Unleaded 100 octane AvGas update

[poadeleted20]

FYI...

Friends of Swift Fuels,

It is with great enthusiasm that we write to you today. Things have been moving in a very positive direction for us with great focus on bringing our unleaded 102-octane aviation gasoline called 100SF to market. We are now reaching out to those of you who have asked to be kept up to date at one point or another. Some of you are close friends, while others have just asked to be kept in the loop; all of us, though, are enthusiastic about getting the lead out of avgas!

Since April 2012, Swift Fuels has been under new majority ownership. With this change in leadership, significant progress has been made. Our 10,000-gallon-per-month pilot production facility is near completion here in Lafayette, and we anticipate having our Commercial ASTM Production Specification approved within the next 60-90 days. We have also established an affiliate in Europe, Swift Fuel GmbH, to strengthen our international presence in delivering high-performance unleaded aviation gasoline to the world stage. All these changes are designed to help position Swift Fuels to begin commercialization of our 100SF product starting the transition to unleaded avgas.

Over the last several years, we have received countless inquiries as to how an average aviation enthusiast could assist Swift in bringing the next generation of aviation gasoline to airports across the world. Some of you have already provided your time and talents to help us, and we really appreciate this. Others of you have asked for a way to pledge a financial donation to support us to accelerate our growth - in exchange for a memorable gift from Swift Fuels.

We ask that you go to www.supportswiftfuels.com, watch the video for more information on our current status and future plans, and help the future of unleaded avgas take flight!

Sincerely,
The Swift Fuels Team


For further information, please check our website - www.swiftfuels.com - or
contact:
* Jon Ziulkowski, Vice President of Commercial Operations -
jon.ziulkowski@swiftfuels.com

* Chris D'Acosta, Chief Executive Officer - chris.dacosta@swiftfu

 

[jesse]

I guess I'm confused. Why again am I just giving money to a for-profit company?

 

[EdFred]

Unless the price in on par with 93 octane no-lead what's the point in switching?

 

[N801BH]

I guess I'm confused. Why again am I just giving money to a for-profit company?

Agreed.... IIRC that fuel was developed at a college with tax payers dollars.. Now they are wanting to sell the concept to the people who paid to create it..

 

[poadeleted20]

Unless the price in on par with 93 octane no-lead what's the point in switching?

For the folks who burn 70% of the avgas, 93 octane is not an option (including my Tiger, since while the engine was originally certified for 91/96, the airframe never got an STC for avgas). While airplanes which can operate on 91 octane comprise 70% of the fleet, they only use 30% of the avgas. Take the planes which need 100 octane fuel out of the equation, and there's not enough avgas consumption to make avgas production economically viable. Furthermore, given the cost of installing and maintaining aviation fuel systems at airports, there is little economic viability for an FBO to have both 93 octane mogas and 100 octane avgas, and since 70% of the business is 100 octane only, guess which they'll put in their one pumping system.

 

[EdFred]

For the folks who burn 70% of the avgas, 93 octane is not an option (including my Tiger, since while the engine was originally certified for 91/96, the airframe never got an STC for avgas). While airplanes which can operate on 91 octane comprise 70% of the fleet, they only use 30% of the avgas. Take the planes which need 100 octane fuel out of the equation, and there's not enough avgas consumption to make avgas production economically viable.

Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote.

 

[poadeleted20]

Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote.

Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote -- for pretty much all of us, there's no option unless you have the capability of setting up your own 93 octane mogas fueling operation and you never fuel up anywhere but home.

 

[docmirror]

I too am confused. Can I fly to some location and legally put 100SF in my turbocharged fire-belching GA plane and then fly home? Has it been approved for all/any/most/some/one GA engine/airframe? The FAQ says "extensive ground....and flight testing..." but the words "approved by FAA" are notoriously missing.

 

[EdFred]

Perhaps you need to re-read what I wrote -- for pretty much all of us, there's no option unless you have the capability of setting up your own 93 octane mogas fueling operation and you never fuel up anywhere but home.

