Swift Forever Avgas STC

C

Chuckle88

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 10, 2020
Messages
18
Display Name
Display name:
Chuckle88
With the article on 100LL, I was reading about possible replacements. Swift has 94 unleaded and they are selling a Forever Avgas STC for $100. This includes all future STCs. They are working on 100 unleaded.

Think it is worth the $100? Would Swift be the most likely to gain approval?

Don't know much about their UL94 fuel but the closest to me would be Falmouth Air park. Based at KBVY, Piper Archer 2.
 
Chuckle88 said:
With the article on 100LL, I was reading about possible replacements. Swift has 94 unleaded and they are selling a Forever Avgas STC for $100. This includes all future STCs. They are working on 100 unleaded.

Think it is worth the $100? Would Swift be the most likely to gain approval?
Click to expand...
If Swift gains approval for their 100UL, it will likely NOT require an STC. That’s kind of the whole point of the drop-in replacement. However, if the STC is granted, then you have to question whether there’s value in having it... Phillips 20W50 oil was originally STC’d, but if you examine aircraft records, you won’t find many people who bothered obtaining the FREE STC and completing a 337 to change oil. To answer your question, in my opinion, the most likely to be approved is GAMI, followed by Phillips and/or Lyondell who are both using manganese additive formulations. Swift is fourth. Shell is fifth, since they’ve apparently thrown in the towel.

Don't know much about their UL94 fuel but the closest to me would be Falmouth Air park. Based at KBVY, Piper Archer 2.
Click to expand...
Have you checked with Falmouth for ratability of supply? The supply line from Indiana where Swift blends their avgas to Massachusetts is long... as it is to California. Local pilots here in the Bay Area complain that the Swift pump at Redwood City is often out of gas... Also, determine if your aircraft actually requires the Swift STC. We can’t guess with you, since we don’t know what you’re flying.

Paul
 
It's all kind of moot until someone gets a distribution system for their alternative fuel.
 
Thanks for the information. I'm not going to purchase the STC.
 
Falmouth Airpark is 5B6. You have to call or email to get price and availability of UL94. So not a reliable supply :(
 
Are we sure about the no-STC-needed statement? Aircraft are certificated to burn specific types of fuel and I don't think any current airplanes list Swift as one of the options. For my 182, autogas (no ethanol) is only allowed with an STC.
 
What's the price where available?
 
”Stan.Cooper” said:
Paul, he says he flies a Piper Archer 2. If it's a 181, the engine is a Lycoming O-360-A4M.
Click to expand...
Thanks Stan, I’d missed that… and wouldn’t have known the exact engine designation without your help.

”FlyingRon” said:
It's all kind of moot until someone gets a distribution system for their alternative fuel.
Click to expand...
Well, of course, Swift has a distribution system for their 94UL, the fuel asked about by the OP. The question is how reliable it has been, and will be. When it comes to the 100UL fuels, the five contenders all have distribution plans, whether simply supplanting their existing 100LL system, or via ad hoc systems. The ad hoc approach is much easier to accomplish with an unleaded fuel, of course, than conventional leaded avgas. I think given approval, worst case will be a year spinning up the distribution, given the work done to date.

Aircraft are certificated to burn specific types of fuel and I don't think any current airplanes list Swift as one of the options.
Click to expand...
Take a look at Lycoming’s current service information on fuels applicability to engines:

https://www.lycoming.com/sites/default/files/SI1070AB Specified Fuels.pdf

They do not specify by manufacturer (Swift, Exxon, BP, Phillips) but rather by octane, and by type of fuel, in this case, avgas. For the O360A4M that Stan has pointed us at, Lycoming says any avgas 91 motor octane or better. That would include the referenced Swift 94UL, and the ill-fated and never produced (but certified) Amoco 92UL (IIRC). If you look at the service instruction above, you'll see the subject O360A engine is approved for 94UL...

I’m not certain if Piper has been as open-source-oriented in approving fuels for their airframes, but with the right FSDO, a field approval for an airframe, given the engine approval, could be straightforward. Or… you could buy the STC. Your choice!

”Chip.Sylverne” said:
What's the price where available?
Click to expand...
I just called SQL, San Carlos airport south of San Francisco, and they’re discontinued 94UL. So I tried calling LAF, Swift’s home field. They say they haven’t seen any in a while. Hmmm. IIRC it sold for about 20 cents per gallon above 100LL, back when you could get it. There’s a rumor that Swift is in financial trouble. I asked their CEO about that, and he replied angrily, but didn’t exactly deny it either. I’ve asked him a follow-up question about the airports that used to have 94UL and now don’t.
 
Last edited:
Got an answer from Falmouth Airpark. UL94 is available now, $7.15 a gallon. 100LL is $4.45.
 
So to resurrect an old thread... Swift announced an expansion of their distribution network, which leads me to wonder if I should buy the STC for my Grumman.

https://www.flyingmag.com/story/news/swift-expands-california-ul94-distribution/

I am based at KSQL, which according to earlier messages in this thread apparently already had UL94 at some point. They did not do much, if anything, to share that information, and I was unaware that it was available at my airport. Anyway, I spoke to Rabbit Aviation (fuel supplier at SQL) and they say they plan to start selling 94UL around September 1 at a price "comparable to" 100LL.

If the price is close, I am motivated to buy the STC and make the switch, at least when I can get it. Environmentalists are already using lead emissions as a reason to try to close one large local airport (KRHV) and I think it's incumbent on all of us to try to reduce or eliminate the lead issue if we can.

I'm hopeful that Swift has arranged a reliable process for keeping Bay Area airports supplied with 94UL. I see no reason (other than, potentially, cost) why I wouldn't want to use it. As a bonus, no more lead-fouled plugs or lead-induced corrosion.
 
Sounds like waiting for the GAMI G100UL might be better than the UL94. All avgas planes could use G100UL but only low compression planes can use UL94.
 
Chuckle88 said:
Sounds like waiting for the GAMI G100UL might be better than the UL94. All avgas planes could use G100UL but only low compression planes can use UL94.
Click to expand...
Either the GAMI G100UL or Swift's UL100 will be a better long term solution for sure, as either has the potential to replace 100LL completely. But they are both several years from being approved for all planes AND before they will have anything approaching general availability. I imagine that one or both will eventually be everywhere. GAMI has said that they will probably start out selling exclusively to Embry-Riddle.

But in the meanwhile, 94UL seems like a good stopgap that will let most of us (or those of us who want to, at least) eliminate lead from much of our Avgas. And $100 seems like a rounding error in the airplane world, a small price to pay to use the current and future Swift fuels. GAMI will have a similar STC charge, they haven't revealed how much it will be (but it will vary by airplane.)

Supposedly about ⅔ of GA planes can run on 94 octane fuel. Of course, it may also be true that the other ⅓ who need higher octane fuel are burning most of the Avgas, I don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top