Unleaded Fuel - One Step Closer

[Flocker]

Announced yesterday:

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All- ... -finalists

[MrMorden]

Looks like Shell it will be then. Swift is a fuel made from switchgrass, I don't know if they would be able to supply the volume needed.

I remember how this fuel debate went on for years and various contenders did all kinds of research. Then Shell, after apparently thinking about it for like a minute, said "oh here, try this" And threw out a fuel that hit every single FAA requirement in spades.

Shell engineers probably just dusted off one of the millions of formulations from its back closet.

[3Dreaming]

At my recent IA renewal seminar there was a fellow from and engine shop that also has a fleet of airplanes for flight training. They have been testing Swift fuel in the real world environment. He said it has been working fine. Their lower grade fuel anyone with a auto fuel STC can use it.
There are a few places around the country that are carrying it. He said cost, for the most part has been less than for 100LL. He did note that it is heavier that 100LL.

[MrMorden]

At my recent IA renewal seminar there was a fellow from and engine shop that also has a fleet of airplanes for flight training. They have been testing Swift fuel in the real world environment. He said it has been working fine. Their lower grade fuel anyone with a auto fuel STC can use it.
There are a few places around the country that are carrying it. He said cost, for the most part has been less than for 100LL. He did note that it is heavier that 100LL.

Oh, I think it's a fine fuel, I just don't know if Swift has the means to produce and distribute the quantities required for aviation. Shell is, well...Shell.

I'd be fine with either fuel, but given the FAA's lack of risk tolerance, I'd bet on Shell.

[c162pilot]

What does this mean for Rotax Engines?

[rsteele]

While Swift can be made from renewables like switchgrass or corn, it can also be made from petroleum. Swift has been at this for something like 10yr. The fuel is actually based on some sort of ketone. They have spent a lot of time and money figuring out manufacturing and distribution, as well as ASTM certification so I wouldn't count them out automatically. Swift is heaver than 100ll, but also has higher specific energy. I've no idea if that higher specific energy is actually usable as more power or better economy.

I hope there is room for both Shell and Swift in this game.

Ron

[MrMorden]

I hope there is room for both Shell and Swift in this game.

Agreed, but I'd think you'd see one or the other dominate, since manufacturers don't want to go through testing and validation for two different fuels.

But maybe the FAA will issue some blanket "both these fuels are safe for all engines and fuel systems designed for 100LL" and we'll see some actual competition!

[Wm.Ince]

I hope there is room for both Shell and Swift in this game.

But maybe the FAA will issue some blanket "both these fuels are safe for all engines and fuel systems designed for 100LL" and we'll see some actual competition!

Bingo!
Better distribution and competition is a win-win for GA users.

[Cluemeister]

At Lockwood I believe they are using Swift.

[rsteele]

I hope there is room for both Shell and Swift in this game.

Agreed, but I'd think you'd see one or the other dominate, since manufacturers don't want to go through testing and validation for two different fuels.

But maybe the FAA will issue some blanket "both these fuels are safe for all engines and fuel systems designed for 100LL" and we'll see some actual competition!

My understanding, just from following this in the news for years, is that manufactures don't have to certify anything. That's the point of all the testing and ASTM certification. Any certified fuel can be mixed with any other certified fuel in any proportion and the result is safe and legal to use. That's one of the things that makes the process so expensive and time consuming; making sure the mixed fuels work properly. So if you fill up with Shell at your home field and fly out and buy Swift or 100LL somewhere else, no problem. This has implications all through the distribution chain so even if we were willing to limit the fuel going into our planes to one type, distributors are going to be reluctant to take on another fuel the requires special handling (like leaded fuel currently does).

It's odd that there isn't more info out there now. There certainly were more news articles about it a few years ago.

[MrMorden]

At Lockwood I believe they are using Swift.

Really, it's already on the field for sale? Or are they just using it in their flight school ops?

[Flocker]

At Lockwood I believe they are using Swift.

Really, it's already on the field for sale? Or are they just using it in their flight school ops?

It's on the field for sale. Swift installed the tanks during the Expo in January. I attended the presentation given by Swift - pretty impressive.

[3Dreaming]

At Lockwood I believe they are using Swift.

Really, it's already on the field for sale? Or are they just using it in their flight school ops?

I Guess you missed that it was available in my earlier post. There were a few airports in Northern Indiana that had it available at Oshkosh time.
What is available now is a 94 MON avgas.

[Wm.Ince]

Just to clarify, Lockwood Aviation does not "sell" Swift fuel.
That withstanding, they do keep a supply of it on hand, for their own use (maintenance servicing).
As previously noted, Sebring Airport does sell Swift non-leaded fuel.
The fuel is 94 octane at $4.15/gal (as of April 1st).

[RTC'83]

What does this mean for Rotax Engines?

I was also wondering