No, I don't need to re-read. It's another case of Ron just trying to show everyone how smart he thinks he is. What I said had nothing to do with using 93 octane it had to do with the PRICE. Maybe you should try reading instead of trying to impress everyone with how much you think you know. Is SF100 going to be priced in the same tier where unleaded fuels are? Nope. They will charge just the same, or more under the "green label", compared to 100LL. Unless there's a cost benefit, what's the point in switching?

 

[JeffDG]

Unless there's a cost benefit, what's the point in switching?

Because the watermelons at EPA will eventually decide to kill TEL and then you'll have no choice.

 

[JHW]

another biofuel scam manages to stay afloat by bilking a new set of investors after bleeding the first set dry

 

[N801BH]

another biofuel scam manages to stay afloat by bilking a new set of investors after bleeding the first set dry

Swift will hire some hookers to "please" the ones in guv who call the shots. Then the FAA will mandate the use of it... Then they will subsidize the production and the cost will be 10 bucks a gal to us citizens who paid for it in the first place....

Bend over,, we are about to get a royal #uckinh....

 

[JOhnH]

No, I don't need to re-read.


Unless there's a cost benefit, what's the point in switching?

Well, for one thing, if our friends at the EPA get their way you will switch or sit on the ground because there won't be any leaded gas around for any price.

 

[bburnett]

I think George Braly has the answer and has done it using sound engineering and business practices.

I hate so see Swift fuel and any other "green" company muddle the water. I have read much of Mr. Braly's postings on various aviation forums and he explains the transition hurdles very well.

http://www.gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php

There nothing inherently wrong with 100LL other than price. The amount of Pb that GA puts into the environment is negligible. I wish someone would open a TEL factory in the US.

 

[docmirror]

G100ul. Another fuel that is waiting for the FAA to get their head out of the rectum and publish the requirements. Still not certified, waiting more than two years.

 

[SCCutler]

I think George Braly has the answer and has done it using sound engineering and business practices.

I hate so see Swift fuel and any other "green" company muddle the water. I have read much of Mr. Braly's postings on various aviation forums and he explains the transition hurdles very well.

http://www.gami.com/g100ul/g100ul.php

There nothing inherently wrong with 100LL other than price. The amount of Pb that GA puts into the environment is negligible. I wish someone would open a TEL factory in the US.

G100ul. Another fuel that is waiting for the FAA to get their head out of the rectum and publish the requirements. Still not certified, waiting more than two years.

This.

G100UL is effective, functional and can be produced in existing refineries with existing feed stocks. It has been proven, and was developed for high-compression engines like ours.. It is fungible, which is to say, it can be mixed with 100LL without ill effect on the fuel or the aircraft.

As I understand it, the FAA is being something less than cooperative, though.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I guess I'm confused. Why again am I just giving money to a for-profit company?

mentioned below ...

...in exchange for a memorable gift from Swift Fuels

Yep- that'd make me send them money

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Agreed.... IIRC that fuel was developed at a college with tax payers dollars.. Now they are wanting to sell the concept to the people who paid to create it..

Lots of stuff works that way, and it bothers me too. Look up the history of Taxol, and where it was discovered (NIH).

I'm not against government research, but I'd like a better return on the investment when a private company commercializes it. It seems like the taxpayer pays for the research, the company then makes the profits and nothing (or little) comes back to the government.

 

[Clip4]

When lead auto fuel disappeared, TEL (lead) additives were available for several years. I don't understand why all avgas could not be produced without TEL and the user add a TEL supplement if required for their operation. The net decrease in TEL would be 30% immediately.

 

[Geico266]

No, I don't need to re-read. It's another case of Ron just trying to show everyone how smart he thinks he is. What I said had nothing to do with using 93 octane it had to do with the PRICE. Maybe you should try reading instead of trying to impress everyone with how much you think you know. Is SF100 going to be priced in the same tier where unleaded fuels are? Nope. They will charge just the same, or more under the "green label", compared to 100LL. Unless there's a cost benefit, what's the point in switching?

