and it would not matter. LS motors probably have a hundred million hours in other applications, doesn’t matter.
To start, the prohibition of taking a certificated aircraft to experimental with the addition of this engine. I could see that a LS engine could be a very enticing option to someone with an older airframe. And I don't think I would balk at buying a certificated airframe that was "demoted" to experimental by adding the LS engine, if the rest of the airframe was okay.
As the article says, 14 CFR part 43, which is applicable to any aircraft originally certified under a type certificate, regardless of whether it is now in the experimental category.
Thats only provided they as the STC applicant have completed the necessary steps for the FAA move on. Outside of having a stated G1 issue letter, there is no other status of where the project is in the STC process. The aircraft has been flying for several years under Experimental-Exhibition so they should be at least at Phase IV in the process but several things just don't add up in the narrative. So maybe the hold up isn't the FAA? The funny thing is the FAA individual mentioned in the article works in the Flight Standards Services which is not the department that handles aircraft certification.
That all may be true, but it still doesn't convince me of much. Frankly, I don't really understand what his goal is. Everyone seems to have a different take. To me, it seems, the best route to certification is a proven track record, which you could get with EAB. Similar to Rotax. They are now basically the defacto standard for SLSA certified aircraft.
Do you think the FAA worked at a reasonable pace in the G100UL certification?
I dont know enough of the details to make an informed reply but if I were to guess I would say the pace was in the ballpark. Could it have been approved sooner, probably. How much sooner, I dont know.
Not really. Its more like a homeless person complaining about property taxes.
\
Which is a similar stance taken in the OP article. One sided. I would be interested to hear from the ACO Project Manager on his take, or see the certification plan, or read the conformity reports to see how efficient the process was.
"Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part."
Except the one who they blamed for the lack of response has nothing to do with certifications, i.e, STCs. So sounds like there was another priority more important than the STC. All pomp and no circumstance.
“However, due to liability concerns, the airworthiness will be surrendered to FAA prior to delivery and is not included in sale. Buyer will have to obtain their own airworthiness certificate.”
