I read your paragraph. I simply chose to ignore it. Though it sounds impressive, because this grease is used on fighter aircraft does not mean that those wheel bearings are very demanding on the grease. I don't know. Sometimes very mundane applications can be the most demanding on grease.

What kind of compatability are you talking about?... you have to be specific. If you remember, I was the one who provided the link for the compatability chart, and I'm a big proponent of thoroughly cleaning a bearing before regreasing.

OEM in Detroit is going toward synthetic differential fluid for factory fill. The reason is that synthetic allows them to up their CAFE an incremental amount. They wouldn't be spending the extra money for synthetic fill if it didn't pay off. This, and the fact that CAFE requires the cars be tested with factory fill. I've never been a big proponent of synthetic lubes except when it comes to diff fluid. The extra incremental MPG you get from synthetic diff fluid pays for the premium you have to pay on the liter and a half lube charge.

I didn't read the FAA report. I read the NTSB report. You quoted, "the wrong lubrication was a contributing part". If you mince words - and these reports are carefully written - this can also mean the wrong practise was used. Otherwise they should have said "the wrong lubricant was a contributing part". Perhaps the rest of the report can clarify this issue.

We use many different lubes, depending on the application and what the customer is willing to pay. I'd be at a loss to name them all. Very often we're at odds with OEM manufacturers because they don't want to pay the premium for better grease in the bearings we make for their vehicles, despite the lube problems we see on their product returned to our lab.

We don't work with MIL specs. It sounds like you do.

__________________
95 E320 Cabriolet, 169K