110%

 

[docmirror]

When lead auto fuel disappeared, TEL (lead) additives were available for several years. I don't understand why all avgas could not be produced without TEL and the user add a TEL supplement if required for their operation. The net decrease in TEL would be 30% immediately.

Well, obviously this would put the responsibility for the correct fuel additive in the hands of the operator. We can't have that now can we?

 

[Geico266]

When lead auto fuel disappeared, TEL (lead) additives were available for several years. I don't understand why all avgas could not be produced without TEL and the user add a TEL supplement if required for their operation. The net decrease in TEL would be 30% immediately.

110%

I never understood why getting rid of lead in car gas was a good thing, but leaving in Avgas (10 times the lead of car gas) and it is burned in the air spreading the lead over a large area.

 

[Ted]

As I understand it, the FAA is being something less than cooperative, though.

Well, there are multiple sides to the story when I was last involved.

 

[Henning]

110%

I never understood why getting rid of lead in car gas was a good thing, but leaving in Avgas (10 times the lead of car gas) and it is burned in the air spreading the lead over a large area.

The reason we had to get the lead out of car gas was because it clogs catalytic converters which we use to convert CO to CO2. It had nothing to do with lead polution, in fact leaded gas was sold for years after unleaded was introduced in 1975.

 

[Jay Honeck]

For the folks who burn 70% of the avgas, 93 octane is not an option (including my Tiger, since while the engine was originally certified for 91/96, the airframe never got an STC for avgas). While airplanes which can operate on 91 octane comprise 70% of the fleet, they only use 30% of the avgas.

Quite frankly, this is not my problem. Those who can't use unleaded mogas should be the ones getting screwed by this situation, not ALL of us. Go do the testing and get the mogas STC for your Tiger.

Personally, I will use unleaded car gas if it comes to losing 100LL, so long as I can obtain it, or I will change all the seals in the engine to handle the ridiculous ethanol-polluted car gas.

Then, when it's time to change the engine, I will go diesel.

 

[docmirror]

Quite frankly, this is not my problem. Those who can't use unleaded mogas should be the ones getting screwed by this situation, not ALL of us. Go do the testing and get the mogas STC for your Tiger.

Personally, I will use unleaded car gas if it comes to losing 100LL, so long as I can obtain it, or I will change all the seals in the engine to handle the ridiculous ethanol-polluted car gas.

Correct me if I"m in the wrong but don't you own a plane with a HOA 4 cyl 360CI Lycoming engine of 180HP?

Aside from the engine suffix, isn't that exactly what the Tiger uses?

Aren't both your configurtions low wing, pump fed fuel systems?

Have you evaluated the characteristics of your plane in all regimes of flight and environmental conditions on mogas?

 

[Jay Honeck]

Correct me if I"m in the wrong but don't you own a plane with a HOA 4 cyl 360CI Lycoming engine of 180HP?

Aside from the engine suffix, isn't that exactly what the Tiger uses?

Aren't both your configurtions low wing, pump fed fuel systems?

Have you evaluated the characteristics of your plane in all regimes of flight and environmental conditions on mogas?

Nope, I haven't used mogas in Amelia yet, and I will be checking the Vans site thoroughly before I do. But I ran over 12,000 gallons of it through Atlas's O-540, with wonderful results.

The O-360 is a low compression carbureted engine that was never designed to use 100 LL, which has far more lead than optimal. It is an engine that should love mogas, and using it should extend its life significantly.

It's too bad that even though it sounds like you have the exact same engine, you will probably never be able to enjoy the benefits of using mogas. I saved over $20K in fuel costs alone using mogas in Atlas and our Ercoupe.

 

[Henning]

Nope, I haven't used mogas in Amelia yet, and I will be checking the Vans site thoroughly before I do. But I ran over 12,000 gallons of it through Atlas's O-540, with wonderful results.

The O-360 is a low compression carbureted engine that was never designed to use 100 LL, which has far more lead than optimal. It is an engine that should love mogas, and using it should extend its life significantly.

