Another unleaded 100LL replacement approved (Swift 100R)

I know that GAMI gas is fungible with 100LL. Is the Swift juice? And (bigger question) are the GAMI and Swift fuels fungible with each other? If not, we have a winner-take-all fuel competition.
 
Half Fast said:
I know that GAMI gas is fungible with 100LL. Is the Swift juice? And (bigger question) are the GAMI and Swift fuels fungible with each other? If not, we have a winner-take-all fuel competition.
Click to expand...
But will either one be fungible with the FAA's Eagle gas (if it ever happens)???
 
asicer said:
I said it was available for purchase. I did not say by whom. ;)
Click to expand...
Do you know the deal? Are they paying for it? Or is Swift supplying it so they can say it is being flown?
 
Pinecone said:
Do you know the deal? Are they paying for it? Or is Swift supplying it so they can say it is being flown?
Click to expand...
Comments in the linked article say they're paying around $10/gallon.
 
A third unleaded avgas candidate, Lyondell's UL100E, is undergoing full-scale engine and airframe testing under the FAA's Piston Engine Aviation Fuels Initiative, which could lead to the agency granting fleetwide authorization for its use in 2025.
Click to expand...
One has to be careful about interpreting what that "fleet wide" authorization means. The developer, Lyondell, makes the same disclaimer as Swift: both developers caution that their 100 unleaded will not work in about half of high-performance engines unless the engines are modified or limited in some ways. That's kind of awkward for "fleet wide." In addition, the FAA has clarified that the way the authorization will work is that the FAA will issue an information document. Every aircraft owner will then have to solicit his/her IA to fill out a couple 337s, one for the airframe and another for the engine, to approve use of the new fuel per the FAA's information document. Sounds a WHOLE lot like an STC, with the attendant paperwork costs. Except it's not clear that the FAA's information document will provide enough information for every IA to be comfortable signing off... unlike the STC process where the AML (approved model list) makes it pretty clear when the STC applies, or does not. This could be a cumbersome process for "fleet wide" adoption.

midwestpa24 said:
What the industry is really waiting for is blanket approval of a drop-in replacement for 100LL, no STC or paperwork needed. Something that an FBO could just start ordering tomorrow instead of 100LL.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the FAA has made it fairly clear that doing that would require either two to three years of rulemaking, which hasn't yet begun, or an act of Congress. I asked the FAA's AIR-1, at the time Earl Lawrence had that job, why the rulemaking hadn't yet begun? He replied, "At the FAA, we do not respond to any crisis until it's time!"

Timothy Speare said:
But the engine will last longer, just look at the savings on mogas with a Rotax. Oil change intervals almost double, engine last longer, cheaper overhaul...
Click to expand...
The AOPA Baron demonstration flying seem to bear that out... the G100UL engine has wear metals on oil analysis about half those of the G100UL engine. Remember that with the transition from leaded to unleaded mogas, our automotive engines started lasting a lot longer, too.

NordicDave said:
The only G100UL retail pump available in the world is KRHV airport
Click to expand...
Update: RHV is selling from the truck, WVI is selling on their self-serve island, and Tupelo MS just began selling, but I'm not sure whether via truck or self-serve.

Half Fast said:
Is the Swift juice fungible with 100LL?
Click to expand...
Yes, that is an approval requirement by the FAA.

Half Fast said:
are the GAMI and Swift fuels fungible with each other?
Click to expand...
Both GAMI and Swift say they are NOT fungible. Guessing from first principles, the Lyondell (PAFI) fuel would be fungible with Swift, since it's nearly an identical composition; neither Swift nor Lyondell would be fungible with GAMI. There's the small problem, too, that Swift and Lyondell say their fuel will only work with half of the high-performance engines/aircraft unless as yet undefined and unapproved modifications/limitations are made to or imposed upon the aircraft and engine operation.

asicer said:
I said it was available for purchase. I did not say by whom.
Click to expand...
Probably more useful, then, to state Swift has entered into exclusive contract(s) with one or more flight schools... than to say, "available for purchase." The term of art in the relevant litigation is "commercially available" and the Swift flight school deal would seem NOT to meet that definition, which has been colloquially defined as, "Can I call up and order it and have it delivered?" That is NOT the case for Swift 100R as yet.

CEH, Center for Environmental Health, is returning to court this month to try to force the FBOs and avgas distributors to begin selling unleaded 100, as the FBOs and distributors agreed to do back in 2014 to settle a complaint brought by CEH under California's Proposition 65. With 20/20 hindsight, the settlers (the 30 some FBOs and the distributors) allowed unwise language in that settlement that prejudices their rights. CEH now seeks to assert that not only must the settlers sell unleaded avgas, but they must *only* sell unleaded avgas... that would create a market shift!

Paul in OAK
 
PaulMillner said:
The AOPA Baron demonstration flying seem to bear that out... the G100UL engine has wear metals on oil analysis about half those of the G100UL engine. Remember that with the transition from leaded to unleaded mogas, our automotive engines started lasting a lot longer, too.
Click to expand...

Paul I think you have a typo in this paragraph :D
But I get what you mean.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top