Wow. Well, we finally hit the wall -- it's been a couple of days with NO new posts on this thread.
I do not want to post in order to prattle on and just hear myself talk, but I will make one observation, which others can respond to or not. I know I previously mentioned the idea of using GC/MS to test/characterize the Chinese fuel, and it was properly pointed out that such a test may be far from definitive, and that other test measures may be better. Fair enough, and point well taken.
But let's review an article that gives on overview of the observations to date, as well as the latest tack the inquiry is taking:
[Looking at restrictions in piping]
...engine test cell... altered to enable... calibrated restrictions at various locations in the engine and aircraft fuel feed...
[looking at environment]
...primary challenge... to create the environmental conditions experienced... to test a representation of the aircraft fuel system... replicating the fuel system performance experienced on the day...
[reviewing/re-accomplishing system design characterization]
... developing a more complete understanding of the dynamics of the fuel as it flows from the fuel tank to the engine...
[flight data review]
...a data analysis team... reviewing and analyzing recorded data from a large sample of flights on similar aircraft.... concentrating on... abnormal combinations of parameters...
[recap]
"Recorded data indicates that an adequate fuel quantity was on board the aircraft and that the Autothrottle and engine control commands were performing as expected prior to, and after, the reduction in thrust... work includes a detailed analysis and examination of the complete fuel flow path from the aircraft tanks to the engine fuel nozzles," the second AAIB report stated.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/asw/cat...ial/22017.html
IMHO, the ONE potentially relevant factor that this article, and the AAIB updates themselves are completely silent on is the
MATERIAL, i.e. the fuel itself, whether it be chemical composition, or physical properties, or additives, or other attributes.
The only data presented so far on the physical material responsible for combusting and being converted to the required energy was that it's freezing point 'far exceeded' the spec. for that parameter.
Super.
However, I find the lack of ANY further information on that front, even if it is just to close off the fuel itself as possibly being a contributor (with evidence to back it up), to be very odd.
Am I off in the weeds here?