It's too bad that even though it sounds like you have the exact same engine, you will probably never be able to enjoy the benefits of using mogas. I saved over $20K in fuel costs alone using mogas in Atlas and our Ercoupe.

Engine isn't the problem, the question is if you will vapor lock the fuel in the fuel lines climbing out into a cooler altitude at 12,500 with hot fuel in your tanks. That is why in the certified world both airframe and engine require an STC for Mogas. Peterson offered me use of his fuel heating rig if I ever wanted to do an STC run. If the plane does it first shot with no problems, you're pretty much golden for your STC at a very low cost. If not however it often isn't worth pursuing. Since you are experimental, the only thing you would want to do is put boost pumps out next to the tanks to provide the extra pressure required to keep the fuel from vaporizing in the lines. This is typically how it's done with certifieds that fail, however it will require a DER and likely redundant pumps and yada yada... You get the expensive picture. I can't think of an aircraft engine I wouldn't run on premium Mogas.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Engine isn't the problem, the question is if you will vapor lock the fuel in the fuel lines climbing out into a cooler altitude at 12,500 with hot fuel in your tanks. That is why in the certified world both airframe and engine require an STC for Mogas. Peterson offered me use of his fuel heating rig if I ever wanted to do an STC run. If the plane does it first shot with no problems, you're pretty much golden for your STC at a very low cost. If not however it often isn't worth pursuing. Since you are experimental, the only thing you would want to do is put boost pumps out next to the tanks to provide the extra pressure required to keep the fuel from vaporizing in the lines. This is typically how it's done with certifieds that fail, however it will require a DER and likely redundant pumps and yada yada... You get the expensive picture. I can't think of an aircraft engine I wouldn't run on premium Mogas.

Our -8 has almost exactly the same fuel system as the Cherokee, right down to the electric fuel pump, so I don't anticipate any trouble -- but you can bet I will be talking with lots of fellow RV-8 owners before I attempt it.

 

[Henning]

Our -8 has almost exactly the same fuel system as the Cherokee, right down to the electric fuel pump, so I don't anticipate any trouble -- but you can bet I will be talking with lots of fellow RV-8 owners before I attempt it.

How close is the pump to the tank?

 

[Henning]

Might want to call up Petersen and get the low down, real nice guy with good info he's willing to share. Since he holds most of the MoGas STCs, he's likely got a lot better info than a bunch of RV builders who don't know Vx from Vy.

 

[Jay Honeck]

How close is the pump to the tank?

It's mounted behind the engine, in about the same spot as a Cherokee's.

Which is to say, not close to the tanks at all.

We ran mogas from the tip tanks in Atlas, with this set up. Wouldn't it be logical that if we were going to experience vaporization in the fuel lines, that it would have happened in such a long run?

What causes vaporization in fuel lines? Low pressure?

 

[Henning]

It's mounted behind the engine, in about the same spot as a Cherokee's.

Which is to say, not close to the tanks at all.

We ran mogas from the tip tanks in Atlas, with this set up. Wouldn't it be logical that if we were going to experience vaporization in the fuel lines, that it would have happened in such a long run?

What causes vaporization in fuel lines? Low pressure?

Pressure and temperature differential. The Pathfinder did not share the RV's rate of climb, plus the fuel tanks on the Cherokee are cooled directly by the airflow, I'm unfamiliar with how the tanks are in the RV. Best to do the test flights.

 

[JOhnH]

The reason we had to get the lead out of car gas was because it clogs catalytic converters which we use to convert CO to CO2. It had nothing to do with lead polution, in fact leaded gas was sold for years after unleaded was introduced in 1975.

But isn't CO2 one of the leading culprits in Global Warming? Why are we purposely making more of it?

 

[Ted]

Quite frankly, this is not my problem. Those who can't use unleaded mogas should be the ones getting screwed by this situation, not ALL of us. Go do the testing and get the mogas STC for your Tiger.

You have that backwards. It's not the problem of the 421s and Navajos (who use 80% of the AvGas) that you don't need 100LL. That was the case when they got rid of 80/87, and it hasn't changed.

That said, I think the best hope for the future is a combination of MoGas (for low powered planes) and diesels (for high and potentially low powered planes).

 

[docmirror]

Nope, I haven't used mogas in Amelia yet, and I will be checking the Vans site thoroughly before I do. But I ran over 12,000 gallons of it through Atlas's O-540, with wonderful results.

The O-360 is a low compression carbureted engine that was never designed to use 100 LL, which has far more lead than optimal. It is an engine that should love mogas, and using it should extend its life significantly.

It's too bad that even though it sounds like you have the exact same engine, you will probably never be able to enjoy the benefits of using mogas. I saved over $20K in fuel costs alone using mogas in Atlas and our Ercoupe.

I'm not sure your answering the questions I'm asking. In a prev post you stated that those who can't use mogas are the one's that are screwed, in response to someone's Grumman Tiger. I then asked if your engine wasn't almost exactly the same as the one in the Tiger(it is, btw). Your answer "Nope" would be in error.

I then asked if your plane isn't a low wing, pressure fed, fuel system almost exactly like that found in the Tiger. (it is)

Finally, we got to some meat of the discussion in that you said you would check Van's site for info on using mogas. Now, I don't know anything about Van's site, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say if he's the kind of designer/builder I think he is, there will be no 'approval' for mogas(it is, after all the exp world). However, I'm guessing there will be plenty of anecdotal evidence from the builders that takes the form of 'I use mogas, and I have not crashed yet'.

But, what I want to know, is are you going to test your specific plane, and what parameters are you going to use, and what results are you looking for testing? Basically, do you have pass/fail criteria for using mogas that differs significantly from that used by Petersen? Wouldn't that potentially put you in the 'you are screwed' category vis-a-vis using mogas? Of course, being exp one can put cat **** in the tank if they so chose.

Oh, I've used many gallons of mogas on my Bonanza. Worked great, saved money. It had a Petersen STC, and yes it is a low wing, pressure fed, fuel system.

 

[docmirror]

It's mounted behind the engine, in about the same spot as a Cherokee's.

Which is to say, not close to the tanks at all.

We ran mogas from the tip tanks in Atlas, with this set up. Wouldn't it be logical that if we were going to experience vaporization in the fuel lines, that it would have happened in such a long run?

What causes vaporization in fuel lines? Low pressure?

Ruh-roh....

 

[DFH65]

Might want to call up Petersen and get the low down, real nice guy with good info he's willing to share. Since he holds most of the MoGas STCs, he's likely got a lot better info than a bunch of RV builders who don't know Vx from Vy.

Have to admit I laughed.

 

[MAKG1]

What causes vaporization in fuel lines? Low pressure?

Forgive the bluntness, but you really need to study this and understand it thoroughly before you kill yourself.

Vaporization is caused by warm fuel and low pressure. That pressure reduction can come from high altitudes or from an upstream pump. When there is vapor in the lines, pumps can't suck the fuel and your engine quits.

The best known solution for this in the car world is a combination of putting the pump in the fuel tank (so the entire line is under pressure, not suction), and a regulated fuel pressure with return (so fuel is kept away from engine heat as much as possible).

A line under pressure can push fuel, but the vapor will make the engine run rough and reduce the power (this can happen in gravity fed Cessnas, and can be really noticeable with injected engines at low power). A line under suction will be dead.

You have the worst possible setup from a vapor lock perspective.

On the lighter side, our coffee maker suffered vapor lock yesterday. Really! Someone reset it when hot, and it tried to run its self tests, but couldn't get any water. 5 minutes of cooling took care of it.

 

[docmirror]

Forgive the bluntness, but you really need to study this and understand it thoroughly before you kill yourself.

You have the worst possible setup from a vapor lock perspective.

^^^ Read this again Jay, then read it once more. Then contact an aero or mech engineer to assist. Add to this, flying in TX puts you in the greatest risk category for trouble. Now, I know you don't care about safety, but we kind of like to keep you around.